Search

Importance: The number of new genome-targeted cancer drugs has increased, offering the possibility of personalized therapy, often at a very high cost., Objective: To assess the validity of molecular targets and therapeutic benefits of US Food and Drug Administration-approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on the outcomes of their corresponding pivotal clinical trials., Design and Settings: In this cohort study, all genome-targeted cancer drugs that were FDA-approved between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2022, were analyzed. From FDA drug labels and trial reports, key characteristics of pivotal trials were extracted, including the outcomes assessed., Main Outcomes and Measures: The strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability was assessed using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT). Clinical benefit for their approved indications was evaluated using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Substantial clinical benefit was defined as a grade of A or B for curative intent and 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. Molecular targets qualifying for ESCAT category level I-A and I-B associated with substantial clinical benefit by ESMO-MCBS were rated as high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments., Results: A total of 50 molecular-targeted drugs covering 84 indications were analyzed. Forty-five indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or phase 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials, and 48 (57%) were approved on the basis of subgroup analyses. By each indication, 46 of 84 primary end points (55%) were overall response rate (median [IQR] overall response rate, 57% [40%-69%]; median [IQR] duration of response, 11.1 [9.2-19.8] months). Among the 84 pivotal trials supporting these 84 indications, 38 trials (45%) had I-A ESCAT targetability, and 32 (38%) had I-B targetability. Overall, 24 of 84 trials (29%) demonstrated substantial clinical benefit via ESMO-MCBS. Combining these ratings, 24 of 84 indications (29%) were associated with high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments., Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cohort study demonstrate that among recently approved molecular-targeted cancer therapies, fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial patient benefits at approval. Benefit frameworks such as ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT can help physicians, patients, and payers identify therapies with the greatest clinical potential.

Background: It has been suggested that the results from fragile trials are less likely to translate into benefit in routine clinical practice., Methods: We searched the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) archives to identify drug approvals for solid organ malignancies between 2010 and 2019. We calculated the Fragility Index (FI) supporting each approval, using methods to account for time-to-event. We compared FI and trial and approval characteristics using Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis test. Using logistic regression, we examined study characteristics associated with withdrawal of consent or lost to follow-up (WCLFU) exceeding the calculated FI., Results: The median FI among 125 included studies was 23 (range 1-322). The FI was ≤10 in 35 studies (28%), 11-20 in 21 (17%), and >20 in 69 (55%). The median FI/Nexp was 7.7% (range 0.1-51.7%). The median FI was significantly lower among approvals processed through the accelerated vs regular pathway (5.5 vs 25, p = 0.001), but there was no difference in median FI/Nexp. The WCLFU exceeded FI in 42% of studies. Overall survival endpoints were more likely to have a WCLFU exceeding FI (OR 3.16, p = 0.003). WCLFU exceeding FI was also associated with a lesser magnitude of effect (median HR 0.69 vs 0.55, p < 0.001). In a sensitivity analysis including only studies with 1:1 randomization, 51% of studies had WCLFU >FI., Conclusion: The median FI among all trials was 23, and WCLFU exceeded FI in 42%. Comparative trials in solid tumors supporting approval through the accelerated pathway are more fragile compared to trials approved through the regular pathway, an observation likely explained by a lower sample size in the experimental arm., (© 2021 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To investigate whether US Food and Drug Administration approval of new drugs without randomization or an active drug comparator is associated with more postmarketing safety-related label modifications., Methods: We searched Drugs@FDA for new drugs approved from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2014. Drugs approved without supporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were matched to between 1 and 2 controls from similar therapeutic categories approved with supporting RCTs within 3 years of the reference drug. Study characteristics, regulatory pathways, and label modifications up to December 2017 were collected from drug labels. Differences in postmarketing safety modifications between cases and controls were assessed using conditional logistic regression., Results: The study cohort