Search

Objectives Many trials conclude “no clinically meaningful detriment” to health-related quality of life (HRQL) or function between arms, even when notable differential toxicity is observed. Mean change from baseline analyses of function or HRQL can possibly obscure important change in subgroups experiencing symptomatic toxicity. We evaluate the impact of diarrhea, a key treatment arm toxicity, on patient-reported HRQL and functioning in clinical trials submitted to US Food and Drug Administration. Methods This study used 4 randomized, breast cancer trials (adjuvant to late-line metastatic) as case examples. Diarrhea, physical functioning (PF), and global health status and quality of life (GHS/QoL) from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 were analyzed at baseline and approximately 3 and 6 months. Results Generally, patients reporting very much diarrhea at months 3 and 6 had worse PF (9-19 points lower) and GHS/QoL (16-19 points lower) than patients reporting no diarrhea regardless of treatment arm. In the change from baseline analysis, patients reporting very much diarrhea also experienced a greater decrease in PF (6-13 points) and GHS/QoL (6-16 points) versus patients reporting no diarrhea in both arms. Conclusions In trials with moderate to large differences in symptomatic toxicity by arm, reporting “no meaningful difference in functioning and HRQL between arms” based on mean change from baseline analysis is insufficient and may obscure important impacts on subgroups experiencing symptomatic adverse events. Additional exploratory analyses with simple data visualizations evaluating functioning or HRQL in patient subgroups experiencing expected symptomatic toxicities can further inform the safety and tolerability of an investigational agent.

Summary Background Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDKIs) are oral targeted agents approved for use in combination with endocrine therapy as first-line or second-line treatment of patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced or metastatic breast cancer. We previously reported the pooled analyses of progression-free survival in patients in specific clinicopathological subgroups, all of whom received consistent benefit from the addition of a CDKI to hormonal therapy. Here, we report the pooled overall survival results in patients treated with a CDKI and fulvestrant. Methods In this exploratory analysis, we pooled individual patient data from three phase 3 randomised trials of CDKI or placebo in combination with fulvestrant in patients with breast cancer submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration and approved before Aug 1, 2020, in support of marketing applications. All analysed patients were aged at least 18 years, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1, had hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer, and received at least one dose of CDKI or placebo in combination with fulvestrant. The median overall survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and hazard ratios (HRs) with corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using Cox regression models. Patients were analysed collectively, by number of previous lines of systemic endocrine therapy in any disease setting (first-line or endocrine naive vs second-line and later), and in various clinicopathological subgroups of interest. The estimated median overall survival was not reported by group when the pooled population included patients treated across lines of therapy because of potential patient heterogeneity. All results presented are considered exploratory and hypothesis generating. Findings Across the three pooled trials, 1960 patients were randomly assigned between Oct 7, 2013, and June 10, 2016 (12 patients were not treated and 1296 [66%] patients were randomly assigned to CDKI and 652 [33%] to placebo). In all treated patients (n=1948), the estimated HR for overall survival was 0·77 (95% CI 0·68–0·88), with a median follow-up of 43·7 months (IQR 37·8–47·7) and deaths in 935 (48%) of the 1948 patients. The difference in estimated median overall survival was 7·1 months, favouring CDKIs. In patients who received CDKIs or placebo in combination with fulvestrant as first-line systemic endocrine therapy (two trials; n=396), the estimated HR for overall survival was 0·74 (95% CI 0·52–1·07), with a median follow-up of 39·4 months (IQR 37·0–42·2). 123 (31%) of these patients died. The difference in estimated median overall survival could not be calculated because median overall survival was not estimable (95% CI 50·9–not estimable) in the CDKI group and was 45·7 months (95% CI 41·7–not estimable) in the placebo group. In patients who received CDKIs or placebo in combination with fulvestrant as second-line or later systemic endocrine therapy (three trials; n=1552), the estimated HR for overall survival was 0·77 (95% CI 0·67–0·89), with a median follow-up of 45·1 months (95% CI 39·2–48·5). 812 (52%) of these patients died. The difference in estimated median overall survival was 7·0 months, favouring CDKIs. Interpretation The addition of CDKIs to fulvestrant resulted in a consistent overall survival benefit in all pooled patients and within most clinicopathological subgroups of interest. These findings support the existing standard of care of CDKIs plus fulvestrant for the treatment of patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer. Funding None.

