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

Health Canada reporting on quality of life for oncology drugs

INTRODUCTION

Quality of Life (QoL) information regarding oncology drugs is important for patients, especially those who are receiving treatment for symptom control and not for curative purposes. Health Canada guidance documents do not describe how QoL information should be reported. This study examines how Health Canada reports QoL in documents regarding the decision to approve and indications for new oncology drugs.

METHODS

A list of all oncology drugs approved by Health Canada from 2019 to 2023 was created using a Health Canada website. Documents describing why a decision was made to approve a new drug and how QoL influenced indications for the drug were searched for the term "Quality of Life" and relevant passages were recorded verbatim.

RESULTS

Health Canada approved 60 oncology drugs. QoL only influenced approval in 1 case and was only mentioned in a drug's indication in 3 cases.

CONCLUSION

Health Canada only reports QoL information very infrequently for oncology drugs.

Operationalizing intermediate clinical endpoints: A pragmatic framework for prostate cancer management trials

Despite therapeutic advances, prostate cancer remains lethal for most patients. Accelerated development of novel therapies requires validated surrogate endpoints to circumvent prolonged survival follow-up in phase III trials. This review systematically evaluates intermediate clinical endpoints (ICEs) in prostate cancer to establish methodologically robust alternatives to overall survival (OS). We first synthesized methodological standards for ICE validation. Subsequent analysis encompassed phase III trials (PubMed/Web of Science, Jan. 2025) in metastatic castration-sensitive (mCSPC) and -resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), requiring: randomization, therapeutic intervention, OS as primary/co-primary endpoint, ≥1 ICE (radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), milestone survival), and ≥70 participants. Surrogacy was quantified via two-stage meta-analysis, with R2 ≥ 0.7 defining validity. Metastasis-free survival (MFS) is validated for localized disease, enabling trial endpoint substitution. In advanced stages, evidence for ICEs remains critically deficient. Our analysis identifies milestone survival as a promising ICE candidate in mCSPC and mCRPC, demonstrating strong trial-level correlation with OS. Current ICE validation in prostate cancer is disproportionately focused on localized disease, leaving advanced-stage therapeutic development constrained. While milestone survival shows surrogacy potential, endpoint validation remains methodologically challenging even in rigorously designed trials. This work underscores the imperative to accelerate ICE standardization through unified methodological frameworks and collaborative cross-trial analyses.

Oncological and Survival Endpoints in Cancer Cachexia Clinical Trials: Systematic Review 6 of the Cachexia Endpoints Series

BACKGROUND

In patients receiving anti-cancer treatment, cachexia results in poorer oncological outcomes. However, there is limited understanding and no systematic review of oncological endpoints in cancer cachexia (CC) trials. This review examines oncological endpoints in CC clinical trials.

METHODS

An electronic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases (1990-2023) was performed. Eligibility criteria comprised participants ≥ 18 years old; controlled design; ≥ 40 participants; and a cachexia intervention for > 14 days. Trials reporting at least one oncological endpoint were selected for analysis. Data extraction was performed using Covidence and followed PRISMA guidelines and the review was registered (PROSPERO CRD42022276710).

RESULTS

Fifty-seven trials were eligible, totalling 9743 patients (median: 107, IQR: 173). Twenty-six (46%) trials focussed on a single tumour site: eight in lung, six in pancreatic, six in head and neck and six in GI cancers. Forty-two (74%) studies included patients with Stage III/IV disease, and 41 (70%) included patients receiving palliative anti-cancer treatment. Ten studies (18%) involved patients on curative treatment. Twenty-eight (49%) studies used pharmacological interventions, 29 (50%) used oral nutrition, and two (4%) used enteral or parenteral nutrition. Reported oncological endpoints included overall survival (OS, n = 46 trials), progression-free survival (PFS, n = 7), duration of response (DR, n = 1), response rate (RR, n = 9), completion of treatment (TC, n = 11) and toxicity/adverse events (AE, n = 42). Median OS differed widely from 60 to 3468 days. Of the 46 studies, only three reported a significant positive effect on survival. Seven trials showed a difference in AE, four in TC, one in PFS and one in RR. Reported significances were unreliable due to missing adjustments for extensive multiple testing. Only three of the six trials using OS as the primary endpoint reported pre-trial sample size calculations, but only one recruited the planned number of patients.

CONCLUSION

In CC trials, oncological endpoints were mostly secondary and only few significant findings have been reported. Due to heterogeneity in oncological settings, nutritional and metabolic status and interventions, firm conclusions about CC treatment are not possible. OS and AE are relevant endpoints, but future trials targeting clinically meaningful hazard ratios will required more homogeneous patient cohorts, adequate pre-trial power analyses and adherence to statistical testing standards.

Identification of the PROMs used to assess ICI toxicities and HRQoL in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment in cancer care and their suitability: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the clinical identification of immunotherapy toxicities is a complex intervention. There has been very little work evaluating the clinical utility and generalisability of PROMs used after immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment to date. We reviewed evidence on the use of PROMs assessing toxicities and health-related quality of life in patients treated with ICIs.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Web of Knowledge, the Cochrane Library were searched (January 2008 - October 2024). Quantitative studies reporting the use of PROMs to identify, assess and manage toxicities at any timepoint and HRQoL associated with ICI treatment in adult patients with cancer were included. A narrative synthesis describes the key characteristics of the PROMs identified.

RESULTS

43 studies were included; 12 on melanoma/skin, 12 on lung and 19 on other cancers. Study designs included 20 randomised controlled trials, 14 cohort studies, six cross-sectional studies and three non-randomised interventional trials. The lack of ICI-specific PROMs was highlighted, particularly as the PROMs used lacked sufficient sensitivity for ICI treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

There is need for an ICI-specific PROM for effective assessment of toxicities and a tailored PROM for assessment of HRQoL. Some suggested key domains by certain studies for ICI-specific PROMs include: (a) ICI-specific items (e.g. certain USD-I and PRO-CTCAE items) to capture symptoms associated with ICI treatments such as rash, myalgia, (b) role, psychological, emotional and social functioning domains within HRQoL assessments and (c) additional patient-reported toxicities not included in existing PROMs. Findings emphasize the importance of using a disease-specific PROM that is applicable, acceptable and sufficiently sensitive to identify toxicities and HRQoL issues across all stages.

Next-generation sequencing for guiding matched targeted therapies in people with relapsed or metastatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Matched targeted therapies (MTT) given alone or in combination with systemic anti-cancer therapies have delivered proven survival benefit for many people with newly diagnosed cancer. However, there is little evidence of their effectiveness in the recurrent or late-stage setting. With this uncertainty, alongside the perception that late-stage cancers are too genetically heterogenous or too mutationally diverse to benefit from matched targeted therapies, next-generation sequencing (NGS) of tumours in people with refractory cancer remains a low priority. As a result, next-generation sequencing testing of recurrent or late-stage disease is discouraged. We lack evidence to support the utility of next generation sequencing in guiding matched targeted therapies in this setting.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of matched targeted therapies in people with advanced cancers in randomised controlled trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO-ICTRP) search portal up to 30th October 2024. We also screened reference lists of included studies and also the publications that cited these studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that had enroled participants with advanced/refractory solid or haematological cancers who had progressed through at least one line of standard anti-cancer systemic therapy. To be eligible, all participants should have received matched targeted therapy based on next-generation sequencing carried out on their tumour (tumour tissue, blood or bone marrow).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We systematically searched medical databases (e.g. MEDLINE, Embase) and trial registers for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Outcomes of interest were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rates (ORR), serious (grade 3 or 4) adverse events (AEs) and quality of life (QOL). We used a random-effects model to pool outcomes across studies and compared predefined subgroups using interaction tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment of certainty was used to evaluate the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified a total of 37 studies, out of which 35 studies (including 9819 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. All included studies compared a matched targeted therapy intervention to standard-of-care treatment, non-matched targeted therapies or no treatment (best supportive care): Matched targeted therapy versus standard-of-care treatment Matched targeted therapy (MTT) compared with standard systematic therapy probably reduces the risk of disease progression by 34% (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.74; 14 studies, 3848 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, MTT might have little to no difference in risk of death (HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.97; 14 studies, 3848 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may increase overall response rates (low-certainty evidence). There was no clear evidence of a difference in severe (grade 3/4) adverse events between matched targeted therapy and standard-of-care treatment (low-certainty evidence). There was limited evidence of a difference in quality of life between groups (very low-certainty of evidence). Matched targeted therapy in combination with standard-of-care treatment versus standard-of-care treatment alone Matched targeted therapy in combination with standard-of-care treatment compared with standard-of-care treatment alone probably reduces the risk of disease progression by 39% (HR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.53-0.70, 14 studies, 2,637 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and risk of death by 21% (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.89; 11 studies, 2575 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). The combination of MTT and standard-of-care treatment may also increase overall response rates (low-certainty evidence). There was limited evidence of a difference in the incidence of severe adverse events (very low-certainty evidence) and quality of life between the groups (very low-certainty of evidence). Matched targeted therapy versus non-matched targeted therapy Matched targeted therapy compared with non-matched targeted therapy probably reduces the risk of disease progression by 24% (HR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.89; 3 studies, 1568 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce the risk of death by 25% (HR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.86, 1307 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was little to no effect on overall response rates between MTT and non-MTT. There was no clear evidence of a difference in overall response rates (low-certainty evidence) and severe adverse events between MTT and non-MTT (low-certainty evidence). None of the studies comparing MTT and non-MTT reported quality of life. Matched targeted therapy versus best supportive care Matched targeted therapy compared with the best supportive care (BSC) i.e. no active treatment probably reduces the risk of disease progression by 63% (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.50; 4 studies, 858 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no clear evidence of a difference in overall survival between groups (HR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.06, 3 studies, 783 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear evidence of a difference in overall response rates (very low-certainty of evidence) and incidence of severe adverse events (very low-certainty of evidence) between the groups. Quality of life was reported in a single study but did not provide composite scores. Risk of bias The overall risk of bias was judged low for eight studies, unclear for two studies, and the remaining 27 studies were high risk.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Matched targeted therapies guided by next-generation sequencing in people with advanced cancer prolongs the time before cancer progresses compared to standard therapies. However, there is limited evidence to suggest that it prolongs overall survival, improves the quality of life or increases adverse events. Importantly, this review supports equitable access to next-generation sequencing technology for all people with advanced cancer and offers them the opportunity to access genotype-matched targeted therapies.

