An Overview of Cancer Drugs Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration Based on the Surrogate End Point of Response Rate

Real-time functional proteomics enhances therapeutic targeting in precision oncology molecular tumor boards

Collaborative review of molecular profiling data by multidisciplinary molecular tumor boards (MTB) is increasingly important for improving patient management and outcomes, though currently relies nearly exclusively on nucleic acid next-generation sequencing (NGS) and limited panels of immunohistochemistry-based protein abundance data. We examined the feasibility of incorporating real-time laser microdissection (LMD) enrichment of tumor epithelium and commercial CLIA-based reverse phase protein array (RPPA) protein drug target expression/activation profiling into our cancer center's MTB to complement standard clinical NGS-based profiling. The LMD-RPPA workflow was performed within a therapeutically permissive timeframe with a median dwell time of nine days, during which specimens were processed outside of standard clinical workflows. The RPPA-generated data supported additional and/or alternative therapeutic considerations for 54% of profiled patients following review by the MTB. These findings suggest that integrating proteomic/phosphoproteomic and NGS-based genomic data creates opportunities to further personalize clinical decision-making for precision oncology.

Cancer Drugs Approved Based on Surrogate Endpoint: A Retrospective Observational Study in the United States and China

BACKGROUND

Hundreds of cancer drugs are approved globally based on surrogate endpoint response rate (RR). However, the characteristics of RR-based approvals remain unknown.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, all cancer drug-indication pairs approved based on RR in the United States and China up to December 2023 were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 249 RR-supported drug-indication pairs were identified in the United States and 98 in China. In the United States, 98 of the 249 (39.4%) indications were granted regular approval (RA), whereas in China, only 21 of 98 (21.4%) approvals followed this regulatory pathway, with the remainder receiving accelerated approval (AA). The conversion rate from AA to RA was significantly lower in China compared to the United States (13.3% vs. 28.1%, p < 0.001). The proportion of AA withdrawals was significantly lower in China compared to the United States (1.0% vs. 10.4%, p < 0.001). Among all indications, the median RR in China was 60.9% (IQR, 35.8%-75.0%), which was significantly higher than the 45.0% (IQR, 29.0%-61.0%) in the United States (p < 0.001). In China, 18 of the 98 (18.4%) had an RR less than 30%. In contrast, in the United States, 26.9% of the 249 had an RR less than 30%.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to the United States, RR-supported approvals in China are characterized by higher RR values and a stricter RA pathway. Regulatory authorities in both countries may need to consider both the quantity and quality during cancer drug development based on surrogate endpoints.

Disparities in the access to immune checkpoint inhibitors approved in the United States, the European Union and mainland China: a serial cross-sectional study

Background

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionised antitumour therapy. However, regional differences in ICI labels, including the impact of the review process and supporting trial evidence, remain unclear.

Methods

We conducted a serial cross-sectional study to examine trends and differences in indication approvals and associated clinical trials for ICIs across different regulatory agencies. We searched ICI labels approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA) and National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) in Mainland China before 31 December 2022 and assessed the indications and clinical trials in labels. Relative lags of indication approvals were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. The review time and interval between trial completion and indication submission were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test.

Results

We collected 10 ICIs with 90 indications from the FDA, 10 ICIs with 70 indications from EMA and 16 ICIs with 65 indications from NMPA. Relative lags of ICI indication approval in China (median 344.0 (IQR 220.0, 688.0) days) were longer than in the European Union (118.5 (55.0, 189.0) days) (p<0.0001). Both the European Union (243.0 (191.0, 298.0) days) and China (283.0 (248.0, 339.5) days) demonstrated significantly longer review durations for ICI indications than the United States (181.0 (148.8, 191.8) days) (p<0.0001). While indication submissions to NMPA were significantly more delayed than those to the FDA (p<0.001), the former relied more on trial evidence of OS (84.0%) than the latter (58.0%).

Conclusion

ICIs approved in the United States, the European Union and mainland China differed in indications, approval time, review duration and evidence base, which may impact access to life-saving treatments. Future studies should investigate the impact of these differences and the underlying reasons beyond the evidence supporting the label approvals.

Plasma ctDNA as a Treatment Response Biomarker in Metastatic Cancers: Evaluation by the RECIST Working Group

Early indicators of metastatic cancer response to therapy are important for evaluating new drugs and stopping ineffective treatment. The RECIST guidelines based on repeat cancer imaging are widely adopted in clinical trials, are used to identify active regimens that may change practice, and contribute to regulatory approvals. However, these criteria do not provide insight before 6 to 12 weeks of treatment and typically require that patients have measurable disease. Recent data suggest that measuring on-treatment changes in the amount or proportion of ctDNA in peripheral blood plasma may accurately identify responding and nonresponding cancers at earlier time points. Over the past year, the RECIST working group has evaluated current evidence for plasma ctDNA kinetics as a treatment response biomarker in metastatic cancers and early endpoint in clinical trials to identify areas of focus for future research and validation. Here, we outline the requirement for large standardized trial datasets, greater scrutiny of optimal ctDNA collection time points and assay thresholds, and consideration of regulatory body guidelines and patient opinions. In particular, clinically meaningful changes in plasma ctDNA abundance are likely to differ by cancer type and therapy class and must be assessed before ctDNA can be considered a potential pan-cancer response evaluation biomarker. Despite the need for additional data, minimally invasive on-treatment ctDNA measurements hold promise to build upon existing response assessments such as RECIST and offer opportunities for developing novel early endpoints for modern clinical trials.

Molecular and modular intricacies of precision oncology

Precision medicine is revolutionizing the world in combating different disease modalities, including cancer. The concept of personalized treatments is not new, but modeling it into a reality has faced various limitations. The last decade has seen significant improvements in incorporating several novel tools, scientific innovations and governmental support in precision oncology. However, the socio-economic factors and risk-benefit analyses are important considerations. This mini review includes a summary of some commendable milestones, which are not just a series of successes, but also a cautious outlook to the challenges and practical implications of the advancing techno-medical era.

Bedside implications of the use of surrogate endpoints in solid and haematological cancers: implications for our reliance on PFS, DFS, ORR, MRD and more

Clinical endpoints, such as overall survival, directly measure relevant outcomes. Surrogate endpoints, in contrast, are intermediate, stand-in measures of various tumour-related metrics and include tumour growth, tumour shrinkage, blood results, etc. Surrogates may be a time point measurement, that is, tumour shrinkage at some point (eg, response rate) or biomarker-assessed disease status, measured at given time points (eg, circulating tumour DNA, ctDNA). They can also be measured over time, as with progression-free survival, which is the time until a patient presents with either disease progression or death. Surrogates are increasingly used in trials supporting the marketing authorisation of novel oncology drugs. Yet, the trial-level correlation between surrogates and clinical endpoints-meaning to which extent an improvement in the surrogate predicts an improvement in the direct endpoint-is often moderate to low. Here, we provide a comprehensive classification of surrogate endpoints: time point measurements and time-to-event endpoints in solid and haematological malignancies. Also, we discuss an overlooked aspect of the use of surrogates: the limitations of surrogates outside trial settings, at the bedside. Surrogates can result in the inappropriate stopping or switching of therapy. Surrogates can be used to usher in new strategies (eg, ctDNA in adjuvant treatment of colon cancer), which may erode patient outcomes. In liquid malignancies, surrogates can mislead us to use novel drugs and replace proven standards of care with costly medications. Surrogates can lead one to intensify treatment without clear improvement and possibly worsening quality of life. Clinicians should be aware of the role of surrogates in the development and regulation of drugs and how their use can carry real-world, bedside implications.

Criteria for assessing evidence for biomarker-targeted therapies in rare cancers-an extrapolation framework

Background

Advances in targeted therapy development and tumor sequencing technology are reclassifying cancers into smaller biomarker-defined diseases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often impractical in rare diseases, leading to calls for single-arm studies to be sufficient to inform clinical practice based on a strong biological rationale. However, without RCTs, favorable outcomes are often attributed to therapy but may be due to a more indolent disease course or other biases. When the clinical benefit of targeted therapy in a common cancer is established in RCTs, this benefit may extend to rarer cancers sharing the same biomarker. However, careful consideration of the appropriateness of extending the existing trial evidence beyond specific cancer types is required. A framework for extrapolating evidence for biomarker-targeted therapies to rare cancers is needed to support transparent decision-making.

