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

The Prescription Drug User Fee Act: Much More Than User Fees

BACKGROUND

The Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) is due for reauthorization in 2022. Beyond creating the user fee program which now generates a majority of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Human Drugs Program budget, PDUFA has made numerous additional changes to FDA policy during its 29-year history. FDA's budgetary dependence on user fees may advantage the industry in negotiating favorable policy changes through PDUFA.

METHODS

The full texts of all prior PDUFA reauthorization bills and all submitted public comments and meeting minutes for the 2022 reauthorization were reviewed. Provisions affecting FDA regulatory authority and processes were identified.

FINDINGS

PDUFA legislation has instituted a broad range of changes to FDA policy, including evidentiary standards for drug approval, accelerated pathways for approval, industry involvement in FDA decision-making, rules regarding industry information dissemination to providers, and market entry of generic drugs. Negotiations over the 2022 reauthorization suggest that industry priorities include increased application of real-world evidence, regulatory certainty, and increased communication between FDA and industry during the drug application process.

CONCLUSIONS

The need for PDUFA reauthorization every 5 years has created a recurring legislative vehicle through which far-ranging changes to FDA have been enacted, reshaping the agency's interactions and relationship with the regulated industry. The majority of policy changes enacted through PDUFA legislation have favored industry through decreasing regulatory standards, shortening approval times, and increasing industry involvement in FDA decision-making. FDA's budgetary dependence on the industry, the urgency of each PDUFA reauthorization's passage to maintain uninterrupted funding, and the industry's required participation in PDUFA negotiations may advantage the industry.

Health-related quality of life in cancer immunotherapy: a systematic perspective, using causal loop diagrams

Purpose

System science offers a unique set of tools, including causal loop diagrams (CLDs), for stakeholders to better grasp the complexity of factors surrounding quality of life. Because the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of cancer immunotherapy patients exists within an intricate system affected by and affecting many factors across multiple dimensions, the development of a systems-level model can provide a powerful framework to aid the understanding of this complexity. We developed a CLD for HRQoL of cancer immunotherapy patients.

Methods

We first applied a literature-based approach to construct a CLD for patients following immunotherapy. We then iteratively reviewed and enhanced the CLD through interviews with subject matter experts.

Results

Based on the reviewed literature and subject matter expert input, we produced a CLD representing the system surrounding cancer immunotherapy patients’ HRQoL. Several feedback loops are identified that span clinical experiences, oncology teams’ perceptions about immunotherapy, social support structures, and further research and development in cancer immunotherapy, in addition to other components. The CLD enables visualization of thought experiments regarding how a change anywhere in the system can ultimately worsen or improve patients’ HRQoL.

Conclusion

The CLD illustrates the valuable contribution of a systems perspective to quality-of-life research. This systems-based qualitative representation gives insight on strategies to inhibit harmful effects, enhance beneficial effects, and inherent tradeoffs within the system. The CLD identifies gaps in the literature and offers a communication tool for diverse stakeholders. Our research method provides an example for studying the complexities of quality of life in other health domains.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11136-022-03110-5.

Chronic Cardiotoxicity Assays Using Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived Cardiomyocytes (hiPSC-CMs)

Cardiomyocytes (CMs) differentiated from human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) are increasingly used in cardiac safety assessment, disease modeling and regenerative medicine. A vast majority of cardiotoxicity studies in the past have tested acute effects of compounds and drugs; however, these studies lack information on the morphological or physiological responses that may occur after prolonged exposure to a cardiotoxic compound. In this review, we focus on recent advances in chronic cardiotoxicity assays using hiPSC-CMs. We summarize recently published literature on hiPSC-CMs assays applied to chronic cardiotoxicity induced by anticancer agents, as well as non-cancer classes of drugs, including antibiotics, anti-hepatitis C virus (HCV) and antidiabetic drugs. We then review publications on the implementation of hiPSC-CMs-based assays to investigate the effects of non-pharmaceutical cardiotoxicants, such as environmental chemicals or chronic alcohol consumption. We also highlight studies demonstrating the chronic effects of smoking and implementation of hiPSC-CMs to perform genomic screens and metabolomics-based biomarker assay development. The acceptance and wide implementation of hiPSC-CMs-based assays for chronic cardiotoxicity assessment will require multi-site standardization of assay protocols, chronic cardiac maturity marker reproducibility, time points optimization, minimal cellular variation (commercial vs. lab reprogrammed), stringent and matched controls and close clinical setting resemblance. A comprehensive investigation of long-term repeated exposure-induced effects on both the structure and function of cardiomyocytes can provide mechanistic insights and recapitulate drug and environmental cardiotoxicity.

New Drug Postmarketing Requirements and Commitments in the US: A Systematic Review of the Evidence

INTRODUCTION

After the approval of a new drug, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may issue postmarketing requirements (PMRs), studies that the law requires manufacturers to conduct for drugs approved under certain conditions, and postmarketing commitments (PMCs), studies that the FDA and manufacturers agree should be conducted as a condition of approval.

OBJECTIVE

With regulators' increasing reliance on gathering important evidence after initial product approval, we sought to assess the track record of PMRs and PMCs by synthesizing information about postmarketing study completion rates, timeliness, study types, and results reporting.

METHODS

A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted. Studies published in academic journals or government reports that reported original data about the characteristics of PMRs or PMCs were included. Studies of post-approval trial mandates issued by regulators outside the USA were excluded, as were those that addressed post-approval research without mentioning either PMCs or PMRs or a specific approval pathway associated with statutorily required PMRs. Two investigators independently screened and extracted data from studies and reports. Data sources included the Federal Register from 2003 to 2020, FDA backlog reviews from 2008 to 2020, PubMed from January 2006 to April 2021, and the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) database for reports from January 2006 to April 2021. PMR/PMC characteristics (e.g., completion rates, timeliness, results reporting, outcomes) were not meta-analyzed due to the heterogeneity in study designs.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven peer-reviewed articles from PubMed, five GAO reports, 17 annual Federal Register notices, and 12 annual backlog reviews were included. Among the 27 studies, 13 reviewed PMRs and PMCs, one reviewed only PMCs, and 13 reviewed only PMRs. A majority of new drugs were approved with at least one PMR or PMC. PMCs were completed at higher rates than PMRs, although delays were common and neither was found to be completed more than two-thirds of the time. Over two-thirds of PMRs and PMCs reported their findings in publications and trial registries. Over half of PMCs and PMRs produced novel information for clinical practice or leading to regulatory action, such as confirmation of benefit or a labeling change.