The FDA conducts independent reviews of scientific data obtained with investigational drug products to ensure that they are safe and effective. As a result of this process, FDA-approved product labeling is generated that is considered one of the most trusted sources of information for use of an approved drug. But FDA approval is only the beginning of the life cycle of a new drug; the first oncology drugs now have more than 7 decades of clinical experience in the postmarketing setting. Due, in part, to lack of incentives, some companies may not seek inclusion of new data, other than new safety information, in FDA-approved product labeling. Ensuring that product labeling provides adequate directions for use is important for all drugs, including older therapies that may form the backbone of many standard combination regimens for pediatric and adult cancers. Project Renewal is an FDA Oncology Center of Excellence pilot program that leverages expertise from the clinical and scientific oncology communities to review published literature and generate a drug-specific product report summarizing data that may support updates to FDA-approved product labeling. This article provides a broad overview of Project Renewal's collaborative pilot process for identifying and assessing literature supporting potential labeling updates, while engaging the oncology community to increase awareness of FDA's evidentiary standards and deliberative processes used when considering the addition of new indications and dosing regimens to product labeling.

Over the last decade, there has been tremendous progress in the treatment of patients with gynecologic cancers with a changing therapy landscape. This summary provides an overview of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for gynecologic cancers from 2010 to 2020, totaling 17 new indications. For each of the approved indications, endpoints, trial design, results, and regulatory considerations are outlined. Among these 17 indications, six received accelerated approval (AA) and 11 received regular approval (RA). As of September 2021, of the six AA, three have subsequently demonstrated clinical benefit resulting in conversion to RA and the remaining three have ongoing clinical trials that have not yet reported results. Approval decisions for these 17 indications were supported by primary efficacy endpoints of progression-free survival (n = 10), objective response rate (n = 6), and overall survival (n = 1) and showed a favorable benefit–risk profile. Among the 17 indications, 15 received priority review and three applications participated in one or more novel Oncology Center of Excellence initiatives, including Real Time Oncology Review, Assessment Aid, and Project Orbis. Current FDA thinking on drug development opportunities and regulatory initiatives currently under way will be discussed.

On June 29, 2020, the FDA approved pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and hyaluronidase-zzxf subcutaneous injection (Phesgo) for the treatment of patients with HER2-positive early-stage and metastatic breast cancer. Patients should be selected for therapy based on an FDA-approved companion diagnostic test. Approval was primarily based on the FeDeriCa trial, a randomized, open-label, multicenter comparability study of pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and hyaluronidase-zzxf subcutaneous injection compared with intravenous pertuzumab and intravenous trastuzumab administered in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings with chemotherapy for the treatment of patients with early breast cancer. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were, first, to demonstrate that the exposure of subcutaneous pertuzumab was not inferior to that of intravenous pertuzumab, and then to demonstrate that the exposure of subcutaneous trastuzumab was not inferior to that of intravenous trastuzumab. The primary endpoints were met with the observed lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence intervals above the prespecified noninferiority margins. The most common adverse reactions were alopecia, nausea, diarrhea, anemia, and asthenia. The totality of the evidence demonstrated comparability of the subcutaneous product to intravenous, allowing for extrapolation and approval of all breast cancer indications for which intravenous trastuzumab and pertuzumab are approved.

On March 8, 2019, the FDA granted accelerated approval to atezolizumab in combination with paclitaxel protein-bound for the treatment of adult patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) whose tumors express PD-L1 [PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC) of any intensity covering ≥1% of the tumor area], as determined by an FDA-approved test. Approval was based on data from IMpassion130, which randomized patients to receive atezolizumab or placebo in combination with paclitaxel protein-bound. Investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1–positive populations were coprimary endpoints. After 13-month median follow-up, the estimated median PFS in the PD-L1–positive population was 7.4 months in the atezolizumab arm and 4.8 months in the placebo arm [HR = 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.48–0.77]. Overall survival (OS) results were immature with 43% deaths in the ITT population, representing 59% of the OS events required to perform the final OS analysis. Adverse reactions occurring in ≥20% of patients receiving atezolizumab with paclitaxel protein-bound were alopecia, peripheral neuropathies, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, anemia, constipation, cough, headache, neutropenia, vomiting, and decreased appetite. Accelerated approval was appropriate taking into account the unmet medical need along with the immaturity of the OS results and potential for PFS in the PD-L1–expressing population to predict clinical benefit.