Objectives

To construct a framework outlining the breadth of criteria essential for extrapolating evidence for a biomarker-targeted therapy generated from RCTs in common cancers to different rare cancers sharing the same biomarker.

Design

A series of questions articulating essential criteria for extrapolation.

Methods

The framework was developed from the core topics for extrapolation identified from a previous scoping review of methodological guidance. Principles for extrapolation outlined in guidance documents from the European Medicines Agency, the US Food and Drug Administration, and Australia's Medical Services Advisory Committee were incorporated.

Results

We propose a framework for assessing key assumptions of similarity of the disease and treatment outcomes between the common and rare cancer for five essential components: prognosis of the biomarker-defined cancer, biomarker test analytical validity, biomarker actionability, treatment efficacy, and safety. Knowledge gaps identified can be used to prioritize future studies.

Conclusion

This framework will allow systematic assessment, standardize regulatory, reimbursement and clinical decision-making, and facilitate transparent discussions between key stakeholders in drug assessment for rare biomarker-defined cancers.

Surrogate endpoints in phase III randomized trials of advanced gastroesophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Overall survival (OS) is the most meaningful endpoint in clinical trials. However, owing to their limitations, surrogate endpoints are commonly used and validation studies are required to assess their reliability. Analysis of phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of advanced gastroesophageal cancer (AGC) with > 100 patients, correlation coefficients (r), and determination coefficients (R²) between OS and surrogates were evaluated through meta-analyses. Progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), and objective response rate (ORR) were examined to determine their correlations with OS. Analysis of 65 phase III RCTs (29,766 subjects) showed a moderate correlation between PFS/TTP and OS (r = 0.77, R² = 0.59), while ORR correlation was low (r = 0.56, R² = 0.31). Excluding immunotherapy trials improved the PFS/TTP and OS correlations (r = 0.83, R² = 0.70). These findings suggest the potential use of PFS/TTP in AGC phase III investigations, disregarding the use of ORR as a surrogate endpoint.

What clinicians should know about surrogate end points in hematologic malignancies

ABSTRACT

Use of surrogates as primary end points is commonplace in hematology/oncology clinical trials. As opposed to prognostic markers, surrogates are end points that can be measured early and yet can still capture the full effect of treatment, because it would be captured by the true outcome (eg, overall survival). We discuss the level of evidence of the most commonly used end points in hematology and share recommendations on how to apply and evaluate surrogate end points in research and clinical practice. Based on the statistical literature, this clinician-friendly review intends to build a bridge between clinicians and surrogacy specialists.

Regulatory histories of recently withdrawn ovarian cancer treatment indications of 3 PARP inhibitors in the US and Europe: lessons for the accelerated approval pathway

Background

Withdrawals of drug indications may reveal potential inadequacies in the regulatory approval processes of new drugs. Understanding potential weaknesses of the regulatory approval process is paramount given the increasing use of expedited pathways. In this paper, we focus on three poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors (olaparib, rucaparib and niraparib) for the treatment of women with heavily pretreated, recurrent ovarian cancer, which were eventually withdrawn.

Methods

We use a comparative case study approach to evaluate the regulatory histories of these drug indications in the US and Europe.

Results

Two drug indications benefited from the FDA's accelerated approval pathway, which explicitly lowers the bar for evidence of efficacy at the time of approval. Following accelerated approval, manufacturers are mandated to conduct post-marketing studies to confirm clinical benefit. The FDA granted accelerated approval to olaparib and rucaparib based on data on surrogate endpoints and converted the approval to regular approval after the submission of additional data on surrogate endpoints from one of two required confirmatory trials, that is, without data on clinical benefit. Niraparib directly received regular approval based only on data on a surrogate endpoint. By contrast, the EMA granted conditional marketing authorisation to rucaparib and was quicker to restrict usage than the FDA.

Conclusion

The regulatory histories of these drug indications highlight the need to reform the accelerated approval pathway by ensuring that post-marketing requirements are followed, and that regular approval is only based on evidence of clinical benefit.

Overall survival benefits of cancer drugs initially approved by the US Food and Drug Administration on the basis of immature survival data: a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

New cancer drugs can be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the basis of surrogate endpoints while data on overall survival are still incomplete or immature, with too few deaths for meaningful analysis. We aimed to evaluate whether clinical trials with immature survival data generated evidence of overall survival benefit during the period after marketing authorisation, and where that evidence was reported.

METHODS

In this retrospective analysis, we searched Drugs@FDA to identify cancer drug indications approved between Jan 1, 2001, and Dec 31, 2018, on the basis of immature survival data. We systematically collected publicly available data on postapproval overall survival results in labelling (Drugs@FDA), journal publications (MEDLINE via PubMed), and clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov). The primary outcome was availability of statistically significant overall survival benefits during the period after marketing authorisation (until March 31, 2023). Additionally, we evaluated the availability and timing of overall survival findings in labelling, journal publications, and ClinicalTrials.gov records.

FINDINGS

During the study period, the FDA granted marketing authorisation to 223 cancer drug indications, 95 of which had overall survival as an endpoint. 39 (41%) of these 95 indications had immature survival data. After a minimum of 4·3 years of follow-up during the period after marketing authorisation (and median 8·2 years [IQR 5·3-12·0] since FDA approval), additional survival data from the pivotal trials became available in either revised labelling or publications, or both, for 38 (97%) of 39 indications. Additional data on overall survival showed a statistically significant benefit in 12 (32%) of 38 indications, whereas mature data yielded statistically non-significant overall survival findings for 24 (63%) indications. Statistically significant evidence of overall survival benefit was reported in either labelling or publications a median of 1·5 years (IQR 0·8-2·3) after initial approval. The median time to availability of statistically non-significant overall survival results was 3·3 years (2·2-4·5). The availability of overall survival results on ClinicalTrials.gov varied considerably.

INTERPRETATION

Fewer than a third of indications approved with immature survival data showed a statistically significant overall survival benefit after approval. Notable inconsistencies in timing and availability of information after approval across different sources emphasise the need for better reporting standards.

FUNDING

None.

Improvement of assessment in surrogate endpoint and safety outcome of single-arm trials for anticancer drugs

INTRODUCTION

Single-arm trials (SATs) and surrogate endpoints were adopted as pivotal evidence for accelerated approval of anticancer drugs for more than 30 years. However, concerns regarding clinical evidence quality in trials, particularly in the SATs of anticancer drugs have increasingly been raised. SAT may not always provide strong evidence due to the lack of control and endpoint of overall survival that is typically present in randomized controlled trials.

AREAS COVERED

Clinical trial endpoint adjudication is a crucial factor in surrogate outcome measurement to ensure the data quality of the clinical trial of anticancer drugs. In this review, we systematically discuss the characteristics of adjudications in assessments in surrogate endpoint and safety outcome respectively, which are essential for ensuring reliable and transparent outcomes. Endpoint adjudication effectively reduces potential bias and mitigates variance that may be introduced by investigators when analyzing the medical records for the surrogate endpoints. We analyze the advantages and disadvantages of each type of adjudicator and provide a summary of the roles of adjudicators.

EXPERT OPINION

By suggestion of improving data reliability and transparency in pivotal trials, this review aims to supply a strategy for better clinical investigation for anticancer drugs, ultimately leading to better patient outcomes.

An empirical analysis of overall survival in drug approvals by the US FDA (2006-2023)

BACKGROUND

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the use of surrogate markers in drugs approved for oncology/hematology indications. This has likely resulted in a greater number of approvals and possibly drugs coming to market faster, but it is unknown whether these drugs also improve overall survival (OS) for patients taking them.

METHODS

We sought to estimate the percentage of oncology drugs that have shown to improve OS in a cross-sectional analysis of US FDA oncology drug approvals (2006-2023). We searched for OS data in registration trials and the peer-reviewed literature.

RESULTS

We found 392 oncology drug approvals. Eighty-seven (22%) drug approvals were based on OS, 147 drug approvals were later tested for OS benefit (38% of all approvals and 48% of drugs approved on a surrogate), and 130 (33%) have yet to be tested for OS benefit. Of the 147 drug approvals later tested for OS, 109 (28% of all approvals and 74% of drugs later tested for OS) have yet to show OS benefit, whereas 38 (10% of all approvals and 26% of drugs later tested for OS benefit) were later shown to have OS benefit. In total, 125 out of 392 (32%) drugs approved for any indication have been shown to improve OS benefit at some point, and 267 (68%) have yet to show approval.

