Common Sense Oncology: outcomes that matter

Financial Toxicity and Breast Cancer: Why Does It Matter, Who Is at Risk, and How Do We Intervene?

Financial toxicity, or the financial burden patients experience because of medical costs, can lead to negative patient effects including lower quality of life, compromised clinical care, and worse health outcomes. People with cancer and survivors are more likely to have financial toxicity than those without cancer, and patients with breast cancer are uniquely at risk. Patients with breast cancer often require multimodal treatment (surgery, radiation, and/or systemic therapy) and adjuvant hormonal therapy can continue for years after primary treatment. With improved disease outcomes, patients with breast cancer have prolonged survivorship often lasting decades but may carry chronic toxicities from treatment; both ongoing treatment of metastatic disease and long-term surveillance include continued tests, imaging, and medical visits that add to the cumulative burden on patients and their families. Additionally, breast cancer predominately affects women, who are more likely to have dual caregiver responsibilities, and increasingly is diagnosed in younger patients, who may have fertility preservation expenses and are more likely to experience education and/or employment disruption. When faced with high costs, patients may face difficult decisions regarding what sacrifices they are willing to endure to receive care. Interventions designed to reduce financial toxicity are moving out of the pilot phase, and ongoing randomized trials are expected to provide evidence into the effectiveness of financial navigation programs. Further work to address financial toxicity in breast cancer at the patient-provider, institutional, and governmental levels is needed for comprehensively better financial outcomes and quality of life.

Treatment Innovations in Pancreatic Cancer: Putting Patient Priorities First

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma remains one of the most aggressive and difficult-to-treat solid tumor malignancies, with a high mortality-to-incidence ratio. Globally, pancreatic cancer ranks 12th in terms of incidence but sixth for mortality signifying its aggressive behavior and limited treatment options. While the mortality rates for many other solid tumors have substantially improved over the past few decades, temporal trends in pancreatic cancer mortality rates are quite sobering. In the United States, from 2000 to 2020, the mortality rates from pancreatic cancer have increased, whereas at the same time, mortality rates from other cancers, such as lung, colorectal, or kidney, have fallen appreciably. Is this for lack of treatment innovation? How do we improve survival for patients with pancreatic cancer? In this chapter, we discuss the recent advances and future directions with targeted therapies and immunotherapies in the treatment of pancreatic cancer, and provide the reasons for both optimism and caution for the future of systemic treatment of pancreatic cancer.

Guidance for discussants of randomized cancer trials at major meetings

BACKGROUND

Discussants of potentially practice-changing randomized clinical trials (RCTs) at major cancer meetings have an important responsibility to place new research in the context of current cancer care, to assess the generalizability of the data, to evaluate whether the outcomes are meaningful to patients, and to convey this information effectively and objectively to a diverse audience. Without a standard approach to critiquing clinical trial design or results discussants may overlook key weaknesses in their commentary.

COMMON SENSE ONCOLOGY (CSO)

The CSO initiative was launched in 2023 and is now comprised of an international collective of > 1000 clinicians, academics, policymakers, and patients. Its primary vision is that patients should have access to cancer treatments that provide meaningful improvements in outcomes, irrespective of where they live. To do this, one focus is to try to improve evidence generation and reporting.

GUIDANCE FOR DISCUSSANTS

As part of this work, the CSO RCT Working Group has identified key elements for use in the development of discussant presentations to facilitate a balanced high-quality examination of RCTs. Elements include assessment of: a) Study design: evaluation of the study question, selection of population and control arm, use of blinding, choice of primary and secondary endpoints; b) Study results: treatment delivery, use of crossover, impact of censoring, unplanned analyses, patient reported outcomes, adverse effects; and c) Conclusions: Appraise the value and generalizability of trial results and, when positive results are claimed, assess if they offer meaningful benefits over current standard(s) of care in outcomes of importance to patients.

The 2024 State of Science report from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer's Radiation Oncology Scientific Council

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy (RT) is a central pillar of a multimodal cancer treatment approach. The ongoing advances in the fields of RT, imaging technologies, cancer biology, and others yield the potential to refine the use of RT. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) hosted a dedicated workshop to identify and prioritize key research questions and to define future RT-based treatment strategies to improve the survival and quality of life of cancer patients.

METHODS

An initial call for relevant RT research topics led to the formation of workgroups to develop these into new clinical research proposals and projects. The EORTC Radiation Oncology Scientific Council (ROSC) State of Science workshop was held in Brussels, Belgium, in February 2024, bringing together EORTC members and international stakeholders to connect and work on the proposals.

