FDA Approval Summary: Ivosidenib in Combination with Azacitidine for Treatment of Patients with Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia with an IDH1 Mutation

On May 25, 2022, FDA approved a supplemental application for ivosidenib (Tibsovo; Servier) extending the indication in patients with newly diagnosed IDH1-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in older adults or those with comorbidities to include the combination with azacitidine. The efficacy of ivosidenib in combination with azacitidine was evaluated in Study AG120-C-009, a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized (1:1), controlled study of ivosidenib or matched placebo in combination with azacitidine in adults with previously untreated AML with an IDH1 mutation who were 75 years or older or had comorbidities that precluded use of intensive induction chemotherapy. Efficacy was established on the basis of improved event-free survival and overall survival on the ivosidenib + azacitidine arm [HR, 0.35; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.17-0.72; P = 0.0038, and HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.27-0.73; P = 0.0010], respectively. Furthermore, the rate and duration of complete remission (CR) were improved with ivosidenib versus placebo [CR 47% versus 15%, two-sided P < 0.0001; median duration of CR not estimable (NE; 95% CI, 13.0-NE) months versus 11.2 (95% CI, 3.2-NE) months. The safety profile of ivosidenib in combination with azacitidine was consistent with that of ivosidenib monotherapy, with important adverse reactions including differentiation syndrome (15%) and QT interval prolongation (20%).

FDA Approval Summary: Lisocabtagene Maraleucel for Second-Line Treatment of Large B-Cell Lymphoma

In June 2022, the FDA extended the indication for lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) to include adults with large B-lymphoma (LBCL) who have refractory disease or relapse within 12 months of first-line chemoimmunotherapy, as well as transplant-ineligible adults with refractory disease or relapse after first-line chemoimmunotherapy. Two clinical trials evaluating a single infusion of liso-cel preceded by lymphodepleting chemotherapy supported the second-line indications. TRANSFORM is a randomized, phase 3, open-label trial comparing liso-cel to standard second-line therapy, including planned autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), in 184 transplant-eligible patients. On interim analysis, event-free survival (EFS) by independent review committee (IRC) assessment was statistically significantly improved for the liso-cel arm, with a stratified hazard ratio of 0.34 (95% CI: 0.22, 0.51; p-value <0.0001); the estimated median EFS was 10.1 months in the liso-cel arm versus 2.3 months in the control arm. PILOT is a single-arm phase 2 trial of second-line liso-cel in patients who were transplant-ineligible due to age or comorbidities but had adequate organ function for CAR-T cell therapy. Among 61 patients who received liso-cel (median age, 74 years), the IRC-assessed complete response rate was 54% (95% CI: 41, 67). Among patients achieving complete response, the estimated 1-year rate of continued response was 68% (95% CI: 45, 83). Of the 268 patients combined who received liso-cel as second-line therapy for LBCL, cytokine release syndrome occurred in 45% (Grade 3, 1.3%) and CAR-T cell associated neurologic toxicities occurred in 27% (Grade 3, 7%), warranting a continued risk evaluation and mitigation strategy.

FDA Approval Summary: Pirtobrutinib for Relapsed or Refractory Mantle Cell Lymphoma

In January 2023, the FDA granted accelerated approval to pirtobrutinib for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) after at least two lines of systemic therapy, including a Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor. Approval was based on BRUIN, a single-arm study of pirtobrutinib monotherapy in patients with B-cell malignancies. Efficacy was based on independent review committee-assessed overall response rate (ORR) supported by durability of response in 120 patients with relapsed or refractory MCL who had received a prior BTK inhibitor and received the approved pirtobrutinib dosage of 200 mg once daily. The ORR was 50% [95% confidence interval (CI), 41-59], and the complete response rate was 13% (95% CI, 7-20), with an estimated median duration of response of 8.3 months. The most common nonhematologic adverse reactions were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea, edema, dyspnea, pneumonia, and bruising. Warnings and Precautions in labeling include infection, hemorrhage, cytopenias, atrial arrhythmias, and second primary malignancies. Postmarketing studies were required to evaluate longer-term safety of pirtobrutinib and to verify the clinical benefit of pirtobrutinib. This article summarizes key aspects of the regulatory review, including the indication statement, efficacy and safety considerations, and postmarketing requirements.