Putting Patients First: Pragmatic Trials in Gynecologic Oncology

In November 2024, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology of Canada hosted a 2-day, interdisciplinary Pragmatic Clinical Trials (PCTs) Workshop with the goal of launching an initiative to develop and promote PCTs within the Canadian gynecologic oncology research environment. The programme brought together multiple stakeholders, including patients with ovarian cancer, patient advocates, experts in PCTs, gynecologic oncologists, medical oncologists and clinical fellows. Foundational elements of pragmatism were emphasized in the context of the primary goal of PCTs, showing the real-world effectiveness of interventions in broad patient groups. Examples of how PCT outcomes can inform and influence clinical decision making and health policy were presented in the context of those outcomes that matter most to patients with cancer. The patients and patient advocates had the essential role of helping clinical investigators co-design PCT protocols to answer common, important, and practical questions that focus on outcomes that matter to patients. These endpoints included overall survival, quality of life and promotion of informed patient decision making. Tangible workshop outcomes included the development of several new proposals for PCTs inspirited and directed by the patient voice. Further educational initiatives to engage clinical gynecologic oncology investigators at all stages in their career are being planned.

Patient-reported outcome domains in multiple myeloma randomized controlled trials and association with survival outcomes

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are crucial endpoints in multiple myeloma (MM) randomized controlled trials (RCTs), yet there is significant variability in their methodology and reporting. Our study aimed to (a) identify the most commonly pre-specified PRO domains in MM RCTs and those most responsive to modern therapies, and (b) examine the association between PROs and progression-free survival (PFS)/overall survival (OS). We performed a systematic review of MM RCTs that used EORTC QLQ-C30 and published between 01/2014-06/2023. The association between PFS/OS and PRO was explored using Fisher's exact test or Pearson's Chi-squared test. Thirty-five RCTs were identified, with PROs as secondary or exploratory endpoints in all studies. About one-third of RCTs (n=11, 31.4%) pre-specified at least one EORTC QLQ-C30 domain, with the most common domains being Global health status/Quality of life (GHS/QoL) (n = 10, 90.9%), Physical Functioning (n = 6, 54.5%), Fatigue (n = 6, 54.5%), and Pain (n = 6, 54.5%). A statistically significant and/or clinically meaningful difference in at least one EORTC QLQ-C30 domain between arms was seen in 23/35 trials (65.7%), with the most common domains showing improvement being GHS/QoL (12/23 trials), Pain (11/23 trials), Fatigue (9/23 trials), and Physical Functioning (9/23 trials). PRO was noted to be concordant with PFS in 19/33 (57.6%) trials (p = 0.398), and with OS in 22/31 (71%) trials (p = 0.018). Our study identified key PRO domains that can be potentially used as primary endpoint in MM RCTs. Additionally, significant association between PROs and OS highlight the importance of integrating PROs to better capture treatment efficacy.

Why effect sizes are systematically larger for progression-free survival than overall survival in cancer drug trials: Prognostic scores as a way forward

Cancer drugs have accumulated the most approvals over the past years. Overall survival (OS) is considered the gold standard for cancer trial outcomes. However, its use has declined over the past years, in favor of surrogate endpoints, such as progression-free survival (PFS). PFS allows to assess outcomes earlier and, thus, accelerates approval of cancer drugs. Previous studies have demonstrated a poor correlation between PFS and OS. Using simulation models, we examined why PFS usually overestimates survival benefit. We created a publicly accessible web application that allows users to run the simulations with different parameter settings. Based on the findings, we propose that assessment of preliminary evidence should be based on a combination of OS result and prognostic scores that reflect the health status of surviving patients.

Prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes in advanced or metastatic melanoma patients treated with immunotherapy: Findings from the CheckMate-067 study

OBJECTIVE

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) that predict survival in cancer patients have yet to be realized as practical tools for clinicians to make better treatment decisions. To identify such PROs in adults with advanced melanoma treated with immunotherapy, this study used 7.5-year follow-up data from CheckMate-067, a phase 3, randomized, double-blind study of nivolumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab.

METHODS

PRO data assessed using the European Organization of Research for the Treatment of Cancer Core-30 and EQ-5D-3L at baseline and during subsequent visits after treatment initiation were pooled across treatment arms. Associations between baseline PRO or change from baseline (CFB) scores with survival outcomes (progression-free survival [PFS], overall survival [OS], and melanoma-specific survival [MSS]) were examined using Cox proportional hazards models for PFS or OS and cause-specific hazard models for MSS.

RESULTS

Baseline and CFB scores for most PRO domains, especially for physical functioning, global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL), fatigue, and EQ-5D visual analog scale (VAS), were prognostic of all survival outcomes. Achieving meaningful improvement/maintenance of baseline PRO scores at 12 weeks following treatment initiation predicted better survival outcomes than with meaningful worsening from baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

PROs at baseline and during treatment, particularly for physical functioning, GHS/QoL, fatigue, and EQ-VAS, were prognostic of survival outcomes. This knowledge may accelerate development of prognostic tools to manage treatment in patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma who undergo immunotherapy.

What constitutes meaningful benefit of cancer drugs in the context of LMICs? A mixed-methods study of oncologists' perceptions on endpoints, benefit, price, and value of cancer drugs

BACKGROUND

The importance of surrogate endpoints, magnitude of clinical benefit of cancer drugs, and their prices have often been debated in the oncology world. No study, however, has systemically explored oncologists' perception regarding these issues.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods study including in-depth qualitative interviews of medical oncologists prescribing cancer drug therapy in India. Quantitative data were collected using a predetermined proforma. Qualitative in-depth interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, anonymized, subsequently coded, and analyzed by generating basic and global themes.

RESULTS

We interviewed 25 medical oncologists. Twenty-eight percent of oncologists rarely used cancer drugs that improved response rate (RR) but not overall survival (OS), and an equal percentage mostly/often used such drugs. For cancer drugs that improved progression-free survival (PFS) but not OS, 20% never/rarely used them while 48% mostly/often used them. Oncologists in India considered a 4.5-month (range, 1.5-12 months) advantage in median PFS as meaningful, and considered price of ∼120 United States Dollars (USD) per month (range, 48-720 USD per month) for those PFS gains as justified. For OS, median gains of 4.5 months (range, 2-24 months) and at a monthly price of ∼360 USD (range, 48-900 USD) was considered justified. Oncologists in India were aware and concerned that RR only meant tumour shrinkage not survival benefit, but many assumed that tumour shrinkage meant better quality of life. Many oncologists acknowledged the limitations of PFS but would use a drug with PFS benefit if it was cheaper than the drug with OS benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncologists in India showed awareness of the limited surrogacy between RR/PFS and OS but assumed that RR/PFS correlated with improved quality of life and acknowledged price as a factor in deciding treatment choices. This is the first study providing a benchmark for minimum clinical benefit (4.5 months in PFS or OS) and maximum monthly price (120 USD for PFS, 360 USD for OS) deemed justifiable by oncologists practicing in low-and-middle-income countries.

