Search

On September 2, 2022, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved durvalumab in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine, for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic biliary tract cancers (BTC). On October 31, 2023, the FDA approved pembrolizumab in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine for the same indication. Approvals were based on two randomized, multiregional, placebo-controlled trials that randomly allocated patients to receive durvalumab (TOPAZ-1) or pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-966) in combination with chemotherapy or placebo in combination with chemotherapy. Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint in both studies. In both studies, a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in OS was demonstrated. In the TOPAZ-1 trial, the median OS of patients receiving durvalumab was 12.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 11.1-14.0] and 11.5 months (95% CI, 10.1-12.5) in patients receiving placebo [hazard ratio (HR), 0.80 (95% CI, 0.66-0.97)]. In the KEYNOTE-966 trial, the median OS of patients receiving pembrolizumab was 12.7 months (95% CI, 11.5-13.6) and 10.9 months (95% CI, 9.9-11.6) in patients receiving placebo [HR, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.72-0.95)]. The addition of checkpoint inhibitors to standard of care chemotherapy for this indication did not reveal any new adverse event signals, and the safety profile was generally consistent with the known clinical experience with durvalumab, pembrolizumab, and the backbone chemotherapy regimen. The approvals of durvalumab and pembrolizumab in combination with standard of care cisplatin and gemcitabine for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic BTC add two new therapeutic options for these patients., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

On November 8, 2023, the FDA approved fruquintinib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-1, -2, and -3, for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who have been previously treated with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy, an anti-VEGF therapy, and if RAS wild-type and medically appropriate, an anti-EGFR therapy. Approval was based on Study FRESCO-2, a globally conducted, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The key secondary endpoint was progression-free survival. A total of 691 patients were randomly assigned (461 and 230 into the fruquintinib and placebo arms, respectively). Fruquintinib provided a statistically significant improvement in OS with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.66 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.55, 0.80; P < 0.001]. The median OS was 7.4 months (95% CI, 6.7, 8.2) in the fruquintinib arm and 4.8 months (95% CI, 4.0, 5.8) for the placebo arm. Adverse events observed were generally consistent with the known safety profile associated with the inhibition of VEGFR. The results of FRESCO-2 were supported by the FRESCO study, a double-blind, single-country, placebo-controlled, randomized trial in patients with refractory mCRC who have been previously treated with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy. In FRESCO, the OS HR was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.51, 0.83; P < 0.001). FDA concluded that the totality of the evidence from FRESCO-2 and FRESCO supported an indication for patients with mCRC with prior treatment with fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy, an anti-VEGF biological therapy, and if RAS wild-type and medically appropriate, an anti-EGFR therapy., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Since the onset of COVID-19, oncology practices across the US have integrated telemedicine (TM) and remote patient monitoring (RPM) into routine care and clinical trials. The extent of provider experience and comfort with TM/RPM in treatment trials, however, is unknown. We surveyed oncology researchers to assess experience and comfort with TM/RPM., Methods: Between April 10 and June 1, 2022, we distributed email surveys to US-based members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) whose member records indicated interest or specialization in clinical research. We collected respondent demographic data, clinical trial experience, workplace characteristics, and comfort and experience with TM/RPM use across trial components in phase I and phase II/III trials. TM/RPM was defined as clinical trial-related healthcare and monitoring for patients geographically separated from trial site., Results: There were 141 surveys analyzed (5.1% response rate). Ninety percent of respondents had been Principal Investigators, 98% practiced in a norural site. Most respondents had enrolled patients in phase I (82%) and phase II/III trials (99%). Across all phases and trial components, there was a higher frequency of researcher comfort compared to experience. Regarding remote care in treatment trials, 75% reported using TM, RPM, or both. Among these individuals, 62% had never provided remote care to trial patients before the pandemic., Conclusion: COVID-19 spurred the rise of TM/RPM in cancer treatment trials, and some TM/RPM use continues in this context. Among oncology researchers, higher levels of comfort compared with real-world experience with TM/RPM reveal opportunities for expanding TM/RPM policies and guidelines in oncology research., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Importance: The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act states that in issuing a written request (WR), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shall consider the adequate representation (eg, proportionate to the disease population) of children from racial and ethnic minority populations. If the terms of the WR are fulfilled, the FDA may grant an additional 6 months of exclusivity for any unexpired patents and exclusivities attached to approved indications., Objective: To report on the race and ethnicity of participants enrolled in pediatric studies conducted in response to WRs for which pediatric exclusivity was granted between 2001 and 2021., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective review examines pediatric exclusivity request submissions for oncologic drugs that received pediatric exclusivity between December 2001 and January 2021 based on fulfillment of the requirements of a WR that were identified using the FDA's Document Archiving Reporting and Regulatory Tracking System. Demographic data were manually abstracted from supporting study reports, and data were pooled across submissions for the analysis. Data were analyzed throughout 2022 and 2023., Main Outcomes and Measures: Representation by race, sex, and ethnicity in pediatric studies conducted in response to WRs., Results: A total of 22 pediatric exclusivity requests were identified, comprising 40 studies and 2025 patients. Most trials (26 [65%]) in the analysis were cooperative group studies. Representation by race was as follows: American Indian/Alaska Native (13 [0.6%]), African American/Black (228 [11.3%]), Asian (92 [4.6%]), Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander (33 [1.6%]), White (1303 [64.3%]), other (194 [9.6%]), and unknown/not reported (162 [8.0%]). Representation by sex was female individuals (41.2%) and male individuals (58.8%). Ethnicity was as follows: Hispanic (226 [5.7%]), non-Hispanic (910 [22.5%]), unknown/not reported ethnicity (2800 [69.1%]), and other ethnicity (114 [2.8%])., Conclusions and Relevance: The study results suggest that overall, representation of participants of racial and ethnic minority groups in studies supporting pediatric exclusivity requests appear comparable with the racial distribution of childhood cancers in the US based on data from the National Childhood Cancer Registry Explorer. However, fewer Hispanic participants were enrolled in the trials we reviewed (8%) compared with the representation of Hispanic patients in the National Childhood Cancer Registry (28%). This discrepancy may be partially explained by the large proportion of participants with unknown information regarding ethnicity. Further research into the reasons for the large proportion of participants with missing ethnicity information is needed.