Background: Three cyclin dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDKIs) are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer in combination with hormonal therapy. However, the choice of when to initiate CDKI therapy (in the first- or second-line setting, or with aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant) can be clinically challenging as studies have not directly compared these two approaches, nor have studies determined the benefit of continuation of CDKI therapy with changes in hormonal therapy backbone. Methods: Patient-level data from eight randomized controlled pivotal trials submitted to the FDA for new or supplemental marketing applications were pooled. We performed exploratory analyses of the predictive power of the baseline patient and disease characteristic data to forecast outcomes based on a specific treatment pathway. Variables included were: age, race, ethnicity, country and continent of origin, height, weight, body mass index (BMI), menopause status, estrogen receptor (ER) status, progesterone receptor (PR) status, ECOG performance score, histological type, histological grade, and initial disease stage. Additionally, baseline levels at the time of enrollment of alanine aminotransferase (ALT), albumin, alkaline phosphatase, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), bilirubin, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), calcium, creatinine, hemoglobin, magnesium, potassium, sodium, lymphocytes, neutrophils, platelets, and white blood cells. Statistical and machine learning algorithms were used to build predictive models based on the clinical trial results. Results: The pooled studies included 4580 breast cancer patients. Baseline random survival forest models were constructed for patients that received a CDKI plus hormonal therapy and for patients that received hormonal therapy alone. Preliminary findings for these models produced prediction accuracies of 69.2% for the CDKI model and 70.6% for the hormonal therapy alone model. Median predicted survival times for patients were calculated in both treatment scenarios and used to identify those that were more likely to benefit from initial use of CDKIs and those less likely to benefit. Through further analysis of the patients in each group, we identified patient characteristics that are prognostic of survival. Conclusions: This exploratory analysis utilized clinical trial data to create a model where clinical and disease characteristics are entered to come up with an efficacy prediction. Future efforts will extend this model to predict adverse event development. Citation Format: Jeremy Mason, Yutao Gong, Laleh Amiri-Kordestani, Suparna Wedam, Jennifer J Gao, Harpreet Singh, Richard Pazdur, Peter Kuhn, Gideon Blumenthal, Julia A Beaver. Prediction of CDK inhibitor efficacy in ER+/HER2- breast cancer using machine learning algorithms [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD2-07.

Summary Background Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDKIs) are indicated with endocrine therapy as first-line or second-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced or metastatic breast cancer. We aimed to investigate the benefit of adding CDKIs to endocrine therapy in patients whose tumours might have differing degrees of endocrine sensitivity. Methods We pooled individual patient data from all phase 3 randomised breast cancer trials of CDKIs plus endocrine therapy submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration before Jan 1, 2019, in support of marketing applications. Our pooled analysis included all randomly assigned patients in these trials who received at least one dose of CDKI or placebo with endocrine therapy (an aromatase inhibitor [letrozole or anastrazole] or fulvestrant). We did prespecified subgroup analyses in patients with progesterone receptor-negative disease; patients with a disease-free interval of 12 months or less; patients with de-novo metastases, lobular histology, and bone-only disease; patients with visceral metastases; and patients aged up to 40 years. Patients who were not treated, who received tamoxifen as endocrine therapy, or who were treated with an aromatase inhibitor but who had received previous chemotherapy in the metastatic setting (not first-line) were excluded from our pooled analyses. All studies had a primary endpoint of investigator-assessed progression-free survival, defined as time from date of randomisation to the initial date of documented cancer progression or death, whichever occurred first. Median progression-free survival was estimated with Kaplan-Meier methods. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% CIs for progression-free survival were estimated by means of Cox regression models. Findings The seven studies meeting this study's inclusion criteria were done between Feb 22, 2013, and Nov 3, 2017, with a median duration of follow-up of 19·7 months (IQR 15·9–25·9). 4200 patients were included in the pooled analysis, of whom 1320 received an aromatase inhibitor plus a CDKI, 932 received placebo plus an aromatase inhibitor, 1296 received fulvestrant plus a CDKI, and 652 received fulvestrant plus placebo. Across all seven pooled trials, the difference in estimated median progression-free survival was 8·8 months in favour of CDKI plus endocrine therapy over placebo plus endocrine therapy (range across the trials 6·8–13·3 months; HR 0·59, 95% CI 0·54–0·64). Progression-free survival results favoured the CDKI group in all prespecified clinicopathological subgroups analysed, with similar HRs to that for the broader intended-use population. In first-line aromatase inhibitor-treated patients (n=2252), the median progression-free survival in the CDKI plus aromatase inhibitor group was 28·0 months (95% CI 25·3–29·1) versus 14·9 months (14·0–16·7) in the placebo plus aromatase inhibitor group (difference 13·1 months; range across the trials 13·0–13·3 months; HR 0·55, 95% CI 0·49–0·62). In first-line fulvestrant-treated patients (n=396), the median progression-free survival was 18·6 months (95% CI 14·8–23·5) in the placebo plus fulvestrant group and not estimable (22·4 to not estimable) in the CDKI plus fulvestrant group (difference not estimable; HR 0·58, 95% CI 0·42–0·80). In the patients treated with fulvestrant in the second-line setting and beyond (n=1552), the difference in estimated median progression-free survival between the CDKI plus fulvestrant group and the placebo plus fulvestrant group was 6·9 months in favour of the CDKI group (range across the trials 5·5–7·3 months; HR 0·56, 95% CI 0·49–0·64). Interpretation Since the addition of CDKI to endocrine therapy seemed to benefit all clinicopathological subgroups of interest in this pooled analysis, further research is needed to identify patient subgroups for whom endocrine therapy alone might be appropriate for first-line or second-line treatment of hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Funding None.

