Cancer clinical trial vs real-world outcomes for standard of care first-line treatment in the advanced disease setting

Real-World Evidence Studies in Oncology Therapeutics: Hope or Hype?

Randomized controlled trial (RCT) remains a gold standard in evidence-based medicine for assessing the efficacy and safety of cancer therapies. However, due to some inherent methodological limitations of RCT, such as stringent inclusion criteria, highly specific treatment, ethical and scientific compromise in rare cancer, and inability to adequately assess safety, real-world evidence (RWE) has been adjudged as a suitable option to complement data obtained from RCT. Moreover, in the context of cancer therapeutics, few notable merits pertain to developing a novel product for rare cancer subtypes, establishing new indications for already approved drugs, optimization of treatment regimen and sequence, a better description of long-term safety, and supporting the reimbursement-related decision. However, the implementation of RWE for the aforementioned purposes will be limited by various challenges, especially in the context of developing economies such as India. Special attention should be given to the availability of data, maintaining the quality standard, and establishing stringent regulations for privacy and security along with active regulatory engagement with relevant stakeholders. Such activities will be key to facilitating the use of RWE in cancer therapeutics.

Prognostic value of systemic inflammation and for patients with colorectal cancer cachexia

BACKGROUND

The development and progression of cancer cachexia are connected to systemic inflammation and physical performance. However, few relevant studies have reported the survival outcomes prediction of systemic inflammation and physical performance in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) cachexia. This study investigated the prognostic prediction value of systemic inflammation and performance status in patients with CRC cachexia.

METHODS

This multicentre cohort study prospectively collected 905 patients with CRC (58.3% males, 59.3 ± 11.5 years old). Cancer cachexia was diagnosed according to the 2011 Fearon Cachexia Diagnostic Consensus. The prognostic value of systematic inflammatory indicators was determined using the area under the curve, concordance index, and multivariate survival analysis. Performance status was evaluated with Eastern Coopertive Oncology Group performance score (ECOG-PS). Survival data were analysed using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses.

RESULTS

The area under the curve, concordance index and survival analysis showed that C-reactive protein (CRP), lymphocyte to CRP ratio (LCR) and CRP to albumin ratio (CAR) were more stable and consistent with the survival of patients with CRC, both in non-cachexia and cachexia populations. Among patients with CRC cachexia, high inflammation [low LCR, hazard ratio (HR) 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 3.33 (2.08-5.32); high CAR, HR (95% CI) = 2.92 (1.88-4.55); high CRP, HR (95% CI) = 3.12 (2.08-4.67)] indicated a worse prognosis, compared with non-cachexia patients [low LCR, HR (95% CI) = 2.28 (1.65-3.16); high CAR, HR (95% CI) = 2.36 (1.71-3.25); high CRP, HR (95% CI) = 2.58 (1.85-3.60)]. Similarly, among patients with CRC cachexia, high PS [ECOG-PS 2, HR (95% CI) = 1.61 (1.04-2.50); ECOG-PS 3/4, HR (95% CI) = 2.91 (1.69-5.00]) indicated a worse prognosis, compared with patients with CRC without cachexia [ECOG-PS 2, HR (95% CI) = 1.28 (0.90-1.81); ECOG-PS 3/4, HR (95% CI) = 2.41 (1.32-4.39]). Patients with CRC cachexia with an ECOG-PS score of 2 or 3-4 and a high inflammation had a shorter median survival time, compared with patients with an ECOG-PS score of 0/1 and a low inflammation.

CONCLUSIONS

The systemic inflammatory markers LCR, CAR and CRP have stable prognostic values in patients with CRC. The ECOG-PS may be an independent risk factor for CRC. Combined evaluation of systemic inflammation and ECOG-PS in patients with CRC cachexia could provide a simple survival prediction.

Real-World Outcomes of Belantamab Mafodotin for Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM): Preliminary Results of a Spanish Expanded Access Program (EAP)

INTRODUCTION

Belantamab mafodotin (BM) is a new anti-BCMA antibody-drug conjugate, recently approved for triple-class relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We assessed real-world outcomes with BM in patients under the Spanish Expanded Access Program (EAP).