On October 21, 2022, the FDA approved tremelimumab (Imjudo) in combination with durvalumab for adult patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. The approval was based on the results from the HIMALAYA study, in which patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who were naïve to previous systemic treatment were randomly assigned to receive one of three study arms: tremelimumab in combination with durvalumab (n = 393), durvalumab (n = 389), or sorafenib (n = 389). The primary objective of improvement in overall survival (OS) for tremelimumab in combination with durvalumab compared with sorafenib met statistical significance with a stratified HR of 0.78 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.66-0.92; P = 0.0035]. The median OS was 16.4 months (95% CI, 14.2-19.6) with tremelimumab in combination with durvalumab and 13.8 months (95% CI, 12.3-16.1) with sorafenib. Adverse reactions occurring in ≥20% of patients receiving tremelimumab in combination with durvalumab were rash, fatigue, diarrhea, pruritus, musculoskeletal pain, and abdominal pain. The recommended tremelimumab dose for patients weighing 30 kg or more is 300 mg, i.v., as a single dose in combination with durvalumab 1,500 mg at cycle 1/day 1, followed by durvalumab 1,500 mg, i.v., every 4 weeks. For those weighing less than 30 kg, the recommended tremelimumab dose is 4 mg/kg, i.v., as a single dose in combination with durvalumab 20 mg/kg, i.v., followed by durvalumab 20 mg/kg, i.v., every 4 weeks., (©2023 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Summary: Cancer drug development remained robust in 2023. Highlights of U.S. drug approvals this year include new immunotherapies and targeted drug development in adult and pediatric patients as well as patients with rare diseases., (©2023 American Association for Cancer Research.)