RESULTS

Four topics of interest were identified: I) De-escalation of RT, minimizing toxicity while maintaining patients' quality of life, II) Technology-driven RT utilizing advances in treatment techniques, such as spatially fractionated RT to improve outcomes in patients with bulky disease and localized high tumor burden, III) Biology-driven RT, integrating the rapid advances in cancer biology and functional imaging to guide and personalize RT, and IV) New indications adding value and expanding the use of RT.

CONCLUSION

The EORTC ROSC State of Science workshop prioritized clinical questions to be addressed in prospective clinical research projects to advance RT care and improve patient outcomes.

Quality-of-life endpoints collection, reporting, and framing in randomised trials of indolent lymphomas: a systematic review

Indolent lymphomas are generally incurable, with protracted disease courses. The approval of drug treatment options often relies on surrogate endpoints (eg, progression-free survival), which do not capture patient-centred outcomes such as quality of life (QOL). This systematic review characterises the use of QOL as an endpoint in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of indolent lymphomas, and the association of QOL with survival outcomes. ClinicalTrials.gov was searched from database inception to May 20, 2024, for phase 3 RCTs of indolent lymphomas, including follicular lymphoma, marginal zone lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukaemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma, gastric mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma, and Waldenström macroglobulinaemia. 103 RCTs met eligibility criteria. Data on QOL endpoints were collected in 53 (51%) of 103 trials, but reported in only 25 (24%). Improvements in QOL was reported in 11 (44%) of these RCTs, and these trials were more likely to show progression-free survival and overall survival benefits. We found that trials with neutral or worsened QOL outcomes often framed the results positively, presenting QOL data as supporting treatment use. This systematic review highlights that data on QOL endpoints are undercollected, under-reported, and often positively framed despite a lack of improvement, underscoring the need for transparent QOL reporting to enhance patient-centred care.

Adjuvant immunotherapy in the modern management of resectable melanoma: current status and outlook to 2028

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic advances have reshaped the treatment landscape for patients with resectable melanoma, particularly for those with stage IIB/C and stage III disease. In this article, we discuss the current status and future outlook of adjuvant immunotherapy for melanoma in Europe.

RESULTS

Adjuvant immunotherapy offers significant benefits in terms of recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival. Uncertainties regarding overall survival (OS) benefits, however, remain. Trials such as Keynote-054, which are expected to provide crucial OS information, have delayed their final analyses until 2027. Additionally, real-world studies have raised questions about the correlation between recurrence-free survival/distant metastasis-free survival improvements observed in clinical trials and OS outcomes in routine clinical practice. These uncertainties have led to ongoing debates about the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant therapies, with disparities in reimbursement policies across Europe reflecting these concerns.

CONCLUSION

Looking ahead to 2028, adjuvant immunotherapy will remain a key option of comprehensive melanoma care, particularly for patients with stage IIB/C and stage III with micrometastatic disease, where neoadjuvant immunotherapy is not feasible.

A New Legal Standard for Medical Malpractice

Importance

Patients in the US have persistent needs for safe, evidence-based care. Physicians in the US report fear of liability risk and the need to practice "defensive medicine." In 2024, the American Law Institute revised the legal standard for assessing medical negligence. Understanding the implications of this change is crucial for balancing patient safety, physician autonomy, and the legal system's role in health care.

Observations

The updated standard from the American Law Institute shifts away from the traditional reliance on customary practice toward a more patient-centered concept of reasonable medical care. Although this revised standard still includes elements of prevailing medical practice, it defines reasonable care as the skill and knowledge regarded as competent among similar medical clinicians under comparable circumstances and acknowledges that, in some cases, juries can override customary practices if they fall short of contemporary standards. The restatement also embraces evidence-based practice guidelines, while leaving questions open about the variations in the quality of those guidelines. The restatement makes additional recommendations regarding informed consent and other aspects of physician-patient communication.

Conclusions and Relevance

The new standard of care from the American Law Institute represents a shift away from strict reliance on medical custom and invites courts to incorporate evidence-based medicine into malpractice law. Although states may adopt the recommendations from the American Law Institute at different times and to varying degrees, the restatement offers health professionals and the organizations in which they practice an opportunity to reconsider how medical negligence will be assessed, and to focus more directly on promoting patient safety and improving care delivery. Nonetheless, physicians should recognize that, at least for now, many courts will continue to rely significantly on prevailing practice in assessing medical liability.