CONCLUSION

About 32% of all oncology drug approvals have evidence for an improvement in OS. Higher standards are needed in drug regulation to ensure that approved drugs are delivering better patient outcomes, specifically in regards to survival.

Survival benefit in EGFR-wild and ALK negative NSCLC patients who participate in clinical trials compared to standard-of-care: Propensity-matched analysis

OBJECTIVES

Advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients harboring EGFR mutation or ALK fusion have achieved significant survival benefit with targeted agents. In contrast, EGFR-wild type and ALK negative lung adenocarcinoma still have poor survival outcome. This study assessed the impact of participating in clinical trials on clinical outcomes in patients with EGFR-wild-type and ALK-negative lung adenocarcinoma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included patients with advanced EGFR-wild-type and ALK-negative lung adenocarcinoma who received systemic treatment between March 2017 and June 2022. We compared clinical outcomes between patients who participated in clinical trials and those treated with standard-of-care (SOC) using propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

Overall, 1,686 patients with EGFR-wild-type and ALK-negative advanced lung adenocarcinoma were included in the final analysis. Of these, 1,380 (81.9 %) received SOC only and 306 (18.1 %) patients were enrolled in at least one clinical trial during their cancer journey. After PSM (1:1), 612 patients were matched to the SOC (n = 306) and clinical trial (n = 306) groups. Among those who participated in clinical trials, 27.8 % and 72.2 % were included in clinical trials involving targeted therapy and immunotherapy respectively. In the clinical trial group, more patients received targeted therapy (31.7 % vs. 5.5 %, p < 0.001) and immunotherapy (88.6 % vs. 62.8 %, p < 0.001) compared to the SOC group. The median overall survival was 17.1 months (95 % confidence interval [CI], 13.2-21.4) in the SOC group and 27.3 months (95 % CI, 22.1-32.4) in the clinical trial group (hazard ratio = 0.71, [95 % CI, 0.58-0.88, P = 0.002]).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that participating in clinical trials resulted in a survival benefit that reduced the risk of death by 29.6% compared to receiving SOC in EGFR-wild-type and ALK-negative lung adenocarcinoma.

Advances in the field of developing biomarkers for re-irradiation: a how-to guide to small, powerful data sets and artificial intelligence

Introduction

Patient selection remains challenging as the clinical use of re-irradiation (re-RT) increases. Re-RT data is limited to retrospective studies and small prospective single-institution reports, resulting in small, heterogenous data sets. Validated prognostic and predictive biomarkers are derived from large-volume studies with long-term follow-up. This review aims to examine existing re-RT publications and available data sets and discuss strategies using artificial intelligence (AI) to approach small data sets to optimize the use of re-RT data.

Methods

Re-RT publications were identified where associated public data was present. The existing literature on small data sets to identify biomarkers was also explored.

Results

Publications with associated public data were identified, with glioma and nasopharyngeal cancers emerging as the most common tumor sites where the use of re-RT was the primary management approach. Existing and emerging AI strategies have been used to approach small data sets including data generation, augmentation, discovery, and transfer learning.

Conclusions

Further data is needed to generate adaptive frameworks, improve the collection of specimens for molecular analysis, and improve the interpretability of results in re-RT data.

Characteristics and outcomes of new molecular oncology drug approvals, in combination or monotherapy

IMPORTANCE

Understanding the factors that are associated with new molecular entity (NME) cancer drug approvals as a single agent and in combination, and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) scores, can aid in identifying suitable factors to consider in trial designs for future drugs. In addition, the association between the various outcomes can aid in determining benefit when surrogate outcomes are used in approval consideration.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to (1) use the measures used in evaluating clinical trials by ESMO scores to determine the differences in the characteristics of 2013-2022 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oncology NME drug approvals for those approved for use in combination or as a monotherapy, and (2) analyze the association between survival outcomes and the response rate for monotherapy NME drugs and/or drugs approved in combination.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis.

SETTING

US FDA Oncology Drug Approvals (2013-2022) PARTICIPANTS: US FDA Oncology Drug Approvals (2013-2022) EXPOSURES: Trial-level characteristics (tumor types, basis of approval, randomized or not, phase) and associations between overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), or overall response rate (ORR) and whether NME drugs were approved as monotherapy or in combination .

RESULTS

Drugs approved for use as a monotherapy are less likely to be approved using a randomized study (p < 0.001) and more likely to be approved via the accelerated pathway (p = 0.012) and be open-label (p < 0.001). Drugs approved for use as a combination or monotherapy significantly differed on their approval basis (p = 0.002), phase of trial at the time of approval (p = 0.02), and ESMO scores (p = 0.02). There was low correlation between response rate and either PFS or OS metrics. However, nearly all of the drugs with large improvements in OS (> 5months) were drugs with robust ORR.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Drugs approved as monotherapy with a low response rate are likely to have marginal benefit in OS and PFS.

Small molecules that disrupt RAD54-BLM interaction hamper tumor proliferation in colon cancer chemoresistance models

RAD54 and BLM helicase play pivotal roles during homologous recombination repair (HRR) to ensure genome maintenance. BLM amino acids (aa 181-212) interact with RAD54 and enhance its chromatin remodeling activity. Functionally, this interaction heightens HRR, leading to a decrease in residual DNA damage in colon cancer cells. This contributes to chemoresistance in colon cancer cells against cisplatin, camptothecin, and oxaliplatin, eventually promoting tumorigenesis in preclinical colon cancer mouse models. ChIP-Seq analysis and validation revealed increased BLM and RAD54 corecruitment on the MRP2 promoter in camptothecin-resistant colon cancer cells, leading to BLM-dependent enhancement of RAD54-mediated chromatin remodeling. We screened the Prestwick small-molecule library, with the intent to revert camptothecin- and oxaliplatin-induced chemoresistance by disrupting the RAD54-BLM interaction. Three FDA/European Medicines Agency-approved candidates were identified that could disrupt this interaction. These drugs bound to RAD54, altered its conformation, and abrogated RAD54-BLM-dependent chromatin remodeling on G5E4 and MRP2 arrays. Notably, the small molecules also reduced HRR efficiency in resistant lines, diminished anchorage-independent growth, and hampered the proliferation of tumors generated using camptothecin- and oxaliplatin-resistant colon cancer cells in both xenograft and syngeneic mouse models in BLM-dependent manner. Therefore, the 3 identified small molecules can serve as possible viable candidates for adjunct therapy in colon cancer treatment.

Innovation in Development of Dermatologic Drugs Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration Between 2012 and 2022

This cross-sectional study characterizes the frequency and degree of innovation of new dermatologic drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 2012 to 2022.

The Importance of Feasibility Assessment in the Design of ctDNA Guided Trials - Results From the OPTIPAL II Study

INTRODUCTION

Both quantitative and molecular changes in ctDNA can hold important information when treating metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), but its clinical utility is yet to be established. Before conducting a large-scale randomized trial, it is essential to test feasibility. This study investigates whether ctDNA is feasible for detecting patients who will benefit from treatment with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors and the prognostic value of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) response.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with mCRC, who were considered for systemic palliative treatment and were eligible for ctDNA analysis. Mutational testing on cell-free DNA (cfDNA) was done by ddPCR. ctDNA response from baseline to the third treatment cycle was evaluated in patients with detectable ctDNA at baseline. ctDNA maximum response was defined as undetectable ctDNA at the third treatment cycle, ctDNA partial response as any decrease in the ctDNA level, and ctDNA progression as any increase in the ctDNA level.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients were included. The time to test results for mutational testing on cfDNA was significantly shorter than on tumor tissue (p < .001). Progression-free survival were 11.2 months (reference group), 7.5 months (HR = 10.7, p= .02), and 4.6 months (HR = 11.4, p= .02) in patients with ctDNA maximum response, partial response, and progression, respectively. Overall survival was 31.2 months (reference group), 15.2 months (HR = 4.1, p= .03), and 9.0 months (HR = 2.6, p= .03) in patients with ctDNA maximum response, partial response, and progression, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Pretreatment mutational testing on cfDNA in daily clinic is feasible and can be applied in randomized clinical trials evaluating the clinical utility of ctDNA. Early dynamics in ctDNA during systemic treatment hold prognostic value.