PURPOSE Many older women will be treated with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor and an aromatase inhibitor (AI), given US Food and Drug Administration approval of three agents in this class. The current pooled analysis examines the efficacy and safety of this combination in older women. PATIENTS AND METHODS We pooled data from three randomized controlled studies (N = 1,827) of different CDK4/6 inhibitors in combination with an AI for initial treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative metastatic breast cancer. The effect of age on progression-free survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier estimates and a Cox proportional hazards regression model. RESULTS For patients age 75 years or older (n = 198) who were treated with a CDK4/6 inhibitor and an AI, hazard ratio was 0.49 (95% CI, 0.31 to 0.76) with an estimated median progression-free survival of 31.1 months (95% CI, 20.2 months to not reached) versus 13.7 months (95% CI, 10.9 months to 24.9 months) for those treated with an AI. Incidence of grade 3 to 4 adverse events was 88.8% in patients age 75 years and older and 73.4% in patients younger than age 75 years. Patients age 75 years or older reported a decline in quality-of-life measures using the EQ-5D regardless of treatment with AI alone or with the addition of a CDK4/6 inhibitor. CONCLUSION There was similar efficacy with a CDK4/6 inhibitor in combination with an AI compared with AI alone for first-line treatment of hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative metastatic breast cancer in older women compared with younger patients. Patients older than age 75 years experienced higher rates of toxicity, dose modifications, and a decrease from baseline in quality-of-life measures.

PURPOSE Three cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDKIs) are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer in combination with hormonal therapy (HT). We hypothesized that on an individual basis, efficacy outcomes and adverse event (AE) development can be predicted using baseline patient and tumor characteristics. METHODS Individual-level data from seven randomized controlled trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration for new or supplemental marketing applications of CDKIs were pooled. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and AE prediction models were developed for specific treatment regimens (HT v HT plus CDKI). An individual's characteristics were used in all models simultaneously to create a group of predicted outcomes that are comparable across treatment settings. RESULTS Accuracy of the PFS and OS prediction models for HT were 66% and 64%, respectively, with the strongest predictors being menopausal status and therapy line. The corresponding AE prediction models resulted in an average area under the curve of 0.613. Accuracy of the PFS and OS prediction models for HT plus CDKI were 62% and 63%, respectively, with the strongest predictors being histologic grade for both. The corresponding AE prediction models resulted in an average area under the curve of 0.639. CONCLUSION This exploratory analysis demonstrated that models of efficacy outcomes and AE development can be developed using baseline patient and tumor characteristics. Comparison of paired models can inform treatment selection for individuals on the basis of the patient's personalized goals and concerns. Although use of CDKIs is standard of care in the first- or second-line setting, this model provides prognostic information that may inform individual treatment decisions.

At the completion of a hematology/oncology fellowship, trainees are likely to enter into a career differing from the one modeled by the faculty providing mentorship and teaching during training. Fellows benefit from open communication with regard to career goals and opportunities starting early in training. To ensure honesty in the process, program directors must be accepting and supportive of house staff selecting careers different from those of the training environment. Following identification of a long-term career goal, program directors may facilitate a smooth transition to the early career through thoughtful inclusion of alternative experiences and additional mentors. Barriers exist, including funding and limited time in training while completing educational requirements, which may make inclusion of the experiences a challenge.

