A systematic review of trial-level meta-analyses measuring the strength of association between surrogate end-points and overall survival in oncology

Exploring Early Kinetic Profiles of CEA, ctDNA and cfDNA in Patients With RAS-/BRAF-Mutated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) respond differently to first-line chemotherapy. Early identification of patients with limited or no clinical benefit could prompt a timelier introduction of second-line therapy and potentially lead to improved overall outcomes. Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is currently the only blood-based marker in clinical use for disease control monitoring in mCRC. Circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA), including circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) could become a useful surrogate for oncological outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty patients with RAS-/BRAF-mutated mCRC from the prospective NORDIC-VII trial (NCT00145314) were included. An exploratory model system was made to describe the early on-treatment kinetics of CEA, cfDNA and ctDNA during first-line oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, and investigate the associations with radiological response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Summary metrics were made, representing percentage change from treatment start to time-grid day 7 (P7), day 14 (P14), and day 49 (P49); slope from time-grid day 0 to 7 (S7), day 8 to 14 (S14), and day 15 to 49 (S49); and area under the curve from time-grid day 0 to 49 (AUC). Notably P49 and S49 for ctDNA and CEA were associated with radiological response and/or PFS. The early dynamics of the two markers differed substantially, with faster and more marked changes in ctDNA compared with CEA. Nine patients did not reach complete/near complete molecular ctDNA response close to first evaluation (∼week 8), a state associated with a short PFS (HR 2.72; 95% CI, 1.22-6.06; P = .01) and OS (HR 3.12; 95% CI, 1.35-7.23; P < .01). Contrary, twenty-two patients did not reach radiological response (i.e., complete or partial response) at first evaluation, but this was not associated with PFS (HR 1.21; 95% CI, 0.64-2.30; P = .55) nor OS (HR 1.37; 95% CI, 0.70-2.68; P = .37).

CONCLUSION

Early dynamics of ctDNA during first-line oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy hold prognostic value, supporting the idea of prospectively validating a ctDNA-RECIST framework in the early care pathway of mCRC patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00145314.

Randomized controlled trial reporting guidelines should be updated to include information on subsequent treatments

This paper highlights the urgent need to update randomized controlled trial reporting guidelines to include consistent and detailed data on subsequent treatments, particularly in oncology, where postprogression therapies significantly influence overall survival and cost‐effectiveness assessments. Drawing on our experience as an External Assessment Group and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Committee members, a systematic review of renal cell carcinoma trials and broader regulatory guidance, we advocate for standardized reporting of subsequent treatment types, timing, and durations to enhance the reliability of health technology assessments and support more informed decision‐making.

Characteristics, clinical evidence and implementation effects of conditional approvals for drugs in China, a pooled analysis from 2020 to 2023

In late 2019, the conditional approval process for drugs in China transitioned from a pilot project to a formal program. Our study comprehensively analyzed 103 conditional approvals (CAs) authorized by the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) from 2020 to 2023, specifically focusing on their characteristics, clinical evidence, and implementation effects. It also explored the challenges faced by the CA program in China. The primary findings indicated that nearly 90% of China's CAs were granted for antineoplastics agents, and there were no reported cases of CAs withdrawn by NMPA from the market. Notably, a substantial disparity existed in the pivotal premarketing and completed/ongoing postmarketing clinical trial features and endpoints. Additionally, CAs which initiated confirmation clinical trials before the CA application submission were more likely to obtain regular approval. The efficacy evidence of CAs supported by single-arm trials demonstrated statistically significant variances in indication and drug types. However, no statistical distinctions were observed in the efficacy evidence of CAs supported by randomized controlled trials (RCTs). CAs have been shown to decrease the development time, review time, and drug lag period, notably compared to non-CAs, and differences exist in the development time, review time, and drug lag period among CAs. Furthermore, numerous unmet clinical needs and the public health emergency of COVID-19 have been partially addressed through CAs. However, the approval procedures, clinical evidence evaluation systems, pharmacovigilance, and requirements for confirmatory trials within China's CA framework still require further enhancement.

Clinical Benefit, Trials, and Regulatory Approval of Oncology Indications Under Multiple Expedited Programs for Drug Marketing in China, 2018-2024

Following the implementation of drug regulatory reforms in China, expedited programs have been established to accelerate drug development, review, and approval for marketing. This study examined a sample of 302 oncology indications approved by the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) to explore the relationship between indication characteristics, pivotal clinical trial features, clinical benefit, and the cumulative number of expedited program designations. Furthermore, the study evaluated the actual execution of these expedited programs in China by assessing the clinical development time and review time of the approvals for oncology indications. Indications that received a higher cumulative number of expedited program designations generally exhibit higher innovation, lower pivotal clinical trial quality, greater clinical benefit, and reduced clinical development time and review time. Within these expedited programs, the implementation of Conditional Approval (CA) was pivotal in shortening the clinical development time, while Priority Review (PR) contributed to a reduction in review time. However, no significant impact of Breakthrough Therapy Designation (BTD) on the drug development process was observed. The simultaneous implementation of multiple expedited programs has been shown to be more effective in decreasing both clinical development and review times. While the implementation of expedited programs in China has yielded preliminary outcomes, it is imperative for regulatory authorities to further refine the legal and regulatory frameworks associated with these programs, addressing any deficiencies arising from their implementation.

Characteristics of professional society oncological drug evaluation in the Netherlands from 2016 to 2020: A retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

In the Netherlands oncological drug approvals by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) are evaluated for added clinical benefit by the cieBOM (commission 'Beoordeling Oncologische Middelen'). A positive evaluation (further depicted as 'approval') by the cieBOM is of value in drug reimbursement decision making. In this study we explore characteristics of drug evaluations by the cieBOM.

METHODS

We identified new drugs and drug indications for malignant solid tumours approved by the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and/or EMA from January 2016 to December 2020 and compared these to assessments by the cieBOM.