Exploring clinical trials awareness, information access and participation amongst Australians with ovarian cancer: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

Ovarian cancer is associated with advanced stage diagnosis and poor survival rates. Clinical trials are critical for improving both clinical and quality of life outcomes. Challenges exist to clinical trials awareness, information access and participation, but perspectives of Australians with ovarian cancer have not been previously investigated. We aimed to explore clinical trials awareness, information access and participation amongst Australians with ovarian cancer.

METHODS

Utilising an exploratory qualitative approach, women with ovarian cancer participated in online focus groups and interviews between December 2023 and February 2024. Transcripts underwent inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

Five themes and five subthemes emerged. In theme 1, participants identified "Barriers exist that affect clinical trial awareness and participation" and were explored through their experience of ovarian cancer. In theme 2, participants shared that "Instigating the conversation and doing my own research" was necessary to access clinical trials. Theme 3 describes ideas on "Finding solutions to improve clinical trial awareness and information access" through subthemes: "we need a centralised, credible source"; "communicate clinical trials in various ways from trusted contacts"; and "I want tailored, relevant information". Theme 4 explained that "Altruism is a motivator" in willingness to participate in trials. Finally, in theme 5, participants explained that "Emotions regarding clinical trials are varied" illustrated in subthemes: "feeling left behind" and "feeling fortunate".

CONCLUSIONS

These qualitative insights will inform development of a cross-sectional survey for national distribution amongst Australians with ovarian cancer. Results will assist in developing solutions to improve clinical trials awareness and information access.

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.

Metronomic Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer as a Strategy to Deliver More Sustainable and Less Toxic Treatments: Time to Debunk the Myth?

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women, worldwide. With the increasing burden of breast cancer, the search for more tolerable and sustainable treatments is required, to result in broader access to cancer treatments. Metronomic chemotherapy defines the use of chemotherapy agents based on low-dose, continuous regimens, as opposed to traditional treatments administered for limited intervals, at higher dose. The use of metronomic chemotherapies has been envisioned often as a way to reduce toxicity while maintaining similar efficacy, and result in reduced health system resource utilization, while tailoring some special populations' needs, such as the older adults with cancer. In our review, we provide a revision of the data available on the use of metronomic chemotherapy in breast cancer, as stratified per setting of use and subtypes of diseases. Clinical trials evaluating head-to-head metronomic and nonmetronomic schedules of chemotherapies broadly failed to meet their endpoints of noninferiority and/or superiority in term of safety, showing more often similar burden of adverse effect. Efficacy was also usually comparable. Data on financial implications appeared limited, and not conclusive of economic and health system benefits with the use of metronomic schedules. Our review of the evidence suggests that broad implementation of metronomic chemotherapy to enhance sustainability and safety may be not appropriate in all settings, as data for the optimized use are still warranted. The use of metronomic chemotherapy in breast cancer as a mean to improve tolerability, reduce treatment-related complications and associate costs and enhance sustainability of cancer treatments should not be pursued as an ultimate solution, in all settings of breast cancer treatment. Standard treatments having robustly proved to improve patient outcomes are to be prioritised for first, unless data suggest otherwise with these regimens.

Changes in essential cancer medicines and association with cancer outcomes: an observational study of 158 countries

BACKGROUND

Cancer is a major cause of mortality worldwide, and differences in cancer mortality rates between countries are, in part, due to differences in access to cancer care, including medicines. National essential medicines lists (NEMLs) play a role in prioritization of healthcare expenditure and access to medicines. We examined the association between amenable cancer mortality and listing medicines used in the management of eight cancers (non-melanoma skin, uterine, breast, Hodgkin lymphoma, colon, leukemia, cervical, and testicular) in national essential medicines lists of 158 countries and summarized changes to the inclusion of cancer treatments in NEMLs.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional examination of NEMLs for 158 countries, which were obtained in May 2023. We identified medicines used to treat each of the eight cancers and determined the number of medicines listed by NEMLs for each cancer. We conducted multiple linear regressions to examine the association between the number of medicines listed on the NEMLs and cancer mortality.