Gut microbial structural variation associates with immune checkpoint inhibitor response

The gut microbiota may have an effect on the therapeutic resistance and toxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). However, the associations between the highly variable genomes of gut bacteria and the effectiveness of ICIs remain unclear, despite the fact that merely a few gene mutations between similar bacterial strains may cause significant phenotypic variations. Here, using datasets from the gut microbiome of 996 patients from seven clinical trials, we systematically identify microbial genomic structural variants (SVs) using SGV-Finder. The associations between SVs and response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and immune-related adverse events are systematically explored by metagenome-wide association analysis and replicated in different cohorts. Associated SVs are located in multiple species, including Akkermansia muciniphila, Dorea formicigenerans, and Bacteroides caccae. We find genes that encode enzymes that participate in glucose metabolism be harbored in these associated regions. This work uncovers a nascent layer of gut microbiome heterogeneity that is correlated with hosts' prognosis following ICI treatment and represents an advance in our knowledge of the intricate relationships between microbiota and tumor immunotherapy.

Enrollment Success, Factors, and Prediction Models in Cancer Trials (2008-2019)

PURPOSE

To investigate the enrollment success rate of cancer clinical trials conducted in 2008-2019 and various factors lowering the enrollment success rate.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study with clinical trial information from the largest registration database ClinicalTrials.gov. Enrollment success rate was defined as actual enrollment greater or equal to 85% of the estimated enrollment goal. The association between trial characteristics and enrollment success was evaluated using the multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 4,004 trials in breast, lung, and colorectal cancers were included. The overall enrollment success rate was 49.1%. Compared with 2008-2010 (51.5%) and 2011-2013 (52.1%), the enrollment success rate is lower in 2014-2016 (46.5%) and 2017-2019 (36.4%). Regression analyses found trial activation year, phase I, phase I/phase II, and phase II (v phase III), sponsor agency of government (v industry), not requiring healthy volunteers, and estimated enrollment of 50-100, 100-200, 200, and >500 (v 0-50) were associated with a lower enrollment success rate (P < .05). However, trials with placebo comparator, ≥5 locations (v 1 location), and a higher number of secondary end points (eg, ≥5 v 0) were associated with a higher enrollment success rate (P < .05). The AUC for prediction of the final logistic regression models for all trials and specific trial groups ranged from 0.69 to 0.76.

CONCLUSION

This large-scale study supports a lower enrollment success rate over years in cancer clinical trials. Identified factors for enrollment success can be used to develop and improve recruitment strategies for future cancer trials.

Is Target-Based Drug Discovery Efficient? Discovery and "Off-Target" Mechanisms of All Drugs

Target-based drug discovery is the dominant paradigm of drug discovery; however, a comprehensive evaluation of its real-world efficiency is lacking. Here, a manual systematic review of about 32000 articles and patents dating back to 150 years ago demonstrates its apparent inefficiency. Analyzing the origins of all approved drugs reveals that, despite several decades of dominance, only 9.4% of small-molecule drugs have been discovered through "target-based" assays. Moreover, the therapeutic effects of even this minimal share cannot be solely attributed and reduced to their purported targets, as they depend on numerous off-target mechanisms unconsciously incorporated by phenotypic observations. The data suggest that reductionist target-based drug discovery may be a cause of the productivity crisis in drug discovery. An evidence-based approach to enhance efficiency seems to be prioritizing, in selecting and optimizing molecules, higher-level phenotypic observations that are closer to the sought-after therapeutic effects using tools like artificial intelligence and machine learning.

Evidence of pre-approval clinical trial supporting the granted conditional approval for novel cancer drugs in China between 2015 and 2022

Background

Accelerated approval (AA) of novel anticancer drugs based on surrogacy has attracted considerable concern globally. China National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) also established a similar conditional approval (CA) program to accelerate the approval of novel drugs to address unmet medical needs. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the pre-approval clinical trial evidence and potential challenge of cancer drugs receiving CA in China from policy implementation to 2022.

Methods

The cancer drugs (initial and supplemental indications) granted CA between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2022 using the public database of the NMPA were analyzed. The characteristics of the cancer drugs received CA were described. Primary efficacy endpoints and safety derived from the pre-approval clinical trial, including response rates (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), treatment-related serious adverse events (SAE) and Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were quantitatively estimated by meta-analysis. Besides, the correlation between the surrogate endpoints and OS was estimated by the reported trial-level correlation analysis.

Findings

The NMPA approved 72 cancer indications (56 new molecular entities) with CA between 2015 and 2022. 34 indications (47%) were also approved by the FDA or EMA. 74% (53/72) of cancer indications were based on a single-arm trial design while 26% (19/72) for randomized controlled trials. The pooled RR was 0.50 (95% CI: 0.45-0.55, I2 = 96%) with significant differences across cancer types and targets while the pooled hazard risk was 0.39 (95% CI: 0.28-0.53, I2 = 89%) for PFS and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.61-0.73, I2 = 0%) for OS. The pooled treatment-related SAE and Grade ≥3 AEs from single-arm designs resulted in 15% and 25%, respectively. In randomized controlled trials, the pooled treatment-related SAE and Grade ≥3 AEs observed in CA drugs and the control groups were comparable. Surrogate endpoints were widely used as the primary efficacy endpoints in the pre-approval pivotal clinical trials with 75% (54/72) for RR, 10% (7/72) for PFS, and 4% (3/72) for others. Of these, 27% (17/63) of the surrogate endpoints reported a trial-level correlation with OS; three reported high correlation (r ≥ 0.85), two reported moderate correlation (0.70 ≤ r < 0.85) and 12 reported low correlation (r < 0.70).

Interpretation

The majority of novel cancer drugs that received CA were based on RR designed for single-arm trials. The reported correlations of treatment effect between the surrogate endpoints and OS used for CA were limited. Our findings highlighted that the introduction of OS or quality of life based on RCT in confirmatory clinical trials as much as feasible was essential to ensure the clinical benefits for patients.

Funding

This study was supported by postdoctoral fellowship from Tsinghua-Peking Joint Centers for Life Sciences (CLS).

Global Cancer Drug Development-A Report From the 2022 Accelerating Anticancer Agent Development and Validation Meeting

Rapidly expanding systemic treatment options, combined with improved screening, diagnostic, surgical, and radiotherapy techniques, have led to improved survival outcomes for many cancers over time. However, these overall survival gains have disproportionately benefited patients in high-income countries, whereas patients in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) continue to experience challenges in accessing timely and guideline concordant care. In September 2022, the Accelerating Anticancer Agent Development and Validation workshop was held, focusing on global cancer drug development. Panelists discussed key barriers such as the lack of diagnostic services and human resources, drug accessibility and affordability, lack of research infrastructure, and regulatory and authorization challenges, with a particular focus on Africa and Latin America. Potential opportunities to improve access and affordability were reviewed, such as the importance of prioritizing investments in diagnostics, investing health infrastructure and work force planning, coordinated drug procurement efforts and streamlined regulatory processing, incentivized pricing through regulatory change, and the importance of developing and promoting clinical trials that can answer relevant clinical questions for patients in LMICs. As a cancer community, we must continue to advocate for and work toward equitable access to high-quality interventions for patients, regardless of their geographical location.

The evidence base of US Food and Drug Administration approvals of novel cancer therapies from 2000 to 2020

Concerns have been raised that regulatory programs to accelerate approval of cancer drugs in cancer may increase uncertainty about benefits and harms for survival and quality of life (QoL). We analyzed all pivotal clinical trials and all non-pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for all cancer drugs approved for the first time by the FDA between 2000 and 2020. We report regulatory and trial characteristics. Effects on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival and tumor response were summarized in meta-analyses. Effects on QoL were qualitatively summarized. Between 2000 and 2020, the FDA approved 145 novel cancer drugs for 156 indications based on 190 clinical trials. Half of indications (49%) were approved without RCT evidence; 82% had a single clinical trial only. OS was primary endpoint in 14% of trials and QoL data were available from 25%. The median OS benefit was 2.55 months (IQR, 1.33-4.28) with a mean hazard ratio for OS of 0.75 (95%CI, 0.72-0.79, I2  = 42). Improvement for QoL was reported for 7 (4%) of 156 indications. Over time, priority review was used increasingly and the mean number of trials per indication decreased from 1.45 to 1.12. More trials reported results on QoL (19% in 2000-2005; 41% in 2016-2020). For 21 years, novel cancer drugs have typically been approved based on one single, often uncontrolled, clinical trial, measuring surrogate endpoints. This leaves cancer patients without solid evidence that novel drugs improve their survival or QoL and there is no indication towards improvement.