RESULTS

A total of 136 new drug indications were identified of which 133 were evaluated by the FDA, 111 were evaluated by EMA and 87 were evaluated by cieBOM. The cieBOM initially approved 76 of 104 (73 %) EMA-approved indications, and 76 of 124 (61 %) of all FDA-approved indications. cieBOM approvals were more often based on phase III trials. Neither the percentage of approvals with an OS benefit, nor the magnitude of benefit, nor the hazard ratio for death differed significantly between agencies. PFS and QoL gains for approvals were also similar between agencies.

DISCUSSION

The cieBOM evaluated less new drug indications and subsequently approved less often as compared to the EMA and the FDA, with approvals more frequently based on phase III trials. The gain in clinical or surrogate endpoints did not differ between cieBOM and FDA or EMA approvals. Globally, stricter criteria for both selection of studies to be assessed by advisory commissions such as cieBOM and drug approval agencies are needed in order to limit the advent of new drugs and drug indications to only those of high value.

Regulatory efforts to address the access gap for foreign new drugs in China: the priority review program and related policies

BACKGROUND

China has implemented the priority review (PR) program and flexible registration requirements for new drugs with significant clinical value since 2016 to accelerate drug access. We aim to explore the impact of the reform efforts on the drug access gap between China and the US.

METHODS

We collected data on the imported new drug approvals that were licensed in China between 2007 and 2023, and measured their launch delays as compared to the US. Difference-in-difference models were used to compare the launch delays of PR approvals and non-PR approvals before and after the implementation of the PR. Propensity score matching was used to construct the imputed PR and non-PR approvals in the pre-PR period.

RESULTS

A total of 410 imported approvals were licensed in China in 2007-2023. Most approvals (316[77.1%]) were licensed after the PR was implemented, of which 189[59.8%] received the PR designation. The difference-in-difference models found that the PR program reduced drug launch delay by 1157.0 days (robust standard error, 571.0; P<0.05) and reduced drug submission delay by 1037.3 days (robust standard error, 520.8; P<0.05). The PR identified drugs with high clinical value and informed flexible registration requirements for them, which accelerated drug submission and market entry.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings proved the importance of value-based prioritization of new drugs and flexibility in the statutory evidentiary standard in the drug approval process. Further efforts from the drug agency are needed to leverage the regulatory flexibility to provide fast market entry of new drugs without compromising their quality.

Time-to-Event Endpoints in Imaging Biomarker Studies

Time-to-event endpoints are widely used as measures of patients' well-being and indicators of prognosis. In imaging-based biomarker studies, there are increasingly more studies that focus on examining imaging biomarkers' prognostic or predictive utilities on those endpoints, whether in a trial or an observational study setting. In this educational review article, we briefly introduce some basic concepts of time-to-event endpoints and point out potential pitfalls in the context of imaging biomarker research in hope of improving radiologists' understanding of related subjects. Besides, we have included some review and discussions on the benefits of using time-to-event endpoints and considerations on selecting overall survival or progression-free survival for primary analysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.

Common Sense Oncology principles for the design, analysis, and reporting of phase 3 randomised clinical trials

Common Sense Oncology (CSO) prioritises treatments providing meaningful benefits for people with cancer. Here, we describe CSO principles aimed at improving the design, analysis, and reporting of randomised, controlled, phase 3 clinical trials evaluating cancer treatments. These principles include: (1) control treatment should be the best current standard of care; (2) the preferred primary endpoint is overall survival or a validated surrogate; (3) an absolute measure of benefit should be provided, such as the difference between groups in median overall survival times or the proportion of surviving patients at a prespecified time; (4) health-related quality of life should be at least a secondary endpoint; (5) toxicity should be described objectively without subjective language diminishing its importance; (6) trials should be designed to show or rule out clinically meaningful differences in outcomes, rather than a statistically significant difference alone; (7) censoring should be detailed, and sensitivity analyses done to determine its possible effects; (8) experimental treatments known to improve overall survival at later disease stages should be offered and funded for patients progressing in the control group; and (9) reports of trials should include a lay-language summary. We include checklists to guide compliance with these principles. By encouraging adherence, CSO aims to ensure that clinical trials yield results that are scientifically robust and meaningful to patients.

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy plus chemotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the paranasal sinus: a case report

Background

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) such as pembrolizumab and nivolumab are recommended as first-line therapies for recurrent and metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). However, their efficacy in neoadjuvant therapy remains uncertain.

Case presentation

We report the case of a 68-year-old male diagnosed with HNSCC who received neoadjuvant nivolumab (anti-PD-1 inhibitor) plus nab-paclitaxel and carboplatin. Biomarkerswere assessed by immunohistochemistry, and apoptosis-related molecules were analyzed via Western blotting. The patient achieved significant tumor regression and major pathological response (MPR) without severe adverse events. Post-treatment analyses revealed PD-L1 expression increased from 30% to 50% in tumor cells, CD8+ lymphocyte infiltration significantly improved, and Ki-67 expression was markedly reduced.

Conclusions

This case highlights the potential of combining ICIs with chemotherapy in neoadjuvant settings for HNSCC, providing mechanistic insights and clinical evidence for this emerging approach. Further studies are needed to establish the optimal neoadjuvant treatment regimen and identify patient populations most likely to benefit.

Analysis of 810 tweets from 25 unofficial ASCO representatives (Featured Voices) at ASCO 2024

AIM OF THE STUDY

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) hosts an annual conference and is one of the largest medical conferences globally. For ASCO 2024, they selected 25 Featured Voices, advertising them as individuals to follow on Twitter/X throughout the conference. The aim of this study was to characterize tweets from each of the 25 featured individuals.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE METHODS

From May 16, 2024 through June 19, 2024 we filtered tweets by using the twitter advanced search tool and applying the following criteria in the tweet text: #ASCO OR #ASCO24 OR #ASCO2024. Tweets were classified as being about research (yes or no) and if media was included (yes or no). Additional information about research related tweets was gathered, such as whether the research was observational or interventional. If it was interventional, we characterized whether the tweet was supportive, critical, or neutral of the research.