RESULTS

We found associations between cancer medicine listing and outcomes for six of the eight examined cancers (non-melanoma skin cancer (p = 0.001), uterine cancer (p = 0.006), breast cancer (p = 0.001), Hodgkin lymphoma (p = 0.021), colon cancer (p = 0.006), and leukemia (p = 0.002)), when adjusting for healthcare expenditure and population size.

CONCLUSION

There was an association between listing cancer medicines on NEMLs and cancer mortality. Further research is required to explore how cancer mortality may be impacted by other cancer interventions, as well as policies to improve equitable access to cancer care.

Preferences for speed of access versus certainty of the survival benefit of new cancer drugs: a discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

The extent to which patients with cancer are willing to accept uncertainty about the clinical benefit of new cancer drugs in exchange for faster access is not known. This study aims to examine preferences for access versus certainty, and to understand factors that influence these preferences.

METHODS

A US nationally representative sample of older adults were recruited via Cint, an online platform for survey research, to take part in an online discrete choice experiment. To be eligible, respondents had to self-report some experience with cancer-ie, they themselves, a close friend or a family member, previously or currently diagnosed with cancer. In the experiment, respondents chose between two cancer drugs, considering five attributes: functional status, life expectancy, certainty of the survival benefit of a new drug, effect of the drug on a surrogate endpoint, and delay in US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval time. The first primary outcome was the relative importance of certainty of survival benefit and wait time to respondents. The second primary outcome was willingness to wait for greater certainty of survival benefit, including subgroup analysis by cancer experience, age, education status, race or ethnicity and income. Secondary outcomes were changes in sensitivity to certainty and wait time, depending on the drug's effect on a surrogate endpoint, respondents' functional status, and life expectancy. The study plan was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05936632.

FINDINGS

Between July 7 and July 20, 2023, 998 eligible respondents completed the survey. 870 respondents (461 [53%] male, 406 [47%] female, and three [<1%] other) were included in the final analysis. Respondents showed strong preferences for high certainty of survival benefit (coefficient 2·61, 95% CI 2·23 to 2·99), and strong preferences against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time (coefficient -1·04, 95% CI -1·31 to -0·77). Given very low certainty a drug would provide survival benefit (no evidence linking a surrogate endpoint to overall survival), respondents were willing to wait up to 21·68 months (95% CI 17·61 to 25·74) for high certainty (strong evidence) of survival benefit. A drug's effect on a surrogate endpoint had no significant impact on drug choices (coefficient 0·02, 95% CI -0·21 to 0·25). Older respondents (aged ≥55 years), non-White, lower-income (<$40 000 per year) individuals, and those with the lowest life expectancy, were most sensitive to wait time.

INTERPRETATION

Many cancer drugs approved through the FDA's accelerated approval pathway do not offer any survival benefit to patients. In this study, individuals expressed strong preferences for certainty that a cancer drug would offer survival benefit. Some individuals also expressed a higher willingness to wait for greater certainty than would be necessary to assess the survival benefit (over progression-free survival benefit) of most cancer drugs used in the metastatic setting.

FUNDING

The London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre.

Improving the clinical meaning of surrogate endpoints: An empirical assessment of clinical progression in phase III oncology trials

Disease progression in clinical trials is commonly defined by radiologic measures. However, clinical progression may be more meaningful to patients, may occur even when radiologic criteria for progression are not met, and often requires a change in therapy in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to determine the utilization of clinical progression criteria within progression-based trial endpoints among phase III trials testing systemic therapies for metastatic solid tumors. The primary manuscripts and protocols of phase III trials were reviewed for whether clinical events, such as refractory pain, tumor bleeding, or neurologic compromise, could constitute a progression event. Univariable logistic regression computed odds ratios (OR) and 95% CI for associations between trial-level covariates and clinical progression. A total of 216 trials enrolling 148,190 patients were included, with publication dates from 2006 through 2020. A major change in clinical status was included in the progression criteria of 13% of trials (n = 27), most commonly as a secondary endpoint (n = 22). Only 59% of trials (n = 16) reported distinct clinical progression outcomes that constituted the composite surrogate endpoint. Compared with other disease sites, genitourinary trials were more likely to include clinical progression definitions (16/33 [48%] vs. 11/183 [6%]; OR, 14.72; 95% CI, 5.99 to 37.84; p < .0001). While major tumor-related clinical events were seldom considered as disease progression events, increased attention to clinical progression may improve the meaningfulness and clinical applicability of surrogate endpoints for patients with metastatic solid tumors.

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.