CONCLUSION

PMRs and PMCs are common for new drugs and can lead to worthwhile outcomes, but are often delayed or incomplete. Greater attention is needed to timely completion, improving transparency of findings, and ensuring that PMRs and PMCs produce optimally useful information for prescribers and patients.

Two views of cancer medicines: Imagery versus evidence

Despite advertising imagery portraying cancer medicines as offering substantial improvement or cure, most patients can expect modest or no incremental benefit from most new treatments, according to pre-specified criteria. When improvements in overall survival are demonstrated, they average just 2.1 months. Despite limited benefits, drug prices have risen while median household incomes have remained largely unchanged, and these higher prices are poorly correlated with improved outcomes. Better alignment of perception with demonstrated drug benefit could be achieved by limitations on advertising and improved labeling or other disclosures. Reforms are also needed to remove financial incentives to prescribe costlier drugs.

Differential frequency in imaging-based outcome measurement: Bias in real-world oncology comparative-effectiveness studies

BACKGROUND

Comparative-effectiveness studies using real-world data (RWD) can be susceptible to surveillance bias. In solid tumor oncology studies, analyses of endpoints such as progression-free survival (PFS) are based on progression events detected by imaging assessments. This study aimed to evaluate the potential bias introduced by differential imaging assessment frequency when using electronic health record (EHR)-derived data to investigate the comparative effectiveness of cancer therapies.

METHODS

Using a nationwide de-identified EHR-derived database, we first analyzed imaging assessment frequency patterns in patients diagnosed with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). We used those RWD inputs to develop a discrete event simulation model of two treatments where disease progression was the outcome and PFS was the endpoint. Using this model, we induced bias with differential imaging assessment timing and quantified its effect on observed versus true treatment effectiveness. We assessed percent bias in the estimated hazard ratio (HR).

RESULTS

The frequency of assessments differed by cancer treatment types. In simulated comparative-effectiveness studies, PFS HRs estimated using real-world imaging assessment frequencies differed from the true HR by less than 10% in all scenarios (range: 0.4% to -9.6%). The greatest risk of biased effect estimates was found comparing treatments with widely different imaging frequencies, most exaggerated in disease settings where time to progression is very short.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided evidence that the frequency of imaging assessments to detect disease progression can differ by treatment type in real-world patients with cancer and may induce some bias in comparative-effectiveness studies in some situations.

Objective Response Predicts Survival in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma treated with Systemic Therapies

PURPOSE

Due to the increased number of sequential treatments used for advanced HCC, there is a need for surrogate endpoints of overall survival (OS). We analyze if objective response (OR) is an independent predictor and surrogate endpoint of OS.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

A systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in advanced HCC published between 2010 and 2020 was conducted to explore OS surrogacy of OR by RECIST and mRECIST. In parallel, RCTs exploring the impact of OR on OS in a time-dependent multivariate analysis were integrated in a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Out of 65 RCTs identified in advanced HCC, we analyzed 34 studies including 14,056 patients that reported OS and OR by either RECIST (n=23), mRECIST (n=5) or both (n=6). When exploring surrogacy, the trial-level correlation between OR odds ratio and OS hazard ratio was R=0.677 by mRECIST and R=0.532 by RECIST. Meta-analysis of five RCT assessing predictors of survival in multivariate analysis found that patients with OR by mRECIST presented a pooled HR for OS of 0.44 (95% CI, 0.27-0.70, p<0.001) compared with non-responders. Responses to atezolizumab-bevacizumab had a greater impact on OS than tyrosine-kinase inhibitor responses.

CONCLUSIONS

OR-mRECIST is an independent predictor of OS in patients with advanced HCC. Although correlation of OR-mRECIST and OS is better than with OR-RECIST, the level of surrogacy is modest. Thus, it can be used as endpoint in proof-of-concept phase II trials, but the data does not support its use as a primary endpoint of phase III investigations assessing systemic therapies.

Real-world Use of and Spending on New Oral Targeted Cancer Drugs in the US, 2011-2018

Importance

Launch prices of new cancer drugs in the US have substantially increased in recent years despite growing concerns about the quantity and quality of evidence supporting their approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Objective

To assess the use of and spending on new oral targeted cancer drugs among US residents with employer-sponsored insurance between 2011 and 2018, stratified by the strength of available evidence of benefit.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional study, dispensing claims for oral targeted cancer drugs first approved by the FDA between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2018, were analyzed. The number of patients with drugs dispensed and the total payment for all claims were aggregated by calendar year, and these outcomes were arrayed according to evidence underlying FDA approvals, including pivotal study design (availability of randomized clinical trials) and overall survival (OS) benefit, as documented in drug labels. This study was conducted from July 17, 2019, to July 23, 2021.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Annual and cumulative numbers of patients who had dispensing events, and annual and cumulative sums of payment for eligible drugs.

Results

Of 37 348 patients who had at least 1 of the 44 new oral targeted drugs dispensed between 2011 and 2018, 21 324 were men (57.1%); mean (SD) age was 64.1 (13.1) years. Most individuals (36 246 [97.0%]) received drugs for which evidence from randomized clinical trials existed; however, a growing share of patients received drugs without documented OS benefit during the study period: from 12.7% in 2011 to 58.8% in 2018. Cumulative spending on all sample drugs totaled $3.5 billion by the end of 2018, of which 96.8% was spent on drugs that were approved based on a pivotal randomized clinical trial. Cumulative spending on drugs without documented OS benefit ($1.8 billion [51.6%]) surpassed that on drugs with documented OS benefit ($1.7 billion [48.4%]) by the end of 2018.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that drugs used for treatment of cancer without documented OS benefits are adopted in the health system and account for substantial spending.

Incorporating circulating tumor DNA detection to radiographic assessment for treatment response in advanced EGFR-mutant lung cancer

PURPOSE

Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) has limitations but remains the conventional approach for tumor assessments. We explored whether circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can be incorporated into RECIST to provide a more robust measure of tumor response in advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In FASTACT-2, patients with advanced NSCLC received platinum/gemcitabine intercalated with erlotinib or placebo. EGFR mutation (tumor and plasma ctDNA) was detected using cobas v2. Patients selected for this hypothesis-generating analysis had EGFR mutations (on either tumor or plasma) at baseline and evaluable week 8 plasma EGFR. Week 8 ctDNA and radiologic response status were correlated with survival using landmark cox regression analyses.

