Evaluating Progression-Free Survival as a Surrogate Outcome for Health-Related Quality of Life in Oncology: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis

Clinical benefit of cancer drugs approved in Switzerland 2010–2019

Background

It is unknown to what extent cancer drugs approved in Switzerland by the Swissmedic fulfil criteria of clinical benefit according to the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS), the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework version 2 (ASCO-VF) and the Swiss OLUtool v2 (OLUtool).

Patients and methods

An electronic search identified studies that led to marketing authorisations in Switzerland 2010–2019. Studies were evaluated according to ESMO-MCBS, ASCO-VF and OLUtool. Substantial benefit for ESMO-MCBS, was defined as a grade A or B for (neo)adjuvant intent and 4 or 5 for palliative intent. For ASCO-VF and OLUtool clinical benefit was defined as score ≥45 and A or B, respectively. Concordance between the frameworks was calculated with Cohen’s Kappa (κ). Factors associated with clinical benefit were evaluated by logistic regression.

Results

In the study period, 48 drugs were approved for 92 evaluable indications, based on 100 studies. Ratings for ESMO-MCBS, ASCO-VF and OLUtool could be performed for 100, 86, and 97 studies, respectively. Overall, 39 (39%), 44 (51%), 45 (46%) of the studies showed substantial clinical benefit according to ESMO-MCBS v1.1, ASCO-VF, OLUtool criteria, respectively. There was fair concordance between ESMO-MCBS and ASCO-VF in the palliative setting (κ = 0.31, P = 0.004) and moderate concordance between ESMO-MCBS and OLUtool (κ = 0.41, P<0.001). There was no significant concordance between ASCO-VF and OLUtool (κ = 0.18, P = 0.12). Factors associated with substantial clinical benefit in multivariable analysis were HRQoL benefit reported as secondary outcome for ESMO-MCBS and the ASCO-VF and blinded studies for OLUtool.

Conclusions

At the time of approval, only around half of the trials supporting marketing authorisation of recently approved cancer drugs in Switzerland meet the criteria for substantial clinical benefit when evaluated with ESMO-MCBS, ASCO-VF or OLUtool. There was at best only moderate concordance between the grading systems.

Patient reported outcomes in oncology: changing perspectives-a systematic review

In public health context, oncology is associated with severe negative impact on patients and on their relatives’ quality of life. Over the last decades, survival has remained at 50% worldwide for some tumor locations. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) assessment and, the corresponding use in clinical practice, help establishing patient individualized profiling involving caregivers. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine critical success factors for PROs assessment in daily clinical oncology practice. Additionally, we investigated how PROs collection can change oncology perspectives for patients and caregivers. According to PRISMA guidelines, 83 studies were included in this systematic review, whether related with implementation in daily clinical practice or associated with its use in oncology. PROs assessment gathers multi-professional teams, biomedical and clinical expertise, patients, families and caregivers. Institutional involvement, first line for caregiver’s adherence, team continuous formation, encompassing training and support, design of clear workflows, continuous monitoring, and data analysis are crucial for implementation. PROs measures are decisive in oncology. Several items were improved, including caregiver–patient–physician communication, patient risk groups identification, unmet problems and needs detection, disease course and treatment tracking, prognostic markers, cost-effectiveness measurement and comfort/support provision for both patients and caregivers. Routine assessment and implementation of PROs in clinical practice are a major challenge and a paradigm transformation for future.

Association of Quality-of-Life Outcomes in Cancer Drug Trials With Survival Outcomes and Drug Class

Importance

Although quality of life (QOL) is an important clinical end point, cancer drugs are often approved based on overall survival (OS) or putative surrogate end points such as progression-free survival (PFS) without QOL data.

Objective

To ascertain whether cancer drug trials that show improvement in OS or PFS also improve global QOL of patients with cancer compared with the control treatment, as well as to assess how unchanged or detrimental QOL outcomes are reported in trial publications.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study included all patients with cancer in the advanced setting who were enrolled into phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of cancer drugs reporting QOL data and published in English language in a PubMed-indexed journal in the calendar year 2019. The systematic search of PubMed was conducted in July 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Association of QOL outcomes with OS and PFS, framing of unchanged QOL outcomes in trial publications, and the association of favorable framing with industry funding of the trials.

Results

A total of 45 phase 3 RCTs enrolling 24 806 participants (13 368 in the experimental arm and 11 438 in the control arm) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study analyses. Improvement in global QOL with the experimental agent was reported in 11 (24%) RCTs. The RCTs with improved QOL were more likely to also show improved OS vs trials with unimproved QOL (7 of 11 [64%] trials vs 10 of 34 [29%] trials; χ2 = 4.13; P = .04); there was no such association observed for PFS (6 of 11 [55%] trials vs 17 of 34 [50%] trials, χ2 = 0.03; P = .87). Six trials reported worsening QOL, of which 3 (50%) were trials of targeted drugs, and 11 trials reported improvement in QOL, of which 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Of the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, 16 (47%) reported these results in a positive frame, an observation statistically significantly associated with industry funding (χ2 = 6.35; P = .01).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, a small proportion of RCTs of cancer drugs showed benefit in global QOL with the experimental agent. These results showed an association between QOL benefit and OS benefit but no such association with PFS benefit. Trials that failed to show improved QOL often reported their QOL outcomes more favorably. Non-immunotherapy-targeted drugs led to worse QOL more often than did cytotoxic agents.

Health-Related Quality of Life and Its Contributors According to a Preference-Based Generic Instrument in Cirrhosis

It is essential to determine contributors around impairment in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with cirrhosis aiming at improving health care and therapeutic strategy. Studies simultaneously incorporating disease severity based on biochemical parameters and other physical/psychological effects (i.e., sleep disturbance and frailty) are heterogeneous and the subject of the present study. We analyzed and compared HRQoL, using the EuroQol Group 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaire and the utility index retrieved, in patients with cirrhosis and across groups stratified by sleep disturbance or frailty phenotype. Sleep disturbance and frailty were determined by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and Frailty Index, respectively. Multiple linear regression was implemented to clarify contributors of poor HRQoL. In this cohort of 227 patients with mean age of 61.7 years and 47.2% male, more than half of the study population represented impairment in HRQoL in at least one domain, according to EQ-5D. Furthermore, sleep disturbance and frailty have proved to be independently associated with poor HRQoL in two separate regression models, whereas conventional scoring systems such as Child-Pugh classification and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease are not closely relevant. Intriguingly, not all health domains within EQ-5D correlated well with PSQI and Frailty Index, with the exception of usual activities. Pain and anxiety/depression were the most frequently affected HRQoL domains even in patients without sleep disturbance or frailty. Conclusion: Impaired HRQoL is prevalent in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. Sleep disturbance and frailty are independently associated with poor HRQoL. It is imperative to timely intervene with these symptoms and deliver tailored health care.

