Level of evidence used in recommendations by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines beyond Food and Drug Administration approvals

Systematic analysis of off-label and off-guideline cancer therapy usage in a real-world cohort of 165,912 US patients

Patients with cancer may be given treatments that are not officially approved (off-label) or recommended by guidelines (off-guideline). Here we present a data science framework to systematically characterize off-label and off-guideline usages using real-world data from de-identified electronic health records (EHR). We analyze treatment patterns in 165,912 US patients with 14 common cancer types. We find that 18.6% and 4.4% of patients have received at least one line of off-label and off-guideline cancer drugs, respectively. Patients with worse performance status, in later lines, or treated at academic hospitals are significantly more likely to receive off-label and off-guideline drugs. To quantify how predictable off-guideline usage is, we developed machine learning models to predict which drug a patient is likely to receive based on their clinical characteristics and previous treatments. Finally, we demonstrate that our systematic analyses generate hypotheses about patients' response to treatments.

Use of suboptimal control arms in randomized clinical trials of investigational cancer drugs in China, 2016-2021: An observational study

BACKGROUND

The use of suboptimal controls in randomized trials of new cancer drugs can produce potentially unreliable clinical efficacy results over the current standard of care and expose patients to substandard therapy. We aim to investigate the proportion of randomized trials of investigational cancer drugs that used a suboptimal control arm and the number of trial participants at risk of exposure to suboptimal treatments in China. The association between the use of a suboptimal control and concluding statistical significance on the primary endpoint was also examined.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

This observational study included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cancer drugs that were authorized by specific Chinese institutional review boards between 2016 and 2021, supporting investigational new drug applications of these drugs in China. The proportion of trials that used a suboptimal control arm and the total number of trial participants at risk of exposure to suboptimal treatments were calculated. In a randomized trial for a specific condition, a comparator was deemed suboptimal if it was not recommended by clinical guidelines published in priori or if there existed a regimen with a higher level of recommendation for the indication. The final sample included 453 Phase II/III and Phase III randomized oncology trials. Overall, 60 trials (13.2%) adopted a suboptimal control arm. Among them, 58.3% (35/60) used comparators that were not recommended by a prior guideline for the indication. The cumulative number of trial participants at risk of exposure to suboptimal treatments totaled 18,610 by the end of 2021, contributing 15.1% to the total number of enrollees of all sampled RCTs in this study. After adjusting for the year of ethical approval, region of participant recruitment, line of therapy, and cancer site, second-line therapies (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.7, 95%CI [1.2, 5.9]), adjuvant therapies (aOR = 8.9, 95% CI [3.4, 23.1]), maintenance therapies (aOR = 5.2, 95% CI [1.6, 17.0]), and trials recruiting participants in China only (aOR = 4.1, 95% CI [2.1, 8.0]) were more likely to adopt a suboptimal control. For the 105 trials with publicly available results, no statistically significant difference was observed between the use of a suboptimal control and concluding positive on the primary endpoint (100.0% [12/12] versus 83.9% [78/93], p = 0.208). The main limitation of this study is its reliance on clinical guidelines that could vary across cancer types and time in assessing the quality of the control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, over one-eighth of randomized trials of cancer drugs registered to apply for regulatory approval in China used a suboptimal comparator. Our results highlight the necessity to refine the design of randomized trials to generate optimal clinical evidence for new cancer therapies.

Utility of Precision Oncology Using Cancer Genomic Profiling for Head and Neck Malignancies

BACKGROUND/AIM

In recent years, individual patient cancer genomic profiling (CGP) has become more accessible, allowing determination of therapeutic strategies using driver gene mutations in cancer therapy. However, this precision oncology approach, tailored to specific patients, remains experimental. In this study, we verified the feasibility and benefit of using CGP to guide treatment of malignant head and neck tumors. We aimed to evaluate the profiling and clinical courses of patients with head and neck malignancies who underwent CGP and determine the extent to which CGP for head and neck malignancies has resulted in beneficial drug administration.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We analyzed CGP results, prognosis, and drug administration status in 27 patients. These patients had completed (or were expected to complete) standard therapy or had rare cancers without standard therapy.