RESULTS

Of the original 451 patients, 86 (19.1%) were eligible for this analysis. 73% (n = 63) had detectable ctDNA at baseline. At week 8, 40% (n = 34) had radiologic partial response (PR), 60% (n = 52) had stable disease (SD); 80% (n = 69) had a ctDNA response (undetectable ctDNA). In patients who had initial PR and undetectable ctDNA, 93% (28/30) had ongoing PR subsequently at week 16. The median duration of response was 14.9 months. In patients with SD and undetectable ctDNA at week 8, 28% had radiological PR at week 16. Amongst those with PR at week 8, survival outcomes for those with undetectable vs detectable ctDNA were not statistically significant (PFS HR 0.49, 95%CI 0.16-1.48, p = 0.21; OS HR 0.39, 95%CI 0.13-1.19, p = 0.10). Amongst those with SD at week 8, there was significantly longer survival for those with undetectable vs detectable ctDNA (PFS HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.13-0.57, p < 0.0001; OS HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20-0.80, p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

In patients with SD, undetectable ctDNA at week 8 correlated with survival improvement. Both radiologic and ctDNA responses are prognostic of PFS. Incorporation of ctDNA with RECIST may improve tumor response assessment in EGFR-mutant NSCLC.

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.

Manufacturers' views on outcome-based agreements

INTRODUCTION

Outcome-based agreements (OBAs) are occasionally deployed to relieve the burden of high drug prices on healthcare budgets. However, it is not clear when manufacturers are willing to collaborate in establishing such agreements. Therefore, we explored the feasibility of OBAs from the manufacturer's point of view.

METHODS

Dutch market-access experts from eight major pharmaceutical companies, globally active in the field of oncology, were interviewed. Opinions were compiled, and interviewees and their colleagues were then given the chance to review the manuscript for additional comments.

RESULTS

Most interviewees believe that OBAs can be useful in providing access to off-label use of authorised medicines, especially when no alternative treatment is available for seriously ill patients. For the licenced indications, manufacturers seem to be more inclined to collaborate when there is a potential incentive to improve market-access (e.g., if the product is not used because of concerns regarding its effectiveness). However, manufacturers are less likely to collaborate when there are greater financial risks for the company. Further concerns were definition of outcome or performance, the impact of compliance on the effectiveness of a drug, administrative burden, uncertainty regarding revenue recognition and the challenges of reimbursing combination therapies.

DISCUSSION

Market-access interviewees were generally positive about OBAs, however they were more reluctant towards OBAs for registered indications with low response-rate. The definition of performance or outcome and its clinical relevance and validity, the feasibility of OBAs and their administrative burden are relevant aspects that need to be addressed in advance. Ideally, countries should collaborate to share the outline of OBAs and create shared databases to accumulate evidence.

The Porto European Cancer Research Summit 2021

Key stakeholders from the cancer research continuum met in May 2021 at the European Cancer Research Summit in Porto to discuss priorities and specific action points required for the successful implementation of the European Cancer Mission and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan (EBCP). Speakers presented a unified view about the need to establish high-quality, networked infrastructures to decrease cancer incidence, increase the cure rate, improve patient's survival and quality of life, and deal with research and care inequalities across the European Union (EU). These infrastructures, featuring Comprehensive Cancer Centres (CCCs) as key components, will integrate care, prevention and research across the entire cancer continuum to support the development of personalized/precision cancer medicine in Europe. The three pillars of the recommended European infrastructures - namely translational research, clinical/prevention trials and outcomes research - were pondered at length. Speakers addressing the future needs of translational research focused on the prospects of multiomics assisted preclinical research, progress in Molecular and Digital Pathology, immunotherapy, liquid biopsy and science data. The clinical/prevention trial session presented the requirements for next-generation, multicentric trials entailing unified strategies for patient stratification, imaging, and biospecimen acquisition and storage. The third session highlighted the need for establishing outcomes research infrastructures to cover primary prevention, early detection, clinical effectiveness of innovations, health-related quality-of-life assessment, survivorship research and health economics. An important outcome of the Summit was the presentation of the Porto Declaration, which called for a collective and committed action throughout Europe to develop the cancer research infrastructures indispensable for fostering innovation and decreasing inequalities within and between member states. Moreover, the Summit guidelines will assist decision making in the context of a unique EU-wide cancer initiative that, if expertly implemented, will decrease the cancer death toll and improve the quality of life of those confronted with cancer, and this is carried out at an affordable cost.

A Computational Framework to Identify Transcriptional and Network Differences between Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Normal Liver Tissue and Their Applications in Repositioning Drugs

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common and lethal malignancies worldwide. Although there have been extensive studies on the molecular mechanisms of its carcinogenesis, FDA-approved drugs for HCC are rare. Side effects, development time, and cost of these drugs are the major bottlenecks, which can be partially overcome by drug repositioning. In this study, we developed a computational framework to study the mechanisms of HCC carcinogenesis, in which drug perturbation-induced gene expression signatures were utilized for repositioning of potential drugs. Specifically, we first performed differential expression analysis and coexpression network module analysis on the HCC dataset from The Cancer Genome Atlas database. Differential gene expression analysis identified 1,337 differentially expressed genes between HCC and adjacent normal tissues, which were significantly enriched in functions related to various pathways, including α-adrenergic receptor activity pathway and epinephrine binding pathway. Weighted gene correlation network analysis (WGCNA) suggested that the number of coexpression modules was higher in HCC tissues than in normal tissues. Finally, by correlating differentially expressed genes with drug perturbation-related signatures, we prioritized a few potential drugs, including nutlin and eribulin, for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. The drugs have been reported by a few experimental studies to be effective in killing cancer cells.

The Role of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Patient-Centered Cancer Care in the Era of Precision Medicine

Over the last few decades, changes in diagnostic and treatment paradigms have greatly advanced cancer care and improved outcomes [...].

Large-scale pharmacogenomic studies and drug response prediction for personalized cancer medicine

The response rate of most anti-cancer drugs is limited because of the high heterogeneity of cancer and the complex mechanism of drug action. Personalized treatment that stratifies patients into subgroups using molecular biomarkers is promising to improve clinical benefit. With the accumulation of preclinical models and advances in computational approaches of drug response prediction, pharmacogenomics has made great success over the last 20 years and is increasingly used in the clinical practice of personalized cancer medicine. In this article, we first summarize FDA-approved pharmacogenomic biomarkers and large-scale pharmacogenomic studies of preclinical cancer models such as patient-derived cell lines, organoids, and xenografts. Furthermore, we comprehensively review the recent developments of computational methods in drug response prediction, covering network, machine learning, and deep learning technologies and strategies to evaluate immunotherapy response. In the end, we discuss challenges and propose possible solutions for further improvement.