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for the treatment of ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer in women world-wide. Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the most common; three-quarters of women present when disease has spread outside the pelvis (stage III or IV). Treatment consists of a combination of  surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. Although initial responses to chemotherapy are good, most women with advanced disease will relapse. PARP (poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase) inhibitors (PARPi), are a type of anticancer treatment that works by preventing cancer cells from repairing DNA damage, especially in those with breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) variants. PARPi offer a different mechanism of anticancer treatment from conventional chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and risks of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase) inhibitors (PARPi) for the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central 2020, Issue 10), Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trial Register, MEDLINE (1990 to October 2020), Embase (1990 to October 2020), ongoing trials on www.controlled-trials.com/rct, www.clinicaltrials.gov, www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials, the National Research Register (NRR), FDA database and pharmaceutical industry biomedical literature.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials that randomised women with EOC to PARPi with no treatment, or PARPi versus conventional chemotherapy, or PARPi together with conventional chemotherapy versus conventional chemotherapy alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology. Two review authors independently assessed whether studies met the inclusion criteria. We contacted investigators for additional data. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life (QoL) and rate of adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 studies (6109 participants); four (3070 participants) with newly-diagnosed, advanced EOC and 11 (3039 participants) with recurrent EOC. The studies varied in types of comparisons and evaluated PARPi. Eight studies were judged as at low risk of bias in most of the domains. Quality of life data were generally poorly reported. Below we present six key comparisons.  The majority of participants had BRCA mutations, either in their tumour (sBRCAmut) and/or germline (gBRCAmut), or homologous recombination deficiencies (HRD) in their tumours. Newly diagnosed EOC Overall, four studies evaluated the effect of PARPi in newly-diagnosed, advanced EOC. Two compared PARPi with chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone. OS data were not reported. The combination of PARPi with chemotherapy may have little to no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) (two studies, 1564 participants; hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI 0).49 to 1.38; very low-certainty evidence)(no evidence of disease progression at 12 months' 63% with PARPi versus 69% for placebo).  PARPi with chemotherapy likely increases any severe adverse event (SevAE) (grade 3 or higher) slightly (45%) compared with chemotherapy alone (51%) (two studies, 1549 participants, risk ratio (RR) 1.13, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.20; high-certainty evidence). PARPi combined with chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone likely results in little to no difference in the QoL (one study; 744 participants, MD 1.56 95% CI -0.42 to 3.54; moderate-certainty evidence).  Two studies compared PARPi monotherapy with placebo as maintenance after first-line chemotherapy in newly diagnosed EOC. PARPi probably results in little to no difference in OS (two studies, 1124 participants; HR 0.81, 95%CI 0.59 to 1.13; moderate-certainty evidence) (alive at 12 months 68% with PARPi versus 62% for placebo). However, PARPi may increase PFS (two studies, 1124 participants; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.92; low-certainty evidence) (no evidence of disease progression at 12 months' 55% with PARPi versus 24% for placebo). There may be an increase in the risk of experiencing any SevAE (grade 3 or higher) with PARPi (54%) compared with placebo (19%)(two studies, 1118 participants, RR 2.87, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.99; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. There is probably a slight reduction in QoL with PARPi, although this may not be clinically significant (one study, 362 participants; MD -3.00, 95%CI -4.48 to -1.52; moderate-certainty evidence).  Recurrent, platinum-sensitive EOC Overall, 10 studies evaluated the effect of PARPi in recurrent platinum-sensitive EOC. Three studies compared PARPi monotherapy with chemotherapy alone. PARPi may result in little to no difference in OS (two studies, 331 participants; HR 0.95, 95%CI 0.62 to 1.47; low-certainty evidence) (percentage alive at 36 months 18% with PARPi versus 17% for placebo). Evidence is very uncertain about the effect of PARPi on PFS (three studies, 739 participants; HR 0.88, 95%CI 0.56 to 1.38; very low-certainty evidence)(no evidence of disease progression at 12 months 26% with PARPi versus 22% for placebo). There may be little to no difference in rates of any SevAE (grade 3 or higher) with PARPi (50%) than chemotherapy alone (47%) (one study, 254 participants; RR 1.06, 95%CI 0.80 to 1.39; low-certainty evidence). Four studies compared PARPi monotherapy as maintenance with placebo. PARPi may result in little to no difference in OS (two studies, 560 participants; HR 0.88, 95%CI 0.65 to 1.20; moderate-certainty evidence)(percentage alive at 36 months 21% with PARPi versus 17% for placebo). However, evidence suggests that PARPi as maintenance therapy results in a large PFS (four studies, 1677 participants; HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.42; high-certainty evidence)(no evidence of disease progression at 12 months 37% with PARPi versus 5.5% for placebo). PARPi maintenance therapy may result in a large increase in any SevAE (51%) (grade 3 or higher) than placebo (19%)(four studies, 1665 participants, RR 2.62, 95%CI 1.85 to 3.72; low-certainty evidence). PARPi compared with chemotherapy may result in little or no change in QoL (one study, 229 participants, MD 1.20, 95%CI -1.75 to 4.16; low-certainty evidence). Recurrent, platinum-resistant EOC Two studies compared PARPi with chemotherapy. The certainty of evidence in both studies was graded as very low. Overall, there was minimal information on the QoL and adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

PARPi maintenance treatment after chemotherapy may improve PFS in women with newly-diagnosed and recurrent platinum-sensitive EOC; there may be little to no effect on OS, although OS data are immature. Overall, this is likely at the expense of an increase in SevAE. It is  disappointing that data on quality of life outcomes  are relatively sparse. More research is needed to determine whether PARPi have a role to play in platinum-resistant disease.

Current guidelines for nutrition therapy in cancer: The arrival of a long journey or the starting point?

Large epidemiological data reveal that cancer is progressively becoming a chronic and disabling disease. Implementation in daily practice of early therapies aiming at addressing patients' needs is imperative. Nutrition is a major determinant of patients' quality of life, yet it is frequently neglected. Hopefully, reverting this skeptical clinical approach to nutrition, clinical practice guidelines of nutrition care in patients with cancer have been developed and published by international oncology and nutrition societies. By analyzing the more recent guidelines, it appears that a number of issues may contribute to their insufficient implementation in daily practice. Among them are heterogeneity of recommendations across different guidelines and insufficient robustness of evidence, as well as questionable generalization of recommendations. Future guidelines should aim at providing tumor-specific recommendations for the whole clinical journey of patients with cancer. Also, new, interesting areas should be covered, including fasting metabolism and circadian rhythmicity.

An urgent call to raise the bar in oncology

Important breakthroughs in medical treatments have improved outcomes for patients suffering from several types of cancer. However, many oncological treatments approved by regulatory agencies are of low value and do not contribute significantly to cancer mortality reduction, but lead to unrealistic patient expectations and push even affluent societies to unsustainable health care costs. Several factors that contribute to approvals of low-value oncology treatments are addressed, including issues with clinical trials, bias in reporting, regulatory agency shortcomings and drug pricing. With the COVID-19 pandemic enforcing the elimination of low-value interventions in all fields of medicine, efforts should urgently be made by all involved in cancer care to select only high-value and sustainable interventions. Transformation of medical education, improvement in clinical trial design, quality, conduct and reporting, strict adherence to scientific norms by regulatory agencies and use of value-based scales can all contribute to raising the bar for oncology drug approvals and influence drug pricing and availability.

Associations With Definitive Outcomes and Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs at the Time of Marketing Approval and in the Postmarketing Period

BACKGROUND

Most anticancer drugs are approved by regulatory agencies based on surrogate measures. This article explores the variables associated with overall survival (OS), quality of life (QoL), and substantial clinical benefit among anticancer drugs at the time of approval and in the postmarketing period.

METHODS

Anticancer drugs approved by the FDA between January 2006 and December 2015 and with postmarketing follow-up until April 2019 were identified. We evaluated trial-level data supporting approval and any updated OS and/or QoL data. We applied the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) and the ASCO Value Framework (ASCO-VF) to initial and follow-up studies.

RESULTS

We found that 58 drugs were approved for 96 indications based on 96 trials. At registration, approval was based on improved OS in 39 trials (41%) and improved QoL in 16 of 45 indications (36%). Postmarketing data showed an improvement in OS for 28 of 59 trials (47%) and in QoL for 22 of 48 indications (46%). At the time of approval, 25 of 94 (27%) and 26 of 80 scorable trials (33%) met substantial benefit thresholds using the ESMO-MCBS and ASCO-VF, respectively. In the postmarketing period, 37 of 69 (54%) and 35 of 65 (54%) trials met the substantial benefit thresholds. Drugs with companion diagnostics and immune checkpoint inhibitors were associated significantly with substantial clinical benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the time of approval, more anticancer drugs showed improved OS and QoL and met the ESMO-MCBS or ASCO-VF thresholds for substantial benefit over the course of postmarketing time. However, only approximately half of the trials met the threshold for substantial benefit. Companion diagnostic drugs and immunotherapy seemed to be associated with greater clinical benefit.

Health-related quality of life using the FACT-M questionnaire in patients with malignant melanoma: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Since there are no formal definition of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) there may be a lack of coherence and understanding of how to interpret HRQOL-data. The aim of this study is to summarize HRQOL-results that have used the FACT-M questionnaire in patients with melanoma, and specifically to summarize FACT-M between tumor stage.

