Efficacy and Safety of ABP 798: Results from the JASMINE Trial in Patients with Follicular Lymphoma in Comparison with Rituximab Reference Product

Efficacy and safety of rituximab biosimilar (DRL_RI) versus MabThera® in low-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma: the FLINTER study

Background and objectives

This phase III study (RI-01-006; FLINTER) was conducted to demonstrate equivalent efficacy of DRL_RI to EU-approved rituximab (MabThera®) in patients with previously untreated Stage II-IV, CD20-positive, low-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma (LTB-FL). This study also evaluated safety, immunogenicity, rituximab concentrations, and pharmacodynamics (PD) of DRL_RI compared with MabThera.

Design and methods

Previously untreated, stage II-IV, CD20-positive LTB-FL patients (N = 317) were randomized (1:1) to receive DRL_RI (n = 162) or MabThera (n = 155) as intravenous infusions of 375 mg/m² weekly for 4 weeks (induction period), and thereafter every 8 weeks from Week 12 to Week 36 (maintenance treatment), and followed up till Week 52. The primary end point was best overall response rate (BORR) up to Week 28 based on blinded independent central review. Efficacy equivalence was demonstrated if the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for BORR difference was within the prespecified equivalence margin (±17%). Secondary end points included objective and complete responses, duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, safety, immunogenicity, mean serum concentrations, and PD.

Results

The BORR up to Week 28 was 80.2% versus 79.4% for DRL_RI versus MabThera group; with a difference of 0.89% (90% CI: -6.67 to 8.48; 95% CI: -8.05 to 9.93 within the prespecified margin). Both treatment groups were comparable for all secondary efficacy end points. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 68.6% of patients; safety, immunogenicity, and mean serum concentrations were similar between groups. Peripheral B-cell counts declined below quantifiable limits in most patients, with a median time to B-cell depletion of 6.9 versus 7.0 days for DRL_RI versus MabThera.

Conclusion

The study demonstrated efficacy equivalence of DRL_RI to MabThera; with comparable safety, immunogenicity, serum concentrations, and PD between groups.

Trial registration

This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03976102 and EudraCT (2018-004223-36).

Immune Signatures Identify Patient Subsets Deriving Long-Term Benefit From First-Line Rituximab in Follicular Lymphoma

Background

The role of first-line single-agent rituximab immunotherapy in follicular lymphoma (FL) remains debated, as most patients eventually undergo chemotherapy.

Methods

In this study, we retrospectively analyzed 81 FL patients treated with first-line single-agent rituximab monotherapy with (n = 53) or without (n = 28) consolidation. Fifty-one patients (63%) were high-tumor burden according to Group d'Etude des Lymphomes Folliculaires (GELF) criteria.

Results

After a median follow-up of 11 years, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 85% and 32%, respectively. Targeted gene expression profiling (T-GEP) was performed in 40 patients, revealing a 26-gene expression signature distinguishing complete responders and non-responders. This signature included genes involved in T-regulatory (Treg) and natural-killer cell activity, and interleukin-17 signaling. A simplified 14-gene prognostic score (ImSig) enabled accurate outcome stratification in terms of PFS. These data were validated in silico using two independent publicly available cohorts of FL patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy. Deconvolution analyses demonstrated an enrichment in Treg cells in high-risk ImSig patients, which was validated by immunohistochemistry.

Conclusions

These findings demonstrate that the efficacy of front-line anti-CD20 immunotherapy may depend on microenvironment-related factors, and that specific immune signatures could identify patient subsets obtaining long-term benefit from a chemo-free immunotherapeutic approach.

Trial Registration

The authors have confirmed clinical trial registration is not needed for this submission.

Clinical Similarity of Biosimilars and Reference Drugs: A Comprehensive Review and New Hope for Public Health in a New Frontier

BACKGROUND

Patents and exclusive rights on reference biologics contribute to the emergence of biosimilars. Regulatory bodies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), World Health Organization (WHO), and EMA (European Medicines Agency) for assessing clinical safety, effectiveness, and consequences between biosimilars and reference medications, have established guidelines. Since generic small molecules from reference can be easily swapped, biosimilars cannot be used interchangeably and may not always indicate interchangeability due to highly restrictive properties. It can be replaced with a reference without the healthcare provider's help under the interchangeability context.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of our study is to analyze and compare evidence-based clinical safety, therapeutic potential, and importance (outcomes) of several biosimilars with their references along with clinical uses in chronic diseases.