RESULTS

We find that 229 (28.3 %) of 810 tweets commented on research. Of the 229 research related tweets, 136 (59.4 %) were related to interventional trials of which they were supportive 65.3 % of the time. Media was included in 280 (34.6 %) of 810 tweets. 219 were photos of a person and 80 were selfies.

CONCLUSION

ASCO Featured Voices tweeted more photos, including selfies (n=299), than commentary about research (n=229). When research was referenced, individuals were rarely critical. Trials presented at ASCO have the ability to impact guidelines, so it is important that they are appraised critically and discussed in an unbiased way. How Featured Voices are chosen requires further scrutiny.

POLICY SUMMARY STATEMENT AT THE END

ASCO should disclose financial relationships in the future when selecting Featured Voices to represent the organization and provide insight.

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.

Plasma ctDNA as a Treatment Response Biomarker in Metastatic Cancers: Evaluation by the RECIST Working Group

Early indicators of metastatic cancer response to therapy are important for evaluating new drugs and stopping ineffective treatment. The RECIST guidelines based on repeat cancer imaging are widely adopted in clinical trials, are used to identify active regimens that may change practice, and contribute to regulatory approvals. However, these criteria do not provide insight before 6 to 12 weeks of treatment and typically require that patients have measurable disease. Recent data suggest that measuring on-treatment changes in the amount or proportion of ctDNA in peripheral blood plasma may accurately identify responding and nonresponding cancers at earlier time points. Over the past year, the RECIST working group has evaluated current evidence for plasma ctDNA kinetics as a treatment response biomarker in metastatic cancers and early endpoint in clinical trials to identify areas of focus for future research and validation. Here, we outline the requirement for large standardized trial datasets, greater scrutiny of optimal ctDNA collection time points and assay thresholds, and consideration of regulatory body guidelines and patient opinions. In particular, clinically meaningful changes in plasma ctDNA abundance are likely to differ by cancer type and therapy class and must be assessed before ctDNA can be considered a potential pan-cancer response evaluation biomarker. Despite the need for additional data, minimally invasive on-treatment ctDNA measurements hold promise to build upon existing response assessments such as RECIST and offer opportunities for developing novel early endpoints for modern clinical trials.

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.

Outcomes in randomized controlled trials of therapeutic interventions for multiple myeloma: A systematic review

PURPOSE

Many clinical trials of therapeutic interventions for multiple myeloma do not use patient important outcomes and rely on the use of surrogate endpoints. The aim of this systematic review was to depict the landscape of randomized controlled trials in myeloma research and compile the endpoints utilized.

METHODS

We searched Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials in myeloma published in English up to October 2023. We included trials exploring efficacy of therapeutic modalities for myeloma itself or supportive care interventions.

RESULTS

A total of 2181 records, reporting data from 624 trials (448 comparing anti-myeloma treatments and 176 comparing supportive interventions) were deemed eligible. The most common primary outcome reported was disease response, followed by progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Across all trials, 119 (19.1 %) used OS as the primary endpoint, while 316 (50.6 %) listed it as a secondary endpoint. Quality of life was less commonly prioritized, featured as primary endpoint only in seven studies (1.1 %) and as secondary endpoint in 115 studies (18.4 %). Studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry were more likely (Odds Ratio [OR] 3.85, 95 % CI 2.41-6.35) to use PFS as primary outcome. Similarly, studies with authors that had conflicts of interest with the funding source were more likely (OR 4.57, 95 % CI 2.72-7.92) to use PFS as the primary outcome.

CONCLUSION

While randomized controlled trials for multiple myeloma predominantly rely on surrogate endpoints, particularly PFS, the importance of OS as an outcome should not be overlooked.

Bedside implications of the use of surrogate endpoints in solid and haematological cancers: implications for our reliance on PFS, DFS, ORR, MRD and more

Clinical endpoints, such as overall survival, directly measure relevant outcomes. Surrogate endpoints, in contrast, are intermediate, stand-in measures of various tumour-related metrics and include tumour growth, tumour shrinkage, blood results, etc. Surrogates may be a time point measurement, that is, tumour shrinkage at some point (eg, response rate) or biomarker-assessed disease status, measured at given time points (eg, circulating tumour DNA, ctDNA). They can also be measured over time, as with progression-free survival, which is the time until a patient presents with either disease progression or death. Surrogates are increasingly used in trials supporting the marketing authorisation of novel oncology drugs. Yet, the trial-level correlation between surrogates and clinical endpoints-meaning to which extent an improvement in the surrogate predicts an improvement in the direct endpoint-is often moderate to low. Here, we provide a comprehensive classification of surrogate endpoints: time point measurements and time-to-event endpoints in solid and haematological malignancies. Also, we discuss an overlooked aspect of the use of surrogates: the limitations of surrogates outside trial settings, at the bedside. Surrogates can result in the inappropriate stopping or switching of therapy. Surrogates can be used to usher in new strategies (eg, ctDNA in adjuvant treatment of colon cancer), which may erode patient outcomes. In liquid malignancies, surrogates can mislead us to use novel drugs and replace proven standards of care with costly medications. Surrogates can lead one to intensify treatment without clear improvement and possibly worsening quality of life. Clinicians should be aware of the role of surrogates in the development and regulation of drugs and how their use can carry real-world, bedside implications.

Outcomes that matter to patients with cancer: living longer and living better

Oncologists and cancer patients generally agree that the primary goals of advanced cancer treatment are to lengthen and/or improve patient survival. Yet over the last two decades, clinical trials of new cancer treatments have moved away from measuring outcomes that matter to patients. Increasingly, new drugs for advanced cancer treatment reach the market by demonstrating improvements in surrogate endpoints such as progression-free survival (PFS), which is not a measure of how a patient feels, functions, or survives. Research has shown that when patients are fully informed about the meaning of PFS, about half would not choose additional treatment for any magnitude of gain in PFS in the absence of an overall survival improvement. It's time to get back to designing trials that answer clinically meaningful questions and measure the outcomes that truly matter to patients. Engaging educated patient advocates in meaningful ways in clinical trial design and reporting would be a step in this direction.