METHODS

This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

original studies on cutaneous melanoma between 2005 and 2020, written in English, containing "Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Melanoma" OR "Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy M" OR FACT-M OR FACT/M OR FACTM OR "FACT M" OR FACT-melanoma OR "FACT Melanoma" together with FACT-M numbered data and basic patient characteristics, using the databases Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed and PsycINFO.

RESULTS

16 articles describing 14 patient cohorts published 2008-2020 were included. The majority of the studies did not report subscale scores in accordance with FACT-M guidelines. The results did indicate that FACT-M total scores were inversely correlated with AJCC stage. Subscale analysis demonstrated varying degrees of correlation with AJCC stage. The Melanoma Surgery Subscale score was lowest in stage III patients, probably reflecting more advanced surgical procedures in this group of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Though this review is based on a questionnaire limited to the assessment of melanoma patients, it highlights the universal need for clinical studies to describe their selected HRQOL-questionnaires, its definition of HRQOL and its dimensions, as well as comply with the questionnaire's guidelines when reporting HRQOL-data.

A real-world comparison of docetaxel versus abiraterone acetate for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer

Background

Docetaxel (D) or secondary hormonal therapy (SHT) each combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) represent possible treatment options in males with metastasized hormone‐sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Real‐world data comparing different protocols are lacking yet. Thus, our objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of abiraterone acetate (AA)+ADT versus D+ADT in mHSPC.

Methods

In a retrospective multicenter analysis including males with mHSPC treated with either of the aforementioned protocols, overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival 1 (PFS1), and progression‐free survival 2 (PFS2) were assessed for both cohorts. Median time to event was tested by Kaplan–Meier method and log‐rank test. The Cox‐proportional hazards model was used for univariate and multivariate regression analyses.

Results

Overall, 196 patients were included. The AA+ADT cohort had a longer PFS1 in the log‐rank testing (23 vs. 13 mos., p < 0.001), a longer PFS2 (48 vs. 33 mos., p = 0.006), and longer OS (80 vs. 61 mos., p = 0.040). In the multivariate analyses AA+ADT outperformed D+ADT in terms of PFS1 (HR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.183–0.623; p = 0.001) and PFS2 (HR = 0.33 95% CI = 0.128–0.827; p = 0.018), respectively, while OS and toxicity rate were similar between both groups.

Conclusions

AA+ADT is mainly associated with a similar efficacy and overall toxicity rate as D+ADT. Further prospective research is required for validation of the clinical value of the observed benefit of AA+ADT for progression‐free end‐points.

Correlation Between Early Endpoints and Overall Survival in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Trial-Level Meta-Analysis

Early endpoints, such as progression-free survival (PFS), are increasingly used as surrogates for overall survival (OS) to accelerate approval of novel oncology agents. Compiling trial-level data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) could help to develop a predictive framework to ascertain correlation trends between treatment effects for early and late endpoints. Through trial-level correlation and random-effects meta-regression analysis, we assessed the relationship between hazard ratio (HR) OS and (1) HR PFS and (2) odds ratio (OR) PFS at 4 and 6 months, stratified according to the mechanism of action of the investigational product. Using multiple source databases, we compiled a data set including 81 phase II-IV RCTs (35 drugs and 156 observations) of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Low-to-moderate correlations were generally observed between treatment effects for early endpoints (based on PFS) and HR OS across trials of agents with different mechanisms of action. Moderate correlations were seen between treatment effects for HR PFS and HR OS across all trials, and in the programmed cell death-1/programmed cell death ligand-1 and epidermal growth factor receptor trial subsets. Although these results constitute an important step, caution is advised, as there are some limitations to our evaluation, and an additional patient-level analysis would be needed to establish true surrogacy.

[Evaluation of quality of life: Clinical relevance for patient]

The quality of life of patients and its evaluation remains one of the primordial objectives in oncology. Different methods and tools of evaluation of quality of life have been developed with the objective of having a global evaluation, throughout different aspects, be it physical, emotional, psychological or social. The quality of life questionnaires improve and simplify the reevaluation and follow-up of patients during clinical trials. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are an evaluation of the quality of life as experienced by the patients (patient-reported-outcomes [PROs]) and allow for physicians a personalized treatment approach. In radiotherapy, PROMs are a useful tool for the follow-up of patients during or after treatment. The technological advances, notably in data collecting, but also in their integration and treatment with regard to artificial intelligence will allow integrating these evaluation tools in the management of patients in oncology.

Potential negative impact of reputed regulators' decisions on the approval status of new cancer drugs in Latin American countries: A descriptive analysis

BACKGROUND

Many new cancer drugs are being approved by reputed regulatory authorities without evidence of overall survival benefit, quality of life improvement, and often based on clinical trials at high risk of bias. In recent years, most Latin American (LA) countries have reformed their marketing authorization (MA) rules to directly accept or abbreviate the approval process in case of earlier authorization by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration, mainly. This study assessed the potential impact of decisions taken by EMA regarding the approval of new cancer drugs based on no evidence of overall survival or in potentially biased clinical trials in LA countries.

DESIGN

Descriptive analysis.

SETTING

Publicly accessible marketing authorization databases from LA regulators, European Public Assessment Report by EMA, and previous studies accessing EMA approvals of new cancer drugs 2009-2016.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

Number of new cancer drugs approved by LA countries without evidence of overall survival (2009-2013), and without at least one clinical trial scored at low risk of bias, or with no trial supporting the marketing authorization at all (2014-2016).

RESULTS

Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama and Peru have publicly accessible and trustful MA databases and were included. Of the 17 cancer drugs approved by EMA (2009-2013) without evidence of OS benefit after a postmarketing median time of 5.4 years, 6 LA regulators approved more than 70% of them. Of the 13 drugs approved by EMA (2014-2016), either without supporting trial or with no trial at low risk of bias, Brazil approved 11, Chile 10, Peru 10, Argentina 10, Colombia 9, Ecuador 9, and Panama 8.

CONCLUSIONS

LA countries keep approving new cancer drugs often based on poorly performed clinical trials measuring surrogate endpoints. EMA and other reputed regulators must be aware that their regulatory decisions might directly influence decisions regarding MA, health budgets and patient's care elsewhere.

Risk and Benefit for Targeted Therapy Agents in Pediatric Phase II Trials in Oncology: A Systematic Review with a Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

For research with human participants to be ethical, risk must be in a favorable balance with potential benefits. Little is known about the risk/benefit ratio for pediatric cancer phase II trials testing targeted therapies.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to conduct a systematic review of preliminary efficacy and safety profiles of phase II targeted therapy clinical trials in pediatric oncology.

METHODS

Our protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020146491). We searched EMBASE and PubMed for phase II pediatric cancer trials testing targeted agents. We included solid and hematological malignancy studies published between 1 January, 2015 and 27 February, 2020. We measured risk using drug-related grade 3 or higher adverse events, and benefit by response rates. When possible, data were meta-analyzed. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

We identified 34 clinical trials (1202 patients) that met our eligibility criteria. The pooled overall response rate was 24.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.5-34.2) and was lower in solid tumors, 6.4% (95% CI 3.2-9.6), compared with hematological malignancies, 55.1% (95% CI 35.9-74.3); p < 0.001. The overall fatal drug-related (grade 5) adverse event rate was 1.6% (95% CI 0.6-2.5), and the average drug-related grade 3/4 adverse event rate per person was 0.66 (95% CI 0.55-0.78).

CONCLUSIONS

We provide an estimate for the risks and benefits of participation in pediatric phase II cancer trials. These data may be used as an empirical basis for informed communication about benefits and burdens in pediatric oncology research.

Food and Drug Administration approvals in phase 3 Cancer clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Phase 3 oncologic randomized clinical trials (RCTs) can lead to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals. In this study, we aim to identify trial-related factors associated with trials leading to subsequent FDA drug approvals.

METHODS

We performed a database query through the ClinicalTrials.gov registry to search for oncologic phase 3 RCTs on February 2020. We screened all trials for therapeutic, cancer-specific, phase 3, randomized, multi-arm trials. We then identified whether a trial was used for subsequent FDA drug approval through screening of FDA approval announcements.