Breast cancer drugs: FDA approval, development time, efficacy, clinical benefits, innovation, trials, endpoints, quality of life, value, and price

OBJECTIVE

This study analyzes the development, benefits, trial evidence, and price of new breast cancer drugs with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval.

METHODS

We identified 26 drugs with 42 FDA-approved indications for early and metastatic breast cancer (2000-2023). Data were collected from FDA labels, clinicaltrials.gov, and Medicare and Medicaid. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) hazard ratios (HRs) and tumor response's relative risk (RR) alongside objective response rate (ORR) were meta-analyzed.

RESULTS

The median development time for breast cancer drugs was 7.8 years (95% CI 6.2-10.8). 26% of treatments were considered innovative ("first-in-indication") with 88% acting via a targeted mechanism. 64% were small molecules, 19% antibodies, and 18% antibody-drug conjugates. 38% were approved for HR + and 31% for HER2 + breast cancer. 6 indications were for early and 36 for metastatic breast cancer. Indications utilized FDA's special programs: orphan (2%), fast track (24%), accelerated approval (19%), priority review (74%), breakthrough therapy (44%). Approval was predominantly supported by phase 3 trials (88%) of randomized controlled design (66%), enrolling a median of 585 patients (IQR 417-752) at 181 centers (IQR 142-223) across 19 countries (IQR 17-20). New drugs' HR were 0.78 for OS (95% CI 0.74-0.82) and 0.59 for PFS (95% CI 0.54-0.64) with a RR for tumor response of 1.61 (95% CI 1.46-1.76). Median improvements of OS were 2.8 months (IQR 1.8-5.8) and PFS were 4.4 months (IQR 2.2-7.1). In single-arm trials, the average ORR was 31% (95% CI 10-53). In meta-regressions, the correlation between OS/PFS was 0.34 (p = 0.031) and OS/response was 0.01 (p = 0.435). 60% of treatments had a 'high-value' ESMO-MCBS score with 14% demonstrating improvements in quality of life. The median price was $16,013 per month (95% CI 13,097-17,617). There was no association between prices and patient benefit. The median value per life year gained was $62,419 (IQR 25,840-86,062).

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past two decades, the development of innovative and effective drugs transformed the treatment landscape for breast cancer patients. Yet, investigators and regulators must safeguard that highly-priced new drugs demonstrate improvements in patient-centered clinical endpoints: overall survival and quality of life.

Can Machine Learning Overcome the 95% Failure Rate and Reality that Only 30% of Approved Cancer Drugs Meaningfully Extend Patient Survival?

Despite implementing hundreds of strategies, cancer drug development suffers from a 95% failure rate over 30 years, with only 30% of approved cancer drugs extending patient survival beyond 2.5 months. Adding more criteria without eliminating nonessential ones is impractical and may fall into the "survivorship bias" trap. Machine learning (ML) models may enhance efficiency by saving time and cost. Yet, they may not improve success rate without identifying the root causes of failure. We propose a "STAR-guided ML system" (structure-tissue/cell selectivity-activity relationship) to enhance success rate and efficiency by addressing three overlooked interdependent factors: potency/specificity to the on/off-targets determining efficacy in tumors at clinical doses, on/off-target-driven tissue/cell selectivity influencing adverse effects in the normal organs at clinical doses, and optimal clinical doses balancing efficacy/safety as determined by potency/specificity and tissue/cell selectivity. STAR-guided ML models can directly predict clinical dose/efficacy/safety from five features to design/select the best drugs, enhancing success and efficiency of cancer drug development.

Clinical trial design and treatment effects: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled and single-arm trials supporting 437 FDA approvals of cancer drugs and indications

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to analyse the association between clinical trial design and treatment effects for cancer drugs with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study and meta-analysis.

SETTING

Data from Drugs@FDA, FDA labels, ClincialTrials.gov and the Global Burden of Disease study.

PARTICIPANTS

Pivotal trials for 170 drugs with FDA approval across 437 cancer indications between 2000 and 2022.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Treatment effects were measured in HRs for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and in relative risk for tumour response. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions explored the association between treatment effect estimates and clinical trial design for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and single-arm trials.

RESULTS

Across RCTs, greater effect estimates were observed in smaller trials for OS (ß=0.06, p<0.001), PFS (ß=0.15, p<0.001) and tumour response (ß=-3.61, p<0.001). Effect estimates were larger in shorter trials for OS (ß=0.08, p<0.001) and PFS (ß=0.09, p=0.002). OS (ß=0.04, p=0.006), PFS (ß=0.10, p<0.001) and tumour response (ß=-2.91, p=0.004) outcomes were greater in trials with fewer centres. HRs for PFS (0.54 vs 0.62, p=0.011) were lower in trials testing the new drug to an inactive (placebo/no treatment) rather than an active comparator. The analysed efficacy population (intention-to-treat, per-protocol, or as-treated) was not consistently associated with treatment effects. Results were consistent for single-arm trials and in multivariable analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Pivotal trial design is significantly associated with measured treatment effects. Particularly small, short, single-centre trials testing a new drug compared with an inactive rather than an active comparator could overstate treatment outcomes. Future studies should verify results in unsuccessful trials, adjust for further confounders and examine other therapeutic areas. The FDA, manufacturers and trialists must strive to conduct robust clinical trials with a low risk of bias.

Association between health-related quality-of-life results, outcomes of efficacy and drug approvals: a meta-research study of randomized phase III trials in oncology

BACKGROUND

Despite the interest from the scientific community and regulatory agencies, limited data are available on the association between health-related quality-of-life (QoL) results, outcome of efficacy and drug approvals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We updated the previously published meta-research study of phase III clinical trials in patients with solid tumours treated with systemic treatments, published from 2012 to 2021 in 11 selected journals. For the present analysis, we focused on studies conducted in the advanced setting. The primary outcome was the association of global QoL results with study primary endpoints (EP1), overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), while a secondary outcome was the frequency of positive global QoL results among treatments approved by regulatory agencies [European Medicines Agency (EMA)/Food and Drug Administration (FDA)]. A descriptive analysis was carried out and the association between QoL results and characteristics of studies and of publications was tested.

RESULTS

Five hundred and ninety-two eligible publications were identified from 2012 to 2021. The primary endpoint was OS in 298 clinical trials (50.3%) and PFS in 304 clinical trials (51.4%). A positive result in EP1 analysis was reported in 124 trials (41.6%) with OS as EP1 and in 182 trials (59.5%) with PFS as EP1. Among studies with positive OS and PFS, global QoL results were positive in 39 (31.5%) and 45 studies (24.7%), respectively. FDA and EMA approvals were available for 143 (24.2%) and 142 studies (24%), respectively. Among these, global QoL results were positive in 55 (38.5%) and 56 studies (39.4%), respectively. QoL results were available for most drugs approved by regulatory agencies, but the proportion of approvals with positive global QoL results was not significantly increased from 2012-2016 to 2017-2021.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite QoL data being available for most cancer treatments recently approved by regulatory agencies, QoL improvement has been demonstrated in a minority of studies with positive results in the primary endpoint.

Health-related quality of life outcomes reporting associated with FDA approvals in haematology and oncology

Objective

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes are important in making clinical and policy decisions. This study aimed to examine the HRQoL reporting in cancer drug trials leading to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals.

Methods and analysis

This retrospective cohort study analysed HRQoL data for trials leading to FDA approvals between July 2015 and May 2020. Proportion of included trials that reported HRQoL, latency between FDA approval and first report of HRQoL data, HRQoL outcomes, and their correlation with OS (overall survival) and PFS (progression-free survival) were analysed.

Results

Of the 233 trials associated with 207 FDA approvals, HRQoL was reported in 50% of trials, of which only 42% had the data reported by the time of FDA approval. There were no changes in frequency of HRQoL reporting between 2015 and 2020. HRQoL data were first reported in the primary publication in only 30% trials. Of the 115 trials with HRQoL data available, HRQoL improved in 43%, remained stable in 53% and worsened in 4% of trials. Among the trials that led to FDA approvals based on surrogate endpoints (79%), HRQoL was reported in 45% and improved only in 18% trials. There was no association between OS and PFS benefit and HRQoL outcomes.

Conclusion

Rates of HRQoL reporting were suboptimal in trials that led to FDA approvals with no improvements seen between 2015 and 2020. HRQoL reporting was often delayed and not presented in the primary publication. HRQoL reporting was further sparse in trials with approvals based on surrogate endpoints and HRQoL improved in only a minority of them.