Modeling Overall Survival in Patients With Pancreatic Cancer From a Pooled Analysis of Phase II Trials

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the validity of surrogacy of progression-free survival (PFS) or time-to-progression (TTP) and overall response rate (ORR) in phase II trials of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). In addition, we explored the impact of predictive variables on overall survival (OS) and developed an optimal OS model.

METHODS

We analyzed 1867 clinical endpoint from 619 phase II PDAC trials with a systematic search from PubMed. Endpoint correlations were determined by Spearman's rank correlation. The assessed predictive factors included PFS/TTP, treatment size, therapy type, stage, and previous treatment. The relationship between predictors and OS was explored by a gamma generalized linear model (GLM) with a log-link function and compared with linear models.

RESULTS

The Spearman rank correlation coefficient between PFS/TTP and OS was 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-0.89; p < 0.0001; n = 610) and between ORR and OS was 0.58 (0.52-0.64; p < 0.0001; n = 514). Model comparison favored the GLM model over the linear model, offering more accurate predictions for higher OS values. Consequently, PFS/TTP was the strongest predictor (pseudo-R2 = 0.75), with 1 added median PFS/TTP month associated with 13% (95% CI 13%-14%) increase in median OS. Subgroup analysis revealed that chemotherapy conferred significantly longer OS compared to targeted therapy in 1-Agent and 2-Agent trials, exhibiting a "very large" and "medium" effect size, respectively (rank biserial, rrb = 0.40 [95% CI 0.22-0.56] and rrb = 0.29 [0.16-0.41], both p < 0.0001), although inconsistent efficacy in 3-Agent trials (rrb = 0.12 [-0.07-0.30], p = 0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

PFS/TTP is a more reliable surrogate than ORR and a strong predictor of OS in phase II trials of pancreatic cancer. Moreover, gamma GLM (log-link function) is a robust tool for modeling positively skewed survival data with non-constant variance, thus can be applied to other cancers' OS data of such nature.

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.

Towards replicability and sustainability in cancer research

High-quality cancer research is crucial to both save lives and improve quality of life. Spurious findings, however, impedes these laudable goals by misleading research efforts and creating research waste that is inherently difficult to counteract. Irreproducible research is intrinsically wasteful, and unsustainable over the long term. In this perspective piece, we elucidate the extent of the current replication crisis and the underlying causes, identifying practices that lend themselves to unsustainable spurious findings, and the factors that underpin these practices. Finally we outline some remedies to the problem of irreproducible research, and how we might move towards more sustainable and trustworthy research in biomedical science.

Criteria for assessing evidence for biomarker-targeted therapies in rare cancers-an extrapolation framework

Background

Advances in targeted therapy development and tumor sequencing technology are reclassifying cancers into smaller biomarker-defined diseases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often impractical in rare diseases, leading to calls for single-arm studies to be sufficient to inform clinical practice based on a strong biological rationale. However, without RCTs, favorable outcomes are often attributed to therapy but may be due to a more indolent disease course or other biases. When the clinical benefit of targeted therapy in a common cancer is established in RCTs, this benefit may extend to rarer cancers sharing the same biomarker. However, careful consideration of the appropriateness of extending the existing trial evidence beyond specific cancer types is required. A framework for extrapolating evidence for biomarker-targeted therapies to rare cancers is needed to support transparent decision-making.

Objectives

To construct a framework outlining the breadth of criteria essential for extrapolating evidence for a biomarker-targeted therapy generated from RCTs in common cancers to different rare cancers sharing the same biomarker.

Design

A series of questions articulating essential criteria for extrapolation.

Methods

The framework was developed from the core topics for extrapolation identified from a previous scoping review of methodological guidance. Principles for extrapolation outlined in guidance documents from the European Medicines Agency, the US Food and Drug Administration, and Australia's Medical Services Advisory Committee were incorporated.

Results

We propose a framework for assessing key assumptions of similarity of the disease and treatment outcomes between the common and rare cancer for five essential components: prognosis of the biomarker-defined cancer, biomarker test analytical validity, biomarker actionability, treatment efficacy, and safety. Knowledge gaps identified can be used to prioritize future studies.

Conclusion

This framework will allow systematic assessment, standardize regulatory, reimbursement and clinical decision-making, and facilitate transparent discussions between key stakeholders in drug assessment for rare biomarker-defined cancers.

The landscape of checkpoint inhibitors in oncology

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapies have become increasingly popular treatment options for patients with cancer, even for patients in non-metastatic settings. Survival and responses have been reported for individual tumor types, but little is known about these outcomes, collectively. We sought to provide an overview of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in ICI drugs tested in registration trials.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional analysis of US FDA oncology ICI drug approvals (2011-2023), we searched for supporting ICI registration trials. We characterized these trials, regarding differences in median OS and PFS between patients in intervention and control arm participants in ICI registration trials; percentage of patients who receive ICI crossover; and whether there is correlation between the percentage of crossover and differences in OS or PFS.

RESULTS

Fifty-six (54.4 %) approvals had trials that reported median OS for both intervention and control arms (median difference was 2.8 months; IQR: 2.2 to 5.0 months). Sixty-five (63.1 %) approvals had trials that reported PFS data for both arms (median of 0.9 months; IQR: -0.2 to 3.0 months). Subsequent therapy was common (median=18.9 %) and was significantly correlated with a higher difference in median OS in all studies with reported differences (R2 =0.15; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

ICIs are increasingly used in the treatment of cancer, yet the median OS improvement is modest, and many ICIs have not been tested for OS benefit. OS is the outcome most meaningful for patients, and drug regulation should require better testing and reporting of these data.