RESULTS

In total, 790 trials were included in our study, with 225 trials (28.4%) generating data that were subsequently used for FDA approvals. Of the 225 FDA approvals identified, 65 (28.9%) were based on trials assessing overall survival (OS) as a primary endpoint (PEP), two (0.9%) were based on trials with a quality of life (QoL) PEP, and 158 approvals (70.2%) were based on trials with other PEP (P = 0.01). FDA approvals were more common among industry funded-trials (219, 97.3%; P < 0.001), and less common among trials sponsored by national cooperative groups (21, 9.3%; P < 0.001). Finally, increased pre-hoc power and meeting patients' accrual target were associated with FDA approvals (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of FDA approvals are based on data generated from trials analyzing surrogate primary endpoints and trials receiving industry funding. Additional studies are required to understand the complexity of FDA approvals.

Evolution of the Randomized Clinical Trial in the Era of Precision Oncology

IMPORTANCE

The randomized clinical trial (RCT) in oncology has evolved since its widespread adoption in the 1970s. In recent years, concerns have emerged regarding the use of putative surrogate end points, such as progression-free survival (PFS), and marginal effect sizes.

OBJECTIVE

To describe contemporary trends in oncology RCTs and compare these findings with earlier eras of RCT design and output.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective cohort study of systemic therapy RCTs in breast, colorectal, and non-small cell lung cancer published in 7 major journals between 2010 and 2020. This strategy replicates prior work and allows for comparison of trends with RCTs published between 1995 to 2004 and 2005 to 2009.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Data on RCT design, funding, results, and reporting were extracted from the published RCT report. Findings from the current period (2010-2020) were compared with data from RCTs published from 1995 to 2004 and 2005 to 2009. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were used to analyze temporal trends.

RESULTS

The cohort included 298 RCTs (132 [44%] breast, 111 [37%] non-small cell lung cancer, 55 [19%] colorectal cancer). Experimental treatment included molecular inhibitor (171 of 298 [57%]), cytotoxic (83 of 298 [28%]), hormone (15 of 298 [5%]), and immune (24 of 298 [8%]) therapies. Sixty-nine percent (206 of 298) of RCTs were of palliative intent. The most common primary end point is now PFS; this has increased substantially over time (from 0% [0 of 167] to 18% [25 of 137] to 42% [125 of 298]; P < .001). Of 298 RCTs, 265 (89%) are now funded by industry (previously 95 of 167 [57%] and 107 of 137 [78%]; P < .001). Fifty-eight percent (173 of 298) of trials met their primary end point. Among positive trials, median improvement in overall survival and PFS was 3.4 and 2.9 months, respectively. More than one-third (117 of 298 [39%]) of reports used a professional medical writer; this increased substantially during the study period (from 3 of 27 [11%] in 2010 to 12 of 18 [67%] in 2020; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This cohort study suggests that contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate end points and are almost exclusively funded by the pharmaceutical industry. The increasing role of medical writers warrants attention. To demonstrate that new cancer treatments are high value, the oncology community needs to consider the extent to which study end points and target effect size provide meaningful benefit to patients.

Evaluation of the Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Submitted for Reimbursement Recommendation Decisions in Canada

IMPORTANCE

Cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration have come under scrutiny for marginal clinical benefits; however, the clinical benefits of cancer drugs recommended for reimbursement in Canada have not been adequately studied.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the differences in the clinical evidence and benefit of cancer drugs that received a positive vs a negative recommendation for provincial reimbursement in Canada.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study obtained publicly available regulatory documents from the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) and corresponding clinical trial documentation. All cancer drugs with a solid tumor indication that were submitted from the inception of the pCODR (July 2011) to February 2020 were evaluated. To be included, submissions had to have a final reimbursement recommendation; submissions that were incomplete, were withdrawn, or had a pending decision were excluded.

EXPOSURES

A completed reimbursement recommendation decision from the pCODR.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Final reimbursement recommendation (positive vs negative); trial characteristics; and relevant clinical outcomes (ie, overall survival [OS] and progression-free survival [PFS]), including the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scores available at the time of pCODR assessment.

RESULTS

Between 2011 and 2020, the pCODR issued 104 reimbursement recommendation decisions for cancer drugs with a solid tumor indication. Among these drug submissions, 78 (75.0%) received a positive recommendation, of which 72 (92.3%) were conditional. Drugs that received a positive recommendation compared with those with a negative recommendation were more likely to have phase 3 randomized clinical trial design (92.3% [72 of 78] vs 53.8% [14 of 26]; P < .001) and have substantial benefit according to the ESMO-MCBS scores (61.5% [48 of 78] vs 19.2% [5 of 26]; P < .001). The most common primary end points associated with the successful submissions were PFS (53.9%) and OS (32.1%). Overall, 39 of 78 submissions (50.0%) that received a positive recommendation had shown OS benefit, with median (interquartile range) OS gains of 3.7 (2.7-6.5) months.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This cohort study found that, although the pCODR takes into account the magnitude of clinical benefit, only half of the cancer drugs that received a positive recommendation had evidence of improved OS and the survival gains were usually modest. These results suggest that, although the pCODR helps filter out some cancer drugs with low quality of evidence and low magnitude of benefit, cancer drugs without meaningful patient benefit continue to enter the Canadian market; these findings are important for making reimbursement policy decisions globally.

Health-related quality-of-life assessment of patients with solid tumors on immuno-oncology therapies

Immuno-oncology therapies have been approved for various solid tumors; however, the high cost of these treatments and their potential toxicities require a thorough assessment of their risks and benefits. Collection of data directly from patients through patient-reported outcome instruments can improve the precision and reliability of adverse event detection, assess tolerability of adverse events, and provide an evaluation of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) changes from immuno-oncology therapies. There is robust development in HRQOL tools specifically for patients treated with immuno-oncology agents. This review examines the history and basic concepts of HRQOL and patient-reported outcome assessments commonly used in oncological trials, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of current approaches when applied to immunotherapies, as well as some of the current efforts to develop tools for this field and opportunities for future research. LAY SUMMARY: Immuno-oncology (IO) therapies are costly and carry potential toxicities known as immune-related adverse events. Evaluation of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) can impact the risk-benefit assessment of IO therapies. Integration of HRQOL end points and patient-reported outcome data for IO therapies are urgently needed. Ongoing robust development of patient-reported outcome tools specific to IO therapies are currently underway and will permit the evaluation of HRQOL for IO agents. Improvement in precision and reliability of HRQOL evaluation will enhance the ultimate true value of these expensive and effective drugs.

Sustainability principle for the ethics of healthcare resource allocation

We propose a principle of sustainability to complement established principles used for justifying healthcare resource allocation. We argue that the application of established principles of equal treatment, need, prognosis and cost-effectiveness gives rise to what we call negative dynamics: a gradual depletion of the value possible to generate through healthcare. These principles should therefore be complemented by a sustainability principle, making the prospect of negative dynamics a further factor to consider, and possibly outweigh considerations highlighted by the other principles. We demonstrate how this principle may take different forms, and show that a commitment to sustainability is supported by considerations internal to the ethical principles already guiding healthcare resource allocation. We also consider two objections. The first of these, we argue, is either based on implausible assumptions or begs the question, whereas the second can be adequately accommodated by the principle we propose.

Patient-reported outcomes in RELAY, a phase 3 trial of ramucirumab plus erlotinib versus placebo plus erlotinib in untreated EGFR-mutated metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVE

In the phase 3 RELAY trial, ramucirumab/erlotinib demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS) over placebo/erlotinib in patients with EGFR-mutated metastatic NSCLC (median PFS 19.4 versus 12.4 months; HR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.46-0.76; p < .0001). Safety was consistent with established profiles for ramucirumab and erlotinib in NSCLC. Here, we present patient-reported outcomes.