European Conditional Marketing Authorization in a Rapidly Evolving Treatment Landscape: A Comprehensive Study of Anticancer Medicinal Products in 2006-2020

Since 2006, the European conditional marketing authorization (CMA) aims to facilitate timely patient access to medicinal products for which there is an unmet medical need by accepting less comprehensive data than normally required. The granting of CMA requires a positive benefit-risk balance, unmet medical needs to be fulfilled, likely submission of comprehensive data postauthorization, and the benefit of immediate availability to outweigh the risks of data noncomprehensiveness. Since its first use, more than half of all CMAs represent (hemato-)oncology indications. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the conditions in which CMA has been applied for anticancer medicinal products and whether they have changed over time. We retrospectively assessed the European public assessment reports of the 30 anticancer medicinal products granted CMA in 2006-2020 (51% of all 59 CMAs). Comparison of 2006-2013 to 2014-2020 highlighted increased proportions of proactively requested CMAs (+40%), medicinal products that addressed unmet medical needs by providing a major therapeutic advantage over authorized treatments (+38%), and orphan designated indications (+32%). In contrast, it showed decreased proportions of medicinal products for which a scientific advisory group was consulted (-55%) and phase III randomized controlled trial data were available (-38%). This suggests that applicants and the European Medicines Agency have learned how to use the CMA as a regulatory tool, among others, through better planning and proactive interaction. However, the increasing number of granted CMAs complicates the establishment of unmet medical need and the benefit-risk balance, especially in crowded indications and when only phase II uncontrolled trials are available.

Circulating tumor DNA: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors - can we RECIST? Focus on colorectal cancer

Interest in the measurement of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in colorectal cancer (CRC) has increased during the past decade. The analysis of quantitative ctDNA changes as a general response evaluation criterion during systemic treatment is a scientific approach with high clinical potential, and results can be transferred to a pan-cancer concept if relevantly investigated. The purpose of this overview is to discuss the current evidence for ctDNA as a marker of response in metastatic CRC (mCRC) and to propose criteria for definitions of response to systemic therapies applicable in prospective clinical trials. We discuss the literature, which supports a new definition of ctDNA Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Finally, we discuss the challenges in preparations of the optimal trial design to establish the true clinical utility of ctDNA.

Assessment of Surrogate End Point Trends in Clinical Trials to Approve Oncology Drugs From 2001 to 2020 in Japan

Importance

A surrogate end point (SEP) is an end point used in clinical trials as an alternative for measuring the true clinical benefit. The use of SEPs in trials shortens their duration.

Objectives

To investigate the use of SEPs in clinical trials to support the approval of anticancer drugs and to determine whether confirmatory studies that use overall survival (OS) as an end point are being conducted in Japan.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional study, drug approvals and background information were obtained from publicly available information, such as the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency website, for anticancer drugs approved in Japan from January 2001 to December 2020. Data analysis was performed from September 2021 to March 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Characteristics of approved oncology drugs in Japan, end points for pivotal clinical trials, and outcomes of confirmatory trials using OS as an end point following drug approval.

Results

There were 299 anticancer drugs approved in Japan during the study period. Of these, 142 (47.5%) were molecular-targeted drugs, the most common of which targeted non-small cell lung cancer. There were 111 (37.1%) anticancer drugs with orphan designation. From 2001 to 2005, OS was used as an end point in 1 approval (3.6%); however, from 2006 to 2020, OS was used in 86 approvals (31.7%). Of the 212 anticancer drugs approved on the basis of SEPs, confirmatory studies with OS as the end point were conducted for only 37 approvals (17.5%); for the remaining 175 approvals, studies are under way for 35 approvals (16.5%), were waivered for 75 approvals (35.4%), and were not conducted for 65 approvals (30.7%). Furthermore, in 20 drug approvals (9.4%), the conducted confirmatory studies were not effective in determining the OS, but the drugs were approved following re-examination.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this study suggest that starting from 2005, the use of OS as an end point has increased in studies supporting the approval of anticancer drugs in Japan. However, even after 2005, approximately two-thirds of these approvals were SEP based. Postmarketing surveillance studies of the true end points are necessary to validate the use of SEPs.

Expanding individualized therapeutic options via genoproteomics

Clinical next-generation sequencing (NGS)² tests have enabled treatment recommendations for cancer patients with driver gene mutations. Targeted therapy options for patients without driver gene mutations are currently unavailable. Herein, we performed NGS and proteomics tests on 169 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE)³ samples of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC, 65),⁴ colorectal cancers (CRC, 61),⁵ thyroid carcinomas (THCA, 14),⁶ gastric cancers (GC, 2),⁷ gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST, 11),⁸ and malignant melanomas (MM, 6).⁹ Of the 169 samples, NGS detected 14 actionable mutated genes in 73 samples, providing treatment options for 43% of the patients. Proteomics identified 61 actionable clinical drug targets approved by the FDA or undergoing clinical trials in 122 samples, providing treatment options for 72% of the patients. In vivo experiments demonstrated that the Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase (MEK)¹⁰ inhibitor induced the overexpression of MEK1 (Map2k1) to block lung tumor growth in mice. Therefore, protein overexpression is a potentially feasible indicator for guiding targeted therapies. Collectively, our analysis suggests that combining NGS and proteomics (genoproteomics) could expand the targeted treatment options to 85% of cancer patients.

Evaluation of clinical trial designs for novel anticancer drugs in China: a cohort study of drugs approved between 2015 and 2021

China has greatly facilitated the approval of many novel anticancer drugs since the drug regulatory reform in 2015. Here, we review the clinical trial designs used in pivotal clinical trials for approved anticancer agents in China from 2015 to 2021. Overall, 79 new molecular entities (NMEs) with 140 anticancer indications were identified. Of these, adaptive randomized controlled trial (RCT) designs were used most frequently in pivotal clinical trials (n=83, 49%), followed by single-arm design trials (n=52, 30%) and traditional RCT design trials (n=36, 21%). The single-arm trials and adaptive RCTs can significantly shorten clinical trial duration compared with traditional RCT designs. Our findings show that novel clinical trial designs were widely used in China to accelerate the launch of anticancer drugs. Teaser: To address unmet clinical needs, more flexible clinical trial designs were encouraged for novel anticancer drugs in China, including single-arm trials and adaptive designs, as compared with traditional randomized controlled trials.

The price, efficacy, and safety of within-class targeted anticancer medicines between domestic and imported drugs in China: a comparative analysis

Background

Affordability to novel anticancer drugs has become a major health issue in China. It is encouraging to note that China initiated its drug regulatory reform and national price negotiation policies since 2015. As a growing number of domestic within-class targeted anticancer drugs are approved in China, it is expected that this may reduce the price of novel anticancer drugs and improve the affordability of anticancer drugs. This study aimed to evaluate the price, efficacy, and safety of the within-class anticancer drugs between domestic and imported drugs approved in China from 2010 to 2022.

Methods

The domestic and imported within-class targeted drugs for solid cancers approved in China between 2010 and 2022 were extracted. We classified it as a class of anticancer drugs based on the same indication and similar biological mechanism. The published literature derived from pivotal clinical trials of these domestic and imported drugs was identified based on the review report and the latest labels issued by the China National Medical Products Administration. We evaluated the monthly treatment price at launch and the latest (2022), primary efficacy endpoint and safety between domestic and imported anticancer drugs. Meta-analyses were further employed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the domestic and imported anticancer drugs, including pooled hazard ratios (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rates (ORR) for solid cancers, and relative risk for serious adverse events (SAE) and Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs).