Pathway for Development and Validation of Multi-domain Endpoints for Amyloid Light Chain (AL) Amyloidosis

Immunoglobin light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a rare disease in which a plasma cell dyscrasia leads to deposition of insoluble amyloid fibrils in multiple organs. To facilitate development of new therapies for this heterogenous disease, a public-private partnership was formed between the nonprofit Amyloidosis Research Consortium and the US Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. In 2020, the Amyloidosis Forum launched an initiative to identify clinical trial endpoints and analytic strategies across affected organ systems and life impacts via specialized working groups. This review summarizes the proceedings of the Statistical Group and proposes a pathway for development and validation of multi-domain endpoints (MDEs) for potential use in AL amyloidosis clinical trials. Specifically, drawing on candidate domain-specific endpoints recommended by each organ-specific working group, different approaches to constructing MDEs were considered. Future studies were identified to assess the validity, meaningfulness and performance of MDEs through use of natural history and clinical trial data. Ultimately, for drug development, the context of use in a regulatory evaluation, the specific patient population, and the investigational therapeutic mechanism should drive selection of appropriate endpoints. MDEs for AL amyloidosis, once developed and validated, will provide important options for advancing patient-focused drug development in this multi-system disease.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

FUNDING

None.

Integrating Imaging and Circulating Tumor DNA Features for Predicting Patient Outcomes

Biomarkers for evaluating tumor response to therapy and estimating the risk of disease relapse represent tremendous areas of clinical need. To evaluate treatment efficacy, tumor response is routinely assessed using different imaging modalities like positron emission tomography/computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. More recently, the development of circulating tumor DNA detection assays has provided a minimally invasive approach to evaluate tumor response and prognosis through a blood test (liquid biopsy). Integrating imaging- and circulating tumor DNA-based biomarkers may lead to improvements in the prediction of patient outcomes. For this mini-review, we searched the scientific literature to find original articles that combined quantitative imaging and circulating tumor DNA biomarkers to build prediction models. Seven studies reported building prognostic models to predict distant recurrence-free, progression-free, or overall survival. Three discussed building models to predict treatment response using tumor volume, pathologic complete response, or objective response as endpoints. The limited number of articles and the modest cohort sizes reported in these studies attest to the infancy of this field of study. Nonetheless, these studies demonstrate the feasibility of developing multivariable response-predictive and prognostic models using regression and machine learning approaches. Larger studies are warranted to facilitate the building of highly accurate response-predictive and prognostic models that are generalizable to other datasets and clinical settings.

Association of Launch Price and Clinical Value With Reimbursement Decisions for Anticancer Drugs in China

BACKGROUND

The potential role played by launch price and clinical value in reimbursement decisions has not been sufficiently established in China. This study aimed to investigate the association of launch price and clinical value with reimbursement decisions for anticancer drugs after the implementation of reimbursement-linked price negotiation in China.

METHODS

Anticancer drugs approved by the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) of China from January 2017 to June 2022 were eligible for inclusion. Approval and reimbursement dates of included drug indications were retrieved from publicly available resources. We collected measures of clinical value, including survival, quality of life (QoL), and overall response rate from pivotal clinical trials and calculated treatment price at launch. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were employed to estimate the association between launch price, clinical value, and reimbursement decisions of anticancer drugs in China.

RESULTS

The median reimbursement lag was 579 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 402-936) for 93 indications supported by randomized controlled trials and 637 days (IQR: 373-858) for 42 indications supported by single-arm clinical trials. Reimbursement was granted to 60 (65%) and 23 (55%) indications supported by randomized controlled and single-arm clinical trials, respectively. The launch price of anticancer drugs was not associated with reimbursement decisions in multivariate regression analyses. Indications supported by randomized controlled trials with higher clinical value were more likely to be reimbursed (hazard ratio [HR] for survival=1.07, 95% CI: 1.00-1.15, P=.037), while the overall response rate of indications supported by single-arm clinical trials was not associated with the likelihood of being reimbursed (HR=2.09, 95% CI: 0.14-32.28, P=.595).

CONCLUSION

The launch price of anticancer drugs may not have a significant impact on reimbursement decisions, while the implementation of reimbursement-linked price negotiation in China has prioritized anticancer drugs with higher clinical value, but only for indications supported by randomized controlled trials. Efforts are needed to prioritize indications supported by single-arm clinical trials that have higher value during the process of price negotiation.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Analysis of oncological drugs authorised in Spain in the last decade: association between clinical benefit and reimbursement

BACKGROUND

Our study aimed to assess whether there was a relationship between clinical benefits and reimbursement decisions as well as the inclusion of economic evaluations in  therapeutic positioning reports (IPTs) and to explore factors influencing reimbursement decisions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analysed all anti-cancer drugs approved in Spain from 2010 to September 2022. The clinical benefit of each drug were evaluated using the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) 1.1. The characteristics of these drugs were obtained from the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices. Reimbursement status information was obtained using BIFIMED, a web resource available in Spanish and consulted the agreements of the Interministerial Committee on Pricing of Medicines (CIPM).

RESULTS

In total, 73 drugs were included involving 197 indications. Almost half of the indications had substantial clinical benefit (49.8% yes vs. 50.3% no). Of the 153 indications with a reimbursement decision, 61 (56.5%) reimbursed indications had substantial clinical benefit compared to 14 (31.1%) of the non-reimbursed (p < 0.01). The median gain of overall survival was 4.9 months (2.8-11.2) for reimbursed indications and 2.9 months (1.7-5) in non-reimbursed (p < 0.05). Only six (3%) indications had an economic evaluation in the IPT.

CONCLUSION

Our study revealed that there is a relationship between substantial clinical benefit and the reimbursement decision in Spain. However, we also found that the overall survival gain was modest, and a significant proportion of the reimbursed indications had no substantial clinical benefit. Economic evaluations in IPTs are infrequent and cost-effectiveness analysis is not provided by CIPM.

Protocol of a scoping review of outcome domains in dermatology

INTRODUCTION

Core outcome sets (COSs) are agreed outcomes (domains (subdomains) and instruments) that should be measured as a minimum in clinical trials or practice in certain diseases or clinical fields. Worldwide, the number of COSs is increasing and there might be conceptual overlaps of domains (subdomains) and instruments within disciplines. The aim of this scoping review is to map and to classify all outcomes identified with COS projects relating to skin diseases.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a scoping review of outcomes of skin disease-related COS initiatives to identify all concepts and their definitions. We will search PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library. The search dates will be 1 January 2010 (the point at which Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) was established) to 1 January 2024. We will also review the COMET database and C3 website to identify parts of COSs (domains and/or instruments) that are being developed and published. This review will be supplemented by querying relevant stakeholders from COS organisations, dermatology organisations and patient organisations for additional COSs that were developed. The resulting long lists of outcomes will then be mapped into conceptually similar concepts.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was supported by departmental research funds from the Department of Dermatology at Northwestern University. An ethics committee review was waived since this protocol was done by staff researchers with no involvement of patient care. Conflicts of interests, if any, will be addressed by replacing participants with relevant conflicts or reassigning them. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals, social media posts and promotion by COS organisations.

Price negotiation and pricing of anticancer drugs in China: An observational study

BACKGROUND

While China has implemented reimbursement-linked drug price negotiation annually since 2017, emphasizing value-based pricing to achieve a value-based strategic purchase of medical insurance, whether drug prices became better aligned with clinical value after price negotiation has not been sufficiently established. This study aimed to assess the changes in prices and their relationship with the clinical value of anticancer drugs after the implementation of price negotiations in China.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

In this observational study, anticancer drug indications that were negotiated successfully between 2017 and 2022 were identified through National Reimbursement Drug Lists (NRDL) of China. We excluded extensions of indications for drugs already listed in the NRDL, indications for pediatric use, and indications lacking corresponding clinical trials. We identified pivotal clinical trials for included indications by consulting review reports or drug labels issued by the Center for Drug Evaluation, National Medical Products Administration. We calculated treatment costs as outcome measures based on publicly available prices and collected data on clinical value including safety, survival, quality of life, and overall response rate (ORR) from publications of pivotal clinical trials. The associations between drug costs and clinical value, both before and after negotiation, were analyzed using regression analyses. We also examined whether price negotiation has led to a reduction in the variation of treatment costs for a given value. We included 103 anticancer drug indications, primarily for the treatment of blood cancer, lung cancer, and breast cancer, with 76 supported by randomized controlled trials and 27 supported by single-arm clinical trials. The median treatment costs over the entire sample have been reduced from US$34,460.72 (interquartile range (IQR): 19,990.49 to 55,441.66) to US$13,688.79 (IQR: 7,746.97 to 21,750.97) after price negotiation (P < 0.001). Before price negotiation, each additional month of survival gained was associated with an increase in treatment costs of 3.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) [2.1, 4.8], P < 0.001) for indications supported by randomized controlled trials, and a 10% increase in ORR was associated with a 6.0% (95% CI [1.6, 10.3], P = 0.009) increase in treatment costs for indications supported by single-arm clinical trials. After price negotiation, the associations between costs and clinical value may not have changed significantly, but the variation of drug costs for a given value was reduced. Study limitations include the lack of transparency in official data, missing data on clinical value, and a limited sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we found that the implementation of price negotiation in China has led to drug pricing better aligned with clinical value for anticancer drugs even after substantial price reductions. The achievements made in China could shed light on the price regulation in other countries, particularly those with limited resources and increasing drug expenditures.