In 2017, ASCO issued the position statement, Strategies for Reducing Cancer Health Disparities Among Sexual and Gender Minority Populations, outlining five areas of recommendations to address the needs of both sexual and gender minority (SGM, eg, LGBTQ+) populations affected by cancer and members of the oncology workforce who identify as SGM: (1) patient education and support; (2) workforce development and diversity; (3) quality improvement strategies; (4) policy solutions; and (5) research strategies. In 2019, ASCO convened the SGM Task Force to help actualize the recommendations of the 2017 position statement. The percentage of the US population who publicly identify as SGM has increased dramatically over the past few years. Although increased national interest in SGM health equity has accompanied a general interest in research, policy change, and education around diversity, equity, and inclusion, resulting from public concern over discrimination in health care against Black, Indigenous, and People of Color, this has been accompanied by a surge in discriminatory legislation directly impacting the SGM community. Although much progress has been made in advancing SGM cancer health equity since 2017, more progress is needed to reduce disparities and advance equity. The five focus areas outlined in the 2017 ASCO position statement remain relevant, as we must continue to promote and advance equity in quality improvement, workforce development, patient care, research, and SGM-affirming policies. This article reports on the progress toward reducing SGM cancer disparities and achieving equity across these five areas and identifies future directions for the work that still remains.

On January 19, 2023, the FDA granted accelerated approval to tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic RAS wild-type, HER2-positive colorectal cancer who have received prior treatment with fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan. Approval was based on the pooled analysis of patients receiving tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab in MOUNTAINEER (NCT03043313), an open-label, multicenter trial. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) by RECIST 1.1 as per blinded central review committee (BIRC) assessment. The main secondary endpoint was duration of response (DOR) per BIRC assessment. Eighty-four eligible patients received the combination tucatinib and trastuzumab. With a median follow-up of 16 months, the ORR was 38% [95% confidence interval (CI): 28-49] and median DOR was 12.4 months (95% CI: 8.5-20.5); 81% of responders had a response lasting more than 6 months. The most common adverse reactions observed in at least 20% of patients receiving tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab were diarrhea, fatigue, rash, nausea, abdominal pain, infusion-related reactions, and fever. FDA concluded that the magnitude of ORR and durable responses observed in patients treated with tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab in the MOUNTAINEER trial are clinically meaningful, particularly in the context of a disease with estimated survival of 6-7 months with available therapy. This is the first approval for the subset of patients with HER2-positive colorectal cancer. This article summarizes the FDA's thought process and review of the data supporting this accelerated approval., (©2023 American Association for Cancer Research.)

On September 30, 2022, the FDA granted accelerated approval to futibatinib for the treatment of adult patients with previously treated, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) with FGFR2 fusions or other rearrangements. Approval was based on Study TAS-120-101, a multicenter open-label, single-arm trial. Patients received futibatinib 20-mg orally once daily. The major efficacy outcome measures were overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DoR) as determined by an independent review committee (IRC) according to RECIST v1.1. ORR was 42% (95% confidence interval, 32%-52%). Median DoR was 9.7 months. Adverse reactions occurring in ≥30% patients were nail toxicity, musculoskeletal pain, constipation, diarrhea, fatigue, dry mouth, alopecia, stomatitis, and abdominal pain. The most common laboratory abnormalities (≥50%) were increased phosphate, increased creatinine, decreased hemoglobin, and increased glucose. Ocular toxicity (including dry eye, keratitis, and retinal epithelial detachment) and hyperphosphatemia are important risks of futibatinib, which are listed under Warnings and Precautions. This article summarizes the FDA's thought process and data supporting the approval of futibatinib., (©2023 American Association for Cancer Research.)