METHODS

Patients received oral erlotinib (150 mg daily) plus intravenous ramucirumab (10 mg/kg) or placebo Q2W until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. Patients completed the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) and EQ-5D questionnaires at baseline and every other cycle. Analyses included time to deterioration (TtD) for LCSS via Kaplan-Meier method and Cox models and changes from baseline using mixed-model repeated-measures regression analysis.

RESULTS

Overall patient compliance for LCSS and EQ-5D was >95%. TtD did not differ between treatment arms for LCSS Total Score (HR = 0.962, 95% CI = 0.690-1.343) and Average Symptom Burden Index (HR = 1.012, 95% CI = 0.732-1.400). TtD of individual LCSS items (appetite loss, fatigue, cough, shortness of breath, pain, symptom distress, difficulties with daily activities, quality of life) indicated no difference between arms; however, patient-reported blood in sputum was worse for ramucirumab/erlotinib (HR = 1.987, 95% CI = 1.206-3.275). Results of LCSS mean changes from baseline were consistent with TtD, indicating no significant differences between treatment arms except for blood in sputum. Mean changes from baseline in EQ-5D index score (p = .94) and visual analogue scale (p = .95) revealed no overall differences in health status between treatment arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' overall quality of life and symptom burden did not differ with the addition of ramucirumab to erlotinib compared to placebo/erlotinib. These data support the clinical benefit of ramucirumab/erlotinib in untreated EGFR-mutated metastatic NSCLC.

Ethics of Pharma Clinical Trials in the Era of Precision Oncology

Pharmaceutical industry clinical trials are ethically problematic: human research subjects are being used as a means to the end of demonstrating statistically significant efficacy of novel anticancer agents to achieve regulatory registration and marketing approval. Randomized controlled trial design is inequitable since control arm patients are denied access to the postulated best treatment. Most pharma studies do not provide clinically meaningful benefit of increased overall survival and enhanced quality of life (QOL) to cohorts and are not reliably generalizable to real-world patients. Precision oncology now enables prospective identification of patients expressing a specific cancer biomarker to determine their particular eligibility for evaluation of efficiency of molecular-targeted treatments. A patient-centered approach, collecting prospective real-world data in large populations, could provide real-world evidence of cost-effective, sustained clinical benefits of survival and QOL, while preserving the ethical beneficent compact between patient and doctor.

Fluorouracil Supplemented With Oxaliplatin or Irinotecan for Solid Tumors: Indications From Clinical Characteristics and Health Outcomes of Patients

Fluorouracil combined with oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) and fluorouracil combined with irinotecan (FOLFIRI) are both first-line clinical chemotherapy regimens. However, clinicians' selection of FOLFIRI or FOLFOX medication regimens and their effects on patients' health outcomes are not clear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impacts on patient characteristics of FOLFIRI or FOLFOX medication regimen selection and the effects of each regimen on patients' health outcomes in a real-world setting. Three thousand seven hundred and twenty-five patients were retrieved and 610 of them were eventually included in this study based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The percentages of the TNM stage, cetuximab, bevacizumab, and tumor metastases between the FOLFIRI and FOLFOX groups were different (P < 0.001). In the multivariate Cox proportional hazards model, a significantly higher non-convalescent incidence of the FOLFOX group was found as compared with the FOLFIRI group (HR = 2.211, 95% CI = 1.257–3.888, P = 0.006). In conclusion, the TNM stage, whether combined with cetuximab or bevacizumab, and whether there was tumor metastasis presented as the key factors affecting medication selection between the FOLFIRI and FOLFOX regimens. The FOLFIRI regimen exhibited better effects on patients' long-term health outcomes than did the FOLFOX regimen. This study was registered on the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ChiCTR2000029201).

Trial registration: ChiCTR2000029201.

Nutritional status according to the mini nutritional assessment (MNA)® as potential prognostic factor for health and treatment outcomes in patients with cancer - a systematic review

Background

Patients with cancer have an increased risk of malnutrition which is associated with poor outcome. The Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA®) is often used in older patients with cancer but its relation to outcome is not known.

Methods

Four databases were systematically searched for studies relating MNA-results with any reported outcome. Two reviewers screened titles/abstracts and full-texts, extracted data and rated the risk of bias (RoB) independently.

Results

We included 56 studies which varied widely in patient and study characteristics. In multivariable analyses, (risk of) malnutrition assessed by MNA significantly predicts a higher chance for mortality/poor overall survival (22/27 studies), shorter progression-free survival/time to progression (3/5 studies), treatment maintenance (5/8 studies) and (health-related) quality of life (2/2 studies), but not treatment toxicity/complications (1/7 studies) or functional status/decline in (1/3 studies). For other outcomes – length of hospital stay (2 studies), falls, fatigue and unplanned (hospital) admissions (1 study each) – no adjusted results were reported. RoB was rated as moderate to high.

Conclusions

MNA®-result predicts mortality/survival, cancer progression, treatment maintenance and (health-related) quality of life and did not predict adverse treatment outcomes and functional status/ decline in patients with cancer. For other outcomes results are less clear. The moderate to high RoB calls for studies with better control of potential confounders.

Generating comparative evidence on new drugs and devices after approval

Certain limitations of evidence available on drugs and devices at the time of market approval often persist in the post-marketing period. Often, post-marketing research landscape is fragmented. When regulatory agencies require pharmaceutical and device manufacturers to conduct studies in the post-marketing period, these studies might remain incomplete many years after approval. Even when completed, many post-marketing studies lack meaningful active comparators, have observational designs, and might not collect patient-relevant outcomes. Regulators, in collaboration with the industry and patients, ought to ensure that the key questions unanswered at the time of drug and device approval are resolved in a timely fashion during the post-marketing phase. We propose a set of seven key guiding principles that we believe will provide the necessary incentives for pharmaceutical and device manufacturers to generate comparative data in the post-marketing period. First, regulators (for drugs and devices), notified bodies (for devices in Europe), health technology assessment organisations, and payers should develop customised evidence generation plans, ensuring that future post-approval studies address any limitations of the data available at the time of market entry impacting the benefit-risk profiles of drugs and devices. Second, post-marketing studies should be designed hierarchically: priority should be given to efforts aimed at evaluating a product's net clinical benefit in randomised trials compared with current known effective therapy, whenever possible, to address common decisional dilemmas. Third, post-marketing studies should incorporate active comparators as appropriate. Fourth, use of non-randomised studies for the evaluation of clinical benefit in the post-marketing period should be limited to instances when the magnitude of effect is deemed to be large or when it is possible to reasonably infer the comparative benefits or risks in settings, in which doing a randomised trial is not feasible. Fifth, efficiency of randomised trials should be improved by streamlining patient recruitment and data collection through innovative design elements. Sixth, governments should directly support and facilitate the production of comparative post-marketing data by investing in the development of collaborative research networks and data systems that reduce the complexity, cost, and waste of rigorous post-marketing research efforts. Last, financial incentives and penalties should be developed or more actively reinforced.

Association of Disease Progression With Health-Related Quality of Life Among Adults With Breast, Lung, Pancreatic, and Colorectal Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Mortality, morbidity, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are patient-relevant end points generally considered in the early benefit assessments of new cancer treatments. Progression-related end points, such as time to progression or progression-free survival, are not included, although patients and physicians testify to the detrimental association of disease progression with HRQoL.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association of disease progression and HRQoL in 4 prevalent solid-cancer entities in routine clinical practice.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study evaluated data from 4 prospective, nonintervention, multicenter registries collected between 2011 and 2018 in 203 centers in Germany. Patients' HRQoL was assessed regularly for up to 5 years. The change in HRQoL scores after disease progression was examined with linear mixed models, adjusting for demographic and clinical covariates. Patients with metastatic breast, pancreatic, lung, and colorectal cancer were recruited at the start of systemic first-line treatment. Data analysis was performed from February 2019 to April 2019.

EXPOSURES

All patients received systemic, palliative first-line treatment according to their physician's choice.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was deterioration of HRQoL associated with disease progression, as measured by 4 validated questionnaires: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General version 4, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 version 3.0, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C15-PAL version 1, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.