included 52 drugs approved without supporting RCTs and 91 matched controls. Drug approvals not supported by RCTs were associated with lower sample size (odds ratio [OR] per 100 patients, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.68-0.87) and were more likely to receive orphan drug designation (OR, 5.10; 95% CI, 2.23-11.69), fast-track designation (OR, 4.80; 95% CI, 2.25-10.23), and accelerated approval (OR, 7.00; 95% CI, 3.14-15.60). Drugs approved without supporting RCTs were associated with more modifications in black box warnings (28.8% vs 13.2%; OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.13-6.27), warnings and precautions (73.1% vs 52.7%; OR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.16-5.09), and common adverse reactions (48.1% vs 23.1%; OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.49-6.41)., Conclusion: Food and Drug Administration approval of new drugs without supporting RCTs is associated with more postmarketing safety-related label modifications than drugs approved with supporting RCTs. Robust postmarketing studies are required for drugs approved without supporting RCTs. Health care professionals should be vigilant for unrecognized adverse effects when prescribing these drugs., (Copyright © 2018 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose Modifications in cancer drug indications, dosing, and related toxicities after Food and Drug Administration approval are common. It is unclear whether drug approval without a supporting randomized controlled trial (RCT) influences the probability of such modifications. Methods We searched the Drugs@FDA Web site for new drug indications for solid tumors approved between January 2006 and December 2016. Study characteristics, regulatory pathways, and label modifications from approval to October 2017 were collected from drug labels. Label modifications were considered to be major if defined as such in the drug label. Indications approved with and without supporting RCTs were compared using logistic regression. The Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate method was used to adjust for multiplicity. Results We identified 59 individual drugs for 109 solid tumor indications. Of these, 17 indications (15.6%) were not supported by an RCT, with no change over time. Indications not supported by RCTs were more likely to require companion diagnostic tests (odds ratio [OR], 3.90; P = .02), to include surrogate end points as primary outcomes (OR, 7.88; P < .001), and to receive breakthrough therapy designation (OR, 7.62; P = .006) or accelerated approval (OR, 17.67; P < .001). Indications not supported by RCTs were associated with significantly higher odds of postapproval modifications in common adverse events (71% v 29%; OR, 5.78; P = .002). A nonsignificantly higher odds of postapproval major modifications in warnings and precautions was also observed (88% v 62%; OR, 4.61; P = .051). Postapproval major modifications in indication and usage, dosing and administration, boxed warnings, and contraindications were comparable in the two groups. Conclusion Cancer drug indications not supported initially by RCTs are associated with more postmarketing safety-related label modifications. Health care professionals should be vigilant for unrecognized adverse effects when prescribing drugs approved without a supporting RCT.

Background: It is uncertain whether drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have clinically meaningful benefit as determined by validated scales such as the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS)., Methods: We searched the Drugs@FDA website for applications of anticancer drugs from January 2006 to December 2016. Study characteristics, outcomes, and regulatory pathways were collected from drug labels and reports of registration trials. For randomized controlled trials (RCTs), ESMO-MCBS grades were applied. Meaningful benefit was defined as a grade of A or B for (neo)adjuvant intent and 4 or 5 for palliative intent. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: We identified 63 individual drugs for 118 indications. These were supported by 135 studies, among which were 105 RCTs for which ESMO-MCBS could be applied. Only 46 (43.8%) met the ESMO-MCBS meaningful benefit threshold (100% of (neo)adjuvant trials and 38.8% of palliative trials). In palliative therapy trials, meaningful ESMO-MCBS grades were associated with phase III trials (compared with phase II; odds ratio [OR] = 38.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.27 to 452.00, P = .004), those with overall survival as their primary end point (compared with intermediate end points; OR = 8.28, 95% CI = 2.49 to 27.50, P = .001) and trials of targeted drugs with companion diagnostics (OR = 11.62, 95% CI = 2.95 to 45.78, P < .001). Over time, there has been an increase in the number of trials meeting the ESMO-MCBS threshold (Ptrend = .04). There were insufficient (neo)adjuvant studies to perform statistical analysis., Conclusions: The number of trials meeting the ESMO-MCBS threshold for clinical benefit has improved over time. However, fewer than half of RCTs supporting FDA approval meet the threshold for clinically meaningful benefit.