In April 2022, the FDA issued draft guidance to help industry develop strategies to improve diversity in clinical trials. Historically, clinical trial sponsors have not systematically incorporated efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), particularly during the early design stages of clinical development plans and operational strategies. Unfortunately, a retrospective approach to DEI often results in clinical trial participants not being reflective of the diversity of patients intended to be treated with new therapies. A shift to prospective, intentional DEI strategies for clinical trials, including long-term engagement with diverse patients and communities throughout the development life cycle, is necessary to maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of new drugs and devices for all patients. Sponsors' current practices and opportunities for improving DEI address four major topics: institutional commitment, culture change, and governance; clinical development strategy; setting enrollment goals to ensure trial participant diversity; and development and implementation of the operational strategy. As DEI practices gain wider adoption in clinical trials, shared learning and collaboration among stakeholders on an ongoing and noncompetitive basis will lead to sustainable change. Prioritization of enrollment of diverse populations as an integral part of study start-up planning, clinical trial design, and recruitment capabilities will enhance the clinical development process for oncology therapies. Importantly, these efforts will help provide equitable access to clinical trials and innovative cancer therapies., (©2023 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Patients of certain racial and ethnic groups have been underrepresented in clinical trials for treatment of malignancy. One potential barrier to participation is entry requirements that lead to patients in various racial and ethnic groups not meeting eligibility criteria for studies (ie, "screen failure"). The objective of this study was to analyze the rates and reasons for trial ineligibility by race and ethnicity in trials of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2016 and 2019., Materials and Methods: Multicenter, global clinical trials submitted to the FDA to support AML drugs and biologics. We examined the rate of ineligibility among participants screened for studies of AML therapies submitted to the FDA from 2016 to 2019. Data were extracted from 13 trials used in approval evaluations, including race, screen status, and reason for ineligibility., Results: Overall, patients in historically underrepresented racial and ethnic groups were less likely to meet entry criteria for studies compared to White patients, with 26.7% of White patients, 29.4% of Black patients, and 35.9% of Asian patients not meeting entry criteria. Lack of relevant disease mutation was the reason for ineligibility more frequently among Black and Asian patients. The findings were limited by the small number of underrepresented patients screened for participation., Conclusion: Our results suggest that entry requirements for studies may put underrepresented patients at a disadvantage, leading to less eligible patients and thus lower participation in clinical trials., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

On May 15, 2020, the FDA approved ripretinib for adult patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor who have received prior treatment with three or more kinase inhibitors, including imatinib. The approval was based on results from INVICTUS (NCT03353753), an international, multi-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients were randomly allocated (2:1) to receive either ripretinib 150 mg once daily (n = 85) or matching placebo (n = 44). The trial demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by modified RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review for patients randomized to ripretinib, with a median PFS of 6.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.6-6.9] compared with 1.0 month (95% CI: 0.9-1.7) for placebo [HR: 0.15 (95% CI: 0.09-0.25); P < 0.0001, stratified log-rank test]. There was no statistically significant difference in objective response rate in the ripretinib arm, 9% (95% CI: 4.2-18) compared with placebo 0% [(95% CI: 0-8); P = 0.0504, Fisher exact test]. The median overall survival (OS) in the ripretinib arm was 15.1 months (95% CI: 12.3-15.1) compared with 6.6 months (95% CI: 4.1-11.6) in the placebo arm. A formal statistical comparison of OS was not made due to the prespecified hierarchical analysis plan. The most common (≥20%) adverse events with ripretinib, in order of decreasing frequency, were alopecia, fatigue, nausea, abdominal pain, constipation, myalgia, diarrhea, decreased appetite, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, and vomiting. Other important risks of ripretinib include new primary cutaneous malignancies, hypertension, and cardiac dysfunction., (©2022 American Association for Cancer Research.)

On April 17, 2020, the FDA granted accelerated approval to pemigatinib (PEMAZYRE, Incyte Corporation) for the treatment of adults with previously treated, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with an FGFR2 fusion or other rearrangement as detected by an FDA-approved test. Approval was based on FIGHT-202 (NCT02924376), a multicenter open-label single-arm trial. Efficacy was based on 107 patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma whose disease had progressed on or after at least one prior therapy and had an FGFR2 gene fusion or rearrangement. Patients received pemigatinib, 13.5 mg orally, once daily for 14 consecutive days, followed by 7 days off therapy. Safety was based on a total of 466 patients, 146 of whom had cholangiocarcinoma and received the recommended dose. Efficacy endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR) determined by an independent review committee using RECIST 1.1. ORR was 36% (95% confidence interval: 27-45). Median DOR was 9.1 months. The most common adverse reactions were hyperphosphatemia, alopecia, diarrhea, nail toxicity, fatigue, dysgeusia, nausea, constipation, stomatitis, dry eye, dry mouth, decreased appetite, vomiting, arthralgia, abdominal pain, hypophosphatemia, back pain, and dry skin. Ocular toxicity and hyperphosphatemia are important risks of pemigatinib. The recommended dosage is 13.5 mg orally once daily for 14 consecutive days followed by 7 days off therapy in 21-day cycles. FDA also approved the FoundationOne CDX (Foundation Medicine, Inc.) as a companion diagnostic for patient selection., (©2022 American Association for Cancer Research.)

