Melflufen: post-hoc subgroup analyses and the US FDA Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee

Characteristics of post hoc subgroup analyses of oncology clinical trials: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Subgroup analyses in clinical trials assess intervention effects on specific patient subgroups, ensuring generalizability. However, they are usually only able to generate hypotheses rather than definitive conclusions. This study examined the prevalence and characteristics of post hoc subgroup analysis in oncology.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed published subgroup analyses from 2000 to 2022. We included articles presenting secondary, post hoc, or subgroup analyses of interventional clinical trials in oncology, cancer survivorship, or cancer screening, published separately from the original clinical trial publication. We collected cancer type, year of publication, where and how subgroup analyses were reported, and funding.

RESULTS

Out of 16 487 screened publications, 1612 studies were included, primarily subgroup analyses of treatment trials for solid tumors (82%). Medical writers contributed to 31% of articles, and 58% of articles reported conflicts of interest. Subgroup analyses increased significantly over time, with 695 published between 2019 and 2022, compared to 384 from 2000 to 2014. Gastrointestinal tumors (25%) and lymphoid lineage tumors (39%) were the most frequently studied solid and hematological malignancies, respectively. Industry funding and reporting of conflicts of interest increased over time. Subgroup analyses often neglected to indicate their secondary nature in the title. Most authors were from high-income countries, most commonly North America (45%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the rapidly growing use of post hoc subgroup analysis of oncology clinical trials, revealing that the majority are supported by pharmaceutical companies, and they frequently fail to indicate their secondary nature in the title. Given the known methodological limitations of subgroup analyses, caution is recommended among authors, readers, and reviewers when conducting and interpreting these studies.

Ensuring Ethical Postprogression Therapy for Patients in Randomized Trial Control Arms

@Eddie_Cliff et al explore the scientific & ethical reasons why patients randomized to the control arm of trials should 'crossover' to receive the investigational therapy if their disease progresses

Revisiting the Role of Alkylating Agents in Multiple Myeloma: Up-to-Date Evidence and Future Perspectives

From the 1960s to the early 2000s, alkylating agents (e.g., melphalan, cyclophosphamide, and bendamustine) remained a key component of standard therapy for newly-diagnosed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Later on, their associated toxicities (including second primary malignancies) and the unprecedented efficacy of novel therapies have led clinicians to increasingly consider alkylator-free approaches. Meanwhile, new alkylating agents (e.g., melflufen) and new applications of old alkylators (e.g., lymphodepletion before chimeric antigen receptor T-cell [CAR-T] therapy) have emerged in recent years. Given the expanding use of antigen-directed modalities (e.g., monoclonal antibodies, bispecific antibodies, and CAR-T therapy), this review explores the current and future role of alkylating agents in different treatment settings (e.g., induction, consolidation, stem cell mobilization, pre-transplant conditioning, salvage, bridging, and lymphodepleting chemotherapy) to ellucidate the role of alkylator-based regimens in modern-day MM management.