BACKGROUND: The primary endpoint in many registration trials is progression-free survival (PFS), defined as the time from randomization until objective tumor progression or death. In the clinical setting, however, PFS can be difficult to measure and explain, especially in patient-friendly language. For real-world evidence (RWE) based studies, time to treatment discontinuation (TTD), defined as time from randomization to discontinuation of the investigational study drug, may be a more practical endpoint. We hypothesize TTD will correlate with PFS and analyzed registration trials from recently FDA approved cyclin dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDKIs) to test this hypothesis. TTD was defined as time from randomization to discontinuation of the CDKI. METHODS: We pooled data from five phase III randomized, controlled, registration trials of CDKIs with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) in the first-line or fulvestrant in the second-line setting. The CDKI discontinuation dates used to calculate TTD were derived from the patient-level datasets. We calculated patient-level correlation between TTD and PFS. We also summarized median TTD and PFS as well as the number of TTD and PFS events. RESULTS: A total of 3017 patients were included in the pooled analysis (n=1899 treated with CDKI, n=1118 with placebo). The median PFS and TTD and the number of events are shown in Table 1. The patient-level Spearman correlation coefficient of TTD and PFS ranged from 0.87-0.95. The trial-level association was approximately R2=0.23. Table 1:Primary ResultsTreatment ArmNPFS EventsTTD EventsMedian PFS, in mo (95% CI)Median TTD, in mo (95% CI)Spearman Correlation CoefficientCDKI1899873138320.7 (19.2-22.2)14.3 (13.6-14.9)0.87Placebo111871488311.7 (11.0-13.6)11.0 (9.7-12.0)0.95 CONCLUSION: Patient-level pooled cross-trial analysis show a relationship between TTD and PFS in registration trials of CDKIs. In all trials, the difference in time between median TTD and median PFS appeared greater in the CDKI arm than the placebo arm. This analysis is limited by the relatively small number of studies included. Further research is needed to determine both whether: 1) TTD can serve as a pragmatic endpoint for analyses of RWE, and 2) is a more meaningful endpoint to patients. Citation Format: Gao JJ, Gong Y, Cheng J, Schroeder RJ, Amiri-Kordestani L, Khozin S, Kluetz P, Sridhara R, Pazdur R, Blumenthal G, Beaver JA, Prowell TM. Time to treatment discontinuation as a pragmatic endpoint: A U.S. Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis of CDK 4/6 inhibitors [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-14-02.

e24101 Background: Pain medications (PMs) are commonly used to treat pain in patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We previously reported an initial analysis of PM prescribing patterns in clinical trial participants with breast cancer receiving CDK 4/6 inhibitor (CDKI)-based treatment. We present an updated analysis here. Methods: We pooled data from 7 randomized controlled trials of CDKI + endocrine therapy (ET) in patients with HR+, HER2-negative MBC. All analyzed patients received at least 1 dose of CDKI/placebo+ET and a concomitant PM with a documented start date. Medications administered during hospitalizations were not included. We looked at PM use in all patients, patients who took PM only before or after the trial started, and those who took PM both before and during the trial. PMs were categorized as opioid (includes codeine-containing), NSAIDS, or other (i.e. bone-directed, antiepileptic, topical PMs). Results: 4200 patients enrolled across the 7 trials who received at least one dose of CDKI/placebo+ET (n = 2616 CDKI, n = 1548 placebo). Of these, 2881 took a PM at any time (n = 1774 CDKI, n = 1107 placebo). Of the 1774 patients who received CDKI+ET, 487 (27%) took at least one opioid and one NSAID at any time, 782 (44%) took at least one NSAID at any time but no opioids, 244 (14%) took at least one opioid at any time but no NSAIDs, and 261 (15%) took only PM that were not opioids or NSAIDs. Of the 1107 patients who received placebo+ET, 297 (27%) took at least one opioid and one NSAID at any time, 490 (44%) took at least one NSAID at any time but no opioids, 153 (14%) took at least one opioid at any time but no NSAIDS, and 167 (15%) took only PM that were not opioids or NSAIDs. Of the 2881 patients who took a PM at any time, 2038 patients (n = 1222 CDKI, n = 816 placebo) had documented start for their PM. Of these, 544 took PM only before the trial started (n = 334 CDKI, n = 210 placebo), 915 took a PM only during the trial (n = 551 CDKI, n = 364 placebo), and 579 took a PM both before and during the trial (n = 337 CDKI, n = 242 placebo). Overall, more patients took NSAIDs only compared to opioids only. Patient characteristics at baseline were balanced between the two arms. Conclusions: Overall, PM prescribing patterns were similar between the arms. NSAID use was higher than opiates in all groups. These findings are hypothesis generating and additional research is needed to determine the impact of PM on participants’ pain and physical function. Further research should include an understanding of the duration of PM needed in patients with MBC.