Future of biomarker evaluation in the realm of artificial intelligence algorithms: application in improved therapeutic stratification of patients with breast and prostate cancer

Clinical workflows in oncology depend on predictive and prognostic biomarkers. However, the growing number of complex biomarkers contributes to costly and delayed decision-making in routine oncology care and treatment. As cancer is expected to rank as the leading cause of death and the single most important barrier to increasing life expectancy in the 21st century, there is a major emphasis on precision medicine, particularly individualisation of treatment through better prediction of patient outcome. Over the past few years, both surgical and pathology specialties have suffered cutbacks and a low uptake of pathology specialists means a solution is required to enable high-throughput screening and personalised treatment in this area to alleviate bottlenecks. Digital imaging in pathology has undergone an exponential period of growth. Deep-learning (DL) platforms for hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) image analysis, with preliminary artificial intelligence (AI)-based grading capabilities of specimens, can evaluate image characteristics which may not be visually apparent to a pathologist and offer new possibilities for better modelling of disease appearance and possibly improve the prediction of disease stage and patient outcome. Although digital pathology and AI are still emerging areas, they are the critical components for advancing personalised medicine. Integration of transcriptomic analysis, clinical information and AI-based image analysis is yet an uncultivated field by which healthcare professionals can make improved treatment decisions in cancer. This short review describes the potential application of integrative AI in offering better detection, quantification, classification, prognosis and prediction of breast and prostate cancer and also highlights the utilisation of machine learning systems in biomarker evaluation.

Methods and Designs of Modern Breast Cancer Confirmatory Trials

Simple Summary

The benefit–risk assessments of new drugs for breast cancer (BC) face several challenges, as all stakeholders do not agree on the evidence bar required for market authorization, and by the fragmentation of breast cancer diagnosis. In this study, we describe the methods and designs of breast cancer confirmatory trials published between 2001 and 2020. We found that the quality of the evidence supporting new breast cancer drugs was improving over time, but that patient-relevant endpoints such as survival and quality of life remained unfrequently used as primary endpoints.

Abstract

Background: The benefit–risk assessments of new drugs for breast cancer (BC) face several challenges, as all stakeholders do not agree on the evidence bar required for market authorization, and by the fragmentation of breast cancer diagnosis. The aim of this study was to describe the changes in methods and designs of breast cancer confirmatory trials. Methods: All phase III randomized trials published between 2001 and 2020 and assessing systemic BC therapies were included. Trials’ main characteristics, endpoints, and statistical methods were collected using a standardized data extraction form. Results: A total of 347 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria. While most older trials (79%) included all subtypes of breast cancer, most recent trials populations were limited to one large intrinsic BC subgroup (69%). The use of gatekeeping testing strategies increased dramatically from 9% to 71%. The use of overall survival (OS) as an endpoint in the trials increased over time, but its use as a primary endpoint remained infrequent. The inclusion of OS testing in a hierarchical sequence in case of positive testing of a tumor-centered or composite endpoint appeared to have become the new standard. Conclusion: Our findings indicate some improvements in the quality of the evidence-base supporting new breast cancer drugs. The rigorous assessment of patient-relevant endpoints has increased over time, but this improvement is mainly related to the analysis of OS as a secondary endpoint analyzed in a hierarchical sequence.

Utilization of the Cancer Medications Enquiry Database (CanMED)-National Drug Codes (NDC): Assessment of Systemic Breast Cancer Treatment Patterns

Cancer Medications Enquiry Database (CanMED) is comprised of two interactive, nomenclature-specific databases within the Observational Research in Oncology Toolbox: CanMED-Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) and CanMED-National Drug Code (NDC), described through this study. CanMED includes medications with a) a US Food and Drug Administration-approved cancer treatment or treatment-related symptom management indication, b) inclusion in treatment guidelines, or c) an orphan drug designation. To demonstrate the joint utility of CanMED, medication codes associated with female breast cancer treatment were identified and utilization patterns were assessed within Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare (SEER) data. CanMED-NDC (11_2018 v.1.2.4) includes 6860 NDC codes: chemotherapy (1870), immunotherapy (164), hormone therapy (3074), and ancillary therapy (1752). Treatment patterns among stage I-IIIA (20 701) and stage IIIB-IV (2381) breast cancer patients were accordant with guideline-recommended treatment by stage and molecular subtype. CanMED facilitates identification of medications from observational data (eg, claims and electronic health records), promoting more standardized and efficient treatment-related cancer research.

[Assessment of Brazilian clinical guidelines in oncology: gaps in drafting, applicability, and editorial independence]

The expansion in the variety of clinical guidelines in oncology is perceptible worldwide, highlighting the need to guarantee the quality of these documents. The study thus aimed to assess the quality of Brazilian national guidelines for treatments of breast, prostate, and colon and rectal cancers. We selected 12 Brazilian guidelines published by four different drafting groups (Ministry of Health, Supplementary Health System, and medical societies and associations), and the AGREE II instrument was applied. In all these guidelines, we identified important weaknesses in more than one Domain, especially low values for "applicability" and "editorial independence". The patterns observed per Domains are more related to the drafting group than the respective clinical conditions. Lower scores in "drafting rigor" and "editorial independence" were obtained by nongovernmental drafting groups, including absence of information or lack of its transparency. Although the "clarity of presentation" in the Ministry of Health guidelines was relatively lower, all the guidelines presented major limitations in "applicability". Consequently, in the overall assessment, none of the guidelines was recommended without modifications, and four were not recommended at all. Finally, it is necessary to upgrade the guidelines according to the underlying evidence ("methodological rigor") and to present the recommended practices in a comprehensible and applicable way ("applicability"), and to mitigate conflicting interests in order to offer cancer patients the best available care in Brazil.

Early ctDNA response to chemotherapy. A potential surrogate marker for overall survival

AIM

The aim of the study was to compare ctDNA response rate and objective response rate as surrogate markers for overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic cancer treated with chemotherapy.

METHODS

The study included 420 patients distributed in five cohorts with colorectal, ovarian, and non-small cell lung cancer. It represents a retrospective analysis of patients enrolled in prospective biomarker studies and clinical trials. All patients had ctDNA measured before start of treatment and at the first evaluation of objective response. ctDNA response rate was defined as the fraction of patients converting from a measurable level at baseline to an unmeasurable level at the first evaluation of objective response. Aberrant, tumour specific, methylated DNA was measured in plasma. The method involves DNA isolation, bisulphite conversion and droplet digital PCR. The primary outcome measure was the correlation between ctDNA response rate, overall response rate (ORR) and median survival.