Highlights of FDA Oncology Approvals in 2023: Bispecific T-cell Engagers, Pediatric Indications, and Inclusive Drug Development

SUMMARY

Cancer drug development remained robust in 2023. Highlights of U.S. drug approvals this year include new immunotherapies and targeted drug development in adult and pediatric patients as well as patients with rare diseases.

FDA Approval Summary: Axicabtagene Ciloleucel for Second-Line Treatment of Large B-Cell Lymphoma

In April 2022, the FDA approved axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) for adults with large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) that is refractory to first-line chemoimmunotherapy or that relapses within 12 months of first-line chemoimmunotherapy. Approval was based on ZUMA-7, a randomized (1:1), open-label trial in 359 patients with primary refractory LBCL (74%) or early relapse who were transplant candidates. The study compared a single course of axi-cel to standard therapy, consisting of chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose therapy and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in responding patients. Overall, 94% of the experimental arm received chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product, and 35% of the control arm received on-protocol HSCT. The primary endpoint was event-free survival, which was significantly longer in the axi-cel arm with an HR of 0.40 (95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.51; P value < 0.0001) and estimated median of 8.3 months, versus 2.0 months with standard therapy. Among 168 recipients of axi-cel, cytokine release syndrome occurred in 92% (Grade ≥ 3, 7%), neurologic toxicity in 74% (Grade ≥ 3, 25%), prolonged cytopenias in 33%, and fatal adverse reactions in 1.8%. This is the first FDA approval of a CAR T-cell therapy for LBCL in the second-line setting and reflects a potential paradigm shift.

FDA Oncology Center of Excellence Crowdsourcing Initiative: Outreach to the Scientific Community to Identify Research Questions for Pooled Analyses of Oncology Clinical Trial Data

The FDA Oncology Center of Excellence recently launched a crowdsourcing pilot to request ideas from the scientific community for research questions that FDA could address with pooled analyses of clinical trial data submitted to the agency for regulatory purposes. This effort builds on FDA's track record of publishing pooled analyses to explore scientific questions that cannot be addressed in a single trial due to limited sample size. The research crowdsourcing pilot tested a new approach for obtaining external input on regulatory science activities, because FDA is generally unable to share patient-level data outside of the agency due to federal disclosure laws and regulations protecting different types of data submitted in regulatory applications. We received 29 submissions over the 28-day crowdsourcing campaign, including one research idea that we are exploring for possible follow-up. Based on our experience with this pilot, we learned that crowdsourcing is a promising new approach to gather external input and feedback. We identified opportunities to build understanding in the external oncology community about the types of data typically included in regulatory applications and expand the dissemination of published FDA pooled analyses to help inform future drug development and clinical practice.

Minimal Residual Disease Data in Hematologic Malignancy Drug Applications and Labeling: An FDA Perspective

Minimal residual disease (MRD) is increasingly used as a prognostic biomarker, a measure of clinical efficacy, and a guide for treatment decisions in various hematologic malignancies. We sought to characterize MRD data in registrational trials in hematologic malignancies submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with the ultimate goal of expanding the utility of MRD data in future drug applications. We descriptively analyzed MRD data collected in registrational trials, including the type of MRD endpoint, assay, disease compartment(s) assessed, and the acceptance of MRD data in the U.S. prescribing information (USPI). Of 196 drug applications submitted between January 2014 and February 2021, 55 (28%) included MRD data. Of the 55 applications, MRD data was proposed by the Applicant for inclusion in the USPI in 41 (75%) applications but was included in only 24 (59%). Despite an increasing number of applications that proposed to include MRD data in the USPI, the acceptance rate decreased over time. Although MRD data have the potential to expedite drug development, our analysis identified challenges and specific areas for improvement, including assay validation, standardization of collection methods to optimize performance, and considerations in trial design and statistical methodology.