The Disconnect between Clinical Guidelines and Reality: The Case of Trastuzumab

HER2-positive breast cancer accounts for 10% to 20% of all breast cancer diagnoses. The mAb trastuzumab is crucial in treating this disease, significantly improving survival outcomes. Despite its inclusion in the World Health Organization's Model List of Essential Medicines, access to trastuzumab remains limited worldwide. In this issue of the journal, Norris and colleagues report that only 45% of eligible patients with HER2-positive breast cancer in the United Kingdom received trastuzumab between 2012 and 2017. This finding in a high-income country with universal health care is worrisome and points toward even greater barriers to access in developing nations. Some solutions to improve accessibility, which we discuss, include shorter durations of trastuzumab treatment and encouraging the registration and availability of biosimilars. The data presented by Norris and colleagues point toward a disconnect between the academic oncology landscape, focused on expensive drugs with marginal benefits, and everyday practice in which even essential interventions may not be available. Ensuring the accessibility to proven, essential medicines should be as relevant as innovation to improve patient outcomes and create a more sustainable healthcare system. See related article by Norris et al., p. 1298.

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.

Adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected stage III melanoma (EORTC 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054): long-term, health-related quality-of-life results from a double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

In the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054 study, adjuvant pembrolizumab improved recurrence-free survival and distant-metastasis-free survival in patients with resected stage III melanoma. Earlier results showed no effect of pembrolizumab on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Little is known about HRQOL after completion of treatment with pembrolizumab, an important research area concerning patients who are likely to become long-term survivors. This study reports long-term HRQOL results.

METHODS

This double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial compared adjuvant pembrolizumab with placebo in patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC resected cutaneous melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 1 or 0, recruited from 123 academic centres and community hospitals in 23 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a minimisation technique stratified for stage and geographical region to receive 200 mg of intravenous pembrolizumab or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 18 doses. Investigators, patients, and those collecting or analysing data were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint of the trial was recurrence-free survival (reported elsewhere). HRQOL was a prespecified exploratory endpoint, measured with the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30. All patients with a baseline HRQOL evaluation available who were alive 108 weeks from randomisation were included in this analysis of long-term HRQOL. Long-term HRQOL included assessments measured every 6 months between 108 weeks and 48 months after randomisation. The threshold of clinical relevance for all HRQOL scales used was an average change of 5 points. The trial is ongoing, recruitment is completed, and HRQOL data collection is finalised. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02362594, and EudraCT, 2014-004944-37.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 26, 2015, and Nov 14, 2016, 1019 patients were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab (n=514) or placebo (n=505). Completion of the HRQOL evaluation at baseline exceeded 90% (481 [94%] patients in the pembrolizumab group and 467 [92%] in the placebo group), and ranged between 60% and 90% for post-baseline timepoints. Among patients with a baseline HRQOL evaluation, 365 (39%) were female and 583 (61%) were male. The mean change from baseline to long-term HRQOL was -0·56 (95% CI -2·33 to 1·22) in the pembrolizumab group and 1·63 (-0·12 to 3·38) in the placebo group. The difference between the two groups was -2·19 (-4·65 to 0·27, p=0·081). Differences for all other scales were smaller than 5 and not statistically significant.

INTERPRETATION

Adjuvant pembrolizumab did not have a significant impact on long-term HRQOL compared with placebo in patients with resected stage III melanoma. These findings, together with earlier results on efficacy and HRQOL, support the use of pembrolizumab in this setting.

FUNDING

Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Inclusion, characteristics, and reporting of older adults in FDA registration studies of immunotherapy, 2018-2022

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have transformed the management of cancer, particularly for older adults, who constitute a majority of the global cancer patient population. This study aimed to assess the inclusion, characteristics, and reporting of older adults enrolled in Food and Drug Administration (FDA) registration clinical trials of ICI between 2018 and 2022. Clinical trials of ICI leading to an FDA approval in solid tumor oncology between 2018 and 2022 were included. Primary study reports and all available secondary publications were assessed. The availability and completeness of older subgroup data for protocol-defined clinical efficacy endpoints, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and toxicity outcomes, and baseline characteristics were assessed according to predefined criteria which categorized reporting completeness hierarchically in relation to the availability of published data, including effect size, sample size, and measures of precision. 53 registration trials were included, involving a total of 37,094 participants. Most trials (64.2%) were of ICI combination therapy. 42.3% of patients were aged≥65 years; 11.1% were aged≥75. No trials specified an upper age limit for eligibility. 98.1% of trials excluded patients with European Cooperative Oncology Group performance status>1. 87.2% of primary efficacy endpoints and 17.9% of secondary efficacy endpoints were reported completely for older adults. Five studies (9.4%) reported baseline characteristics, three (6.1%) reported HRQOL assessments, and four (7.5%) reported toxicity outcomes completely among older subgroups. No trials conducted baseline geriatric assessments or reported geriatric-specific symptoms or quality of life scales. This analysis highlights significant deficits in the enrollment and reporting of older subgroups in pivotal trials of ICI therapy. The findings highlight an urgent need for improved reporting and inclusion standards in clinical trials of ICI to better inform treatment decisions for older adults.