RESULTS

There was moderate correlation between ctDNA response rate and objective response at first evaluation (R² = 0.68). The same applied to ctDNA response rate and ORR (R² = 0.57). ctDNA held prognostic information in all the investigated tumour types (p < 0.05). There was a high correlation between ctDNA response and median survival across the included tumour types and treatments (R² = 0.99) clearly outperforming both response at first evaluation and ORR (R² = 0.70 and 0.57, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that ctDNA response might serve as a surrogate marker for OS. If validated, it may have great implications on the approval of new drugs.

Regulatory reliance to approve new medicinal products in Latin American and Caribbean countries

Objective.

To describe the current status of regulatory reliance in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) by assessing the countries’ regulatory frameworks to approve new medicines, and to ascertain, for each country, which foreign regulators are considered as trusted regulatory authorities to rely on.

Methods.

Websites from LAC regulators were searched to identify the official regulations to approve new drugs. Data collection was carried out in December 2019 and completed in June 2020 for the Caribbean countries. Two independent teams collected information regarding direct recognition or abbreviated processes to approve new drugs and the reference (trusted) regulators defined as such by the corresponding national legislation.

Results.

Regulatory documents regarding marketing authorization were found in 20 LAC regulators’ websites, covering 34 countries. Seven countries do not accept reliance on foreign regulators. Thirteen regulatory authorities (Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and the unique Caribbean Regulatory System for 15 Caribbean States) explicitly accept relying on marketing authorizations issued by the European Medicines Agency, United States Food and Drug Administration, and Health Canada. Ten countries rely also on marketing authorizations from Australia, Japan, and Switzerland. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico are reference authorities for eight LAC regulators.

Conclusions.

Regulatory reliance has become a common practice in the LAC region. Thirteen out of 20 regulators directly recognize or abbreviate the marketing authorization process in case of earlier approval by a regulator from another jurisdiction. The regulators most relied upon are the European Medicines Agency, United States Food and Drug Administration, and Health Canada.

Characterization of a Real-World Response Variable and Comparison with RECIST-Based Response Rates from Clinical Trials in Advanced NSCLC

INTRODUCTION

Effectiveness metrics for real-word research, analogous to clinical trial ones, are needed. This study aimed to develop a real-world response (rwR) variable applicable to solid tumors and to evaluate its clinical relevance and meaningfulness.

METHODS

This retrospective study used patient cohorts with advanced non-small cell lung cancer from a nationwide, de-identified electronic health record (EHR)-derived database. Disease burden information abstracted manually was classified into response categories anchored to discrete therapy lines (per patient-line). In part 1, we quantified the feasibility and reliability of data capture, and estimated the association between rwR status and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and real-world overall survival (rwOS). In part 2, we investigated the correlation between published clinical trial overall response rates (ORRs) and real-world response rates (rwRRs) from corresponding real-world patient cohorts.

RESULTS

In part 1, 85.4% of patients (N = 3248) had  at least one radiographic assessment documented. Median abstraction time per patient-line was 15.0 min (IQR 7.8-28.1). Inter-abstractor agreement on presence/absence of at least one assessment was 0.94 (95% CI 0.92-0.96; n = 503 patient-lines abstracted in duplicate); inter-abstractor agreement on best confirmed response category was 0.82 (95% CI 0.78-0.86; n = 384 with at least one captured assessment). Confirmed responders at a 3-month landmark showed significantly lower risk of death and progression in rwOS and rwPFS analyses across all line settings. In part 2, rwRRs (from 12 rw cohorts) showed a high correlation with trial ORRs (Spearman's ρ = 0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a rwR variable generated from clinician assessments documented in EHRs following radiographic evaluations. This variable provides clinically meaningful information and may provide a real-world measure of treatment effectiveness.

Clinical Trial Design and Drug Approval in Oncology: A Primer for the Advanced Practitioner in Oncology

Evidenced-based practice requires timely and accurate integration of scientific advances. This presents a challenge for the oncology clinician given the robust pace of scientific discovery and the increasing number of new drug approvals and expanded indications for previously approved drugs. All currently available antineoplastic therapies have been developed through the clinical trials process. Advanced practitioners (APs) in oncology are often involved in the conduct of clinical trials as primary investigators, sub-investigators, study coordinators, or in the delivery and monitoring of care to patients enrolled in these trials. A prerequisite to evidenced-based practice is understanding how clinical trials are conducted and how to critically analyze published results of studies leading to U.S. Food & Drug Administration approval. Any AP involved in the clinical management and supportive care of patients receiving antineoplastic therapies should be able to critically review published data to glean findings that warrant a change in practice. The goals of this manuscript are to summarize key elements of the clinical trial process for oncology drug development and approval in the United States and to provide a primer for the interpretation of clinical data.

Efficacy evaluation of anticancer agents in single-arm clinical trials: analysis of review reports from Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency

BACKGROUND

Comparative studies often cannot be conducted for cancer types with a small patient population. We reviewed the efficacy evaluations of new drug approvals in Japan based on the results of single-arm clinical trials.

METHODS

We reviewed review reports on anticancer agents approved in Japan between 2006 and 2019 that are publicly available on the website of the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, Japan.

RESULTS

The number of single-arm trial-based approvals increased, with a total of 43 drugs approved during the study period. Compared with comparative trial-based approvals, single-arm trial-based approvals had a tendency toward more biomarker-related indications (37.2% vs 22.6%, p = .053), as well as more approvals for hematological malignancies, orphan designation, and response-related outcomes as the primary endpoint. Only 13 of the pivotal trials of single-arm trial-based approvals had a predefined threshold for efficacy based on the same target population as the pivotal trial, and nearly half of the trials did not have an appropriate predefined threshold for efficacy. In particular, the efficacy thresholds for clinical trials for 4 molecular targeted agents were set based on the results of the nonbiomarker-selected population.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on standard cancer therapies for rare molecular subtypes is lacking. External control data from registries might support the efficacy evaluations of new drugs for newly established rare molecular subtypes.