METHODS

Through a comprehensive systemic literature review of more than 100 articles involving medicinally important drugs whose bio-similarity works optimally, safety-efficacy parameters have been analyzed. Analysis of biosimilar usage, approval, and safety-efficacy aspects are majorly focused upon herein in this review.

RESULTS

From this systemic review, it can be stated that the majority of biosimilars are clinically and statistically equivalent to their originators. As biosimilars have good safety-efficacy aspects with lower prices, their utilization can be more encouraged, which was already done by the FDA with the establishment of a public online database entitled "Purple Book," which includes all information regarding biological drugs.

CONCLUSION

To conclude, we suggest wide spread use of high-grade biosimilars in clinical practice, may be via changing, exchanging, or switching, with appropriate clinical monitoring and pharmacovigilance to improve patient accessibility to modern medicines, as it provides similar efficacy and safety parameters across all the accumulated clinical trials and studies.

Biosimilar monoclonal antibodies for cancer treatment in adults

BACKGROUND

Biosimilars are products containing an approved biological medicine. They are similar, but not identical, to an originator medicine. In cancer, biosimilars have been developed from the monoclonal antibodies, bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab. They have become available for the treatment of lung, colorectal, non-Hodkin's lymphoma, and breast cancers. As these biological products are not identical, synthesis of evidence of the clinical effects of biosimilars compared to their originators is needed to understand their comparative effectiveness and harms.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies versus their originator drugs for adults with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched bibliographic (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science) and clinical trials databases to February 2024.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included head-to-head randomised controlled trials conducted in adults with cancer treated with biosimilar or originator monoclonal antibodies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival, duration of response, overall survival, breast cancer's pathological complete response, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. If survival estimates were adjusted or provided as rates, we did not combine them. We used Cochrane's RoB 1 tool to assess the risk of bias and GRADE to evaluate the certainty of evidence of critical and important outcomes according to the relevance determined by consumers.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 55 studies with 22,046 adults (23 of bevacizumab, 10,639 participants with colorectal or lung cancer; 17 of rituximab, 4412 participants with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; and 15 of trastuzumab, 6995 participants with breast cancer). Studies were conducted in all continents, most were multicentre, and all were funded by the drug manufacturer. Participants' ages ranged from 47 (mean) to 62 (median) years and the proportion of women from 18% to 100%. Fifteen studies were conducted as non-inferiority and 40 as equivalence. The overall risk of bias was low; main biases were in the incomplete outcome data and selective reporting domains. Bevacizumab biosimilar versus bevacizumab originator in lung or colorectal cancer Progression-free survival is likely similar between bevacizumab biosimilar and the originator (per 1000: 380 in both groups at 12 months, hazard ratio (HR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.09; 5 studies, 2660 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no differences in lung or colorectal cancer subgroups. Bevacizumab biosimilar is likely similar to the originator in duration of response (per 1000: 219 participants who achieved response progressed with biosimilar versus 210 with originator at 12 months; HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.37; 1 study, 762 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and overall survival (per 1000: 592 with biosimilar versus 610 with originator at 12 months; HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.19; 5 studies, 2783 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no differences in cancer type subgroups. Bevacizumab biosimilar is likely similar to the originator in serious adverse events (per 1000: 303 with biosimilar versus 309 with originator; risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.03; 23 studies, 10,619 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Bevacizumab biosimilar may be similar to originator in health-related quality of life as scores were comparable in the one study that assessed this outcome in metastatic colorectal cancer (low-certainty evidence). This critical outcome was not assessed in other biosimilars comparisons. Bevacizumab biosimilar is likely similar to originator in objective response (per 1000: 481 with biosimilar versus 501 with originator; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.00; 23 studies, 10,054 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and mortality (per 1000: 287 with biosimilar versus 279 with originator; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.09; 19 studies, 9231 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no differences in lung or colorectal cancers. Rituximab biosimilar versus rituximab originator in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma Rituximab biosimilar is likely similar to originator in progression-free survival (7 studies, 2456 participants), duration of response (2 studies, 522 participants), and overall survival (7 studies, 2353 participants; data not pooled as survival estimates were adjusted for different factors or reported as rates) (all moderate-certainty evidence). Rituximab biosimilar is likely similar to originator in the risk of serious adverse events (per 1000: 210 with biosimilar versus 204 with originator; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.14; 15 studies, 4197 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and objective response (per 1000: 807 with biosimilar versus 799 with originator; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.04; 16 studies, 3922 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No study reported quality of life. Rituximab biosimilar is similar to originator in mortality (per 1000: 52 with biosimilar versus 53 with originator; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.35; 8 studies, 2557 participants; high-certainty evidence). Trastuzumab biosimilar versus trastuzumab originator in breast cancer Trastuzumab biosimilar is likely similar to originator in progression-free survival (4 studies, 2221 participants), duration of response (3 studies, 1488 participants), and overall survival (6 studies, 2221 participants), which were not pooled due to adjustment for different factors or provided as rates. No study reported quality of life. Trastuzumab biosimilar may be similar to originator in pathological complete response (per 1000: 459 with biosimilar versus 433 with originator; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.17; 7 studies, 3403 participants; low-certainty evidence), is likely similar in serious adverse events (per 1000: 129 in both groups; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.17; 13 studies, 6183 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and slightly increases objective response (per 1000: 801 with biosimilar versus 777 with originator; RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.05; 13 studies, 5509 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab biosimilars are likely similar to their originator drugs in terms of their impact on progression-free survival, duration of response, overall survival, serious adverse events, objective response, and mortality. Limited evidence showed similarity in pathological complete response for trastuzumab and quality of life for bevacizumab compared with originators, which was not assessed in the other comparisons. The overall certainty of evidence was moderate and imprecision was the main reason for downgrading our certainty in the findings.