Patients' attitudes and preferences toward delayed disease progression in the absence of improved survival

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients' attitudes toward progression-free survival (PFS) gains offered by treatment are not well understood, particularly in the absence of overall survival (OS) gains. The objectives were to describe patients' willingness to accept treatment that offers PFS gains without OS gains, to compare these findings with treatments offering OS gains, and to qualitatively summarize patients' reasons for their preferences.

METHODS

A multicenter, cross-sectional, convergent mixed-methods study design recruited patients who had received at least 3 months of systemic therapy for incurable solid tumors. A treatment trade-off exercise determined the gains in imaging PFS that patients require to prefer additional systemic treatment for a scenario of a newly diagnosed, asymptomatic, incurable abdominal tumor. A qualitative, descriptive, thematic analysis explored factors influencing patients' decisions, and a narrative method integrated the quantitative and qualitative findings.

RESULTS

In total, 100 patients participated (63% were older than 60 years of age). If additional treatment with added toxicity offered no OS advantage, 17% would prefer it for no PFS benefit; 26% for some PFS benefit (range, 3-9 months), whereas 51% would decline it regardless of PFS benefit. Similarly, 71% preferred additional treatment offering a 6-month OS advantage dependent on described toxicity levels (P = .03). A spectrum of reasons for these preferences reflected the complexity of participants' attitudes and values.

CONCLUSIONS

Prolongation of time to progression was not universally valued. Most patients did not prefer treatments that negatively affect quality of life for PFS gains alone. Implications for individual decision making, policy, and trials research are discussed.

Time to deterioration of patient-reported outcomes as a surrogate of overall survival: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Overall survival is the optimal marker of treatment efficacy in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) but can take considerable time to mature. Progression-free survival (PFS) has served as an early surrogate of overall survival but is imperfect. Time to deterioration in quality of life (QOL) measures could be a surrogate for overall survival.

METHODS

Phase 3 RCTs in solid malignancies that reported overall survival, PFS, and time to deterioration in QOL or physical function published between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2022, were evaluated. Weighted regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between PFS, time to deterioration in QOL, and time to deterioration in physical function with overall survival. The coefficient of determination (R2) was used to quantify surrogacy.

RESULTS

In total, 138 phase 3 RCTs were included. Of these, 47 trials evaluated immune checkpoint inhibitors and 91 investigated non-immune checkpoint inhibitor agents. Time to deterioration in QOL (137 RCTs) and time to deterioration in physical function (75 RCTs) performed similarly to PFS as surrogates for overall survival (R2 = 0.18 vs R2 = 0.19 and R2 = 0.10 vs R2 = 0.09, respectively). For immune checkpoint inhibitor studies, time to deterioration in physical function had a higher association with overall survival than with PFS (R2 = 0.38 vs R2 = 0.19), and PFS and time to deterioration in physical function did not correlate with each other (R2 = 0). When time to deterioration in physical function and PFS are used together, the coefficient of determination increased (R2 = 0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

Time to deterioration in physical function appears to be an overall survival surrogate measure of particular importance for immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment efficacy. The combination of time to deterioration in physical function with PFS may enable better prediction of overall survival treatment benefit in RCTs of immune checkpoint inhibitors than either PFS or time to deterioration in physical function alone.

Clinical Outcomes of First-line Therapies for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review of Trials Published Between 2010 and 2020

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the evolution of clinical outcomes derived from clinical trials on first-line therapies for advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) published between 2010 and 2020, focusing on how these outcomes impact survival rates and management of patients.

METHODS

A systematic review of phase III and pivotal phase II clinical trials was conducted by a structured search on Medline and Embase. A comprehensive set of variables was collected to assess their influence on survival rates. We also estimated the clinical benefit by applying the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 and extracted the authors' conclusions.

RESULTS

Sixty-six studies involving 34,951 patients were included. Best survival outcomes were found for nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (OS and progression-free survival medians: 19.4 and 10.2 mo) and for those expressing molecular targets (OS and progression-free survival medians: 23.8 and 11.0 mo). No significant influence on survival rates was observed for industry funding and disease stage (IIIB/IV vs. IV). ESMO-MCBS v1.1 was applied in 45 positive studies and resulted in a meaningful clinical benefit score in 37.8%. Quality of life (QoL) was reported in 57.6% of the original publications and showed statistical significance favoring the experimental arm in 33.3%. Positive authors' conclusions (75.7% of trials) were based on OS and/or QoL in 34% and on surrogate endpoints in 66%.

CONCLUSIONS

Extended survival times and a steady improvement in QoL have been observed. However, there were more than twice as many studies reporting positive authors' conclusions as studies meeting the ESMO threshold for meaningful clinical benefit.

Cancer Drugs Reimbursed with Limited Evidence on Overall Survival and Quality of Life: Do Follow-Up Studies Confirm Patient Benefits?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Cancer drug costs have increased considerably within healthcare systems, but many drugs lack quality-of-life (QoL) and overall survival (OS) data at the time of reimbursement approval. This study aimed to review the extent of subsequent literature documenting improvements in OS and QoL for cancer drug indications where no such evidence existed at the time of reimbursement approval.

METHODS

Drug indications with claims of added therapeutical value but a lack of evidence on OS and QoL that were reimbursed between 2010 and 2020 in Sweden were included for review. Searches were conducted in PubMed and ClinicalTrial.gov for randomized controlled trials examining OS and QoL.

RESULTS

Of the 22 included drug indications, seven were found to have at least one trial with conclusive evidence of improvements in OS or QoL after a mean follow-up of 6.6 years. The remaining 15 drug indications either lacked subsequent randomized controlled trial data on OS or QoL (n = 6) or showed no statistically significant improvements (n = 9). Only one drug demonstrated evidence of improvement in both OS and QoL for its indication.

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable share of reimbursed cancer drug indications continue to lack evidence of improvement in both OS and QoL. With limited healthcare resources and an increasing cancer burden, third-party payers have strong incentives to require additional post-reimbursement data to confirm any improvements in OS and QoL.

Analysis of phase III clinical trials in metastatic NSCLC to assess the correlation between QoL results and survival outcomes

BACKGROUND

In addition to improving survival outcomes, new oncology treatments should lead to amelioration of patients' quality of life (QoL). Herein, we examined whether QoL results correlated with PFS and OS outcomes in phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating new systemic treatments in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

The systematic search of PubMed was conducted in October 2022. We identified 81 RCTs testing novel drugs in metastatic NSCLC and published in the English language in a PubMed-indexed journal between 2012 and 2021. Only trials reporting QoL results and at least one survival outcome between OS and PFS were selected. For each RCT, we assessed whether global QoL was "superior," "inferior," or with "non-statistically significant difference" in the experimental arm compared to the control arm.

RESULTS

Experimental treatments led to superior QoL in 30 (37.0%) RCTs and inferior QoL in 3 (3.7%) RCTs. In the remaining 48 (59.3%) RCTs, a statistically significant difference between the experimental and control arms was not found. Of note, we found a statistically significant association between QoL and PFS improvements (X² = 3.93, p = 0.0473). In more detail, this association was not significant in trials testing immunotherapy or chemotherapy. On the contrary, in RCTs testing target therapies, QoL results positively correlated with PFS outcomes (p = 0.0196). This association was even stronger in the 32 trials testing EGFR or ALK inhibitors (p = 0.0077). On the other hand, QoL results did not positively correlate with OS outcomes (X² = 0.81, p = 0.368). Furthermore, we found that experimental treatments led to superior QoL in 27/57 (47.4%) trials with positive results and in 3/24 (12.5%) RCTs with negative results (p = 0.0028). Finally, we analyzed how QoL data were described in publications of RCTs in which QoL outcomes were not improved (n = 51). We found that a favorable description of QoL results was associated with sponsorship by industries (p = 0.0232).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study reveals a positive association of QoL results with PFS outcomes in RCTs testing novel treatments in metastatic NSCLC. This association is particularly evident for target therapies. These findings further emphasize the relevance of an accurate assessment of QoL in RCTs in NSCLC.