Surrogate endpoints in phase III randomized trials of advanced gastroesophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Overall survival (OS) is the most meaningful endpoint in clinical trials. However, owing to their limitations, surrogate endpoints are commonly used and validation studies are required to assess their reliability. Analysis of phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of advanced gastroesophageal cancer (AGC) with > 100 patients, correlation coefficients (r), and determination coefficients (R²) between OS and surrogates were evaluated through meta-analyses. Progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), and objective response rate (ORR) were examined to determine their correlations with OS. Analysis of 65 phase III RCTs (29,766 subjects) showed a moderate correlation between PFS/TTP and OS (r = 0.77, R² = 0.59), while ORR correlation was low (r = 0.56, R² = 0.31). Excluding immunotherapy trials improved the PFS/TTP and OS correlations (r = 0.83, R² = 0.70). These findings suggest the potential use of PFS/TTP in AGC phase III investigations, disregarding the use of ORR as a surrogate endpoint.

The Social Value Misconception in Clinical Research

Clinical researchers should help respect the autonomy and promote the well-being of prospective study participants by helping them make voluntary, informed decisions about enrollment. However, participants often exhibit poor understanding of important information about clinical research. Bioethicists have given special attention to "misconceptions" about clinical research that can compromise participants' decision-making, most notably the "therapeutic misconception." These misconceptions typically involve false beliefs about a study's purpose, or risks or potential benefits for participants. In this article, we describe a misconception involving false beliefs about a study's potential benefits for non-participants, or its expected social value. This social value misconception can compromise altruistically motivated participants' decision-making, potentially threatening their autonomy and well-being. We show how the social value misconception raises ethical concerns for inherently low-value research, hyped research, and even ordinary research, and advocate for empirical and normative work to help understand and counteract this misconception's potential negative impacts on participants.

Design issues with lutetium-177 PSMA-617 registration studies that bias the outcome of the experimental arm reflect an increasing misalignment of contemporary oncology trials with true patient benefit

In the PSMAfore randomized controlled trial patients with chemotherapy naïve castrate resistant metastasized prostate cancer (CRPC) progressing after one line of a second-generation androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (ARSI) were randomized to the experimental arm of lutetium-177 PSMA-617 or the control arm of another ARSI. The trial showed an increase in the primary endpoint radiographic progression free survival in the experimental arm. Previously, the VISION trial led to the approval of lutetium-177 PSMA-617 in patients with CRPC progressing after at least 1 second generation ARSI and at least 1 line of chemotherapy with a taxane. We highlight several shortcomings in both trials concerning use of putative surrogate endpoints, control arm treatments not reflective of contemporary standards of care, informative censoring and inappropriate cross-over, that all bias results in favor of the experimental arms. Additional regulatory approval of lutetium-177 PSMA-617 for patients prior to receiving chemotherapy would not only lead to further exposure of patients to a treatment without proper proof of benefit but to unsubstantiated health care spending as well.

Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter

While some recent drug treatments have been transformative for patients with cancer, many treatments offer small benefits despite high clinical toxicity, time toxicity and financial toxicity. Moreover, treatments that do provide substantial clinical benefits are not available to many patients globally due to issues with availability and affordability. The Common Sense Oncology's vision is that patients will have access to treatments that provide meaningful improvements in outcomes that matter, regardless of where they live. In recognition of the growing challenges in the field of oncology, Common Sense Oncology seeks to achieve this vision by improving evidence generation, evidence interpretation and evidence communication.

Progression-free survival estimates are shaped by specific censoring rules: Implications for PFS as an endpoint in cancer randomized trials

Kaplan-Meier analysis hinges on the assumption that patients who are censored- lost to follow-up, or only recently enrolled on the study- are no different, on average, than patients who are followed. As such, censoring these patients- omitting their future information and taking the average of those who were followed- should not dramatically change the overall estimate. Yet, in a recent clinical trial, two sets of censoring rules- one favored by trialists and one favored by the US Food and Drug Administration- were applied to a progression-free survival (PFS) estimate. In response, the PFS estimate changed dramatically, increasing the median in the experimental arm from 32 to 43 months, while the control arm was essentially unchanged. In this commentary, we explore the reasons why PFS changed so dramatically. We provide a broad overview of censoring in oncology clinical trials, and suggestions to ensure that PFS is a more reliable endpoint.

Postprogression therapy and confounding for the estimated treatment effect on overall survival in phase III oncology trials

Objective

Estimations of the treatment effect on overall survival (OS) may be influenced by post-progression therapies (PPTs). It is unclear how often OS analyses account for PPT effects. The purpose of this cross-sectional analysis was to determine the prevalence of OS analyses accounting for PPT effects in phase III oncology trials.

Methods and analysis

We screened two-arm, superiority design, phase III, randomised, oncology trials reporting OS from ClinicalTrials.gov. The primary outcome was the frequency of OS analyses adjusting for PPT confounding. Logistic regressions computed ORs for the association between trial-level covariates and the outcome.

Results

A total of 334 phase III trials enrolling 265 310 patients were included, with publications between 2004 and 2020. PPTs were reported in 47% of trials (157 of 334), and an analysis accounting for PPTs was performed in only 12% of trials (N=41). PPT adjustments were often prespecified (N=23, 56%), and appeared to be more likely in cross-over studies (OR 5.04, 95% CI 2.42 to 10.38) and studies with discordant surrogate-OS findings (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.38). In key subgroup analyses, PPT analyses were infrequent, including 8% of trials among those studying locoregional/first-line therapy and 11% of trials among those powered for OS.

Conclusions

Although time on PPTs is an important component of OS, PPTs are rarely considered in OS analyses, which may introduce confounding on estimates of the treatment effect on OS. PPTs and methods to account for their effects on OS estimates should be considered at the time of trial design and reporting.

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.

A perspective: the integration of ctDNA into Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.1 for phase II immunotherapy clinical trials

A consensus guideline, iRECIST, was developed by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) working group for the use of the modified RECIST version 1.1 in cancer immunotherapy trials. iRECIST was designed to separate pseudoprogression from real progression. However, this is not the only ambiguous situation. In clinical immunotherapy trials, stable disease may reflect three tumor responses, including real stable disease, progressive disease and responsive disease. The prediction of a "true complete/partial response" is also important. Much data has accumulated showing that ctDNA can guide decisions at this point; thus, integrating ctDNA into the RECIST 1.1 criteria may help to distinguish a true tumor response type earlier in patients treated with immunotherapy; however, prospectively designed validation studies are needed.