Monoclonal antibody biosimilars for cancer treatment

Monoclonal antibodies are important cancer medicines. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved 48 and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 56 anticancer monoclonal antibody-based therapies. Their high prices burden healthcare systems and hamper global drug access. Biosimilars could retain costs and expand the availability of monoclonal antibodies. In Europe, five rituximab biosimilars, six trastuzumab biosimilars, and eight bevacizumab biosimilars are available as anti-cancer drugs. To gain insight into the biosimilar landscape for cancer treatment, we performed a literature search and analysis. In this review, we summarize cancer monoclonal antibodies' properties crucial for the desired pharmacology and point out sources of variability. The analytical assessment of all EMA-approved bevacizumab biosimilars is highlighted to illustrate this variability. The global landscape of investigational and approved biosimilars is mapped, and the challenges for access to cancer biosimilars are identified.

Clinical Benefit, Price, and Uptake for Cancer Biosimilars vs Reference Drugs in China: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

The high cost of biologics used to treat cancer has been an increasing burden in the world. In China, the recent approval of cancer biosimilar drugs to resolve this problem is promising, but evidence of clinical benefits, price, and uptake for these drugs is still lacking.

Objectives

To compare characteristics of pivotal clinical trials in China and other countries for biosimilars of bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab and investigate the efficacy or effectiveness, safety, and immunogenicity outcomes of cancer biosimilars compared with reference drugs by meta-analysis.

Data Sources

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for published studies from database inception to February 1, 2023, using the search topics (cancers) AND (biosimilars).

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials and cohort studies that included patients with cancer were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two authors independently extracted the outcome estimates and characteristics for each study. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to summarize the relative estimates with 95% CIs. This study was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Clinical trial characteristics were collected for biosimilars of bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab. The relative estimates of efficacy or effectiveness (objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival), safety, and immunogenicity outcomes were analyzed for biosimilars vs reference drugs. The weighted average price and uptake rate were evaluated for biosimilars relative to their reference drugs between 2015 and 2022.

Results

A total of 39 RCTs (involving 18 791 patients) and 10 cohort studies (involving 1998 patients) were included. The biosimilars of bevacizumab (16 RCTs; risk ratio [RR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.93-1.01; P = .17), rituximab (12 RCTs; RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.98-1.08; P = .70), and trastuzumab (9 RCTs: RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.97-1.12; P = .29) met equivalence with reference biologics in regard to the objective response rate. The results summarized from cohort studies were consistent with those from RCTs. In 2022, cancer biosimilars were priced at 69% to 90% of the costs for the reference drugs, and their uptake reached 54% to 83% in China.

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that cancer biosimilars provided comparable clinical benefits at lower prices compared with reference drugs. These findings suggest the potential feasibility of expediting the transition from reference drugs to biosimilars to benefit more patients with cancer.