Systematic review of time to subsequent therapy as a candidate surrogate endpoint in advanced solid tumors

Aim: Time to subsequent therapy (TST) is an end point that may complement progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in determining the treatment effect of anticancer drugs and may be a potential surrogate for PFS and OS. We systematically reviewed the correlation between TST and both PFS and OS in published phase 2/3 studies in advanced solid tumors. Materials & methods: Trial-level correlational analyses were performed for TST versus PFS (by investigator and/or central review) and TST versus OS. Results: Of 21 included studies, nine (43%) used 'time to first subsequent therapy or death' (TFST) as the TST end point; 11 (57%) used different definitions ('other TST end points'). There was a strong correlation between TFST and PFS by investigator (medians: R2 = 0.88; hazard ratio [HR]: R2 = 0.91) and TFST versus PFS by central review (medians: R2 = 0.86; HRs: R2 = 0.84). For TFST versus OS there was medium/poor correlation for medians (R2 = 0.64) and HRs (R2 = 0.02). Conclusion: TFST strongly correlates with PFS, but not with OS.

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

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

Randomised controlled trials evaluating anticancer therapies in haematological cancers: an overview of global research activity

Background

Design, results, and interpretation of oncology randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have changed substantially over the past decade. In this study, we describe all RCTs evaluating anticancer therapies in haematological cancers published globally during 2014-2017 with comparisons with solid tumours RCTs.

Methods

A PubMed literature search identified all phase 3 RCTs of anticancer therapy for haematological cancers and solid tumours published globally during 2014-2017. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests and the Kruskal-Wallis test were used to compare RCT design results, and output between haematological cancers and solid tumours as well as for different haematological cancer subtypes.

Results

694 RCTs were identified; 124 in haematological cancers and 570 in solid tumours. Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint in only 12% (15/124) of haematological cancer trials compared to 35% (200/570) in solid tumours (p < 0.001). Haematological cancer RCTs evaluated the systemic novel therapy more often than the solid tumour RCT (98% versus 84%, p = 0.002). Use of surrogate endpoints like progression-free survival (PFS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) were more common in haematological cancers than solid tumours (47% versus 31%, p < 0.001). Within haematological cancers, the use of PFS and TTF was more prevalent in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and multiple myeloma as compared to others (80%-81% versus 0%-41%, p < 0.001). Seventy-eight percent of haematologic trials were funded by industry as compared to 70% of solid tumour trials. Only 4% (5/124) of haematologicalcancer trials were led by investigators in upper-middle and lower-middle-income countries as compared to the 9% of solid tumour trials.

Conclusion

The fact that only 12% of haematological cancer RCTs are designed to show improvements in OS is of grave concern for the field and the care of future patients. This is further compounded by the highly prevalent use of alternative primary endpoints that are rarely valid surrogates for OS in haematological cancers.

Decision Regret among Patients with Early-stage Lung Cancer Undergoing Radiation Therapy or Surgical Resection

AIMS

Clinical equipoise exists regarding early-stage lung cancer treatment among patients as trials comparing stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and surgical resection are unavailable. Given the potential differences in treatment effectiveness and side-effects, we sought to determine the associations between treatment type, decision regret and depression.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multicentre, prospective study of patients with stage IA-IIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with planned treatment with SBRT or surgical resection was conducted. Decision regret and depression were measured using the Decision Regret Scale (DRS) and Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) at 3, 6 and 12 months post-treatment, respectively. Mixed linear regression modelling examined associations between treatment and decision regret adjusting for patient sociodemographics.

RESULTS

Among 211 study participants with early-stage lung cancer, 128 (61%) patients received SBRT and 83 (39%) received surgical resection. The mean age was 73 years (standard deviation = 8); 57% were female; 79% were White non-Hispanic. In the entire cohort at 3 months post-treatment, 72 (34%) and 57 (27%) patients had mild and severe decision regret, respectively. Among patients who received SBRT or surgery, 71% and 46% of patients experienced at least mild decision regret at 3 months, respectively. DRS scores increased at 6 months and decreased slightly at 12 months of follow-up in both groups. Higher DRS scores were associated with SBRT treatment (adjusted mean difference = 4.18, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 7.54) and depression (adjusted mean difference = 3.49, 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 6.47). Neither patient satisfaction with their provider nor decision-making role concordance was associated with DRS scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Most early-stage lung cancer patients experienced at least mild decision regret, which was associated with SBRT treatment and depression symptoms. Findings suggest patients with early-stage lung cancer may not be receiving optimal treatment decision-making support. Therefore, opportunities for improved patient-clinician communication probably exist.

Is the quality of evidence in health technology assessment deteriorating over time? A case study on cancer drugs in Australia

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess whether there have been changes in the quality of clinical evidence submitted for government subsidy decisions on cancer medicines over the past 15 years.

METHODS

We reviewed public summary documents (PSDs) reporting on subsidy decisions made by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) from July 2005 to July 2020. Information was extracted on the study design, directness of comparison, sample size, and risk of bias (RoB). Changes in the quality of evidence were assessed using regression analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 214 PSDs were included in the analysis. Thirty-seven percent lacked direct comparative evidence. Thirteen percent presented observational or single-arm studies as the basis for decisions. Among PSDs presenting indirect comparisons, 78 percent reported transitivity issues. Nearly half (41 percent) of PSDs reporting on medicines supported by head-to-head studies noted there was a moderate/high/unclear RoB. PSDs reporting concerns with RoB increased by a third over the past 7 years, even after adjusting for disease rarity and trial data maturity (OR 1.30, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.70). No time trends were observed regarding the directness of clinical evidence, study design, transitivity issues, or sample size during any of the analyzed periods.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that the clinical evidence supplied to inform funding decisions for cancer medicines is often of poor quality and has been deteriorating over time. This is concerning as it introduces greater uncertainty in decision making. This is particularly important as the evidence supplied to the PBAC is often the same as that supplied to other global decision-making bodies.

Going big by going small: Trade-offs in microbiome explanations of cancer

Microbial factors have been implicated in cancer risk, disease progression, treatment and prevention. The key word, however, is "implicated." Our aim in this paper is to map out some of the tensions between competing methods, goals, and standards of evidence in cancer research with respect to the causal role of microbial factors. We discuss an array of pragmatic and epistemic trade-offs in this research area: prioritizing coarse-grained versus fine-grained explanations of the roles of microbiota in cancer; explaining general versus specific cancer targets; studying model organisms versus human patients; and understanding and explaining cancer versus developing diagnostic tools and treatments. In light of these trade-offs and the distinctive complexity and heterogeneity on both sides of the microbiome-cancer relationship, we suggest that it would be more productive and intellectually honest to frame much of this work, at least currently, in terms of generating causal hypotheses to investigate further. Claims of established causal connections between the microbiome and cancer are in many cases overstated. We also discuss the value of "black boxing" microbial causal variables in this research context and draw some general cautionary lessons for ongoing discussions of microbiomes and cancer.

Bibliometric analysis of global research on physical activity and sedentary behavior in the context of cancer

Objective

Numerous studies focusing on sedentary behavior (SB) and physical activity (PA) in the context of cancer have been reported in recent years. We analyzed and visualized studies on SB and PA in patients with cancer over the last 20 years using scientometric methods, to provide insights on gaps and deficiencies in the literature, and to inform future research guidelines.

Methods

All relevant studies in the field from 2001 to October 2022 were reviewed using bibliometric tools, including VOSviewer, Bibliometric online analysis platform, and biblioshiny, to determine the most influential countries, institutions, journals, and authors. We explored current research hotpots and potential research trends, based on keyword clustering and dynamic changes. Our research focuses on PA, SB, and cancer across the entire cancer continuum, from primary prevention to treatment to cancer survivorship.

Results

Scientometric analysis identified 4,382 relevant manuscripts on SB and PA in the context of cancer, with a 10-fold increase in articles over the past 20 years. The United States, Canada, and Australia were the most influential countries. The journal, Supportive Care in Cancer, had the highest number of publications, while Clinical Oncology had the highest H-index. K.S. Courneya was the most influential author in this field, with the highest number of publications, total citations, and H-index. Keyword analysis revealed that current research is focused on PA and SB in patients with breast cancer, quality of life, and aerobic exercise. Future frontiers include cancer prehabilitation programs and cardiorespiratory fitness, and remote intervention and social support.

Conclusion

By using bibliometrics, we conducted a comprehensive review of SB and PA in cancer-related studies. The current research focused on exercise and sedentariness in breast cancer patients and the role of PA in improving quality of life in survivorship. Emerging research foci were generally around cancer prehabilitation programs and remote intervention issues for PA. In addition, some publication deficits are noted: studies of PA and SB in less common cancers; the recommended doses and intensities of exercise for cancer; the timing of interventions for prehabilitation and the establishment of individualized exercise protocols. These deficiencies align with the needs for future research topics.

Show me the roads and give me a road map: Development of a patient conversation tool to improve lung cancer treatment decision-making

Objective

Evidence-based decision support resources do not exist for persons with lung cancer. We sought to develop and refine a treatment decision support, or conversation tool, to improve shared decision-making (SDM).