The FDA approved nivolumab on May 20, 2021, for the adjuvant treatment of completely resected (negative margins) esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer (EC/GEJC) in patients who had residual pathologic disease following chemoradiotherapy. The approval was based on data from the double-blind CheckMate 577 trial, which randomly allocated patients to receive nivolumab or placebo. Disease-free survival (DFS) was the primary endpoint. At the time of the final DFS analysis and the prespecified interim overall survival (OS) analysis, the estimated median DFS was 22.4 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 16.6-34.0] in the nivolumab arm versus 11.0 months (95% CI, 8.3-14.3) in the placebo arm, with an HR of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.56-0.85; two-sided P value = 0.0003). An unblinded review of OS did not indicate a detrimental effect on survival. Adverse reactions occurring in ≥20% of patients receiving nivolumab were fatigue/asthenia, diarrhea, nausea, rash, musculoskeletal pain, and cough. Approval of nivolumab is likely to change the treatment paradigm for the adjuvant treatment of patients with completely resected (negative margins) EC/GEJC who have residual pathologic disease following chemoradiotherapy based on the study results and favorable risk:benefit of nivolumab administration., (©2022 American Association for Cancer Research.)

On August 25, 2021, the FDA approved ivosidenib for the treatment of adult patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic hepatocellular isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutated cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) as detected by an FDA-approved test with disease progression after 1 to 2 prior lines of systemic therapy for advanced disease. The approval was based on data from Study AG120-C-005 (ClarIDHy), a double-blind placebo-controlled trial that randomly allocated (2:1) patients to receive either ivosidenib or placebo. Independently assessed progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint. With a median follow-up of 6.9 months, the HR for PFS was 0.37 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.25-0.54; P < 0.0001). Overall survival (OS) was the key secondary endpoint. At the final analysis of OS, with 70.5% of patients in the placebo arm receiving ivosidenib post disease progression, a non-statistically significant improvement in the ivosidenib arm with an HR = 0.79 (95% CI, 0.56-1.12) and median OS of 10.3 months (95% CI, 7.8-12.4) and 7.5 months (95% CI, 4.8-11.1) in the ivosidenib and placebo arms, respectively, were reported. Adverse reactions occurring in >20% of patients receiving ivosidenib were fatigue/asthenia, nausea, diarrhea, abdominal pain, ascites, vomiting, cough, and decreased appetite. Adverse reactions occurring in >20% of patients receiving placebo were fatigue/asthenia, nausea, abdominal pain, and vomiting. This is the first approval for the subset of patients with CCA harboring an IDH1 mutation., (©2022 American Association for Cancer Research.)

This retrospective observational study evaluated racial disparities among Black and White patients with multiple myeloma (MM). We included patients from a longitudinal de-identified EHR-derived database who had ≥2 visits recorded on or after 1/1/2011, documented treatment, and race listed as White or Black. Black patients (n = 1172) were more likely female (54.8%/42.9%) and younger (<65 years, 40.8%/30.8%) than White patients (n = 4637). Unadjusted median real-world overall survival (rwOS) indexed to first-line of therapy (LOT) was 64.6 months (95% CI: 57.8-74.0) for Blacks and 54.5 months (95% CI: 50.9-56.2) for Whites. Adjusted rwOS estimates (for sex, age at index date, and practice type) to either first- (aHR = 0.94; 95% CI: 0.84-1.06) or second-LOT (aHR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.77-1.05) were similar. Unadjusted derived response rate (dRR) during first-LOT was 84.8% (95% CI: 80.7-88.1) for Blacks and 86.9% (95% CI: 85.0-88.5) for Whites (odds ratio [OR] = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.57-1.10]); in second-LOT, 67.2% (95% CI: 58.4-75.0) for Blacks and 72.4% (95% CI: 68.1-76.3) for Whites (OR = 0.72 [95% CI: 0.46-1.13]). High representation of Black patients enabled this robust analysis, albeit with limitations inherent to the observational data source, the retrospective design, and the analytic use of newly derived endpoints requiring further validation., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