Comparative Safety Profiles of Oncology Biosimilars: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It is crucial that the safety profiles of biosimilars are similar to those of the original biologics. A better understanding of biosimilars and their relative safety and immunogenicity profiles are required for healthcare providers to prescribe them to patients with life-threatening cancer diseases who receive chemotherapies with potentially serious adverse events (AEs).

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to collate and analyze currently available safety and immunogenicity outcomes of biosimilars used in oncology and compare their safety information with those of the original biologics.

METHODS

The MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases were searched as at 28 February 2022. Four anti-cancer biosimilar molecules were considered: bevacizumab, trastuzumab, rituximab, and (peg)filgrastim. Through a systematic review, we selected the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing safety outcomes between the biosimilars and original biologics of the four molecules. As safety outcomes, various treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were collated, such as any TEAE, serious AE, and TEAE higher than grade 3. A risk ratio (RR) per category of TEAE was estimated through a meta-analysis. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was also conducted to compare the safety among the biosimilar brands for TEAEs over 25% with higher variability in addition to the serious AE cases.

RESULTS

Forty-nine RCTs were identified. The results from the meta-analysis showed that the safety and immunogenicity profiles of all four biosimilar molecules are comparable with that of the original biologics at the TEAE level without statistically significant differences, except for diarrhea for (peg)filgrastim. The incidence of diarrhea with (peg)filgrastim was less than that with the original biologic (RR 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.50-0.89). The NMA results showed similar safety profiles among the biosimilar brands for all four biosimilar molecules, except for the serious adverse event of a trastuzumab biosimilar (RR 0.296, 95% credible interval 0.109-0.840).

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis and NMA for all four biosimilars showed that the safety and immunogenicity profiles of biosimilar products in oncology are generally comparable with that of the original biologics at the TEAE level. However, additional evidence needs to be collected since several TEAEs of specific biosimilars were out of the equivalent range. The results of this study provide comparative safety information and a better understanding of oncology biosimilars for healthcare providers to prescribe them to patients.

Efficacy and safety of rituximab biosimilars or reference product as first-line treatment in patients with low-tumour-burden follicular lymphoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

The role of rituximab in the first-line treatment of low-tumour-burden follicular lymphoma (LTB-FL) has been supported by a large number of data. However, whether rituximab biosimilars have the same efficacy and safety as the reference drug (MabThera) is still controversial.

METHODS

Electronic databases and the ClinicalTrail.gov website were extensively searched using relevant search criteria. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the RoB 2 assessment scale, and the RevMan 5.4 statistical software was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 1223 patients were included in four clinical randomized controlled trials. There was no statistical difference in efficacy between biosimilars and MabThera groups (the objective response rate: RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.93-1.08, p = 0.92; the progression-free survival: RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.96-1.12, p = 0.30; the overall survival: RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.98-1.03, p = 0.76; the serious adverse events: RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.69-1.89, p = 0.59; the infusion-related reaction: RR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.77-1.09, p = 0.32). In terms of safety, there was also no significant difference between two groups.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Our study concluded that the efficacy and safety of rituximab biosimilars in the treatment of LTB-FL are highly similar to those of the original drug.

A review of the totality of evidence in the development of ABP 798, a rituximab biosimilar

ABP 798 (RIABNI™) is a biosimilar to rituximab reference product (RP), a monoclonal antibody that targets CD20. Approval of ABP 798 was based on the totality of evidence generated using a stepwise approach which began by showing that it is structurally and functionally similar to rituximab RP. This analytical assessment was followed by a demonstration of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic similarity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Comparative clinical efficacy and safety of ABP 798 with rituximab RP was demonstrated as a final step in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and in those with rheumatoid arthritis. Overall, the totality of evidence supported the conclusion that ABP 798 is highly similar to rituximab RP and provided scientific justification for extrapolation to other approved indications of rituximab RP.

Characteristics of Clinical Trials Evaluating Biosimilars in the Treatment of Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Biologics account for almost half of US drug spending but may be subject to competitive pricing pressures by US Food and Drug Administration-approved biosimilars. The extent of the preapproval clinical testing that is needed and how these biosimilars compare with the originator biologic products remain critical issues in establishing a vibrant biosimilar market.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the design of cancer biosimilar efficacy studies compared with the reference drug pivotal trials and provide summary risk ratio estimates for each cancer type drug subgroup.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search was performed of articles and abstracts published using Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, and ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated April 18, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

All studies or abstracts in English comparing a disease-modifying cancer biologic and its biosimilar and reporting efficacy or surrogate efficacy results were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Outcome estimates and study characteristics were extracted from each study. Among biosimilar efficacy studies, random-effects meta-analyses were performed for each cancer type molecule outcome subgroup, calculating pooled relative estimates and 95% CIs.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Study characteristics, such as population size, blinding, and randomization, were compared between biosimilar trials and those of reference drugs. Risk ratio estimates for relative change to surrogate measures (eg, progression-free survival) were collected for biosimilars and their reference products.