Clinical Trial Evidence Supporting US Food and Drug Administration Approval of Novel Cancer Therapies Between 2000 and 2016

IMPORTANCE

Clinical trial evidence used to support drug approval is typically the only information on benefits and harms that patients and clinicians can use for decision-making when novel cancer therapies become available. Various evaluations have raised concern about the uncertainty surrounding these data, and a systematic investigation of the available information on treatment outcomes for cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warranted.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the clinical trial data available on treatment outcomes at the time of FDA approval of all novel cancer drugs approved for the first time between 2000 and 2016.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This comparative effectiveness study analyzed randomized clinical trials and single-arm clinical trials of novel drugs approved for the first time to treat any type of cancer. Approval packages were obtained from drugs@FDA, a publicly available database containing information on drug and biologic products approved for human use in the US. Data from January 2000 to December 2016 were included in this study.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Regulatory and clinical trial characteristics were described. For randomized clinical trials, summary treatment outcomes for overall survival, progression-free survival, and tumor response across all therapies were calculated, and median absolute survival increases were estimated. Tumor types and regulatory characteristics were assessed separately.

RESULTS

Between 2000 and 2016, 92 novel cancer drugs were approved by the FDA for 100 indications based on data from 127 clinical trials. The 127 clinical trials included a median of 191 participants (interquartile range [IQR], 106-448 participants). Overall, 65 clinical trials (51.2%) were randomized, and 95 clinical trials (74.8%) were open label. Of 100 indications, 44 indications underwent accelerated approval, 42 indications were for hematological cancers, and 58 indications were for solid tumors. Novel drugs had mean hazard ratios of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73-0.81; I2 = 46%) for overall survival and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.47-0.57; I2 = 88%) for progression-free survival. The median tumor response, expressed as relative risk, was 2.37 (95% CI, 2.00-2.80; I2 = 91%). The median absolute survival benefit was 2.40 months (IQR, 1.25-3.89 months).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, data available at the time of FDA drug approval indicated that novel cancer therapies were associated with substantial tumor responses but with prolonging median overall survival by only 2.40 months. Approval data from 17 years of clinical trials suggested that patients and clinicians typically had limited information available regarding the benefits of novel cancer treatments at market entry.

Outcomes in CME/CPD - Special Collection: How to make the "pyramid" a perpetuum mobile

Continuing medical education (CME) should not be an end in itself, but as expressed in Moore's pyramid, help to improve both individual patient and ultimately community, health. However, there are numerous barriers to translation of physician competence into improvements in community health. To enhance the effect CME may achieve in improving community health the authors suggest a kick-off/keep-on continuum of medical competence, and integration of aspects of public health at all levels from planning to delivery and outcomes measurement in CME.

Getting the Right Evidence After Drug Approval

To generate comparative evidence in a timely fashion for drugs without restricting or delaying access, value-based pricing and reimbursement could be conditioned on a prospective, post-approval evidence generation plan.

Validation of Progression-Free Survival Rate at 6 Months and Objective Response for Estimating Overall Survival in Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 6 months has been proposed as a potential surrogate for overall survival (OS) rate at 12 months for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) trials but requires further assessment for validation.

OBJECTIVE

To validate 6-month PFS and objective response rate (ORR) as estimators of 12-month OS in the ICI arms of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for ICI RCTs published between January 2000 and June 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

Eligible studies were phase 2 and phase 3 ICI RCTs in advanced solid cancers that reported ORR, PFS, and OS. A total of 99 articles (from 60 studies) of 2502 articles were selected by consensus.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were screened and extracted independently. Estimation models for 12-month OS and to assess correlation coefficient between end points were developed using linear regression. Data were extracted in July 2019, and analyses were conducted in September 2019. This study is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Validation of previously reported 6-month PFS and ORR estimation models for 12-month OS using contemporary RCTs. Calibration of 6-month PFS and ORR model-estimated vs observed 12-month OS in ICI arms were assessed by correlation coefficient (r) and weighted Brier scores. Secondary analyses were performed for subgroups (ie, ICI-only, ICI-combination, line of therapy, programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 selected, and unselected).

RESULTS

Data from 60 RCTs with 74 experimental ICI arms were used. The development data set included 25 arms from studies published January 2000 to January 2017. The estimation model for 12-month OS using 6-month PFS was: (1.06 × PFS6) + 0.16 + (0.04 × melanoma) - (0.03 × NSCLC) + (0 × other tumors), in which PFS6 indicates 6-month PFS and NSCLC indicates non-small cell lung cancer. The estimation model for 12-month OS using ORR was (0.15 × ORR) + 0.52 + (0 × melanoma) - (0.02 × NSCLC) - (0.01 × other tumors). A total of 49 arms from studies published after January 2017 to June 2019 formed the validation data set. When the models were applied on the validation data set, calibration between the 6-month PFS model estimated vs observed 12-month OS was good (r = 0.89; Brier score, 0.008), but poor for the ORR model (r = 0.47; Brier score, 0.03). Findings were similar across all subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this study suggest that the estimation model using 6-month PFS could reliably estimate 12-month OS in ICI trials. This study could assist in better selection and prioritization of ICI agents for testing in RCTs based on phase 2 single-arm RCT results.

Non-inferiority trials using a surrogate marker as the primary endpoint: An increasing phenotype in cardiovascular trials

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Non-inferiority trials are increasing in cardiovascular medicine, with approval of many drugs and devices on the basis of such studies. Surrogate markers as primary endpoints have been also more frequently used for efficient assessment of cardiovascular interventions. However, there is uncertainty about their concordance with clinical outcomes. Non-inferiority design using a surrogate marker as a primary endpoint may pose particular challenges in clinical interpretation. We sought to explore the publication trends, methodology, and reporting features of non-inferiority cardiovascular trials that used a primary surrogate marker as the primary endpoint.

METHODS

We searched six high-impact journals (The New England Journal of Medicine, The Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, The Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Circulation, and European Heart Journal) from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 2018 and identified non-inferiority cardiovascular trials that used a surrogate marker as the primary endpoint. We assessed the non-inferiority margin reported in the manuscript and other publicly available platforms (e.g. protocol, clinicaltrials.gov). We also determined whether the included non-inferiority trials with surrogate markers as primary endpoints were followed by clinical outcome trials.

RESULTS

We screened 15,553 publications and identified 247 cardiovascular trials that used a non-inferiority design. Of these, 37 had a surrogate marker as a primary endpoint (18 drug trials, 13 device trials, 6 others). All of these non-inferiority trials with surrogate outcomes were published after 2000, mostly in cardiology journals (13 in The Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 9 in European Heart Journal, 8 in Circulation, 6 in The Lancet, 1 in The New England Journal of Medicine), and their publication rate increased over time (p < 0.001 for linear trend). The median number of patients in the primary analysis was 300 (interquartile range: 202-465). The study protocol or a methods paper was publicly available for only 13 (35.1%) trials, of which the non-inferiority margin was not reported in 4 trials. In 16 studies (43.2%), the manuscript did not acknowledge the limitations of using a surrogate endpoint or the need for a definitive clinical outcome trial. Thirty-four trials (91.9%) concluded that the tested intervention met non-inferiority criteria. However, only five (13.5%) were followed by clinical outcomes trials the results of which did not always confirm non-inferiority.

