Search

PurposeRibociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) demonstrated a statistically significant progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) benefit in the phase III MONALEESA-7 trial of pre-/perimenopausal patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). The median OS was not reached in the ribociclib arm in the protocol-specified final analysis; we hence performed an exploratory OS and additional outcomes analysis with an extended follow-up (median, 53.5 months).Patients and methodsPatients were randomized to receive ET [goserelin plus nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) or tamoxifen] with ribociclib or placebo. OS was evaluated with a stratified Cox proportional hazard model and summarized with Kaplan-Meier methods.ResultsThe intent-to-treat population included 672 patients. Median OS was 58.7 months with ribociclib versus 48.0 months with placebo [hazard ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.61-0.96]. Kaplan-Meier estimated OS at 48 months was 60% and 50% with ribociclib and placebo, respectively. Subgroup analyses were generally consistent with the OS benefit, including patients who received NSAI and patients aged less than 40 years. Subsequent antineoplastic therapies following discontinuation were balanced between the ribociclib (77%) and placebo (78%) groups. Use of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors after discontinuation was higher with placebo (26%) versus ribociclib (13%). Time to first chemotherapy was significantly delayed with ribociclib versus placebo. No drug-drug interactions were observed between ribociclib and either NSAI.ConclusionsRibociclib plus ET continued to show significantly longer OS than ET alone in pre-/perimenopausal patients, including patients aged less than 40 years, with HR+/HER2- ABC with 53.5 months of median follow-up (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02278120).

Evidence from phase three clinical trials helps shape clinical practice. However, a very small minority of patients with cancer participate in clinical trials and many trials are not completed on time due to slow accrual. Issues with restrictive eligibility criteria can severely limit the patients who can access trials, without any convincing evidence that these restrictions impact patient safety. Similarly, regulatory, organizational, and institutional hurdles can delay trial activation, ultimately making some studies irrelevant. Additional issues during trial conduct (e.g., mandatory in-person visits, central confirmation of standard biomarkers, and inflexible drug dosage modification) contribute to making trials non-patient-centric. These real-life observations from experienced clinical trialists can seem nonsensical to investigators and patients alike, who are trying to bring effective drugs to patients with cancer. In this review, we delve into these issues in detail, and discuss potential solutions to make clinical trials more accessible to patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It takes on average 6-12 years to develop new anticancer drugs from discovery to approval. Effective new agents prolong survival. To demonstrate the importance of rapid drug approval, we calculated life-years potentially saved if selected agents were approved more rapidly. As illustrative examples, we used 27 trials documenting improvements in survival. We multiplied improvement in median survival by numbers of patients dying annually and multiplied this by number of years from drug discovery until approval. For every year by which time to drug approval could have been shortened, there would have been a median number of life-years potentially saved of 79,920 worldwide per drug. Median number of life-years lost between time of drug discovery and approval was 1,020,900 per example. If we were able to use available opportunities to decrease the time required to take a drug from discovery to approval to 5 years, the median number of life-years saved per example would have been 523,890 worldwide. Various publications have identified opportunities to speed drug development without sacrificing patient safety. While many investigational drugs prove to be ineffective, some significantly prolong survival and/or reduce suffering. These illustrative examples suggest that a substantial number of life-years could potentially be saved by increasing the efficiency of development of new drugs for advanced malignancies.

Countries face challenges in paying for new drugs. High prices are driven in part by exploding drug development costs, which, in turn, are driven by essential but excessive regulation. Burdensome regulation also delays drug development, and this can translate into thousands of life-years lost. We need system-wide reform that will enable less expensive, faster drug development. The speed with which COVID-19 vaccines and AIDS therapies were developed indicates this is possible if governments prioritize it. Countries also differ in how they value drugs, and generally, those willing to pay more have better, faster access. Canada is used as an example to illustrate how "incremental cost-effectiveness ratios" (ICERs) based on measures such as gains in "quality-adjusted life-years" (QALYs) may be used to determine a drug's value but are often problematic, imprecise assessments. Generally, ICER/QALY estimates inadequately consider the impact of patient crossover or long post-progression survival, therapy benefits in distinct subpopulations, positive impacts of the therapy on other healthcare or societal costs, how much governments willingly might pay for other things, etc. Furthermore, a QALY value should be higher for a lethal or uncommon disease than for a common, nonlethal disease. Compared to international comparators, Canada is particularly ineffective in initiating public funding for essential new medications. Addressing these disparities demands urgent reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lorlatinib is the only targeted therapy approved in Canada to treat patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumor has progressed despite treatment with second-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), a patient population with high unmet need and lack of publicly reimbursed targeted treatments in Canada. We prospectively examined the real-world effectiveness and impact of lorlatinib on quality-of-life in 59 lorlatinib-treated patients, characterized as: median age of 62.0 years; 47.5% were female; 32.2% had central nervous system metastases; 50.8% had 2+ prior ALK TKI lines; and alectinib was the most common ALK TKI (72.9%) administered before lorlatinib, including 44.1% who received first-line alectinib. With a median follow-up of 15.3 months (IQR: 6.2–19.2), median time-to-treatment discontinuation of lorlatinib was 15.3 months (95% CI: 7.9–not reached), with 54.2% (95% CI: 40.8–65.9%) of patients without treatment discontinuation at 12 months. At baseline, the mean health utility score (HUS) was 0.744 (SD: 0.200). At 3 months, patients receiving lorlatinib demonstrated a 0.069 (95% CI: 0.020–0.118; p = 0.007) average HUS increase over baseline; HUS was maintained at 6 and 12 months. Thus, patients with ALK-positive NSCLC post second-generation ALK TKI remained on lorlatinib for a meaningful duration of time while their quality-of-life was preserved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]