Methods

We conducted a multi-site study among patients with stage I-IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who completed or had ongoing lung cancer treatment using semi-structured, cognitive qualitative interviews to assess participant understanding of content. We used an integrated approach of deductive and inductive thematic analysis.

Results

Twenty-seven patients with NSCLC participated. Participants with prior cancer experiences or those with family members with prior cancer experiences reported better preparedness for cancer treatment decision-making. All participants agreed the conversation tool would be helpful to clarify their thinking about values, comparisons, and goals of treatment, and to help patients communicate more effectively with their clinicians.

Conclusion

Participants reported that the tool may empower them with confidence and agency to actively participate in cancer treatment SDM. The conversation tool was acceptable, comprehensible, and usable. Next steps will test effectiveness on patient-centered and decisional outcomes.

Innovation

A personalized conversation tool using consequence tables and core SDM components is novel in that it can encourage a tailored, conversational dynamic and includes patient-centered values along with traditional decisional outcomes.

Health-related quality of life is underestimated and underreported in phase III clinical trials in NSCLC

Major associations of medical oncologists remark that novel anticancer treatments should guarantee improvement of survival outcomes as well as of patients' quality of life (QoL). Herein, we investigated QoL assessment and reporting in phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing new drugs in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), published between 2010 and 2021. We selected 172 RCTs for further analysis. Only 2/172 (1.2%) trial included QoL among primary study endpoints. Of note, 40/172 (23.3%) trials did not include QoL assessment among endpoints. The majority of RCTs (102/172, 59.3%) did not report QoL results in primary publications. Particularly, RCTs testing immunotherapy, target therapy and chemotherapy did not disclose QoL data in primary publications in 97.0%, 51.5% and 46.5% of cases, respectively. Next, we found that only 43/95 (45.3%) positive studies reported QoL results in primary articles. Of the 102 trials missing QoL data in primary manuscripts, only 21 (20.6%) disclosed QoL results in a secondary publication. Finally, we found a common fail in adherence to CONSORT-PROs items in publications reporting QoL results. In summary, our study reveals a relevant inadequate assessment and under-reporting of QoL in RCTs of novel systemic treatments for patients with metastatic NSCLC.

Recurrence-free survival versus overall survival as a primary endpoint for studies of resected colorectal liver metastasis: a retrospective study and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recurrence-free survival has been used as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival in trials involving patients with resected colorectal liver metastases. We aimed to assess the correlation between recurrence-free survival and overall survival after resection of colorectal liver metastases to determine the adequacy of this surrogate endpoint.

METHODS

In this retrospective study and meta-analysis, we compiled an institutional cohort of consecutive patients who had complete resection of colorectal liver metastases from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (New York, NY, USA) prospective database. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 18 years or older, and underwent hepatectomy, with or without operative ablation, between Jan 1, 1991, and April 30, 2019. We estimated overall survival and recurrence-free survival probabilities at various timepoints using the Kaplan-Meier method, and we assessed pairwise associations between these endpoints using Spearman's rank correlation. We also did a meta-analysis of adjuvant phase 3 clinical trials for colorectal liver metastases to assess the correlation between hazard ratios (HRs) for recurrence-free survival and overall survival. We searched MEDLINE for articles of phase 3 randomised controlled trials analysing adjuvant treatment strategies for resected colorectal metastases from database inception to Jan 1, 2022. The titles and abstracts of identified studies were screened before full-text screening and summary data were either recalculated or extracted manually from the published Kaplan-Meier curves (depending on data availability).

FINDINGS

Data were available for 3299 patients in the institutional database, of whom 2983 were eligible for inclusion in our cohort. Median follow-up was 8·4 years (95% CI 7·9-9·1) , during which time there were 1995 (67%) disease recurrences and 1684 (56%) deaths. Median recurrence-free survival was 1·3 years (95% CI 1·3-1·4) and median overall survival was 5·2 years (95% CI 5·0-5·5). 1428 (85%) of 1684 deaths were preceded by recurrence, and median time from recurrence to death was 2·0 years (IQR 1·0-3·4). Pairwise correlations between recurrence-free survival and overall survival were low to moderate, with a correlation estimate ranging from 0·30 (SD 0·17) to 0·56 (0·13). In the meta-analysis of adjuvant clinical trials, the Spearman's correlation coefficient between recurrence-free survival HR and overall survival HR was r=0·20 (p=0·71).

INTERPRETATION

We found a minimal correlation between recurrence-free survival and overall survival after resection of colorectal liver metastases. Recurrence-free survival is an inadequate surrogate endpoint for overall survival in this disease setting.

FUNDING

US National Cancer Institute.

Rapid Review of Real-World Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Cancer Interventions in Canada

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CE Analysis) provides evidence about the incremental gains in patient outcomes costs from new treatments and interventions in cancer care. The utilization of "real-world" data allows these analyses to better reflect differences in costs and effects for actual patient populations with comorbidities and a range of ages as opposed to randomized controlled trials, which use a restricted population. This rapid review was done through PubMed and Google Scholar in July 2022. Relevant articles were summarized and data extracted to summarize changes in costs (in 2022 CAD) and effectiveness in cancer care once funded by the Canadian government payer system. We conducted statistical analyses to examine the differences between means and medians of costs, effects, and incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Twenty-two studies were selected for review. Of those, the majority performed a CE Analysis on cancer drugs. Real-world cancer drug studies had significantly higher costs and effects than non-drug therapies. Studies that utilized a model to project longer time-horizons saw significantly smaller ICER values for the treatments they examined. Further, differences in drug costs increased over time. This review highlights the importance of performing real-world CE Analysis on cancer treatments to better understand their costs and impacts on a general patient population.

A stratified therapeutic model incorporated with studies on regulatory B cells for elderly patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

OBJECTIVE

Despite the availability of new agents, elderly patients with multiple myeloma (MM) usually present with poor outcomes due to the heterogeneity of disease conditions, especially immune deficiency. Regulatory B cells (Bregs) can be involved in immune defects by exerting immune regulatory functions in MM. In order to provide more evidence-based practice for the elderly MM, the study established and assessed a stratified therapeutic model with studies on Bregs for Chinese Elderly Multiple Myeloma in 2021 (CEMM2021).

METHODS

In this open-label, non-interventional, prospective study in the real world, 159 newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients over 65 years old were sequentially recruited and bone marrow aspirates prior to treatment were obtained to detect the ratios of Bregs by flow cytometry.

RESULTS

Based on the CEMM2021 model, 147 patients had received at least one cycle of induction therapy, including bortezomib/dexamethasone (Bd) (n = 80), lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd) (n = 27), Bd with a third agent X (Bd + X) (n = 27), and other regimens (n = 13). The proportions of patients achieving very good partial response or better were comparable among Bd, Bd + X, and Rd groups (41.9% vs. 54.5% vs. 44.0%, p = 0.472). Besides, the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were not significantly different among Rd, Bd, and Bd + X groups. Multivariable analysis showed that induction efficacy less than partial response (PR) were poor prognostic factors for PFS, while Revised-International Staging System (R-ISS) III and efficacy less than PR were poor prognostic factors for OS. This study also found that the ratios of bone marrow Bregs <10% (p = 0.036) and SUVmax of PET-CT scan >4.2 (p = 0.000) were closely correlated with OS in the elderly MM.

CONCLUSIONS

For the elderly NDMM, the CEMM2021 algorithm in our center might provide a valuable reference for the guidance of therapeutic strategies, with the combination of Bregs resulting in an effective and clinically meaningful prediction in contemporary treatment.

Using 5 consecutive years of NICE guidance to describe the characteristics and influencing factors on the economic evaluation of orphan oncology drugs

Objective

Orphan oncology drugs used in this article were defined by the type of disease treated by drugs, as drugs used to treat rare diseases with a prevalence of ≤ 500 per million people per year. In this article, our concern was to explore focus on the economic evaluation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), when orphan oncology drugs were appraised for reimbursement, and provide advice and suggestions to decision-makers.

Methods

A retrospective study was used in this study. Thirty guidance were gathered as our subject by NICE from 2016 to 2020, excluded drugs were not identified as orphan by European Medicines Agency (EMA) and orphan drugs were not used for cancer, and orphan oncology drugs were terminated at the time of data collection at NICE. Qualitative analysis, descriptive statistics, and Fisher's exact test were conducted.

Results

Of all guidance, the partitioned survival model was used most to appraise orphan oncology drugs, and every drug had a kind of commercial arrangement such as patient access scheme (PAS), managed access arrangements (MAAs), and commercial access agreement (CAAs). End of life is an important indicator that had been defined by NICE in the methods of technology appraisal in 2013, and drugs that met the criterion would be given a higher threshold of ICER. In addition, we found that potential health benefits were increasingly concerned such as drug delivery.