Background: Cyclin dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDKIs) are oral targeted agents approved for use in combination with endocrine therapy as 1st or 2nd line treatment of hormone-receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer. We previously reported the pooled analyses of progression-free survival (PFS) of patients in certain clinicopathological subgroups, all of whom received consistent benefit from the addition of a CDKI to hormonal therapy. Here, we report the pooled overall survival (OS) results in patients treated with a CDKI and fulvestrant. Methods: We pooled individual patient data (n=1948) from three phase III randomized breast cancer trials of CDKI in combination with fulvestrant submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in support of marketing applications. All analyzed patients received at least one dose of CDKI or placebo in combination with fulvestrant. The median OS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier (KM) methods, and hazard ratios (HR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox regression models. Patients were analyzed collectively, by number of prior lines of systemic endocrine therapy in any disease setting (1st-line or endocrine naive vs. 2nd -line and later), and in various clinicopathologic subgroups of interest. Findings: In all pooled patients (n=1948), the estimated OS HR was 0∙77 (95% CI 0∙68-0∙88), with a median follow-up of 43∙7 months (interquartile range, (IQR): 37∙8, 47∙7) and deaths in 48% of patients. The difference in estimated median OS was 7∙1 months, favoring CDKIs. In patients who were endocrine therapy naive and received CDKIs as 1st -line systemic endocrine therapy (2 trials, n=396), the estimated OS HR was 0∙74 (95% CI 0∙52-1∙07), with a median follow-up of 39∙4 months (IQR: 37∙0, 42∙2) and deaths in 31% of patients. The median OS difference could not be calculated, since median OS was not reached on CDKI arm. In patients who received CDKIs as 2nd-line or later systemic endocrine therapy (3 trials, n=1552), the estimated OS HR was 0∙77 (95% CI 0∙67-0∙89), with a median follow-up of 45∙1 months (IQR: 39∙2, 48∙5) and deaths in 52% of patients. The median OS difference was 7∙0 months, favoring CDKIs. Additional subgroup analyses of OS by progesterone receptor status, site of metastases, breast cancer histology, ECOG performance status, race, and de novo metastatic presentation all favored adding CDKI to fulvestrant. Patients with de novo metastatic disease (n=470, OS HR 0∙91 [95% CI 0∙68-1∙21]) and Asian patients (n=394, OS HR 0∙95 [95% CI 0∙81-1∙60]) appeared to benefit relatively less from the addition of CDKI to fulvestrant. Although the estimated OS HR appeared to favor fulvestrant alone in patients age < 40 [HR 1∙5 (95% CI 0∙75-3∙02)], this result must be interpreted with caution, given the small sample size (n=89) and correspondingly wide confidence interval. Evaluation of other age subgroups showed results in favor of the addition of CDKI to fulvestrant. All results presented are considered exploratory and hypothesis-generating. Interpretation: Addition of CDKIs to fulvestrant appears to confer a consistent overall survival benefit across all pooled patients and within most clinicopathological subgroups of interest. Funding: None. Declaration of Interest: All authors declare no competing interests. Ethical Approval: All patients in the included trials were required to provide informed written consent, and all trials had institutional review board or ethical approval.

On May 24, 2019, the FDA granted regular approval to alpelisib in combination with fulvestrant for postmenopausal women, and men, with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative, phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA)-mutated, advanced or metastatic breast cancer as detected by an FDA-approved test following progression on or after an endocrine-based regimen. Approval was based on the SOLAR-1 study, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of alpelisib plus fulvestrant versus placebo plus fulvestrant. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1 in the cohort of trial participants whose tumors had a PIK3CA mutation. The estimated median PFS by investigator assessment in the alpelisib plus fulvestrant arm was 11 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 7.5–14.5] compared with 5.7 months (95% CI, 3.7–7.4) in the placebo plus fulvestrant arm (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.50–0.85; two-sided P = 0.001). The median overall survival was not yet reached for the alpelisib plus fulvestrant arm (95% CI, 28.1–NE) and was 26.9 months (95% CI, 21.9–NE) for the fulvestrant control arm. No PFS benefit was observed in trial participants whose tumors did not have a PIK3CA mutation (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.58–1.25). The most common adverse reactions, including laboratory abnormalities, on the alpelisib plus fulvestrant arm were increased glucose, increased creatinine, diarrhea, rash, decreased lymphocyte count, increased gamma glutamyl transferase, nausea, increased alanine aminotransferase, fatigue, decreased hemoglobin, increased lipase, decreased appetite, stomatitis, vomiting, decreased weight, decreased calcium, decreased glucose, prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time, and alopecia.