EBCC-14 manifesto: Addressing disparities in access to innovation for patients with metastatic breast cancer across Europe

The European Breast Cancer Council (EBCC) traditionally identifies controversies or major deficiencies in the management of patients with breast cancer and selects a multidisciplinary expert team to collaborate in setting crucial principles and recommendations to improve breast cancer care. The 2024 EBCC manifesto focuses on disparities in the care of patients with metastatic breast cancer. There are several reasons for existing disparities both between and within countries. Our recommendations aim to address the stigma of metastatic disease, which has led to significant disparities in access to innovative care regardless of the gross national income of a country. These recommendations are for different stakeholders to promote the care of patients with metastatic breast cancer across Europe and worldwide.

Perspectives on shorter durations of anti-HER2 therapy in early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer: a patient survey

PURPOSE

Despite previous studies proposing shorter durations of anti-HER2 therapy for selected patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (EBC), 12-months remains standard of care. A survey was performed to assess patient perspectives and willingness to participate in studies evaluating shorter durations of anti-HER2 therapy.

METHODS

Patients with HER2-positive EBC completing or having previously completed anti-HER2 therapy, were recruited by healthcare professionals at The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre to participate in an anonymous online survey. The primary objective was to learn about patients' perspectives on shorter durations (less than 12-months) of anti-HER2 therapy. Secondary objectives were to explore patients' interest in clinical trials of shorter durations of anti-HER2 therapy and the degree of increased breast cancer risk they would accept with a shorter treatment duration.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 94 eligible patients. Most patients received Trastuzumab alone (78%, 73/94), while 13% (12/94) received trastuzumab and pertuzumab. Side effects were experienced by 52% (46/89), the most common being; fatigue (61%, 28/46), myalgia (37%, 17/46), and diarrhea (24%, 11/46). Most patients (88%, 78/89) did not find treatment bothersome. Regarding perspectives on shorter durations of anti-HER2 therapy, most (79%, 74/94) respondents stated they would agree to less treatment if it were possible to receive fewer treatments with the same cancer benefits. 56% of patients were interested in clinical trials, however, about half stated they would not be accepting of any increase in breast cancer recurrence risk.

CONCLUSION

Trials to investigate who can safely and effectively be treated with shorter durations of anti-HER2 therapy are needed. This study provides important insights to patients' perspectives on shorter durations of anti-HER2 treatment, and their concerns regarding potential increased cancer risk with less treatment.

What Is Ailing Oncology Clinical Trials? Can We Fix Them?

Evidence from phase three clinical trials helps shape clinical practice. However, a very small minority of patients with cancer participate in clinical trials and many trials are not completed on time due to slow accrual. Issues with restrictive eligibility criteria can severely limit the patients who can access trials, without any convincing evidence that these restrictions impact patient safety. Similarly, regulatory, organizational, and institutional hurdles can delay trial activation, ultimately making some studies irrelevant. Additional issues during trial conduct (e.g., mandatory in-person visits, central confirmation of standard biomarkers, and inflexible drug dosage modification) contribute to making trials non-patient-centric. These real-life observations from experienced clinical trialists can seem nonsensical to investigators and patients alike, who are trying to bring effective drugs to patients with cancer. In this review, we delve into these issues in detail, and discuss potential solutions to make clinical trials more accessible to patients.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

FUNDING

None.