RESULTS

At least one somatic actionable gene alteration was seen in 25 (92.6%) patients, with a median number of actionable alterations per patient of 4 (range=0-11). Drugs in clinical trials were recommended to 22 (81.5%) patients, but none could participate. However, 3 patients (11.1%) could use approved drugs off-label based on CGP results. The most common genetic abnormality was TP53 (66.7%), with TP53 mutations leading to poor prognosis.

CONCLUSION

CGP is clinically useful and serves as a bridge to increase the number of therapeutic options. However, candidate drugs confirmed using CGP may be ineffective when administered. Therefore, oncologists should not blindly accept CGP therapeutic recommendations but should make recommendations that lead to optimal therapies after proper verification.

Characterization of the Early Years of Bevacizumab Use for First-Line Treatment of Ovarian Cancer in the United States

PURPOSE

To quantify early dissemination patterns, factors influencing use, and costs of bevacizumab (BEV) for the treatment of newly diagnosed ovarian cancer (OC) in the United States before its regulatory approval for this indication (off-label use).

METHODS

We identified women 18-65 years of age with newly diagnosed OC treated with surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy from 2008 to 2016 through the MarketScan database (N = 8,109). The proportion of women receiving BEV over time was calculated, multivariate logistic regression used to determine factors associated with BEV use, and total costs per cycle of chemotherapy with and without BEV abstracted.

RESULTS

BEV utilization rose 1.8-fold during the study period, from 4.1% (2008) to 7.4 % (2016). BEV was used with non-platinum/taxane regimens over a third of the time (37.2%). Physician specialty (medical oncology v gyn oncology) and geography (southeast region) were significantly associated with higher rates of use. Clinical factors associated with BEV use were metastatic disease and presence of ascites. The median cost of one cycle of platinum/taxane chemotherapy plus BEV was $10,897 in US dollars (USD) (interquartile range $7,573-$18,133 USD), compared with $1,629 USD (interquartile range, $683.0-$4,461 USD) for platinum/taxane alone.

CONCLUSION

Off-label use of BEV for newly diagnosed OC was rare (< 10%), but doubled following presentation of phase II and III data at international meetings. Both clinical (ascites, metastatic disease, and age) and nonclinical (specialty and region) factors were associated with BEV use, and its use was accompanied by a six-fold increase in the cost of one cycle of treatment.

Assessment of Drugs Approved by Public Knowledge-Based Applications (Kouchi-shinsei) During the Last Two Decades in Japan

Public knowledge‐based application (“Kouchi‐shinsei” in Japanese) is unique to Japan, implemented to eliminate the off‐label use of unapproved indications, dosages, and administrations because of drug lag. The guidance for public knowledge‐based application was issued in 1999. This study comprehensively investigated the trends of items approved by public knowledge‐based application in Japan during the last 2 decades. Prescription drugs approved from January 2000 to December 2019 were surveyed. In Japan, 1,855 drugs were approved within the target survey period. Among them, 219 (11.8%) were approved by public knowledge‐based application. Considering the changes in the number of items approved by public knowledge‐based application over the years, the number of items approved in 2000 was 7, reaching a maximum of 34 items in 2011, and decreased after that, 8 items were approved in 2019. The regulatory characteristics of drugs approved by public knowledge‐based application and those of other drugs were compared. By public knowledge‐based application, more anticancer and pediatric drugs were approved (P < 0.001), and only one drug for orphan diseases was approved (P < 0.001). In addition, the review time of public knowledge‐based applications was significantly shorter than that of normal applications regardless of time point. The approval system using public knowledge‐based application began in 2000, following issuance of the “Guidance for off‐label use of prescription drugs.” Furthermore, the approved items were mostly drugs for cancer, infectious diseases, and pediatric drugs. We anticipate the promotion of public knowledge‐based application to accommodate the approval of drugs for orphan diseases.

National comprehensive cancer network recommendations for drugs without US food and drug administration approval in metastatic breast cancer: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines can include recommendations for off-label use of anti-cancer drugs. Here, we evaluate NCCN recommendations not supported by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and explore associations with such recommendations.

METHODS

All NCCN recommendations for MBC and their supporting data were identified. Drug labels were reviewed to determine whether recommendations are FDA approved. Logistic regression was used to compare FDA approved and off-label recommendations for pre-specified categories, including drug type, tumor subtype, level of recommendation and line of therapy.