RESULTS

More than 8000 questionnaires from 2314 patients with 2562 documented disease progressions were analyzed. In total, 464 patients had breast cancer (464 [100.0%] female; median [range] age, 61.6 [26.4-90.1] years), 807 patients had pancreatic cancer (352 [43.6%] female; median [range] age, 70.0 [39.0-93.0] years), 341 patients had lung cancer (118 [34.6%] female; median [range] age, 65.9 [28.4-88.2] years), and 702 patients had colorectal cancer (248 [35.3%] female; median [range] age, 66.9 [26.9-92.1] years). The first disease progression was associated with a statistically significant worsening of 37 of 45 HRQoL scales; for 17 of these scales, the worsening was clinically meaningful. Scale scores for appetite loss (pancreatic cancer, 10.2 points [95% CI, 6.8-13.5 points]; lung cancer, 10.8 points [95% CI, 5.4-16.2 points]; colorectal cancer, 8.8 points [95% CI, 5.5-12.2]; all P < .001), physical functioning (pancreatic cancer, 6.2 points [95% CI, 3.8-8.5 points]; lung cancer, 8.4 points [95% CI, 5.4-11.5 points]; colorectal cancer, 5.0 points [95% CI, 3.0-7.0 points]; all P < .001), and fatigue (pancreatic cancer, 5.5 points [95% CI, 3.0-7.9 points]; lung cancer, 7.7 points [95% CI, 4.3-11.1]; colorectal cancer, 4.5 points [95% CI, 2.1-6.9 points]; all P < .001) were most affected, irrespective of the type of cancer. The association with global HRQoL was most pronounced in lung cancer (6.7 points [95% CI, 3.5-9.9 points]; P < .001) and pancreatic cancer (5.4 points [95% CI, 3.3-7.5 points]; P < .001) and less in colorectal cancer (3.5 points [95% CI, 1.3-5.7 points]; P = .002) and breast cancer (2.4 points [95% CI, 1.0-3.9 points]; P = .001). The second progression was associated with an even larger decrease in HRQoL.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that disease progression is associated with a deterioration in HRQoL among patients with metastatic breast, pancreatic, lung, and colorectal cancer. This evidence highlights the importance of progression-related end points, such as time to progression and progression-free survival, as additional patient-relevant end points when evaluating the benefit of new treatments for patients with metastatic cancer.

Association Between the Use of Surrogate Measures in Pivotal Trials and Health Technology Assessment Decisions: A Retrospective Analysis of NICE and CADTH Reviews of Cancer Drugs

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether using surrogate versus patient-relevant endpoints in pivotal trials of cancer drugs was associated with health technology assessment recommendations in England (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE]) and Canada (Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health [CADTH]).

METHODS

Cancer drug approvals from 2012 to 2016 were categorized by demonstrating benefit on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, disease response, or having no comparator. Approvals were analyzed by benefit category and health technology assessment recommendation. The association between benefit (surrogate vs OS) and recommending a drug was examined using descriptive statistics and linear probability models controlling for unmet need, orphan designation, and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Of 42 cancer indications that NICE recommended, 15 (36%) demonstrated OS benefit. Cancer indications with OS benefit were less likely to receive a recommendation from NICE than those without (P = .04). In linear probability models, availability of OS benefit was no longer associated with a recommendation from NICE (P = .32). Cost-effective cancer drugs had a 55.6% (95% CI: 38.9%-72.3%) higher probability of receiving a recommendation from NICE than those that were not. In Canada, 15 of 37 (41%) cancer indications that were recommended showed OS benefit. There was no detectable association between surrogate measures and CADTH recommendations based on descriptive statistics (P = .62) or in linear probability models (P = .73).

CONCLUSION

When cost-effectiveness was considered, pivotal trial endpoints were not associated with NICE recommendations. Pivotal trial endpoints, unmet need, orphan status, and cost-effectiveness did not explain CADTH recommendations.

Estimated costs of pivotal trials for U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved cancer drugs, 2015-2017

BACKGROUND

Pivotal clinical trials provide critical evidence to regulators regarding a product's suitability for marketing approval. The objectives of this study are (1) to characterize select features of trials for oncology products approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration between 2015 and 2017; and (2) to quantify the costs of these trials and how such costs varied based on trial characteristics.

METHODS

We identified novel oncology therapeutic drugs, and their respective pivotal trials, approved between 2015 and 2017 using annual summary reports from the Food and Drug Administration. Cost estimates for each pivotal trial were calculated using IQVIA's CostPro, a clinical trial cost estimating tool based on executed contracts between pharmaceutical manufacturers and contract research organizations. Measures of drug and trial characteristics included trial design, end point, patient enrollment, and regulatory pathway. We also performed sensitivity analyses that varied assumptions regarding how efficiently each trial was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 39 pivotal clinical trials provided the basis for Food and Drug Administration approval of 30 new oncology drugs from 2015 to 2017. Among these trials, primary end points were objective response rate in 20 (51.3%), progression-free survival in 13 (33.3%), and overall survival in 6 (15.4%). Twenty trials (51.3%) were single-arm studies. The median estimated cost of oncology pivotal trials was $31.7 million (interquartile range = $17.0-$60.4 million). Trials with objective response rate as primary end point had a median estimate of $17.7 million (interquartile range = $11.9-$27.1 million), compared with trials examining progression-free survival ($42.3 million, interquartile range = $34.6-$101.2 million) or overall survival ($79.4 million, interquartile range = $56.9-$97.7 million) (p < 0.001). Estimated costs for single-arm trials ($17.7 million, interquartile range = $11.9-$23.7 million) were less than for trials with a placebo-controlled ($56.7 million, interquartile range = $40.9-$103.9 million) or active control arm ($67.6 million, IQR = $35.5-$93.5 million) (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Relative to the estimated costs of drug development, the costs of these oncology pivotal trials were modest, with trials that produced more valuable scientific information costing more than their counterparts.

The Value of Progression-Free Survival as a Treatment End Point Among Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Assessment of the Literature

IMPORTANCE

It is unclear whether patients with advanced cancer value surrogate end points, particularly progression-free survival (PFS). Despite this uncertainty, surrogate end points form the basis of regulatory approval for the majority of new cancer treatments.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize and qualitatively assess studies evaluating whether patients with advanced cancer understand and value PFS.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases were searched from database inception to November 12, 2018. Articles eligible for inclusion investigated patient understanding, preference, or perceived value of disease progression or PFS in the setting of advanced cancer. Three authors independently reviewed and extracted data from all studies eligible for inclusion.

FINDINGS

In total, 17 studies representing 3646 patients were included. Of these studies, 15 specifically aimed to assess patients' values toward, and their willingness to trade off toxic effects for gains or losses in the end point of PFS. All studies examined used widely disparate definitions when attempting to describe the meaning of PFS to patients. Ten studies specifically presented patients with the term progression-free survival as an attribute choice. In the words used to define the attribute of PFS, 6 studies used the term survival. Five studies clarified that PFS may not translate into better overall survival, and 5 studies explained that improvements in PFS may not reflect how well the patient may feel. No study clarified that a PFS event could represent either progression or death, and no study defined for the patient what constituted progression. The studies assessed herein underrepresented ethnic and racial minorities (mean percentage of white patients, 88%; range, 77%-96%). Values and preferences may vary across cultural backgrounds given that different relative preferences were assigned to cost and efficacy outcomes in North American vs Asian studies, although only a few studies were evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The existing literature evaluating patients' understanding, preferences, and values toward the end point of PFS was severely limited by the heterogeneity of methods, attribute selection, and descriptions used to define PFS to patients. High-quality studies are needed that clearly define PFS for patients and that systematically document their understanding of the term. Only then can it be assessed whether PFS is an end point of value to patients with advanced cancer.

The necessity of IIb dissection in T1-T2N0M0 oral squamous cell carcinoma: protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

There is a growing debate on the relationship between health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and patient survival which has been going on for the last few decades. The greatest wish of clinicians is to extend the latter while improving the former. Following neck dissection of early-stage oral carcinoma, “shoulder syndrome” appears due to traction of the accessory nerve during removal of level IIb, which greatly affects patient quality of life. Since occult metastasis in level IIb of early-stage oral carcinoma is extremely low, some surgeons suggest that level IIb can be exempt from dissection to improve the HRQoL. However, other surgeons take the opposite view, and thus there is no consensus on the necessity of IIb dissection in T1–2N0M0 oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC).