Theranostic Innovation by Humane N-of-One Cancer Care in Real-World Patients

Patients with relapsed or refractory metastatic cancer unresponsive to standard therapies have motivated nuclear physicians to develop innovative radioligands, precisely targeted to tumor molecular receptors, for effective treatment of specific advanced malignancies. Individual practitioners in departments of nuclear medicine across the world have performed first-in-human studies on compassionate patient usage N-of-One protocols. These physician-sponsored studies then evolved into early-phase clinical trials and obtained real-world data to demonstrate real-world evidence of effectiveness in prolonging survival and enhancing quality of life of many so-called "End-Stage" cancer patients. Virtually all the therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals in current clinical oncology have been discovered and developed into effective specific treatments of targetable cancers by individual doctors in the course of their hospital practice. Pharma industry was not involved until many years later when performance of mandated Phase 3 randomized controlled trials became necessary to achieve regulatory agency approval. This article traces the history of several novel theranostic agents developed from compassionate N-of-One studies by hospital physicians over the past 36 years. It acknowledges the collegiality and collaboration of individual nuclear medicine specialists, worldwide, in pioneering effective humane therapy of particular advanced cancers unresponsive to conventional treatments.

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.

Hidden in plain sight - Survival consequences of baseline symptom burden in women with recurrent ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

To describe the baseline symptom burden(SB) experienced by patients(pts) with recurrent ovarian cancer(ROC) prior and associations with progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

METHODS

We analysed baseline SB reported by pts. with platinum resistant/refractory ROC (PRR-ROC) or potentially‑platinum sensitive ROC receiving their third or greater line of chemotherapy (PPS-ROC≥3) enrolled in the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup - Symptom Benefit Study (GCIG-SBS) using the Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment concerns (MOST). The severity of baseline symptoms was correlated with PFS and OS.

RESULTS

The 948 pts. reported substantial baseline SB. Almost 80% reported mild to severe pain, and 75% abdominal symptoms. Shortness of breath was reported by 60% and 90% reported fatigue. About 50% reported moderate to severe anxiety, and 35% moderate to severe depression. Most (89%) reported 1 or more symptoms as moderate or severe, 59% scored 6 or more symptoms moderate or severe, and 46% scored 9 or more symptoms as moderate or severe. Higher SB was associated with significantly shortened PFS and OS; five symptoms had OS hazard ratios larger than 2 for both moderate and severe symptom cut-offs (trouble eating, vomiting, indigestion, loss of appetite, and nausea; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Pts with ROC reported high SB prior to starting palliative chemotherapy, similar among PRR-ROC and PPS-ROC≥3. High SB was strongly associated with early progression and death. SB should be actively managed and used to stratify patients in clinical trials. Clinical trials should measure and report symptom burden and the impact of treatment on symptom control.

Patient-reported outcomes in randomized clinical trials of systemic therapy for advanced soft tissue sarcomas in adults: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

This systematic review evaluates reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) within randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature search from January 2000 - August 2022 was conducted for phase II/III RCTs evaluating systemic treatments in adult patients with advanced STS. Quality of PRO reporting was assessed using the CONSORT PRO extension.

RESULTS

Out of 7294 abstracts, 59 articles were included; comprising 43 RCTs. Only 15 RCTs (35%) included PROs, none as primary endpoints. Only 10 of these RCTs reported PROs, either in the primary (6/10) or secondary publication (1/10) or in both (3/10), with a median time interval of 23 months. The median CONSORT PRO adherence score was 5.5/14, with higher scores in publications focusing exclusively on PROs.

CONCLUSION

These results highlight the need for improved and more consistent PRO reporting to inform patient care in the setting of advanced STS.

New Anticancer Drugs: Reliably Assessing "Value" While Addressing High Prices

Countries face challenges in paying for new drugs. High prices are driven in part by exploding drug development costs, which, in turn, are driven by essential but excessive regulation. Burdensome regulation also delays drug development, and this can translate into thousands of life-years lost. We need system-wide reform that will enable less expensive, faster drug development. The speed with which COVID-19 vaccines and AIDS therapies were developed indicates this is possible if governments prioritize it. Countries also differ in how they value drugs, and generally, those willing to pay more have better, faster access. Canada is used as an example to illustrate how "incremental cost-effectiveness ratios" (ICERs) based on measures such as gains in "quality-adjusted life-years" (QALYs) may be used to determine a drug's value but are often problematic, imprecise assessments. Generally, ICER/QALY estimates inadequately consider the impact of patient crossover or long post-progression survival, therapy benefits in distinct subpopulations, positive impacts of the therapy on other healthcare or societal costs, how much governments willingly might pay for other things, etc. Furthermore, a QALY value should be higher for a lethal or uncommon disease than for a common, nonlethal disease. Compared to international comparators, Canada is particularly ineffective in initiating public funding for essential new medications. Addressing these disparities demands urgent reform.