RESULTS

Of 124 recommendations identified, 68 (55%) were off-label. Chemotherapy and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) targeted drugs were associated with lower odds of FDA approval (OR = 0.28, p = 0.001 and OR = 0.29, 95% p = 0.005, respectively). Recommendations for endocrine therapy (OR = 3.44, p = 0.009) and non-HER2 targeted treatment (OR = 10.0, p < 0.001) were more commonly FDA approved indications. Compared to combination therapies, monotherapies were more likely to be FDA approved (OR = 3.45, p = 0.001) as were category 1 (OR = 7.63, p = 0.001) and preferred NCCN recommendations (OR = 4.07, p < 0.001). Compared to off-label recommendations, NCCN recommendations of approved drugs were based on significantly higher sample size (mean 477 vs. 342 patients, p = 0.02) and were non-significantly associated with availability of randomized data (OR = 2.0, 95% CI 0.89-4.49, p = 0.09).

CONCLUSION

More than half of all NCCN recommendations for MBC are off-label, mostly involving chemotherapy containing regimes for HER2 negative disease and combinations which include HER2-targeted drugs. Improved transparency of NCCN guidelines may result from reporting of the strength of the evidence supporting recommendations for MBC.

Safety and Evidence of Off-Label Use of Approved Drugs at the National Cancer Center Hospital in Japan

PURPOSE

In Japan, for pharmaceutical products to be covered by public medical insurance, their efficacy and safety must first be confirmed in clinical trials. To our knowledge, this study is the first investigation into the off-label use of pharmaceutical products at a high-volume cancer treatment center in Japan. The objective of this study is to explore the framework necessary for future pharmaceutical development and regulatory approval in the field of oncology by surveying the frequency of and indications for off-label use of pharmaceutical products at the National Cancer Center Hospital in Tokyo, Japan.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The pharmaceutical products used off-label in daily practice from 2003 to 2015 at the National Cancer Center Hospital were retrospectively examined based on applications that had been submitted to an internal review committee requesting off-label use.

RESULTS

A total of 1,390 applications were submitted during the study period. The most frequently used supporting documents were the results of phase II trials, followed by case series and phase III trials. The cancer most frequently treated with off-label drugs was sarcoma (15.1%), followed by urologic cancer (9.2%) and GI cancer (7.6%).

CONCLUSION

As reported in previous studies, pharmaceutical products were generally used off-label for the treatment of rare cancers, for which large-scale clinical trials are difficult to conduct. Continued discussion of the types of frameworks that are needed to guide pharmaceutical development is necessary.

Receptor tyrosine kinase targeting in glioblastoma: performance, limitations and future approaches

From all central nervous system tumors, gliomas are the most common. Nowadays, researchers are looking for more efficient treatments for these tumors, as well as ways for early diagnosis. Receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) are major targets for oncology and the development of small-molecule RTK inhibitors has been proven successful in cancer treatment. Mutations or aberrant activation of the RTKs and their intracellular signaling pathways are linked to several malignant diseases, including glioblastoma. The progress in the understanding of malignant glioma evolution has led to RTK targeted therapies with high capacity to improve the therapeutic response while reducing toxicity. In this review, we present the most important RTKs (i.e. EGFR, IGFR, PDGFR and VEGFR) currently used for developing cancer therapeutics together with the potential of RTK-related drugs in glioblastoma treatment. Also, we focus on some therapeutic agents that are currently at different stages of research or even in clinical phases and proved to be suitable as re-purposing candidates for glioblastoma treatment.

Pathology in the era of "Personalized Medicine": The need to learn how to integrate multivariate immunohistochemical and "omics" data with clinicopathologic information in a clinically relevant way"

"Personalized medicine" has been proposed as a new paradigm for patient care that, based on the integration of genomics and other "omics" data with clinical and other multidisciplinary information, promises early disease detection, improved outcomes and reduced side effects to therapies. Pathologists have become important participants in this new approach as the guardians of tissues and experts in the performance of molecular and other laboratory tests. Large amounts of new laboratory data in multiple neoplasms and other entities are being reported but there has been limited discussion about how best to evaluate the clinical significance of this information and how to integrate it into currently available diagnostic and therapeutic modalities. This article introduces a variety of epistemological problems presented by the "personalized medicine" paradigm and briefly discusses various topics that will be evaluated in further detail in future articles of this new series on Evidence-Based Pathology.