Findings

In our cohort study, 12 within-class anticancer drugs with 7 cancer diseases were analyzed, including 18 domestic (21 indications; 21 pivotal trials) and 18 imported (21 indications; 27 pivotal trials) novel anticancer drugs, respectively. The median monthly treatment price of domestic and imported drugs from the years of launch to 2022 had significantly decreased by 71% and 62%, respectively. Moreover, the median monthly treatment price of domestic targeted anticancer drugs on the market at launch ($3786 vs. $5393, P = 0.007) and the latest ($1222 vs. $2077, P = 0.011) was significantly lower than that of imported drugs. No significant differences in median PFS gains (9.0 vs. 11.0 months; P = 0.24), OS gains (9.3 vs 10.6 months; P = 0.66), and ORR (57% vs 62%, P = 0.77) of targeted anticancer drugs in their pivotal trials were observed between the domestic and imported drugs. Additionally, there was no significant difference between domestic and imported drugs in the incidence of SAE (23% vs. 24%; P = 0.41) and Grade ≥3 AEs (59% vs. 57%; P = 0.45). These findings were also further confirmed in the meta-analyses for primary efficacy endpoints and safety outcomes.

Interpretation

The prices of both domestic and imported anticancer drugs significantly decreased after market entry mainly due to the role of national price negotiations. The median monthly treatment price of domestic within-class targeted anticancer drugs was significantly lower than that of imported drugs. Furthermore, the efficacy and safety of domestic anticancer drugs were comparable to that of imported drugs. This evidence implicated that the development of within-class anticancer drugs with national price negotiations in China significantly improved the affordability for patients.

Funding

This study was supported by postdoctoral fellowship from Tsinghua-Peking Joint Centers for Life Sciences (CLS).

ctDNA-Response evaluation criteria in solid tumors - a new measure in medical oncology

In the metastatic setting, most decisions during systemic palliative therapies are based on the imaging-based Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), which is, however, known to be a suboptimal surrogate marker for the clinical outcome overall survival. Over the past decade, research has brought focus to the potential of circulating tumour DNA in cancer. However, at present, there is no generally accepted classification of quantitative changes during the treatment course, and prospective investigations can therefore not be validated. We here propose, for the first time, a response classification based on circulating tumour DNA measurements and its confidence intervals, a "ctDNA-RECIST" that has proven valuable in retrospective studies and goes along with the conventional RECIST classification. We aim to raise the topic for discussion and to encourage analyses of ctDNA data along this line.

A systematic review of basket and umbrella trials in oncology: the importance of tissue of origin and molecular target

INTRODUCTION

We sought to characterise oncology basket and umbrella trials that have been implemented, determine how many have been completed, and calculate the response rate, by tumour type and drug target.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional review of PubMed, Embase, and clinicaltrials.gov for all oncology basket and umbrella trials. We included all trials and publications reporting on the results of these trials, and we calculated overall response rates, stratified by tumour type and drug target.

RESULTS

Most basket and umbrella trials are phase II and non-randomised in design. Of the 180 basket trials, 99 (55.0%) had published results and 81 (45.0%) did not. Of the 73 umbrella trials, 28 (38.4%) had published results and 45 (61.6%) did not. The median response rate was 14.0 (IQR: 4.2, 31.2) for basket trials and 17.8 (IQR: 3.8, 40.4) for umbrella trials. These responses varied, depending on tumour type and drug target.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding what is known about these trials, especially given the limited but heterogenous response reported in these trials, provides context about the strengths and limitations of drugs, especially since several drugs have been approved in recent years for tumour-agnostic indications, based on the results of these types of trials.

Molecular Mechanisms of Flavonoids against Tumor Gamma-Herpesviruses and Their Correlated Cancers-A Focus on EBV and KSHV Life Cycles and Carcinogenesis

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and Kaposi sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV) are cancer-causing viruses that belong to human gamma-herpesviruses. They are DNA viruses known to establish lifelong infections in humans, with the ability to develop various types of cancer. Drug resistance remains the main barrier to achieving effective therapies for viral infections and cancer. Thus, new medications with dual antiviral and anticancer actions are highly needed. Flavonoids are secondary metabolites biosynthesized by plants with diverse therapeutic effects on human health. In this review, we feature the potential role of flavonoids (flavones, protoflavones, isoflavones, flavanones, flavonols, dihydroflavonols, catechins, chalcones, anthocyanins, and other flavonoid-type compounds) in controlling gamma-herpesvirus-associated cancers by blocking EBV and KSHV infections and inhibiting the formation and growth of the correlated tumors, such as nasopharyngeal carcinoma, Burkitt's lymphoma, gastric cancer, extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma, squamous cell carcinoma, Kaposi sarcoma, and primary effusion lymphoma. The underlying mechanisms via targeting EBV and KSHV life cycles and carcinogenesis are highlighted. Moreover, the effective concentrations or doses are emphasized.

Overall Survival, Progression-Free Survival, and Tumor Response Benefit Supporting Initial US Food and Drug Administration Approval and Indication Extension of New Cancer Drugs, 2003-2021

PURPOSE

Clinical trial evidence is routinely evaluated for initial drug approvals, yet the benefit of indication extensions remains uncertain. This study evaluates the clinical benefit supporting new cancer drugs' initial and supplemental US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indication approval.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Clinical trial evidence supporting each indication's FDA approval was collected from the Drugs@FDA database between 2003 and 2021. Drug, indication, and clinical trial characteristics are described. Hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and relative risk for tumor response were meta-analyzed.

RESULTS

Out of 124 FDA-approved drugs, 78 were approved across multiple indications. Out of 374 indications, 141 were approved as combination therapies, 255 for solid cancers, 121 with biomarkers, and 182 as first-line therapy. Approval was mostly supported by open-label (267 [71%]) phase III (238 [64%]) concurrent randomized controlled trials (248 [66%]) with a median of 331 enrolled patients (interquartile range [IQR], 123-665 patients). Across 234 randomized controlled trials with available data, drugs' HRs were 0.73 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.75; I² = 29.6%) for OS and 0.57 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.60; I² = 90.6%) for PFS, whereas tumor response was 1.38 (95% CI, 1.33 to 1.42; I² = 80.7%). Novel pharmaceuticals increased patient survival by a median of 2.80 months (IQR, 1.97-4.60 months) for OS and 3.30 months (IQR, 1.50-5.58 months) for PFS. Initial indications more frequently received accelerated approval, supported by single-arm trials for advanced-line monotherapies, than indication extensions. Initial approvals provided a higher PFS (HR, 0.48 v 0.58; P = .002) and tumor response (relative risk, 1.76 v 1.36; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

New cancer drugs substantially reduce the risk of death and tumor progression, yet only marginally extend patient survival. The FDA, physicians, patients, and insurers must evaluate and decide on a drug's safety and efficacy approval, pricing, coverage, and reimbursement on an indication-specific level.

Trends in the Quality of Evidence Supporting FDA Drug Approvals: Results from a Literature Review

CONTEXT

New drug approvals in the United States must be supported by substantial evidence from "adequate and well-controlled" trials. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has flexibility in how it applies this standard.

METHODS

The authors conducted a systematic literature review of studies evaluating the design and outcomes of the key trials supporting new drug approvals in the United States. They extracted data on the trial characteristics, endpoint types, and expedited regulatory pathways.

FINDINGS

Among 48 publications eligible for inclusion, 30 covered trial characteristics, 23 covered surrogate measures, and 30 covered regulatory pathways. Trends point toward less frequent randomization, double-blinding, and active controls, with variation by drug type and indication. Surrogate measures are becoming more common but are not consistently well correlated with clinical outcomes. Drugs approved through expedited regulatory pathways often have less rigorous trial design characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

The characteristics of trials used to approve new drugs have evolved over the past two decades along with greater use of expedited regulatory pathways and changes in the nature of drugs being evaluated. While flexibility in regulatory standards is important, policy changes can emphasize high-quality data collection before or after FDA approval.

Characteristics of clinical trials for non-small cell lung cancer therapeutic vaccines registered on ClinicalTrials.gov

Background

Even after complete surgical treatment or chemotherapy, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) patients are also at substantial risk for recurrence and spread trend. Therapeutic cancer vaccination could increase the anti-tumor immune response and prevent tumor relapse. This study aimed to assess the characteristics of NSCLC therapeutic vaccines registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional, descriptive study of clinical trials for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Therapeutic Vaccines Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/) through March 17, 2022.

Results

This study encompassed 117 registered trials included for data analysis. The number of trials was significantly correlated with a beginning year (r = 0.504, P < 0.010). Of these trials, 45.30% were completed, 12.82% were terminated, and 8.55% were withdrawn. More than half of trials (52.99%) were funded by industry, and more than half of trials (52.14%) were located in economically developed North America. Regarding study designs of these trials, 27.35% were randomized, 52.14% were single group assignment, 83.76% were without masking, 35.90% were phase 1, and more than half of the trials (56.41%) recruited less than 50 participants. The highest proportion of vaccine types was protein/peptide vaccines (41.88%). Regarding TNM staging, the highest proportion of the trials is stage III-IV (26.50%).