CONCLUSION

Non-inferiority trials that use a surrogate marker as the primary endpoint are being increasingly performed. However, these trials pose particular challenges with design, reporting, and interpretation, which are not systematically and consistently addressed or reported.

The response rate of alternative treatments for drugs approved on the basis of response rate

We assessed the frequency that oncology drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on a single-arm study when there is already evidence of existing and available treatments. For this, we conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of FDA-approved oncology drugs based on a single-arm study. All FDA announcements for all oncology drugs approved from May 2014 through June 2019 on a single-arm trial were included. We then performed a systematic search in PubMed, looking for studies on other drugs for the same indication as the FDA drug approval. For the 60 indications, we found 38 instances (63%) of existing therapies being used for the same indication. Of those, we found that 20 drugs were approved based upon a response rate lower than response rates of existing therapies in the same indication. Among oncology drugs that were FDA-approved based on a single-arm study, we found evidence of existing, available therapies being used for the same indication as the FDA-approved drug in the majority of indications (63%), and in one-third of all indications, the response rates for existing therapies were numerically better than the FDA-approved drug. These results suggest that there are inconsistencies in the standards set for oncology drug approvals, and many uncontrolled trials leading to drug approvals could have contemporary controls for which equipoise exists.

Defining Undertreatment and Overtreatment in Older Adults With Cancer: A Scoping Literature Review

PURPOSE

The terms undertreatment and overtreatment are often used to describe inappropriate management of older adults with cancer. We conducted a comprehensive scoping review of the literature to clarify the meanings behind the use of the terms.

METHODS

We searched PubMed (National Center for Biotechnology Information), Embase (Elsevier), and CINAHL (EBSCO) for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment or overtreatment with regard to older adults with cancer. We included all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments. Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived through qualitative analysis. Within a random subset of articles, C.D. and K.P.L. independently performed this analysis to determine final categories and then independently assigned these categories to assess inter-rater reliability.

RESULTS

Articles using the terms undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion in our review (n = 256). Only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions; for the remaining, we inferred the implicit definitions from the terms' surrounding context. There was substantial agreement (κ = 0.81) between C.D. and K.P.L. in independently assigning categories of definitions within a random subset of 50 articles. Undertreatment most commonly implied less than recommended therapy (148; 62.7%) or less than recommended therapy associated with worse outcomes (88; 37.3%). Overtreatment most commonly implied intensive treatment of an older adult in whom the harms of treatment outweigh the benefits (38; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect an older adult in his/her remaining lifetime (33; 46.5%).

CONCLUSION

Undertreatment and overtreatment of older adults with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. We propose new, more rigorous definitions that account for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.

Limitations in Clinical Trials Leading to Anticancer Drug Approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration

IMPORTANCE

While there have been multiple assessments of clinical trials leading to anticancer drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the cumulative percentage of approvals based on trials with a limitation remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the percentage of clinical trials with limitations in 4 domains-lack of randomization, lack of significant overall survival advantage, inappropriate use of crossover, and use of suboptimal control arms-that led to FDA approvals from June 30, 2014, to July 31, 2019.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This observational analysis included all anticancer drug indications approved by the FDA from June 30, 2014, through July 31, 2019. All indications were investigated, and each clinical trial was evaluated for design, enrollment period, primary end points, and presence of a limitation in the domains of interest. The standard-of-care therapy was determined by evaluating the literature and published guidelines 1 year prior to the start of clinical trial enrollment. Crossover was examined and evaluated for optimal use. The percentage of approvals based on clinical trials with any or all limitations of interest was then calculated.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Estimated percentage of clinical trials with limitations of interest that led to an anticancer drug marketing authorization by the FDA.

RESULTS

A total of 187 trials leading to 176 approvals for 75 distinct novel anticancer drugs by the FDA were evaluated. Sixty-four (34%) were single-arm clinical trials, and 123 (63%) were randomized clinical trials. A total of 125 (67%) had at least 1 limitation in the domains of interest; 60 of the 125 trials (48%) were randomized clinical trials. Of all 123 randomized clinical trials, 37 (30%) lacked overall survival benefit, 31 (25%) had a suboptimal control, and 17 (14%) used crossover inappropriately.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Two-thirds of cancer drugs are approved based on clinical trials with limitations in at least 1 of 4 essential domains. Efforts to minimize these limitations at the time of clinical trial design are essential to ensure that new anticancer drugs truly improve patient outcomes over current standards.

Comparison of FDA accelerated vs regular pathway approvals for lung cancer treatments between 2006 and 2018

Regulatory agencies around the world have been using flexible requirements for approval of new drugs, especially for cancer drugs. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is mostly the first agency to approve new drugs worldwide, mainly due to the faster terms of the accelerated pathway and breakthrough therapy designation. Surrogate endpoints and preliminary data (e.g. single-arm and phase 2 studies) are used for these new approvals, however larger effect sizes are expected. We aim to compare FDA Accelerated vs Regular Pathway approvals and Breakthrough therapy designations (BTD) for lung cancer treatments between 2006 and 2018 regarding study design, sample size, outcome measures and effect size. We assessed the FDA database to collect data from studies that formed the basis of approvals of new drugs or indications for lung cancer spanning from 2006 to 2018. We found that accelerated pathway approvals are based on significantly more single-arm studies with small sample sizes and surrogate primary endpoints. However, effect size was not different between the pathways. A large proportion of studies used to support regular pathway approvals also showed these characteristics that are related to low quality and uncertain evidence. Compared to other approvals, BTD were more frequently based on single-arm studies. There was no significant difference in use of surrogate endpoints or sample size. 44% of BTD were based on studies demonstrating large effect sizes, proportionally more than approvals not receiving this designation. In conclusion, based on the indicators of evidence quality we extracted, criteria’s for granting accelerated approval and breakthrough therapy designation seen not clear. Faster approvals are in the majority full of uncertainties which should be viewed with caution and the patient have to be communicated to allow shared decision making. Post-marketing validation is essential.