On December 19, 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted approval to olaparib monotherapy for first-line maintenance treatment of BRCA-mutated (BRCAm) advanced ovarian cancer and, on May 8, 2020, expanded the indication of olaparib to include its use in combination with bevacizumab for first-line maintenance treatment of homologous recombination deficient (HRD)–positive advanced ovarian cancer. Both these approvals were based on randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Approval for olaparib monotherapy was based on the SOLO-1 trial, comparing the efficacy of olaparib versus placebo in patients with BRCAm advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer after surgical cytoreduction and first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Two companion diagnostic (CDx) tests were approved with this indication: BRACAnalysis CDx, for germline BRCA1/2 alterations, and FoundationOne CDx, for BRCA1/2 alterations in tissue specimens. Approval for olaparib in combination with bevacizumab was based on the results of the PAOLA-1 trial that compared olaparib with bevacizumab versus placebo plus bevacizumab in patients with advanced high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab. Myriad myChoice CDx was designated as a companion diagnostic device for use of olaparib plus bevacizumab combination for ovarian cancer associated with HRD-positive status. Both trials demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in progression-free survival and favorable benefit-risk profiles for the indicated populations. This article summarizes the FDA thought process and data supporting the approval of olaparib as monotherapy and in combination with bevacizumab for maintenance therapy in this setting. Implications for Practice These approvals represent the first poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, alone or in combination with bevacizumab, approved in first-line maintenance treatment of women with advanced ovarian cancer after cytoreductive surgery and chemotherapy. In patients with BRCA-mutated tumors, olaparib monotherapy demonstrated a 70% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death compared with placebo, and olaparib in combination with bevacizumab demonstrated a 67% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death compared with bevacizumab alone in homologous recombination deficient–positive tumors. These approvals represent a major advance for the treatment of women with advanced ovarian cancer who are in complete or partial response after their initial platinum-based chemotherapy.

The FDA Oncology Center of Excellence commenced the Real-Time Oncology Review (RTOR) pilot project in February 2018 to facilitate earlier submission of topline results and datasets to support an earlier start to the FDA application review. RTOR was initially begun to support supplemental drug applications to add new indications, dosing regimens, or other clinical information to the prescribing information, but was later expanded to include original new drug applications and biological license applications for new molecular entities (NME). From February 2018 to April 2020, RTOR was used to support the submission and review of drug approvals for 20 oncology applications (11 for solid tumor and nine for hematologic malignancy indications). Two were NME drug approvals and 18 were supplemental approvals. All of the applications received priority review and nine (45%) applications had received breakthrough therapy designation status. FDA received the RTOR submissions a median of 5.7 weeks (range 1.7–16.2 weeks) prior to the full application submission. The median time from application submission to FDA approval was 3.3 months (range 0.4–5.9 months). RTOR was also integrated with other review programs including the Assessment Aid and Project Orbis programs. Innovative regulatory processes are critical to expedite the rigorous review of impactful products across the FDA.

1055 JJG, JC, TMP contributed equally. JAB, LAK contributed equally. Background: Cyclin dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDKIs) are oral targeted agents approved for use in combination with endocrine therapy as first or secondline treatment of hormone-receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer. We previously reported the pooled analyses of progression-free survival of patients in certain clinicopathologic subgroups, and results showed a consistent benefit from the addition of a CDKI to endocrine therapy. Here, we report the pooled overall survival (OS) results in patients treated with a CDKI plus fulvestrant. Methods: We pooled individual patient data (n=1948) from three phase III randomized breast cancer trials of a CDKI plus fulvestrant submitted to the FDA in support of marketing applications. All analyzed patients received at least one dose of a CDKI or placebo, plus fulvestrant. The median OS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier (KM) methods, and hazard ratios (HR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox regression models. Results: Results of OS analyses, including all pooled patients, patients treated in the first-line setting, and patients treated in the second line and later settings, are summarized in the table below. Additional subgroup analyses of OS by progesterone receptor status, site of metastases, breast cancer histology, ECOG performance status, race, and de novo metastatic presentation all favored adding a CDKI to fulvestrant. In patients age < 40, the estimated OS HR favored fulvestrant alone, but this subgroup had a small sample size (n=89), so this result must be interpreted with caution. All results are considered exploratory and hypothesis-generating. Conclusions: Addition of CDKIs to fulvestrant appears to confer a consistent survival benefit across all pooled patients and within most clinicopathological subgroups of interest.[Table: see text]