Conclusion

In the setting of uncertain clinical and cost efficacy, orphan oncology drugs are comprehensively evaluated in multiple additional dimensions, which include life-extending benefits, and innovation. NICE uses a combination of special considerations for incomplete data, appropriate economic models, and appropriate health technology assessment (HTA) methods during the assessment process, besides, orphan oncology drugs with insufficiency evidence were recommended Cancer Drugs fund (CDF) to afford for patients, which would obtain more availability and accessibility, based on which, high-quality drugs for treating rare cancers can fall within the scope of affordable healthcare provided by the English medical insurance fund.

Maximizing the value of phase III trials in immuno-oncology: A checklist from the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC)

The broad activity of agents blocking the programmed cell death protein 1 and its ligand (the PD-(L)1 axis) revolutionized oncology, offering long-term benefit to patients and even curative responses for tumors that were once associated with dismal prognosis. However, only a minority of patients experience durable clinical benefit with immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy in most disease settings. Spurred by preclinical and correlative studies to understand mechanisms of non-response to the PD-(L)1 antagonists and by combination studies in animal tumor models, many drug development programs were designed to combine anti-PD-(L)1 with a variety of approved and investigational chemotherapies, tumor-targeted therapies, antiangiogenic therapies, and other immunotherapies. Several immunotherapy combinations improved survival outcomes in a variety of indications including melanoma, lung, kidney, and liver cancer, among others. This immunotherapy renaissance, however, has led to many combinations being advanced to late-stage development without definitive predictive biomarkers, limited phase I and phase II data, or clinical trial designs that are not optimized for demonstrating the unique attributes of immune-related antitumor activity-for example, landmark progression-free survival and overall survival. The decision to activate a study at an individual site is investigator-driven, and generalized frameworks to evaluate the potential for phase III trials in immuno-oncology to yield positive data, particularly to increase the number of curative responses or otherwise advance the field have thus far been lacking. To assist in evaluating the potential value to patients and the immunotherapy field of phase III trials, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) has developed a checklist for investigators, described in this manuscript. Although the checklist focuses on anti-PD-(L)1-based combinations, it may be applied to any regimen in which immune modulation is an important component of the antitumor effect.

Health-related quality of life in stage III-IV melanoma treated with targeted therapy or immunotherapy: A systematic review on the adequacy of reporting and clinical issues in phase III randomized controlled trials

Cutaneous melanoma represents around over 90% of all melanoma. With more effective treatments able to extend patients' survival, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is increasingly becoming an important endpoint in cancer clinical trials. They are often secondary outcomes measured in phase III randomized controlled trials and their implementation, collection, analysis, and reporting can be challenging methodologically. For these reasons, an increasing number of international recommendations introduced the standards regarding the conduct of HRQOL. In this systematic review, we appraise the adequacy of HRQOL reporting in phase III randomized controlled trials of stage III-IV cutaneous melanoma and the clinical issues of immunotherapy and small-molecular-targeted therapy on HRQOL. Our search strategy totally got 55 articles, and only 13 studies met all inclusion criteria. Findings suggest that most treatments did not yield significant improvements in HRQOL but kept baseline levels, accompanied by prolonged survival and acceptable toxicity. Except for some existing limitations, reporting of HRQOL has made encouraging progress during the period covered by our search, but some aspects still need further optimization.

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

IMPORTANCE

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

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

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

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

Risk and benefit for umbrella trials in oncology: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Umbrella clinical trials in precision oncology are designed to tailor therapies to the specific genetic changes within a tumor. Little is known about the risk/benefit ratio for umbrella clinical trials. The aim of our systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles in cancer umbrella trials testing targeted drugs or a combination of targeted therapy with chemotherapy.

METHODS

Our study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020171494). We searched Embase and PubMed for cancer umbrella trials testing targeted agents or a combination of targeted therapies with chemotherapy. We included solid tumor studies published between 1 January 2006 and 7 October 2019. We measured the risk using drug-related grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs), and the benefit by objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). When possible, data were meta-analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 6207 records identified, we included 31 sub-trials or arms of nine umbrella trials (N = 1637). The pooled overall ORR was 17.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.5-25.9). The ORR for targeted therapies in the experimental arms was significantly lower than the ORR for a combination of targeted therapy drugs with chemotherapy: 13.3% vs 39.0%; p = 0.005. The median PFS was 2.4 months (95% CI 1.9-2.9), and the median OS was 7.1 months (95% CI 6.1-8.4). The overall drug-related death rate (drug-related grade 5 AEs rate) was 0.8% (95% CI 0.3-1.4), and the average drug-related grade 3/4 AE rate per person was 0.45 (95% CI 0.40-0.50).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that, on average, one in five cancer patients in umbrella trials published between 1 January 2006 and 7 October 2019 responded to a given therapy, while one in 125 died due to drug toxicity. Our findings do not support the expectation of increased patient benefit in cancer umbrella trials. Further studies should investigate whether umbrella trial design and the precision oncology approach improve patient outcomes.

Establishment of a Nomogram-Based Prognostic Model (LASSO-COX Regression) for Predicting Progression-Free Survival of Primary Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Treated with Adjuvant Chinese Herbal Medicines Therapy: A Retrospective Study of Case Series

Nowadays, Jin-Fu-Kang oral liquid (JFK), one of Chinese herbal medicines (CHMs) preparations, has been widely used as an adjuvant therapy for primary non-small cell lung cancer (PNSCLC) patients with the syndrome of deficiency of both Qi and Yin (Qi–Yin deficiency pattern) based on Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) theory. However, we found insufficient evidence of how long-term CHM treatment influence PNSCLC patients’ progression-free survival (PFS). Thus, using electronic medical records, we established a nomograph-based prognostic model for predicting PNSCLC patients’ PFS involved with JFK supplementary formulas (JFK-SFs) over 6 months, in order to preliminarily investigate potential predictors highly related to adjuvant CHMs therapies in theoretical epidemiology. In our retrospective study, a series of 197 PNSCLC cases from Long Hua Hospital were enrolled by non-probability sampling and divided into 2 datasets at the ratio of 5:4 by Kennard–Stone algorithm, as a result of 109 in training dataset and 88 in validation dataset. Besides, TNM stage, operation history, sIL-2R, and CA724 were considered as 4 highly correlated predictors for modeling based on LASSO-Cox regression. Additionally, we respectively used training dataset and validation dataset for establishment including internal validation and external validation, and the prediction performance of model was measured by concordance index (C-index), integrated discrimination improvement, and net reclassification indices (NRI). Moreover, we found that the model containing clinical characteristics and bio-features presented the best performance by pairwise comparison. Next, the result of sensitivity analysis proved its stability. Then, for preliminarily examination of its discriminative power, all eligible cases were divided into high-risk or low-risk progression by the cut-off value of 57, in the light of predicted nomogram scores. Ultimately, a completed TRIPOD checklist was used for self-assessment of normativity and integrity in modeling. In conclusion, our model might offer crude probability of uncertainly individualized PFS with long-term CHMs therapy in the real-world setting, which could discern the individuals implicated with worse prognosis from the better ones. Nevertheless, our findings were prone to unmeasured bias caused by confounding factors, owing to retrospective cases series.

Health-related quality of life in patients with advanced well-differentiated pancreatic and extrapancreatic neuroendocrine tumors treated with surufatinib versus placebo: Results from two randomized, double-blind, phase III trials (SANET-p and SANET-ep)

AIM

To investigate the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients who had neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) from SANET trials.

METHODS

Eligible patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive surufatinib or placebo. HRQoL questionnaires, including the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-G.I.NET21, were collected. The prespecified HRQoL outcome was the mean change of scores from baseline to the last available visit for each domain. Time until definitive deterioration (TUDD) was defined as the time from randomization to deterioration of ≥10 points from baseline in domain score, disease progression, or death.

RESULTS

370 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to surufatinib (n = 242) or placebo (n = 128). No significant difference in mean scores change from baseline to the last available visit was observed for QLQ-C30 and QLQ- G.I.NET21 domains, with the exception of diarrhea. The mean score of diarrhea increased 11.7 points from baseline in the surufatinib arm and decreased 1.2 points in the placebo arm, and the between-group difference was 12.9 points. Compared with placebo, surufatinib treated patients had a significantly longer TUDD for dyspnea (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.86; P = 0.0058) and a significantly shorter TUDD for diarrhea (HR 2.91; 95% CI, 1.66-5.10; P < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in TUDD for the remaining domains of QLQ-C30 and G.I.NET-21.

CONCLUSIONS

HRQoL was similar in patients treated with surufatinib and placebo except for diarrhea. The preservation of HRQoL supports surufatinib as a treatment option for NETs.

CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02589821, NCT02588170.