Harnessing the Potential of Real-World Evidence in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: Where Do We Stand?

OPINION STATEMENT

Treatment guidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC) are primarily based on the results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), the gold standard methodology to evaluate safety and efficacy of oncological treatments. However, generalizability of trial results is often limited due to stringent eligibility criteria, underrepresentation of specific populations, and more heterogeneity in clinical practice. This may result in an efficacy-effectiveness gap and uncertainty regarding meaningful benefit versus treatment harm. Meanwhile, conduct of traditional RCTs has become increasingly challenging due to identification of a growing number of (small) molecular subtypes. These challenges-combined with the digitalization of health records-have led to growing interest in use of real-world data (RWD) to complement evidence from RCTs. RWD is used to evaluate epidemiological trends, quality of care, treatment effectiveness, long-term (rare) safety, and quality of life (QoL) measures. In addition, RWD is increasingly considered in decision-making by clinicians, regulators, and payers. In this narrative review, we elaborate on these applications in CRC, and provide illustrative examples. As long as the quality of RWD is safeguarded, ongoing developments, such as common data models, federated learning, and predictive modelling, will further unfold its potential. First, whenever possible, we recommend conducting pragmatic trials, such as registry-based RCTs, to optimize generalizability and answer clinical questions that are not addressed in registrational trials. Second, we argue that marketing approval should be conditional for patients who would have been ineligible for the registrational trial, awaiting planned (non) randomized evaluation of outcomes in the real world. Third, high-quality effectiveness results should be incorporated in treatment guidelines to aid in patient counseling. We believe that a coordinated effort from all stakeholders is essential to improve the quality of RWD, create a learning healthcare system with optimal use of trials and real-world evidence (RWE), and ultimately ensure personalized care for every CRC patient.

Common Sense (Radiation) Oncology: Redefining targets in radiotherapy

In 2023, the Common Sense Oncology (CSO) movement was launched with the goal of recalibrating cancer care to focus on outcomes that matter to patients. We extend the three CSO pillars - evidence generation, interpretation and communication - to radiation oncology and advocate for better evidence demonstrating the value of our modality.

Charting the Path to Systemic Therapy De-escalation-Oligometastatic Kidney Cancer as a Paradigm

This Viewpoint discusses whether select patient populations may benefit from de-escalation rather than escalation of systemic therapy for kidney cancer.

Advanced Breast Cancer Care: The Current Situation and Global Disparities

OBJECTIVES

Advanced breast cancer (ABC) is an incurable disease. The number of people living with ABC has increased globally. Disparities in ABC care exist at both individual and system levels. ABC cases in most low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are underreported due to a lack of national cancer registries. Harmonized guidelines for resource stratification and capacity building in LMICs are under way.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases were used.

CONCLUSION

To improve ABC outcomes and resolve disparities, more robust health systems or pathways need to be developed across the cancer continuum in addition to social education.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

So far, the ABC specialist nurse role has been variable globally, and to conquer such variability, an international online nurse education and training program is in practice.

Shorter Durations of Anti-HER2 Therapy for Patients with Early-Stage, HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: The Physician Perspective

Despite evidence from clinical trials showing the efficacy of shorter durations of therapy, most HER2-positive early breast cancer (EBC) patients receive a year of anti-HER2 therapy. A survey of Canadian oncologists was conducted online, with electronic data collection, and the analysis is reported descriptively. Measures collected included current practices with respect to the duration of adjuvant anti-HER2 therapy, perspectives on data regarding shorter durations of treatment, and interest in further trials on this subject. Responses were received from 42 providers across Canada. Half (50%, 21/42) reported having never recommended 6 months of anti-HER2 therapy. The primary reason physicians consider a shorter duration is in response to treatment-related toxicities (76%, 31/41). Most participants (79%, 33/42) expressed the need for more data to determine which patients can be safely and effectively treated with shorter durations. Patient factors such as young age, initial stage, hormone receptor status, and type of neoadjuvant chemotherapy were attributed to reluctance to offer shorter durations of treatment. Many respondents (83%, 35/42) expressed interest in participating in the proposed clinical trial of 6 months of anti-HER2 therapy. In contemporary Canadian practice, 12 months of anti-HER2 therapy remains the primary practice. Future trials are required to better define the role of shorter treatment durations.