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committees influence decisions relating to the regulatory approval of drugs in the United States. Outside of the field of oncology, prosponsor voting bias has been observed among members with financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs)., Objective: To explore factors associated with Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) recommendations and the influence ODAC members' FCOIs on the drug approval process., Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective analysis of 82 ODAC meeting transcripts between January 2000 and December 2014. Analysis was restricted to meetings at which votes were cast relating to oncologic drugs. The influence of methodology of trials supporting approval and frequency and type of self-reported FCOIs of voting members was explored using logistic regression., Main Outcomes and Measures: ODAC recommendation for drug approval and subsequent FDA approval., Results: Eighty-two transcripts of ODAC meetings between January 2000 and December 2014 were available for analysis. During the time period analyzed, ODAC members voted on 68 applications in 79 meetings (the remaining 3 meetings included voting questions regarding postmarketing safety or trial design). There was agreement between ODAC recommendations and final FDA approval; FDA approval was received for all 41 drugs that ODAC recommended approval. Additionally, the FDA approved 7 out of 41 agents that were not recommended for approval by ODAC (κ = 0.83). In 51 of 79 meetings, more than 1 trial was available to support the indication of a particular drug, and favorable ODAC recommendations were more likely when this was the case (odds ratio [OR], 1.82; 95% CI, 1.19-2.78; P = .01). Availability of randomized data did not appear to be important with selected single-arm phase 2 trials leading to recommendations for approval, especially in rare diseases. There has been a significant reduction in FCOIs over time (31 of 77 voting members [40%] in 2000 vs 0 of 20 voting members in 2014 [0%]; P < .001). Recommendations for approval were made in 28 of 47 meetings with members reporting FCOIs while among meetings with no reported FCOIs, recommendations for approval were made in 13 of 35 meetings (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.97-1.46; P = .10). No significant association between ODAC recommendations and FDA approval was observed for members with FCOIs with the sponsor (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 0.97-1.46; P = .19 and OR, 3.48; 95% CI, 0.84-14.35; P = .09, respectively) compared with members with FCOIs with competitors (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.78-1.44; P = .72 and OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69-1.28; P = .69, respectively)., Conclusions and Relevance: Availability of multiple trials is associated with higher odds of ODAC recommendation and drug approval. Availability of randomized data appears less important. Declaration of FCOIs among ODAC members was frequent during the time period of interest but has decreased significantly over time. There is no apparent association between FCOIs and ODAC recommendations and subsequent FDA approval.