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.

Correlation between surrogate endpoints and overall survival in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aimed to assess the therapeutic effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) and investigate the correlation between surrogate endpoints and overall survival (OS). A systematic literature search included phase I, II, and III clinical trials comparing ICIs to placebo or other therapies for uHCC treatment. Correlations between OS and surrogate endpoints were evaluated using meta-regression analyses and calculating the surrogate threshold effect (STE). The correlation analysis showed a weak association between OS and progression-free survival (PFS), with an R2 value of 0.352 (95% CI: 0.000-0.967). However, complete response (CR) exhibited a strong correlation with OS (R2 = 0.905, 95% CI: 0.728-1.000). Subgroup analyses revealed high correlations between OS and PFS, CR, stable disease (SD), and DC in phase III trials (R2: 0.827-0.922). For the ICI + IA group, significant correlations were observed between OS and SD, progressive disease (PD), and grade 3-5 immune-related adverse events (irAEs) (R2: 0.713-0.969). Analyses of the correlation between survival benefit and risk of mortality across various time points showed a strong association within the first year (R2: 0.724-0.868) but a weak association beyond one year (R2: 0.406-0.499). In ICI trials for uHCC, PFS has limited utility as a surrogate endpoint for OS, while CR exhibits a strong correlation with OS. Subgroup analyses highlight high correlations between OS and PFS, SD, and DC in phase III trials. Notably, the ICI + IA group shows significant associations between OS and SD, PD, and grade 3-5 irAEs. These findings offer valuable insights for interpreting trial outcomes and selecting appropriate endpoints in future clinical studies involving ICIs for uHCC patients.

Early Detection of Disease Progression in Metastatic Cancers: Could CTCs Improve RECIST Criteria?

Early detection of disease progression is a crucial issue in the management of cancer patients, especially in metastatic settings. Currently, treatment selection mostly relies on criteria based on radiologic evaluations (RECIST). The aim of the present retrospective study is to evaluate the potential inclusion of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in hybrid criteria. CTC counts from a total of 160 patients with different metastatic tumors were analyzed for this purpose. In our cohort, 73 patients were affected by breast cancer, 69 by colorectal cancer and 18 by prostate cancer. PFS and OS were evaluated according to the corresponding prediction of disease progression by CTCs and RECIST criteria. In breast cancer, CTC-I has an important impact on the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) values. When CTC-I predicted earlier than RECIST-I, the disease progression, the PFS and OS were shorter with respect to the opposite case. In particular, PFS was 11 (5-16) vs. 34 (23-45)-with p < 0.001-and OS was 80 (22-138) vs. 116 (43-189), p = 0.33. The results suggest a promising role of CTCs as complementary information which could significantly improve the clinical outcomes, and they encourage consideration of future trials to evaluate new hybrid criteria, particularly for patients with breast cancer.

Integrated germline and somatic features reveal divergent immune pathways driving ICB response

Immune Checkpoint Blockade (ICB) has revolutionized cancer treatment, however mechanisms determining patient response remain poorly understood. Here we used machine learning to predict ICB response from germline and somatic biomarkers and interpreted the learned model to uncover putative mechanisms driving superior outcomes. Patients with higher T follicular helper infiltrates were robust to defects in the class-I Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC-I). Further investigation uncovered different ICB responses in MHC-I versus MHC-II neoantigen reliant tumors across patients. Despite similar response rates, MHC-II reliant responses were associated with significantly longer durable clinical benefit (Discovery: Median OS=63.6 vs. 34.5 months P=0.0074; Validation: Median OS=37.5 vs. 33.1 months, P=0.040). Characteristics of the tumor immune microenvironment reflected MHC neoantigen reliance, and analysis of immune checkpoints revealed LAG3 as a potential target in MHC-II but not MHC-I reliant responses. This study highlights the value of interpretable machine learning models in elucidating the biological basis of therapy responses.

Promising and Minimally Invasive Biomarkers: Targeting Melanoma

The therapeutic landscape of malignant melanoma has been radically reformed in recent years, with novel treatments emerging in both the field of cancer immunotherapy and signalling pathway inhibition. Large-scale tumour genomic characterization has accurately classified malignant melanoma into four different genomic subtypes so far. Despite this, only somatic mutations in BRAF oncogene, as assessed in tumour biopsies, has so far become a validated predictive biomarker of treatment with small molecule inhibitors. The biology of tumour evolution and heterogeneity has uncovered the current limitations associated with decoding genomic drivers based only on a single-site tumour biopsy. There is an urgent need to develop minimally invasive biomarkers that accurately reflect the real-time evolution of melanoma and that allow for streamlined collection, analysis, and interpretation. These will enable us to face challenges with tumour tissue attainment and process and will fulfil the vision of utilizing "liquid biopsy" to guide clinical decisions, in a manner akin to how it is used in the management of haematological malignancies. In this review, we will summarize the most recent published evidence on the role of minimally invasive biomarkers in melanoma, commenting on their future potential to lead to practice-changing discoveries.

Progression-free survival, disease-free survival and other composite end points in oncology: improved reporting is needed

Composite outcome measures such as progression-free survival and disease-free survival are increasingly used as surrogate end points in oncology research, frequently serving as the primary end point of pivotal trials that form the basis for FDA and EMA approvals. Such outcome measures combine two or more distinct events (for example, tumour (re)growth, new lesions and/or death) into a single, time-to-event end point. The use of a composite end point can increase the statistical power of a clinical trial and decrease the follow-up period required to demonstrate efficacy, thus lowering costs; however, these end points have a number of limitations. Composite outcomes are often vaguely defined, with definitions that vary greatly between studies, complicating comparisons of results across trials. Altering the makeup of events included in a composite outcome can alter study conclusions, including whether treatment effects are statistically significant. Moreover, the events included in a composite outcome often vary in clinical significance, reflect distinct biological pathways and/or are affected differently by treatment. Therefore, knowing the precise breakdown of the component events is essential to accurately interpret trial results and gauge the true benefit of an intervention. In oncology clinical trials, however, such information is rarely provided. In this Perspective, we emphasize this deficiency through a review of 50 studies with progression-free survival as an outcome published in five top oncology journals, discuss the advantages and challenges of using composite end points, and highlight the need for transparent reporting of the component events.