Conclusion

The number of clinical trials about the cancer therapeutic vaccines was sustained an increase in recent years. The main characteristic of clinical trials for NSCLC therapeutic vaccines is lack of randomized control, lack of mask, and recruiting less than 50 participants. In recent years, the protein/peptide vaccines for NSCLC active immunotherapy have been well studied.

What drives cancer clinical trial accrual? An empirical analysis of studies leading to FDA authorisation (2015-2020)

OBJECTIVE

To examine factors associated with accrual rate in industry sponsored clinical trials supporting US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cancer drug approvals from 2015 to 2020.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective cross-sectional study included 194 pivotal trials supporting cancer drug approvals by the US FDA from 2015 to 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Clinical trials were analysed for the type of blinding, primary endpoint, whether crossover was specified in the publication, study phase, line of therapy, response rate, investigational sites, manufacturer and randomisation ratio.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome was the rate of accrual, which is the number of patients accrued in the study per open month of enrolment.

RESULTS

The study consisted of 133 randomised (68%) and 61 (32%) non-randomised clinical trials. In randomised studies, we found the accrual rate was higher in trials investigating first and second line drugs (adjusted rate ratios (aRR): 1.55, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.09), phase III trials (aRR: 2.13, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.99), and for studies sponsored by Merck (aRR: 1.47, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.37), adjusting for other covariates. In contrast, the primary endpoint of a study, presence of crossover, single agent response rate, the number of investigational sites, population disease burden and skewed randomisation ratios were not associated with the rate of accrual. In the non-randomised adjusted model, the accrual rate was 2.03 higher (95% CI 1.10 to 3.92) for clinical trials sponsored by manufacturer, specifically Merck. Primary endpoint, crossover, trial phase, response rate, the number of investigational sites, disease burden or line of therapy were not associated with the rate of accrual.

CONCLUSION

In this cross-sectional study, line of therapy, study phase and manufacturer were the only factors associated with accrual rate. These findings suggest many proffered factors for speedy trial accrual are not associated with greater enrolment rates.

Project rebuild the evidence base (REB): A method to interpret randomised clinical trials and their meta-analysis to present solid benefit-risk assessments to patients

Evidence-based medicine is the cornerstone of shared-decision making in healthcare today. The public deserves clear, transparent and trust-worthy information on drug efficacy. Yet today, many drugs are prescribed and used without solid evidence of efficacy. Clinical trials and randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are the best method to evaluate drug efficacy and side effects. In a shared medical decision-making approach, general practitioners need drug assessment based on patient-important outcomes. The aim of project rebuild the evidence base (REB) is to bridge the gap between the data needed in clinical practice and the data available from clinical research. The drugs will be assessed on clinical patient important outcomes and for a population. Using the Cochrane tools, we propose to analyse for each population and outcome: 1) a meta-analysis based on RCTs with a low risk of bias overall; 2) an evaluation of results of confirmatory RCTs; 3) a statistical analysis of heterrogeneity between RCTs and 4) an analysis of publication bias. Depending on the results of these analyses, the evidence will be categorized in 4 different levels: firm evidence, evidence (to be confirmed), signal or absence of evidence. Project REB proposes a method for reading and interpreting RCTs and their meta-analysis to produce quality data for general practitioners to focus on risk-benefit assessment in the interest of patients. If this data does not exist, it could enable clinical research to better its aim.

Opportunities for pharmacoproteomics in biomarker discovery

Proteomic data are a uniquely valuable resource for drug response prediction and biomarker discovery because most drugs interact directly with proteins in target cells rather than with DNA or RNA. Recent advances in mass spectrometry and associated processing methods have enabled the generation of large-scale proteomic datasets. Here we review the significant opportunities that currently exist to combine large-scale proteomic data with drug-related research, a field termed pharmacoproteomics. We describe successful applications of drug response prediction using molecular data, with an emphasis on oncology. We focus on technical advances in data-independent acquisition mass spectrometry (DIA-MS) that can facilitate the discovery of protein biomarkers for drug responses, alongside the increased availability of big biomedical data. We spotlight new opportunities for machine learning in pharmacoproteomics, driven by the combination of these large datasets and improved high-performance computing. Finally, we explore the value of pre-clinical models for pharmacoproteomic studies and the accompanying challenges of clinical validation. We propose that pharmacoproteomics offers the potential for novel discovery and innovation within the cancer landscape. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

US Food and Drug Administration Accelerated Approval Program for Nononcology Drug Indications Between 1992 and 2018

IMPORTANCE

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants accelerated approval according to surrogate measures of numerous drug indications for serious or life-threatening illnesses such as infectious diseases and cancer. Investigators, including the FDA, have evaluated the program's regulatory and clinical consequences in oncology, but evaluation of nononcology drugs is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the accelerated approval program for nononcology drug indications over a period of 26 years.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study used publicly available data on FDA nononcology drug indications granted accelerated approval from June 1992 through May 2018, with preapproval and confirmatory trials for approved drugs. Data were analyzed from February to April 2022.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The study estimated the median time from accelerated approval to occurrence of regulatory outcomes such as regular approval conversion, postapproval boxed warning label changes, confirmatory trial completion, and confirmatory trial results publication.

RESULTS

The FDA granted accelerated approval of 48 drugs for 57 nononcology indications, including 23 (40%) HIV treatments, supported by 93 preapproval trials. Forty-three indications (75%) were converted to regular approval at a median time of 53.1 (95% CI, 38.7 to 70.2) months from accelerated approval. There were postapproval label modifications on boxed warnings in 27 indications (47%) with a median time of 248.6 (95% CI, 51.8 to not estimable) months from accelerated approval. Of the 86 required confirmatory trials, 17 (20%) had not fulfilled the postapproval requirements. The median time to confirmatory trial completion was 39.4 (95% CI, 30.7 to 47.9) months. Nine trials (10%) failed to verify clinical efficacy, but only 1 of 8 indications assessed (2%) was withdrawn owing to the failed confirmatory trial, which was 136 months after approval. Results were published in 56 completed confirmatory trials (65%), with the median time being 52.5 (95% CI, 35.6 to 82.2) months from accelerated approval to publication.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Although the program expedited the approval of nononcology drug indications by a median (IQR) of 53.1 (26.8-133.2) months, safety-related label modifications were often added in boxed warnings after approval, and clinical efficacy was sometimes not confirmed. The study findings and long follow-up period suggest that comprehensive evaluation of such drugs may take more than a decade.

Nanomedicines for Overcoming Cancer Drug Resistance

Clinically, cancer drug resistance to chemotherapy, targeted therapy or immunotherapy remains the main impediment towards curative cancer therapy, which leads directly to treatment failure along with extended hospital stays, increased medical costs and high mortality. Therefore, increasing attention has been paid to nanotechnology-based delivery systems for overcoming drug resistance in cancer. In this respect, novel tumor-targeting nanomedicines offer fairly effective therapeutic strategies for surmounting the various limitations of chemotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy, enabling more precise cancer treatment, more convenient monitoring of treatment agents, as well as surmounting cancer drug resistance, including multidrug resistance (MDR). Nanotechnology-based delivery systems, including liposomes, polymer micelles, nanoparticles (NPs), and DNA nanostructures, enable a large number of properly designed therapeutic nanomedicines. In this paper, we review the different mechanisms of cancer drug resistance to chemotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy, and discuss the latest developments in nanomedicines for overcoming cancer drug resistance.

Overall Survival Benefits of Cancer Drugs Approved in China From 2005 to 2020

IMPORTANCE

Of approximately 9 million patients with cancer in China in 2020, more than half were diagnosed with late-stage cancers. Recent regulatory reforms in China have focused on improving the availability of new cancer drugs. However, evidence on the clinical benefits of new cancer therapies authorized in China is not available.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the clinical benefits of cancer drugs approved in China, as defined by the availability and magnitude of statistically significant overall survival (OS) results.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This mixed-methods study comprising a systematic review and cross-sectional analysis identified antineoplastic agents approved in China between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2020, using publicly available data and regulatory review documents issued by the National Medical Products Administration. The literature published up to June 30, 2021, was reviewed to collect results on end points used in pivotal trials supporting cancer drug approvals.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was a documented statistically significant positive OS difference between a new cancer therapy and a comparator treatment. Secondary outcome measures were the magnitude of OS benefit and other primary efficacy measures in pivotal trials.