PURPOSE Regulatory agencies have sought to speed up the review of new cancer medicines and reduce delays in approval between countries. We examined trends in regulatory review times and association with clinical benefit for new cancer medicines in six jurisdictions: United States (Food and Drug Administration [FDA]), European Union (European Medicines Agency [EMA]), Switzerland (Swissmedic), Japan (Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency [PMDA]), Canada (Health Canada), and Australia (Therapeutic Goods Administration). METHODS We studied all new cancer drugs approved in the six aforementioned jurisdictions from 2007 to 2020. We extracted all applicable expedited programs, total regulatory review times, and, for drugs first approved by the FDA, times to subsequent regulatory approval. Clinical benefit was assessed using the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale value framework and ASCO-Cancer Research Committee's targets. Nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare total review times for high versus low clinical benefit drugs. RESULTS One hundred and twenty eight drugs received initial approval in at least one of the six included jurisdictions. Most drugs approved by the FDA (91%) and Health Canada (59%) qualified for at least one expedited program within those jurisdictions, compared with 46% of EMA approvals and 18% of PMDA approvals. The FDA was the first regulator to approve 102 (80%) drugs. Delays in submission accounted for a median of 20.2% (EMA) to 83.8% (PMDA) of the time to subsequent approval. There was no association between high clinical benefit and shorter total review times. CONCLUSION Most new cancer therapies were approved first by the FDA, and delays in submission of regulatory applications accounted for substantial delays in approving cancer drugs in other countries. Regulators should prioritize faster review for drugs with high clinical benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The clinical benefit and pricing of breakthrough-designated cancer drugs are uncertain. This study compares the magnitude of the clinical benefit and monthly price of new and supplemental breakthrough-designated and non-breakthrough-designated cancer drug approvals.Methods: A cross-sectional cohort comprised approvals of cancer drugs for solid tumors from July 2012 to December 2017. For each indication, the clinical benefit from the pivotal trials was scored via validated frameworks: the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF), the American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Research Committee (ASCO-CRC), the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Evidence Blocks. A high clinical benefit was defined as scores ≥ 45 for the ASCO-VF, overall survival gains ≥ 2.5 months or progression-free survival gains ≥ 3 months for all cancer types for the ASCO-CRC criteria, a grade of A or B for trials of curative intent and a grade of 4 or 5 for trials of noncurative intent for the ESMO-MCBS, and scores of 4 and 5 and a combined score ≥ 16 for the NCCN Evidence Blocks. Monthly Medicare drug prices were calculated with Medicare prices and DrugAbacus.Results: This study identified 106 trials supporting approval of 52 drugs for 96 indications. Forty percent of these indications received the breakthrough designation. Among the included trials, 33 (43%), 46 (73%), 35 (34%), and 67 (69%) met the thresholds established by the ASCO-VF, ASCO-CRC, ESMO-MCBS, and NCCN, respectively. In the metastatic setting, there were higher odds of clinically meaningful grades in trials supporting breakthrough drugs with the ASCO-VF (odds ratio [OR], 3.69; P = .022) and the NCCN Evidence Blocks (OR, 5.80; P = .003) but not with the ASCO-CRC (OR, 3.54; P = .11) or version 1.1 (v1.1) of the ESMO-MCBS (OR, 1.22; P = .70). The median costs of breakthrough therapy drugs were significantly higher than those of nonbreakthrough therapies (P = .001).Conclusions: In advanced solid cancers, drugs that received the breakthrough therapy designation were more likely than nonbreakthrough therapy drugs to be scored as providing a high clinical benefit with the ASCO-VF and the NCCN Evidence Blocks but not with the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 or the ASCO-CRC scale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The prevalence of safety-related postmarketing label modifications of medications for hematological malignancies is unknown. We identified 35 new drugs indicated for hematological malignancies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between January 1999 and December 2014. Characteristics of supporting trials and safety-related label modifications from approval to December 2017 were collected from drug labels. Regulatory review and approval pathways were also collected. New drug approvals were supported by trials with a median of 167 patients (interquartile range 115–316). All drugs were approved based on surrogate endpoints. Twenty-seven drug approvals (77%) were not supported by randomized controlled trials. All drugs received orphan drug designation, and most were granted fast track designation, priority review, and accelerated approval (83, 74, and 60%, respectively). A total of 28 drugs (80%) had postmarketing safety-related label modifications. Additions to black box warnings, contraindications, warnings and precautions, and common adverse reactions were identified in 31, 11, 77, and 46% of drugs, respectively. Five drugs (14%) were permanently or temporarily withdrawn from the US market. Drugs for hematological malignancies are