The Importance of Feasibility Assessment in the Design of ctDNA Guided Trials - Results From the OPTIPAL II Study

INTRODUCTION

Both quantitative and molecular changes in ctDNA can hold important information when treating metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), but its clinical utility is yet to be established. Before conducting a large-scale randomized trial, it is essential to test feasibility. This study investigates whether ctDNA is feasible for detecting patients who will benefit from treatment with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors and the prognostic value of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) response.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with mCRC, who were considered for systemic palliative treatment and were eligible for ctDNA analysis. Mutational testing on cell-free DNA (cfDNA) was done by ddPCR. ctDNA response from baseline to the third treatment cycle was evaluated in patients with detectable ctDNA at baseline. ctDNA maximum response was defined as undetectable ctDNA at the third treatment cycle, ctDNA partial response as any decrease in the ctDNA level, and ctDNA progression as any increase in the ctDNA level.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients were included. The time to test results for mutational testing on cfDNA was significantly shorter than on tumor tissue (p < .001). Progression-free survival were 11.2 months (reference group), 7.5 months (HR = 10.7, p= .02), and 4.6 months (HR = 11.4, p= .02) in patients with ctDNA maximum response, partial response, and progression, respectively. Overall survival was 31.2 months (reference group), 15.2 months (HR = 4.1, p= .03), and 9.0 months (HR = 2.6, p= .03) in patients with ctDNA maximum response, partial response, and progression, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Pretreatment mutational testing on cfDNA in daily clinic is feasible and can be applied in randomized clinical trials evaluating the clinical utility of ctDNA. Early dynamics in ctDNA during systemic treatment hold prognostic value.

Progress and Challenges of the New Conditional Approval Process in China: A Pooled Analysis From 2018 to 2021

PURPOSE

To speed the review and approval of drugs and address pressing medical needs, China began to advocate for the implementation of the conditional approval process in 2017. We aimed to assess the implementation of the conditional approval process in China and further analyze its potential problems and future challenges.

METHODS

This study examined the new drug approval with conditions in China between 2018 and 2021, based on an analysis of drug technical review documents from the Center for Drug Evaluation (CDE). Using publicly available information, we further analyzed the characteristics and results of pivotal clinical trials of conditionally approved drugs, postmarketing study requirements and progress.

FINDINGS

Between 2018 and 2021, China conditionally approved 50 drugs, with 80% (40/50) being antineoplastic agents. Premarketing pivotal trials predominantly used single-arm clinical trials (83.7%, 41/49), while postmarketing trials mainly employed randomized controlled clinical trials (81.0%, 34/42). In oncology drugs, conditionally approved drugs with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) as primary endpoints achieved significant clinical value in terms of efficacy. However, there were also pivotal clinical trials with response rate (RR) as the primary endpoint that demonstrated lower clinical benefits (8.9% of drugs with RR below 20%). Safety analysis revealed substantial variations in the proportions of grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) across pivotal trials (Grade ≥ 3 AEs: 9.0%-99.0%; SAEs: 8.0%-83.0%). For nononcology drugs, pivotal trials also demonstrated an acceptable risk-benefit ratio but exhibited methodological issues. Meanwhile, Most postmarketing studies lacked completion date restrictions (43.2%, 17/47), and no requirements were specified for the transition to full approval. Furthermore, surrogate endpoints were primarily utilized both pre- and postmarketing, but the rational selection of surrogate endpoints remains to be investigated.

IMPLICATIONS

The conditional approval process expedites patient access to drugs for serious diseases. However, challenges pertaining to evidence assessment during approval and design flaws in postmarketing studies exist in China's conditional approval system, necessitating future improvements.

A systematic review of recent phase-II trials in refractory or recurrent osteosarcoma: Can we inform future trial design?

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

To analyze changes in recurrent/refractory osteosarcoma phase II trials over time to inform future trials in this population with poor prognosis.

METHODS

A systematic review of trials registered on trial registries between 01/01/2017-14/02/2022. Comparison of 98 trials identified between 2003 and 2016. Publication search/analysis for both periods, last update on 01/12/2022.

RESULTS

Between 2017 and 2022, 71 phase-II trials met our selection criteria (19 osteosarcoma-specific trials, 14 solid tumor trials with and 38 trials without an osteosarcoma-specific stratum). The trial number increased over time: 13.9 versus 7 trials/year (p = 0.06). Monotherapy remained the predominant treatment (62% vs. 62%, p = 1). Targeted therapies were increasingly evaluated (66% vs. 41%, P = 0.001). Heterogeneity persisted in the trial characteristics. The inclusion criteria were measurable disease (75%), evaluable disease (14%), and surgical remission (11%). 82% of the trials included pediatric or adolescent patients. Biomarker-driven trials accounted for 25% of the total trials. The survival endpoint use (rather than response) slightly increased (40% versus 31%), but the study H1/H0 hypotheses remained heterogeneous. Single-arm designs predominated over multiarm trials (n = 7). Available efficacy data on 1361 osteosarcoma patients in 58 trials remained disappointing, even though 21% of these trials were considered positive, predominantly those evaluating multi-targeted kinase inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

Despite observed changes in trial design and an increased number of trials investigating new therapies, high heterogeneity remained with respect to patient selection, study design, primary endpoints, and statistical hypotheses in recently registered phase II trials for osteosarcoma. Continued optimization of trial design informed by a deeper biological understanding should strengthen the development of new therapies.