RESULTS

A total of 31 cancer biosimilar studies of 3 reference products involving 12 310 patients were included. In all 7 subgroups, the biosimilars analyzed were indistinguishable from their reference drug on surrogate efficacy. Six reference drug trials were included, involving 1811 patients. On average, biosimilar studies involved more patients than reference drug trials (mean number of patients, 397 vs 302), were more likely to be randomized clinical trials rather than single-group or observational studies (100% [31 of 31] vs 50% [3 of 6]), and were more likely to be double blind rather than open label (84% [26 of 31] vs 17% [1 of 6]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This systematic review and meta-analysis found that the biosimilars for the cancer drugs in this sample were subjected to rigorous clinical evaluations, and the results were statistically indistinguishable from those of original products across drugs, cancer types, and outcome measures.

A Developer's Perspective on Clinical Evidence and Benefits for Rituximab Biosimilar Uptake, with a Focus on CT-P10

To date, four rituximab biosimilars have received regulatory approval from the European Medicines Agency and/or US Food and Drug Administration. CT-P10 was the first rituximab biosimilar to be approved by each agency, in 2017 and 2018, respectively. Regulatory approval of CT-P10 followed demonstration of pharmacokinetic equivalence to the reference product in a phase I study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Phase III pivotal studies of CT-P10 subsequently demonstrated equivalence or non-inferiority of pharmacokinetics and efficacy between CT-P10 and reference rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, advanced-stage follicular lymphoma, and low-tumour-burden follicular lymphoma. Almost 5 years after its initial regulatory approval, significant real-world experience has accumulated with CT-P10 use, particularly in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, one of the indications approved by extrapolation. This article summarises the pivotal data underlying regulatory approval for the four licensed rituximab biosimilars, before focusing on real-world data gathered with CT-P10. These data provide further support for the safety and effectiveness of CT-P10 and should boost healthcare professional and patient confidence in its use. Pharmacoeconomic analyses support the potential healthcare system cost savings offered by rituximab biosimilar uptake, which could lead to improved patient access to biologic treatments. Opportunities arising from biosimilar uptake extend further, potentially enabling innovative investigator-led research and therapeutic advances.

Non-clinical similarity of biosimilar ABP 798 with rituximab reference product

ABP 798 is a biosimilar to Rituxan® (rituximab reference product [RP]). Non-clinical assessments relevant to the primary and secondary mechanisms of action (MOA) contribute to the totality of the evidence (TOE) in supporting biosimilarity and are critical in providing scientific evidence for extrapolation of indications. Similarity of ABP 798 with rituximab RP was investigated across a range of biological activities which have potential impact on pharmacokinetics and clinical efficacy with non-clinical assessments relevant to MOA such as CD20 internalization, trogocytosis, binding to primary human natural killer (NK) cells as well as the ability to induce antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis (ADCP) in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Additionally, in vitro synergy of ABP 798 or RP with chemotherapeutic agents, in vivo xenograft studies in mice, and toxicological assessments in cynomolgus monkeys (including B cell depletion and toxicokinetics) were also conducted. Results from these non-clinical assessments contribute to the TOE supporting the biosimilarity between ABP 798 and rituximab RP across a range of primary and secondary MOAs and support justification for extrapolation to all indications of use for ABP 798 for which the RP is approved.

Current state and comparison of the clinical development of bevacizumab, rituximab and trastuzumab biosimilars

Monoclonal antibodies are highly complex, large and biologic products with a substantial impact on the clinical management of a variety of diseases including cancer. The expiry of patents for essential monoclonal antibodies in cancer care such as bevacizumab, rituximab and trastuzumab, has prompted the global development of biosimilars to balance the biologics market. However, an understanding of the different approach of biosimilar development compared with its reference medicinal product, especially in the context of clinical trial design and end point selection may help oncologists integrating biosimilars into clinical practice. Herein, we reviewed the clinical development of biosimilars in oncology comparing the available clinical data of proposed biosimilars of bevacizumab, rituximab and trastuzumab.