RESULTS

Between 2005 and 2020, 78 cancer drugs corresponding to 141 indications were authorized in China, including 20 drugs (25.6%) (for 30 indications) approved in China only. Of all indications, 26 (18.4%) were evaluated in single-arm or dose-optimization trials, most of which were authorized after 2017. By June 30, 2021, 34 drug indications (24.1%) had a documented lack of OS gain. For 68 indications (48.2%) that had documented evidence of OS benefit, the median magnitude of OS improvement was 4.1 (range, 1.0-35.0) months. After a median follow-up of 1.9 (range, 1.0-11.1) years from approval, OS data for 13 indications (9.2%) were either not reported or were still not mature. Fewer than one-third of cancer drug indications approved in China only had documented evidence of OS benefits (9 of 30 [30.0%]), whereas more than one-half of the cancer drug indications also available in the US or Europe had OS benefits (59 of 111 [53.1%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, almost half of cancer drug indications approved in China had demonstrated OS gain. With the increase of cancer drug approvals based on single-arm trials or immature survival data in recent years, these findings highlight the need to routinely monitor the clinical benefits of new cancer therapies in China.

A cross-sectional study of the FDA approved indications and supporting pivotal trials of small-molecular kinase inhibitors in cancer therapies with the biomarker of cancer driver gene

Cancer precision medicine with biomarker of cancer driver gene (CDG) has been achieved by many small-molecular kinase inhibitors (SMKIs) approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Publicly available FDA documents were collected for all SMKI cancer drugs approved between January 2001 and December 2021. Characteristics of indication and pivotal trial were compared. We identified 62 SMKI cancer drugs with 150 indications approved by the FDA between 2001 and 2021. Of these, 55 indications (36.7%) were CDG biomarker-directed. There was a significant increase of 20.5% per year in the number of approved CDG biomarker-directed indications. CDG biomarker-directed indications were associated with significantly higher odds in receiving accelerated approval (odds ratio [OR] = 2.728; 95% CI, 1.246 to 5.973; P = .012), designating orphan drug (OR = 3.952; 95% CI, 1.758 to 8.883; P < .001), initial submission of the application (OR = 2.246; 95% CI, 1.063 to 4.746; P = .034) and in solid cancer (OR = 7.613; 95% CI, 2.958 to 19.590; P < .001), and were associated with significantly lower odds in using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (OR = 0.103; 95% CI, 0.032 to 0.338; P < .001) with less number of entered patients (OR = 0.998; 95% CI, 0.997 to 1.000; P = .048). The number of CDG biomarker-directed indications in approved SMKIs increased significantly in past two decades, with higher proportion of approvals using special expedited development and approval pathways at the FDA. Further RCTs should be conducted to prove long-term effectiveness and safety.

Local Investigators Significantly Overestimate Overall Response Rates Compared to Blinded Independent Central Reviews in Uncontrolled Oncology Trials: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature

Several drugs gained market authorization based on the demonstration of improved progression-free survival (PFS), adopted as a primary endpoint in Phase 3 clinical trials. In addition, an increasing number of drugs have been granted accelerated approval, and sometimes regular approval, by the main regulatory agencies based on the evaluation of the overall response rate in Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials. However, while the overall survival is an unbiased measure of drug efficacy, these outcomes rely on the assessment of radiological images and patients’ categorization using standardized response criteria. The evaluation of these outcomes may be influenced by subjective factors, particularly when the analysis is performed locally. In fact, blinding of treatment is not always possible in modern oncology trials. Therefore, a blinded independent central review is often adopted to overcome the problem of expectation bias associated with local investigator assessments. In this regard, we have recently observed that local investigators tend to overestimate the overall response rate in comparison to central reviewers in Phase 2 clinical trials, whereas we did not find any significant evaluation bias between local investigators and central reviews when considering progression-free survival in both Phase 2 and 3 trials. In the present article, we have tried to understand the reasons behind this discrepancy by reviewing the available evidence in the literature. In addition, a further analysis of Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials that included the evaluation of both endpoints showed that local investigators significantly overestimate overall response rates compared to blinded independent central reviews in uncontrolled oncology trials.

Response rates and minimal residual disease outcomes as potential surrogates for progression-free survival in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

Progression-free survival (PFS) is a common primary endpoint in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Patients with NDMM typically have longer PFS and are more likely to achieve minimal residual disease (MRD) or complete response (CR) compared to patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Response-based surrogate endpoints may hold value given the longer follow-up time required to evaluate PFS in NDMM. In this work, systematic literature reviews of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases (2010-06/2020) and relevant congresses (2018-2020) were performed to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and real-world studies in NDMM reporting median PFS and objective response. Associations between PFS and each response endpoint were evaluated using Pearson's product-moment correlation weighted by sample size in each RCT arm. Unadjusted and adjusted weighted linear regression models were applied to estimate the gain in median PFS associated with each response endpoint. Statistically significant correlations were identified for median PFS with overall response rate (ORR; Pearson r = 0.59), CR (r = 0.48), stringent CR (sCR; r = 0.68), and MRD (r = 0.69). The unadjusted models estimated 0.50 (95% CI: 0.36, 0.64; p<0.001), 0.42 (95% CI: 0.25, 0.58; p<0.001), 1.05 (95% CI: 0.58, 1.52; p<0.001), and 0.35 (95% CI: 0.12, 0.58; p = 0.006) months of median PFS gained per point of ORR, CR, sCR, and MRD, respectively. Associations for median PFS remained statistically significant in models adjusted for age and treatment type with ORR (0.35, 95% CI: 0.21, 0.49; p<0.001), and adjusted for age and International Staging System risk stage with CR (0.29, 95% CI: 0.16, 0.41; p<0.001). Due to small sample size, adjusted models could not be constructed for sCR or MRD. Nevertheless, evidence of significant survival benefit (p<0.05) associated with MRD negativity and sCR was identified across real-world studies. These findings provide support for the use of response outcomes as surrogate endpoints to estimate PFS benefit in NDMM.

A Pyridazinone Compound for Effectively Treating Non-alcoholic Steatohepatitis by Targeting THRβ

Developing effective therapies and medicines to conquer nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is of great significance for public health and is faced with a major challenge. The activation of the thyroid hormone receptor agonist THRβ could be regulated by target drugs that has brought huge potential to the treatment of NASH. In this work, pyridazinone compound YWS01125 was synthesized for the first time. In this study, an ultra-performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS) method for YWS01125 determination was established, and the pharmacokinetics of YWS01125 was evaluated. The half-life values (t1/2)of three different doses of YWS01125 was 189.12 ± 95.27, 152.64 ± 37.98, and 181.95 ± 64.25 min, respectively, and the tissue distribution studies demonstrated that YWS01125 was quickly distributed to various tissues. With successful application in the pharmacokinetics study of YWS01125, the UPLC-MS/MS method has shown characteristics of high sensitivity, rapidity, and good selectivity.

Clinical development of anticancer drugs can be enhanced using efficacy data of small population clinical trials

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Although there are accelerated approval pathways based on data of small populations and surrogate endpoints, the concern that these pathways authorize the use of inefficacious drugs based on limited data from earlier phase clinical trials remains. We retrospectively investigated the efficacy of anticancer drugs, which were approved or whose development was terminated in small and large clinical trials, and verified whether small clinical trials could reflect the results for efficacy in large clinical trials.

METHODS

All anticancer drugs approved in Japan or whose development was terminated from 2015 to 2019 were searched. The median overall survival (OS), median progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rates (ORR) between small clinical trials (sample size ≤100) and large clinical trials (sample size >100) with identical target populations and treatment settings were compared. Simple linear regression analysis, Spearman's correlation analysis, and paired sample t-test were performed.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 61 comparable small and large clinical trials were identified. For all endpoints, statistically significant linear trends and correlation were detected (p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the median PFS and ORR between small and large clinical trials. The mean differences of both clinical trials were -0.102 months and -1.531%, respectively.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Even when the sample size of the clinical trial was increased, the efficacy data of anticancer drugs could not be changed significantly. These results supported the accelerated approval pathway based on the promising efficacy data of small populations in anticancer drug development.