An Electronic Health Record Text Mining Tool to Collect Real-World Drug Treatment Outcomes: A Validation Study in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Real‐world evidence can close the inferential gap between marketing authorization studies and clinical practice. However, the current standard for real‐world data extraction from electronic health records (EHRs) for treatment evaluation is manual review (MR), which is time‐consuming and laborious. Clinical Data Collector (CDC) is a novel natural language processing and text mining software tool for both structured and unstructured EHR data and only shows relevant EHR sections improving efficiency. We investigated CDC as a real‐world data (RWD) collection method, through application of CDC queries for patient inclusion and information extraction on a cohort of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) receiving systemic drug treatment. Baseline patient characteristics, disease characteristics, and treatment outcomes were extracted and these were compared with MR for validation. One hundred patients receiving 175 treatments were included using CDC, which corresponded to 99% with MR. Calculated median overall survival was 21.7 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 18.7–24.8) vs. 21.7 months (95% CI 18.6–24.8) and progression‐free survival 8.9 months (95% CI 5.4–12.4) vs. 7.6 months (95% CI 5.7–9.4) for CDC vs. MR, respectively. Highest F1‐score was found for cancer‐related variables (88.1–100), followed by comorbidities (71.5–90.4) and adverse drug events (53.3–74.5), with most diverse scores on international metastatic RCC database criteria (51.4–100). Mean data collection time was 12 minutes (CDC) vs. 86 minutes (MR). In conclusion, CDC is a promising tool for retrieving RWD from EHRs because the correct patient population can be identified as well as relevant outcome data, such as overall survival and progression‐free survival.

Regenerative medicine regulatory policies: A systematic review and international comparison

BACKGROUND

A small number of regenerative medicines (RMs) have received market authorization (MA) worldwide, relative to the large number of clinical trials currently being conducted. Regulatory issues constitute one major challenge for the MA of RMs.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to systematically review the regulation of RMs internationally, to identify the regulatory pathways for approved RMs, and to detail expedited programs to stimulate MA process.

METHODS

Official websites of regulatory authorities in 9 countries (United States (US), Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, China, and India) and the European Union (EU) were systematically browsed, and was complemented by a systematic literature review in Medline and Embase database.

RESULTS

Specific RM legislation/frameworks were available in the EU, US, Japan, South Korea and Australia. A risk-based approach exempting eligible RMs from MA regulations were adopted in the EU and 6 countries. All investigated regions have established accelerated review or approval programs to facilitate the MA of RMs. 55 RMs have received MA in 9 countries and the EU. Twenty-three RMs received Priority Medicine designation, 32 RMs received Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy designation, and 11 RMs received SAKIGAKE (fore-runner initiative) designation.

CONCLUSION

Regulators have adopted proactive strategies to facilitate RM approval. However, addressing the discrepancies in regulatory requirements internationally remains challenging.

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.

Generating comparative evidence on new drugs and devices before approval

Fewer than half of new drugs have data on their comparative benefits and harms against existing treatment options at the time of regulatory approval in Europe and the USA. Even when active-comparator trials exist, they might not produce meaningful data to inform decisions in clinical practice and health policy. The uncertainty associated with the paucity of well designed active-comparator trials has been compounded by legal and regulatory changes in Europe and the USA that have created a complex mix of expedited programmes aimed at facilitating faster access to new drugs. Comparative evidence generation is even sparser for medical devices. Some have argued that the current process for regulatory approval needs to generate more evidence that is useful for patients, clinicians, and payers in health-care systems. We propose a set of five key principles relevant to the European Medicines Agency, European medical device regulatory agencies, US Food and Drug Administration, as well as payers, that we believe will provide the necessary incentives for pharmaceutical and device companies to generate comparative data on drugs and devices and assure timely availability of evidence that is useful for decision making. First, labelling should routinely inform patients and clinicians whether comparative data exist on new products. Second, regulators should be more selective in their use of programmes that facilitate drug and device approvals on the basis of incomplete benefit and harm data. Third, regulators should encourage the conduct of randomised trials with active comparators. Fourth, regulators should use prospectively designed network meta-analyses based on existing and future randomised trials. Last, payers should use their policy levers and negotiating power to incentivise the generation of comparative evidence on new and existing drugs and devices, for example, by explicitly considering proven added benefit in pricing and payment decisions.

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.

Views of European Drug Development Stakeholders on Treatment Optimization and Its Potential for Use in Decision-Making

Background

The current drug development paradigm has been criticized for being too drug-centered and for not adequately focusing on the patients who will eventually be administered the therapeutic interventions it generates. The drug-driven nature of the present framework has led to the emergence of a research gap between the pre-approval development of anticancer medicines and their post-registration use in real-life clinical practice. This gap could potentially be bridged by transitioning toward a patient-centered paradigm that places a strong emphasis on treatment optimization, which strives to optimize the way health technologies are applied in a real-world environment. However, questions remain concerning the ideal features of treatment optimization studies and their acceptability among key stakeholders.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to explore the views of key stakeholders in the drug development process regarding the concept of treatment optimization.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted between December 2018 and May 2019 with 26 participants across ten EU Member States and six different stakeholder groups, including academic clinicians as well as representatives of patient organizations, regulatory authorities, health technology assessment agencies, payers, and industry.

Results

Based on the input of the experts interviewed, clarification was obtained regarding the optimal features of treatment optimization studies in terms of their conduct, funding, timing, design, and setting. Moreover, a number of opportunities and challenges of undertaking such trials were identified. Inter-stakeholder discussion during their design was seen as desirable. There was also broad support among the participants for regulatory measures to facilitate treatment optimization, although there was no agreement on the optimal scale and nature of these initiatives. Furthermore, the interviewees believed that the evidence strength of well-designed treatment optimization studies performed according to rigorous quality standards is greater than or at least equal to that of classical clinical trials. In addition, there was a strong consensus that the results of treatment optimization studies should be taken into account during the decision-making of regulators, payers, and/or clinicians.

Conclusions

Stakeholders involved in drug development consider treatment optimization studies to be valuable tools to address current evidence gaps and support their implementation into the existing research framework.

Accelerated drug approvals in oncology: Pros and cons

The inevitable surge of the accelerated approval process, especially for oncology drugs, has been a success story. However, the use of surrogate end-points and its validation has been debatable over the years. Over the years, US Food and Drug Administration has been rigorously working for the validation of these end-points to capture the real clinical benefit and appropriateness of clinical study designs. However, the high cost imposed by the manufacturer attributed to the faster drug access can be prohibitive and well undermine the whole process. We discuss issues that must be addressed and solved accordingly for managed care in oncology.