Eligibility criteria and enrollment of a diverse racial and ethnic population in multiple myeloma clinical trials

The narrow eligibility criteria may contribute to the underrepresentation of racial and ethnic subgroups in cancer clinical trials. We conducted a retrospective pooled analysis of multicenter global clinical trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration between 2006 and 2019 to support the approval of the use of multiple myeloma (MM) therapies that analyze the rates and reasons for trial ineligibility based on race and ethnicity in MM clinical trials. Race and ethnicity were coded per Office of Management and Budget standards. Patients flagged as having screen failures were identified as ineligible. Ineligibility rates were calculated as the percentage of patients who were ineligible compared with the screened population within the respective racial and ethnic subgroups. Trial eligibility criteria were grouped into specific categories to analyze the reasons for trial ineligibility. Black patients (24%) and other (23%) race subgroups had higher ineligibility rates than White patients (17%). The Asian race had the lowest ineligibility rate (12%) among all racial subgroups. Failure to meet the hematologic laboratory criteria (19%) and treatment-related criteria (17%) were the most common reasons for ineligibility among Black patients and were more common in Black patients than in other races. Failure to meet disease-related criteria was the most common reason for ineligibility among White (28%) and Asian (29%) participants. Our analysis indicates that specific eligibility criteria may contribute to enrollment disparities for racial and ethnic subgroups in MM clinical trials. However, the small number of screened patients in the underrepresented racial and ethnic subgroups limits definitive conclusions.

Considerations for Drug Development in Myelodysplastic Syndromes

Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) have historically been challenging diseases for drug development due to their biology, preclinical modeling, and the affected patient population. In April 2022, the FDA convened a panel of regulators and academic experts in MDS to discuss approaches to improve MDS drug development. The panel reviewed challenges in MDS clinical trial design and endpoints and outlined considerations for future trial design in MDS to facilitate drug development to meaningfully meet patient needs. Challenges for defining clinical benefit in patients with MDS include cumbersome response criteria, standardized transfusion thresholds, and application and validation of patient reported outcome instruments. Clinical trials should reflect the biology of disease evolution, the advanced age of patients with MDS, and how patients are treated in real-world settings to maximize the likelihood of identifying active drugs. In patients with lower-risk disease, response criteria for anemic patients should be based on baseline transfusion dependency, improvement in symptoms, and quality of life. For higher-risk patients with MDS, trials should include guidance to prevent dose reductions or delays that could limit efficacy, specify minimal durations of treatment (in the absence of toxicity or progression), and have endpoints focused on overall survival and durable responses. MDS trials should be designed from the outset to allow the practicable application of new therapies in this high-needs population, with drugs that can be administered and tolerated in community settings, and with endpoints that meaningfully improve patients' lives over existing therapies.

Project Confirm: Accelerated Drug Approvals for Chronic Myeloid Leukemia

The FDA has an accelerated approval program for drugs that have been identified as promising treatments for serious conditions when the available data suggest that the benefits outweigh the foreseeable risks. All of the currently available treatment options for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) initially went through the accelerated approval program. Here, a group of academic CML experts, patient panelists, and members from the FDA convened to discuss the utility of the accelerated approval program as it pertains to CML, and the utility of this program in future drug development in this disease. The results of that discussion are summarized here.

Association between antibiotics and adverse oncological outcomes in patients receiving targeted or immune-based therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma

Background & Aims

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) alone or in combination with other ICIs or vascular endothelial growth factor pathway inhibitors are therapeutic options in unresectable/metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Whether antibiotic (ATB) exposure affects outcome remains unclear.

Methods

This study retrospectively analysed an FDA database including 4,098 patients receiving ICI (n = 842) either as monotherapy (n = 258) or in combination (n = 584), tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) (n = 1,968), vascular endothelial growth factor pathway inhibitors (n = 480), or placebo (n = 808) as part of nine international clinical trials. Exposure to ATB within 30 days before or after treatment initiation was correlated with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) across therapeutic modality before and after inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).