Surrogate endpoints for HTA decisions of breast cancer drugs: utility and pitfalls

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Health technology assessment (HTA) of cancer drugs is important to identify whether drugs should be publicly funded. With increasing use of surrogate end points in clinical trials including breast cancer, a review of literature was done to synthesize evidence for validation of these surrogate end points and their potential role in HTA decisions pertaining to breast cancer.

FINDINGS

Disease free survival (DFS) in human epidermal receptor 2 (HER2) positive early breast cancer remains the only validated surrogate end point. Other surrogate end points like pathological complete response (pCR) and event free survival (EFS) in early breast cancer (EBC) and objective response rate (ORR) and progression free survival (PFS) in advanced disease have not been validated for overall survival (OS). Moreover, surrogate end points for quality of life (QOL) have not been established and drugs that improve PFS can have detrimental effect on QOL. End points like pCR have excellent prognostic utility in individual patients but have weak correlation with survival at trial level.

SUMMARY

Most surrogate end points used in breast cancer do not predict OS or QOL which makes it challenging to use them for decisions regarding public funding of cancer drugs. These findings are relevant to HTA agencies prior to making drug reimbursement decisions.

Evidence of pre-approval clinical trial supporting the granted conditional approval for novel cancer drugs in China between 2015 and 2022

Background

Accelerated approval (AA) of novel anticancer drugs based on surrogacy has attracted considerable concern globally. China National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) also established a similar conditional approval (CA) program to accelerate the approval of novel drugs to address unmet medical needs. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the pre-approval clinical trial evidence and potential challenge of cancer drugs receiving CA in China from policy implementation to 2022.

Methods

The cancer drugs (initial and supplemental indications) granted CA between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2022 using the public database of the NMPA were analyzed. The characteristics of the cancer drugs received CA were described. Primary efficacy endpoints and safety derived from the pre-approval clinical trial, including response rates (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), treatment-related serious adverse events (SAE) and Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were quantitatively estimated by meta-analysis. Besides, the correlation between the surrogate endpoints and OS was estimated by the reported trial-level correlation analysis.

Findings

The NMPA approved 72 cancer indications (56 new molecular entities) with CA between 2015 and 2022. 34 indications (47%) were also approved by the FDA or EMA. 74% (53/72) of cancer indications were based on a single-arm trial design while 26% (19/72) for randomized controlled trials. The pooled RR was 0.50 (95% CI: 0.45-0.55, I2 = 96%) with significant differences across cancer types and targets while the pooled hazard risk was 0.39 (95% CI: 0.28-0.53, I2 = 89%) for PFS and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.61-0.73, I2 = 0%) for OS. The pooled treatment-related SAE and Grade ≥3 AEs from single-arm designs resulted in 15% and 25%, respectively. In randomized controlled trials, the pooled treatment-related SAE and Grade ≥3 AEs observed in CA drugs and the control groups were comparable. Surrogate endpoints were widely used as the primary efficacy endpoints in the pre-approval pivotal clinical trials with 75% (54/72) for RR, 10% (7/72) for PFS, and 4% (3/72) for others. Of these, 27% (17/63) of the surrogate endpoints reported a trial-level correlation with OS; three reported high correlation (r ≥ 0.85), two reported moderate correlation (0.70 ≤ r < 0.85) and 12 reported low correlation (r < 0.70).

Interpretation

The majority of novel cancer drugs that received CA were based on RR designed for single-arm trials. The reported correlations of treatment effect between the surrogate endpoints and OS used for CA were limited. Our findings highlighted that the introduction of OS or quality of life based on RCT in confirmatory clinical trials as much as feasible was essential to ensure the clinical benefits for patients.

Funding

This study was supported by postdoctoral fellowship from Tsinghua-Peking Joint Centers for Life Sciences (CLS).

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.

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.

European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists/Advanced Breast Cancer Global Alliance quality indicators for metastatic breast cancer care

AIMS

Improvement in the care of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) can only occur if the adequate quality of care is implemented and verified, including access to multidisciplinary, specialised care given in accordance with high-quality guidelines. To this purpose, European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists and the Advanced Breast Cancer Global Alliance joined efforts to develop the first set of quality indicators (QI) specifically for MBC that should be routinely measured and evaluated to ensure that breast cancer centres meet the required standards.

METHODS

A working group of multidisciplinary European experts in breast cancer met to discuss each identified QI, reporting the definition, the minimum and target standard for breast cancer centres to achieve, and the motivation for selection. The level of evidence was determined according to the short version of the United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality classification.

RESULTS

QI to measure access to and involvement in multidisciplinary and supportive care, appropriate pathological characterisation of disease, systemic therapies and radiotherapy were developed with the consensus of the working group.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first effort of a multistep project that aims to have QI for MBC routinely measured and evaluated to ensure that breast cancer centres achieve mandated standards in the care of patients with metastatic disease.

Making Sense of Composite Endpoints in Clinical Research

Multiple drugs currently used in clinical practice have been approved by regulatory agencies based on studies that utilize composite endpoints. Composite endpoints are appealing because they reduce sample size requirements, follow-up periods, and costs. However, interpreting composite endpoints can be challenging, and their misuse is not uncommon. Incorrect interpretation of composite outcomes can lead to misleading conclusions that impact patient care. To correctly interpret composite outcomes, several important questions should be considered. Are the individual components of the composite outcome equally important to patients? Did the more and less important endpoints occur with similar frequency? Do the component endpoints exhibit similar relative risk reductions? If these questions receive affirmative answers, the use and interpretation of the composite endpoint would be appropriate. However, if any component of the composite endpoint fails to satisfy the aforementioned criteria, interpretation can become difficult, necessitating additional steps. Regulatory agencies acknowledge these challenges and have specific considerations when approving drugs based on studies employing composite endpoints. In conclusion, composite endpoints are valuable tools for evaluating the efficacy and net clinical benefit of interventions; however, cautious interpretation is advised.