often approved based on limited evidence through expedited regulatory pathways with incomplete safety profiles. Hematologists should be vigilant for unrecognized side effects when prescribing newly approved drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is uncertain whether drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have clinically meaningful benefit as determined by validated scales such as the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).Methods: We searched the Drugs@FDA website for applications of anticancer drugs from January 2006 to December 2016. Study characteristics, outcomes, and regulatory pathways were collected from drug labels and reports of registration trials. For randomized controlled trials (RCTs), ESMO-MCBS grades were applied. Meaningful benefit was defined as a grade of A or B for (neo)adjuvant intent and 4 or 5 for palliative intent. All statistical tests were two-sided.Results: We identified 63 individual drugs for 118 indications. These were supported by 135 studies, among which were 105 RCTs for which ESMO-MCBS could be applied. Only 46 (43.8%) met the ESMO-MCBS meaningful benefit threshold (100% of (neo)adjuvant trials and 38.8% of palliative trials). In palliative therapy trials, meaningful ESMO-MCBS grades were associated with phase III trials (compared with phase II; odds ratio [OR] = 38.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.27 to 452.00, P = .004), those with overall survival as their primary end point (compared with intermediate end points; OR = 8.28, 95% CI = 2.49 to 27.50, P = .001) and trials of targeted drugs with companion diagnostics (OR = 11.62, 95% CI = 2.95 to 45.78, P < .001). Over time, there has been an increase in the number of trials meeting the ESMO-MCBS threshold (Ptrend = .04). There were insufficient (neo)adjuvant studies to perform statistical analysis.Conclusions: The number of trials meeting the ESMO-MCBS threshold for clinical benefit has improved over time. However, fewer than half of RCTs supporting FDA approval meet the threshold for clinically meaningful benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Companion diagnostics permit the selection of patients likely to respond to targeted anticancer drugs; however, it is unclear if the drug development process differs between drugs developed with or without companion diagnostics. Identification of differences in study design could help future clinical development. Patients and Methods: Anticancer drugs approved for use in solid tumors between 28 September 2000 and 4 January 2014 were identified using a search of the US FDA website. Phase III trials supporting registration were extracted from the drug label. Each published study was reviewed to obtain information about the phase I and II trials used for the development of the respective drug. Results: We identified 35 drugs and 59 phase III randomized trials supporting regulatory approval. Fifty-three phase I trials and 47 phase II trials were cited in the studies and were used to support the design of these phase III trials. The approval of drugs using a companion diagnostic has increased over time ( p for trend 0.01). Expansion cohorts were more frequently observed with drugs developed with a companion diagnostic (62 vs. 20%; p = 0.005). No differences between drugs developed with or without a companion diagnostic were observed for the design of phase I and II studies. Conclusions: The approval of drugs developed with a companion diagnostic has increased over time. The availability of a companion diagnostic was associated with more frequent use of phase I expansion cohorts comprising patients selected by the companion diagnostic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To explore the impact of previous treatment on the efficacy of investigational new drugs in registration trials for 1st line metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Thirteen US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved indications for 1st line MBC between 1/2000–12/2023 were identified and their supporting publications were searched in the ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar. Where available, hazard ratios (HRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for overall-survival (OS) were pooled into meta-analysis and the difference in the magnitude of OS benefit between treatment naïve and previously treated patients was analyzed. There was no difference in the magnitude of OS benefit between treatment-naïve and previously treated patients (HR=0.72 versus 0.80,p for difference=0.25). In indications for triple-negative BC, treatment-naïve patients had higher magnitude of OS benefit compared to previously treated patients (HR=0.53 versus 0.81,p=0.03). In indications for luminal disease, the magnitude of benefit was comparable between the subgroups. In trials supporting 1st line therapy for TNBC the magnitude of benefit is significantly higher in treatment naïve compared to previously treated patients. Our findings may represent a previously unrecognized bias, potentially over-estimating the benefit of triple-negative BC new drugs. • Proportion of treatment-naïve patients in Metastatic Breast Cancer trials varies. • All FDA approved indications for 1st line MBC between 2000 and 23 were identified. • Meta-analysis to compare treatment-naïve to previously treated patients was done. • For triple negative disease indications, OS benefit is higher for treatment naïve. • For luminal disease indications, OS benefit is comparable between both subgroups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]