Methods

We designed a parallel-group, randomized, non-inferiority trial that is supported by Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. We will enroll 522 patients with early oral carcinoma who match the inclusion criteria, and compare differences in 3-year overall survival, progression–free survival (PFS) and HRQoL under different interventions (retention or dissection of level IIb). The primary endpoints will be tested by means of two-sided log-rank tests. Analysis of overall and progression-free survival will be performed in subgroups that were defined according to stratification factors with the use of univariate Cox analysis. In addition, we will use post-hoc subgroup analyses on the basis of histological factors that were known to have effects on survival, such as death of invasion of the primary tumor. To evaluate HRQoL, we will choose the Constant–Murley scale to measure shoulder function.

Discussion

Currently, there are no randomized controlled trials with large sample sizes on the necessity of IIB dissection in T1–T2N0M0 OSCC. We designed this noninferiority RCT that combines survival rate and HRQoL to assess the feasibility of IIb neck dissection. The result of this trial may guide clinical practice and change the criteria of how early-stage oral cancer is managed. The balance between survival and HRQoL in this trial is based on early-stage breast cancer treatment and may provide new ideas for other malignancies.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR1800019128. Registered on 26 October 2018.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3683-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Health-related quality of life in oncology drug reimbursement submissions in Canada: A review of submissions to the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review

BACKGROUND

In Canada, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) evaluates and makes recommendations for the reimbursement of cancer drugs. One component of its recommendation is based on an economic evaluation, which typically takes the form of a cost-utility analysis. A cost-utility analysis measures the effects of competing therapies with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The data for this calculation typically come from generic, preference-based measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL). The objective of this review is to determine the frequency at which HRQOL data are collected alongside cancer drug trials and used in the cost-utility analysis submitted to the CADTH pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR).

METHODS

Submissions between 2015 and 2018 to pCODR, the group charged with evaluating cancer drug submissions at CADTH, were reviewed. All pCODR submissions, either in progress or completed, were publicly available online. The search was restricted to completed evaluations.

RESULTS

Forty-three submissions met the inclusion criteria. The incremental gain in QALYs in most submissions from the new technology was small (median incremental gain, 0.86; interquartile range, 0.6-1.39). More than half of the submissions (56%) did not include original data on HRQOL, with most relying on previous studies of variable relevance and quality. Re-analyses by pCODR based on concerns over HRQOL data used in the submitted model were common (52%).

CONCLUSIONS

Drug manufacturers do not consistently collect data on HRQOL alongside clinical trials and instead rely on evidence generated in previous studies to inform cost-utility analyses. These findings should induce manufacturers to collect original HRQOL data that are simultaneously relevant to patients and decision makers.

Design characteristics, risk of bias, and reporting of randomised controlled trials supporting approvals of cancer drugs by European Medicines Agency, 2014-16: cross sectional analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the design characteristics, risk of bias, and reporting adequacy of pivotal randomised controlled trials of cancer drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

DESIGN

Cross sectional analysis.

SETTING

European regulatory documents, clinical trial registry records, protocols, journal publications, and supplementary appendices.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Pivotal randomised controlled trials of new cancer drugs approved by the EMA between 2014 and 2016.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Study design characteristics (randomisation, comparators, and endpoints); risk of bias using the revised Cochrane tool (bias arising from the randomisation process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported result); and reporting adequacy (completeness and consistency of information in trial protocols, publications, supplementary appendices, clinical trial registry records, and regulatory documents).

RESULTS

Between 2014 and 2016, the EMA approved 32 new cancer drugs on the basis of 54 pivotal studies. Of these, 41 (76%) were randomised controlled trials and 13 (24%) were either non-randomised studies or single arm studies. 39/41 randomised controlled trials had available publications and were included in our study. Only 10 randomised controlled trials (26%) measured overall survival as either a primary or coprimary endpoint, with the remaining trials evaluating surrogate measures such as progression free survival and response rates. Overall, 19 randomised controlled trials (49%) were judged to be at high risk of bias for their primary outcome. Concerns about missing outcome data (n=10) and measurement of the outcome (n=7) were the most common domains leading to high risk of bias judgments. Fewer randomised controlled trials that evaluated overall survival as the primary endpoint were at high risk of bias than those that evaluated surrogate efficacy endpoints (2/10 (20%) v 16/29 (55%), respectively). When information available in regulatory documents and the scientific literature was considered separately, overall risk of bias judgments differed for eight randomised controlled trials (21%), which reflects reporting inadequacies in both sources of information. Regulators identified additional deficits beyond the domains captured in risk of bias assessments for 10 drugs (31%). These deficits included magnitude of clinical benefit, inappropriate comparators, and non-preferred study endpoints, which were not disclosed as limitations in scientific publications.

CONCLUSIONS

Most pivotal studies forming the basis of EMA approval of new cancer drugs between 2014 and 2016 were randomised controlled trials. However, almost half of these were judged to be at high risk of bias based on their design, conduct, or analysis, some of which might be unavoidable because of the complexity of cancer trials. Regulatory documents and the scientific literature had gaps in their reporting. Journal publications did not acknowledge the key limitations of the available evidence identified in regulatory documents.

Umbrella and basket trials in oncology: ethical challenges

BACKGROUND

Novel precision oncology trial designs, such as basket and umbrella trials, are designed to test new anticancer agents in more effective and affordable ways. However, they present some ethical concerns referred to scientific validity, risk-benefit balance and informed consent. Our aim is to discuss these issues in basket and umbrella trials, giving examples of two ongoing cancer trials: NCI-MATCH (National Cancer Institute - Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice) and Lung-MAP (Lung Cancer Master Protocol) study.

MAIN BODY

We discuss three ethical requirements for clinical trials which may be challenged in basket and umbrella trial designs. Firstly, we consider scientific validity. Thanks to the new trial designs, patients with rare malignancies have the opportunity to be enrolled and benefit from the trial, but due to insufficient accrual, the trial may generate clinically insignificant findings. Inadequate sample size in study arms and the use of surrogate endpoints may result in a drug approval without confirmed efficacy. Moreover, complexity, limited quality and availability of tumor samples may not only introduce bias and result in unreliable and unrepresentative findings, but also can potentially harm patients and assign them to an inappropriate therapy arm. Secondly, we refer to benefits and risks. Novel clinical trials can gain important knowledge on the variety of tumors, which can be used in future trials to develop effective therapies. However, they offer limited direct benefits to patients. All potential participants must wait about 2 weeks for the results of the genetic screening, which may be stressful and produce anxiety. The enrollment of patients whose tumors harbor multiple mutations in treatments matching a single mutation may be controversial. As to informed consent - the third requirement we discuss, the excessive use of phrases like "personalized medicine", "tailored therapy" or "precision oncology" might be misleading and cause personal convictions that the study protocol is designed to fulfill the individual health-related needs of participants.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that further approaches should be implemented to enhance scientific validity, reduce misunderstandings and risks, thus maximizing the benefits to society and to trial participants.

Quality of life outcomes in multiple myeloma patients: a summary of recent clinical trials

Introduction: Management of multiple myeloma (MM) has improved over recent years. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data is becoming increasingly important, owing to improved survival outcomes. Areas covered: The authors performed an expert review of the literature to identify evidence-based data available on HRQoL in frontline and relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) patients. Expert opinion: De-novo patients should be informed that the HRQoL is expected to improve during first-line treatment with different degrees of possible deterioration during the first cycles. Achievement of a maximal response should be strongly considered, particularly in the frontline setting, but must also be balanced with tolerability, HRQoL, and patient preferences. The same degree of improvement in HRQoL cannot be expected during conventional relapse treatments, where patients should be prepared only for stabilization of HRQoL. However, focusing attention only on measures such as toxicity may provide just a partial view of overall treatment effectiveness. Nonetheless, the authors believe the added value of taking into consideration the patient's perspectives and the importance of patient-reported outcomes in the evaluation of treatment effects should be considered mandatory. The incorporation of quality of life assessment into clinical and research practice has the potential of improving treatment outcomes.