METHODS

We conducted an observational, retrospective, multicenter study including RRMM patients who received ≥ 1 dose of BM (Nov 2019 to Jun 2021). The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients were included with a median of 70 years of age (range, 46-79 years). Median time from diagnosis was 71 months (range, 10-858 months). Median prior lines was 5 (range, 3-8 lines); 90% of patients were triple-/quad-/penta-refractory; 48% showed high-risk cytogenetics. Median BM doses was 3 (range 1-16 doses), with a median follow-up of 11 months (6-15 months). ORR was 42.2% (≥ VGPR, 18.2%). Median PFS was 3 months (95% CI 0.92-5.08) in the overall population, and 11 months (HR 0.26; 95% CI 0.10-0.68) for patients who achieved ≥ PR. PFS was not significantly different according to age, cytogenetic risk, and prior therapy lines. OS was 424 days (95% CI 107-740). Non-hematological TEAEs (57.6% of patients; 30.3% ≥ G3) included keratopathy (51.5%; 21.2% ≥ G3) and patient-reported vision-related symptoms (45.5%). Keratopathy was resolved in 70.6% of patients. G3 hematological TEAEs was 18.2%, thrombocytopenia (21.2%). Dose reductions due to TEAEs: 30.3%; delays: 36.4%. Treatment discontinuation causes: progression (54.5%), toxicity (non-ocular; 6%/ocular; 6% /ocular + non-ocular toxicity; 3%), death (6%), and patient's decision (3%).

CONCLUSIONS

BM showed relevant anti-myeloma activity in RRMM with a manageable safety profile. These results corroborate those observed in the BM pivotal trial.

Leveraging Comprehensive Cancer Registry Data to Enable a Broad Range of Research, Audit and Patient Support Activities

Simple Summary

Registry data has the potential to support a broad range of research, audit and education initiatives. Here, we describe the experience and learnings of a series of large multi-institutional cancer registries that leverage real-world clinical data for a range of purposes, that informs the conduct and output of each registry in a virtuous cycle. Lessons learnt include the need for careful and continuous curation of information being collected, regular database updates, and the need for a continued focus on data quality. As a standalone resource, each registry has supported numerous projects, but linkage with external datasets with patients in common has enhanced the research potential. Multiple projects have linked registry data with matched tissue specimens to support the discovery and valiation of prognostic and predictive markers in the tumour and blood specimens. Registry-based biomarker trials have been successfully supported, generating novel and practice-changing data. Registry-based clinical trials, particularly studies exploring the best use of drug options are now complementing the research conducted in traditional clinical trials. More recent projects supported by the registries include health economic studies, personalised patient education material, and increased consumer engagement, including consumer entered data.

Abstract

Traditional cancer registries have often been siloed efforts, established by single groups with limited objectives. There is the potential for registry data to support a broad range of research, audit and education initiatives. Here, we describe the establishment of a series of comprehensive cancer registries across the spectrum of common solid cancers. The experience and learnings of each registry team as they develop, implement and then use collected data for a range of purposes, that informs the conduct and output of other registries in a virtuous cycle. Each registry is multi-site, multi-disciplinary and aims to collect data of maximal interest and value to a broad range of enquiry, which would be accessible to any researcher with a high-quality proposal. Lessons learnt include the need for careful and continuous curation of data fields, with regular database updates, and the need for a continued focus on data quality. The registry data as a standalone resource has supported numerous projects, but linkage with external datasets with patients in common has enhanced the audit and research potential. Multiple projects have linked registry data with matched tissue specimens to support prognostic and predictive biomarker studies, both validation and discovery. Registry-based biomarker trials have been successfully supported, generating novel and practice-changing data. Registry-based clinical trials, particularly randomised studies exploring the optimal use of available therapy options are now complementing the research conducted in traditional clinical trials. More recent projects supported by the registries include health economic studies, personalised patient education material, and increased consumer engagement, including consumer entered data.

Rationale, Strengths, and Limitations of Real-World Evidence in Oncology: A Canadian Review and Perspective

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) continue to be the basis for essential evidence regarding the efficacy of interventions such as cancer therapies. Limitations associated with RCT designs, including selective study populations, strict treatment regimens, and being time-limited, mean they do not provide complete information about an intervention’s safety or the applicability of the trial’s results to a wider range of patients seen in real-world clinical practice. For example, recent data from Alberta showed that almost 40% of patients in the province’s cancer registry would be trial-ineligible per common exclusion criteria. Real-world evidence (RWE) offers an opportunity to complement the RCT evidence base with this kind of information about safety and about use in wider patient populations. It is also increasingly recognized for being able to provide information about an intervention’s effectiveness and is considered by regulators as an important component of the evidence base in drug approvals. Here, we examine the limitations of RCTs in oncology research, review the different types of RWE available in this area, and discuss the strengths and limitations of RWE for complementing RCT oncology data.