e19105 Background: Patient-reported outcomes can provide symptom and function data that complement standard oncology endpoints. Frequently, trials will conclude there was no clinically meaningful detriment to health-related quality of life (HRQL) or function, even when notable toxicity is observed. It is possible that mean change from baseline analyses obscures meaningful change in subgroups experiencing symptomatic toxicity. In this study, we explore how patients’ response to a diarrhea item related to physical function (PF) and HRQL in trials submitted to US FDA. Methods: We analyzed 3 randomized, double-blind breast cancer trials (early to late line metastatic) where diarrhea was a more common AE-symptom in the treatment arm, but there was not a large detriment in the mean change from baseline for HRQL and PF. Trials included the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30), which captures patient-reported HRQL, symptoms, and functioning. Higher scores (range 0-100) indicate better functioning and HRQL. Symptoms were measured with a 4-point scale; not at all to very much. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze diarrhea, PF, and HRQL over time. Results: Patients reporting very much diarrhea at month 3 had worse PF and HRQL compared to patients reporting no diarrhea . The range of difference between patients who reported very much diarrhea and those with none was 8-18 points for PF across trials. For HRQL scores, the range was 13–17 points worse. This trend was also seen in the control arm and at other times. Conclusions: In this set of breast cancer trials with differences in diarrhea by arm, reporting “no meaningful difference in PF or HRQL between the arms” is insufficient and potentially misleading. A more informative interpretation is that an exploratory analysis of HRQL and PF did not show in the investigational arm; there was a greater proportion of patients reporting diarrhea on the treatment arm; and patients reporting more frequent diarrhea reported lower HRQL and PF compared to patients with no diarrhea, regardless of arm. [Table: see text]

e13027 Background: Despite the ubiquitous prescribing of pain medications (PMs) in cancer clinical trials, the impact of such prescribing patterns and reporting on the experience of pain is not often investigated. We examined patient-reported pain before initiation of PM reporting and at the next available pain assessment. Our aim was to understand change in patient-reported pain. Methods: We pooled data from 7 phase 3 randomized, controlled, registration trials of CDKI with endocrine therapy in patients with hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative MBC. We restricted our analyses to patients who started therapy with no PM reported and looked at patients who had NSAID or opioid medication documented. We calculated change between 2 assessments in patient-reported pain before and after PM using the pain occurrence item (Q9) on the EORTC Quality of Life questionnaire (QLQ-C30). Results: Of the 4200 patients who received at least 1 dose of CDKI/placebo, 1488 started with no documented PM, with 48% reporting none at all when asked about pain at baseline. Subsequently, 185 patients had documented NSAID and 43 an opioid and had a pain PRO assessment before and after. NSAIDs documentation occurred on average 11 weeks into trial and opioids 5. Before documentation of NSAIDs, 45% of patients reported no pain compared to 23% of patients with an opioid. Patients who had documented NSAIDs, 29% experienced an improvement in their self-reported pain, whereas 32% of patients with documented opioids improved. On average the time between the 2 pain assessments was around 58 days for both PMs. Conclusions: In this analysis in patients who had a pain assessment before and after documentation of a PM, there is a small group whose pain improved. It is important to note that patients’ response to the pain item was not provided to the clinical care team, which may explain why there may have been suboptimal pain control. Further study is needed to examine how pain management can be achieved in patients with advanced breast cancer. Future analysis should be performed with patients whose PRO pain results are communicated with the clinical care team in real-time. [Table: see text]

e24145 Background: Pain medications (PMs) are commonly used to treat pain in patients (pts) with advanced/metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We examined PM usage patterns in pts receiving CDK 4/6 inhibitor (CDKI) based treatment. Methods: We pooled data from seven phase 3 randomized, controlled trials of CDKI + endocrine therapy in pts with hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative MBC. PM were categorized as opioid (includes codeine-containing), NSAID, or other (i.e. bone-directed, antiepileptic, topical PMs). All analyzed pts received at least 1 dose of CDKI/placebo and had concomitant PM with a documented start date. Medications prescribed during hospitalizations were not included. We evaluated percent PM by demographic factors and pts with bone mets, and liver/lung mets. Results: 2416 pts met the inclusion criteria, of which 928 pts started a PM before the study and 1488 pts did not start PM before the study. Of the 1488 pts not on a PM before the study, 739 started a PM after study started, and 749 did not receive any PM at any time. Of the 739 pts who started a PM only after study start, overall, 59% were prescribed only an NSAID, 10% were prescribed only opioid, 17% were prescribed both an NSAID and opioid, and 14% were prescribed other PMs. The PM use by percent in demographic subgroups in the 1488 pts who took none or more PMs only after study start are presented in the table. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first analysis of PM usage patterns in pts with MBC receiving CDKI or placebo with hormonal therapy on clinical trials. NSAID use was higher than opiates in all prespecified subgroups. Future analyses will examine the benefit of different classes of pain medications in treating symptoms of pain and whether there are differences between study treatment arms Percent PM Use by Class (Patients Who Took None or More PM Only After Study Start). [Table: see text]

Resources are needed to assist patients in understanding their diagnoses and considering treatment options. This commentary focuses on improving the language used to communicate disease and treatment information so that patients can make informed decisions.

1024Background: Cyclin dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDKIs) are approved for 1st and 2nd line endocrine-based therapy in hormone-receptor positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. There is...