African Americans (AAs) have a higher incidence of multiple myeloma (MM) than White patients. Mortality is also higher in AAs compared with White patients. AAs more commonly have immunoglobulin H translocations t(11;14) and t(14;16) compared with White patients. We sought to characterize the demographic representation in MM clinical trials and evaluate outcomes based on race and ethnicity. We conducted a pooled analysis of all trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to support approval of a MM therapeutic between 2006 and 2019. Demographic characteristics were analyzed descriptively. An age-adjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to evaluate the relationship between time-to-event outcomes and race and ethnicity. Nineteen global trials comprising 10 157 patients were pooled. White, Asian, and Black patients comprised 84%, 7%, and 4% of the dataset, respectively; Hispanic patients comprised 4%. The age-adjusted overall survival hazard ratio (HR) for Black compared with White patients was 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-1.05). The age-adjusted HR for US Black vs US White patients was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.66-1.02). For rest-of-world (RoW) Black vs RoW White patients, the HR was 1.31 (95% CI, 0.97-1.77). Black and Hispanic patients were underrepresented in the trials supporting FDA approval of MM drugs. Black patients were primarily enrolled in the United States. Outcomes in US patients were more favorable compared with those in patients in the RoW. Given the higher incidence of MM in AAs and the different disease characteristics, efforts should be made to improve representation of AAs in MM clinical trials.

Subgroup analyses are assessments of treatment effects based on certain patient characteristics out of the total study population and are important for interpretation of pivotal oncology trials. However, appropriate use of subgroup analyses results for regulatory decision-making and product labeling is challenging. Typically, drugs approved by the FDA are indicated for use in the total patient population studied; however, there are examples of restriction to a subgroup of patients despite positive study results in the entire study population and also extension of an indication to the entire study population despite positive results appearing primarily in one or more subgroups. In this article, we summarize key issues related to subgroup analyses in the benefit-risk assessment of cancer drugs and provide case examples to illustrate approaches that the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence has taken when considering the appropriate patient population for cancer drug approval. In general, if a subgroup is of interest, the subgroup analysis should be hypothesis-driven and have adequate sample size to demonstrate evidence of a treatment effect. In addition to statistical efficacy considerations, the decision on what subgroups to include in labeling relies on the pathophysiology of the disease, mechanistic justification, safety data, and external information available. The oncology drug review takes the totality of the data into consideration during the decision-making process to ensure the indication granted and product labeling appropriately reflect the scientific evidence to support patient population for whom the drug is safe and effective., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

The FDA approved pembrolizumab on June 16, 2020, for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with unresectable or metastatic tumor mutational burden-high [TMB-H; ≥10 mutations/megabase (mut/Mb)] solid tumors, as determined by an FDA-approved test, that have progressed following prior treatment and who have no satisfactory alternative treatment options. FDA granted the approval based on a clinically important overall response rate (29%; 95% confidence interval, 21-39) and duration of response (57% of responses lasting ≥ 12 months) in the subset of patients with TMB-H solid tumors ( n = 102) spanning nine different tumor types enrolled in a multicenter single-arm trial (KEYNOTE-158). The efficacy of pembrolizumab was supported by the results of whole-exome sequencing (WES) analyses of TMB in additional patients enrolled across multiple pembrolizumab clinical trials, and a scientific understanding of the effects of PD-1 inhibition. Overall, the adverse event profile of pembrolizumab was similar to the adverse event profile observed in prior trials that supported the approval of pembrolizumab in other indications. This approval of pembrolizumab is the first time that the FDA has approved a cancer treatment for an indication based on TMB, and the fourth based on the presence of a biomarker rather than the primary site of origin., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

The Commission on Cancer of the American College of Surgeons publishes accreditation standards that hospitals and cancer treatment centers implement to ensure quality care to cancer patients. These standards address the full spectrum of cancer care, from cancer prevention to survivorship and end-of-life care. The most recent revisions of these standards included new standards in "patient-centered areas," including the provision of palliative care services, treatment and survivorship plans, psychological distress screening, and patient navigation programs. Unified by their emphasis on the early identification of patients at risk of receiving suboptimal care and the importance of ensuring that issues arising during and after completion of cancer treatment are addressed, they are a welcome expansion of the standards guiding cancer care. As with all standards, however, the next steps will be to further define how they will be implemented and to determine how success will be assessed. This will require ongoing critical evaluation of the standards and their implementation, including the need for member institutions to define successful implementation methods and measurable outcomes and identification of areas most in need of further research., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)