Assessment of the Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval

IMPORTANCE

The US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) accelerated approval pathway allows investigational cancer drugs to be approved by demonstrating a beneficial effect on a surrogate measure (eg, progression-free survival) that is expected to predict a real clinical benefit (eg, overall survival). However, these drugs must undergo postapproval confirmatory studies to evaluate their actual clinical benefits. In an assessment of the accelerated approval pathway published in 2018, the FDA concluded that this pathway was successful because only 5 (5%) of 93 accelerated drug approvals had been withdrawn or revoked over the last 25 years.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the end points used in preapproval trials leading to accelerated approval with the end points used in the required confirmatory trials that verified clinical benefit and to update the outcomes of accelerated approvals with confirmatory trials that were ongoing at the time of FDA's review.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A review of the literature on end points used in preapproval and confirmatory trials of cancer drugs that received accelerated approval and a review of the FDA's database of postmarketing requirements and commitments focused on the outcomes of confirmatory trials that were ongoing at the time of FDA's review of cancer drug approvals published in 2018.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

End points used as confirmation of clinical benefit in cancer drugs that received accelerated approval, updated status of the confirmatory trials, and regulatory outcomes for cancer drugs that did not meet expectations in the confirmatory trials.

RESULTS

The FDA published a review of 93 cancer drug indications for which accelerated approval was granted from December 11, 1992, through May 31, 2017. Of these approvals, the FDA reported that clinical benefit was adequately confirmed in 51 and confirmatory trials for 15 of these indications (16% of the main sample) accelerated approvals reported improvement in overall survival. For 19 approvals (37%), the confirmatory trials used surrogate measures that were the same as those used in the preapproval trials. In this updated review, confirmatory trials for 19 of 93 (20%) cancer drug approvals reported an improvement in overall survival, 19 (20%) reported improvement in the same surrogate used in the preapproval trial, and 20 (21%) reported improvement in a different surrogate. Five confirmatory trials were delayed, 10 were pending, and 9 were ongoing. For 3 recent approvals, the primary end points were not met in the confirmatory trials; however, 1 cancer drug indication still received full approval.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Confirmatory trials for one-fifth (n = 19 of 93) of cancer drug indications approved via the FDA's accelerated approval pathway demonstrated improvements in overall patient survival. Reassessment of the requirements for confirmatory trials may be necessary to obtain more clinically meaningful information.

The promise of Immuno-oncology: implications for defining the value of cancer treatment

The rapid development of immuno-oncology (I-O) therapies for multiple types of cancer has transformed the cancer treatment landscape and brightened the long-term outlook for many patients with advanced cancer. Responding to ongoing efforts to generate value assessments for novel therapies, multiple stakeholders have been considering the question of "What makes I-O transformative?" Evaluating the distinct features and attributes of these therapies, and better characterizing how patients experience them, will inform such assessments. This paper defines ways in which treatment with I-O is different from other therapies. It also proposes key aspects and attributes of I-O therapies that should be considered in any assessment of their value and seeks to address evidence gaps in existing value frameworks given the unique properties of patient outcomes with I-O therapy. The paper concludes with a "data needs catalogue" (DNC) predicated on the belief that multiple key, unique elements that are necessary to fully characterize the value of I-O therapies are not routinely or robustly measured in current clinical practice or reimbursement databases and are infrequently captured in existing research studies. A better characterization of the benefit of I-O treatment will allow a more thorough assessment of its benefits and provide a template for the design and prioritization of future clinical trials and a roadmap for healthcare insurers to optimize coverage for patients with cancers eligible for I-O therapy.

Patient-Centered Cancer Drug Development: Clinical Trials, Regulatory Approval, and Value Assessment

Historically, patient experience, including symptomatic toxicities, physical function, and disease-related symptoms during treatment or their perspectives on clinical trials, has played a secondary role in cancer drug development. Regulatory criteria for drug approval require that drugs are safe and effective, and almost all drug approvals have been based only on efficacy endpoints rather than on quality-of-life (QoL) assessments. In contrast to Europe, information regarding the impact of drugs on patients' QoL is rarely included in oncology drug labeling in the United States. Until recently, patient input and preferences have not been incorporated into the design and conduct of clinical trials. In recent years, a more in-depth understanding of cancer biology, as well as regulatory changes focused on expediting cancer drug development and approval, has allowed earlier access to novel therapeutic agents. Understanding the implications of these expedited programs is important for oncologists and patients, given the rapid expansion of these programs. In this article, we provide an overview of the role of QoL in the regulatory drug-approval process, key issues regarding trial participation from the patient perspective, and the implications of key expedited approval programs that are increasingly being used by regulatory bodies for cancer care.

Understanding patients' values and preferences regarding early stage lung cancer treatment decision making

INTRODUCTION

With advances in treatments among patients with lung cancer, it is increasingly important to understand patients' values and preferences to facilitate shared decision making.

METHODS

Prospective, multicenter study of patients with treated stage I lung cancer. At the time of study participation, participants were 4-6 months posttreatment. Value clarification and discrete choice methods were used to elicit participants' values and treatment preferences regarding stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and surgical resection using only treatment attributes.

RESULTS

Among 114 participants, mean age was 70 years (Standard Deviation = 7.9), 65% were male, 68 (60%) received SBRT and 46 (40%) received surgery. More participants valued independence and quality of life (QOL) as "most important" compared to survival or cancer recurrence. Most participants (83%) were willing to accept lung cancer treatment with a 2% chance of periprocedural death for only one additional year of life. Participants also valued independence more than additional years of life as most (86%) were unwilling to accept either permanent placement in a nursing home or being limited to a bed/chair for four additional years of life. Surprisingly, treatment discordance was common as 49% of participants preferred the alternative lung cancer treatment than what they received.

CONCLUSIONS

Among participants with early stage lung cancer, maintaining independence and QOL were more highly valued than survival or cancer recurrence. Participants were willing to accept high periprocedural mortality, but not severe deficits affecting QOL when considering treatment. Treatment discordance was common among participants who received SBRT or surgery. Understanding patients' values and preferences regarding treatment decisions is essential to foster shared decision making and ensure treatment plans are consistent with patients' goals. Clinicians need more resources to engage in high quality communication during lung cancer treatment discussions.

Comparison between different instruments for measuring health-related quality of life in a population sample, the WHO MONICA Project, Gothenburg, Sweden: an observational, cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

The general aim was to meet the need for empirical comparative studies of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessment instruments, by evaluating and comparing the psychometric properties and results of three different, widely used, generic HRQoL instruments in a population sample. The specific aims were to evaluate the subscales of the different instruments that measure the same domain and to assess the association between the HRQoL measures and a single-item self-rated health scale.

DESIGN

An observational cross-sectional study.

SETTING

A population-based sample from Gothenburg, Sweden, was studied in 2008 in the WHO MONItoring of trends and determinants for CArdiovascular disease.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 414 subjects were included, 77% women, age range 39-78 years.

INTERVENTIONS

The Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), the Short Form-36 questionnaire (SF-36), the Psychological General Well-Being Index (PGWB) and a self-rated health scale were used.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Scores were analysed for their psychometric properties, internal consistency (Cronbach's α), construct validity (Spearman's rank correlations and R2 coefficients) and discriminative ability for the presence of self-rated ill-health.

RESULTS

PGWB and SF-36 had higher Cronbach's α scores than NHP. All correlations calculated between the subscales that were conceptually similar were significant (p<0.01). All subscales could differentiate the presence of self-rated ill-health according to the self-rated health scale (p<0.001). The self-rated health scale correlated strongly with all of the three HRQoL instruments used.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a high concordance between the instruments within each domain that was conceptually similar. All three HRQoL instruments (PGWB, SF-36 and NHP) could discriminate the presence of self-rated ill-health. The simple and quick self-rated health scale correlated strongly with the more time-consuming PGWB, SF-36 and NHP. The result supports the existence of a strong association between the self-rated health scale and HRQoL in the general population.