Results

Of 4,098 patients with unresectable/metastatic HCC, of which 39% were of hepatitis B aetiology and 21% were of hepatitis C aetiology, 83% were males with a median age of 64 years (range 18-88), a European Collaborative Oncology Group performance status of 0 (60%), and Child-Pugh A class (98%). Overall, ATB exposure (n = 620, 15%) was associated with shorter median PFS (3.6 months in ATB-exposed vs. 4.2 months; hazard ratio [HR] 1.29; 95% CI 1.22, 1.36) and OS (8.7 months in ATB-exposed vs. 10.6 months; HR 1.36; 95% CI 1.29, 1.43). In IPTW analyses, ATB was associated with shorter PFS in patients treated with ICI (HR 1.52; 95% CI 1.34, 1.73), TKI (HR 1.29; 95% CI 1.19, 1.39), and placebo (HR 1.23; 95% CI 1.11, 1.37). Similar results were observed in IPTW analyses of OS in patients treated with ICI (HR 1.22; 95% CI 1.08, 1.38), TKI (HR 1.40; 95% CI 1.30, 1.52), and placebo (HR 1.40; 95% CI 1.25, 1.57).

Conclusions

Unlike other malignancies where the detrimental effect of ATB may be more prominent in ICI recipients, ATB is associated with worse outcomes in this study across different therapies for HCC including placebo. Whether ATB is causally linked to worse outcomes through disruption of the gut-liver axis remains to be demonstrated in translational studies.

Impact and Implications

A growing body of evidence suggests the host microbiome, frequently altered by antibiotic treatment, as an important outcome predictor in the context of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. In this study, we analysed the effects of early antibiotic exposure on outcomes in almost 4,100 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated within nine multicentre clinical trials. Interestingly, early exposure to antibiotic treatment was associated with worse outcomes not only in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors but also in those treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors and placebo. This is in contrast to data published in other malignancies, where the detrimental effect of antibiotic treatment may be more prominent in immune checkpoint inhibitor recipients, highlighting the uniqueness of hepatocellular carcinoma given the complex interplay between cirrhosis, cancer, risk of infection, and the pleiotropic effect of molecular therapies for this disease.

FDA Approval Summary: Ripretinib for Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor

On May 15, 2020, the FDA approved ripretinib for adult patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor who have received prior treatment with three or more kinase inhibitors, including imatinib. The approval was based on results from INVICTUS (NCT03353753), an international, multi-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients were randomly allocated (2:1) to receive either ripretinib 150 mg once daily (n = 85) or matching placebo (n = 44). The trial demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by modified RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review for patients randomized to ripretinib, with a median PFS of 6.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.6-6.9] compared with 1.0 month (95% CI: 0.9-1.7) for placebo [HR: 0.15 (95% CI: 0.09-0.25); P < 0.0001, stratified log-rank test]. There was no statistically significant difference in objective response rate in the ripretinib arm, 9% (95% CI: 4.2-18) compared with placebo 0% [(95% CI: 0-8); P = 0.0504, Fisher exact test]. The median overall survival (OS) in the ripretinib arm was 15.1 months (95% CI: 12.3-15.1) compared with 6.6 months (95% CI: 4.1-11.6) in the placebo arm. A formal statistical comparison of OS was not made due to the prespecified hierarchical analysis plan. The most common (≥20%) adverse events with ripretinib, in order of decreasing frequency, were alopecia, fatigue, nausea, abdominal pain, constipation, myalgia, diarrhea, decreased appetite, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, and vomiting. Other important risks of ripretinib include new primary cutaneous malignancies, hypertension, and cardiac dysfunction.

FDA Approval Summary: Pemigatinib for Previously Treated, Unresectable Locally Advanced or Metastatic Cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 Fusion or Other Rearrangement

On April 17, 2020, the FDA granted accelerated approval to pemigatinib (PEMAZYRE, Incyte Corporation) for the treatment of adults with previously treated, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with an FGFR2 fusion or other rearrangement as detected by an FDA-approved test. Approval was based on FIGHT-202 (NCT02924376), a multicenter open-label single-arm trial. Efficacy was based on 107 patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma whose disease had progressed on or after at least one prior therapy and had an FGFR2 gene fusion or rearrangement. Patients received pemigatinib, 13.5 mg orally, once daily for 14 consecutive days, followed by 7 days off therapy. Safety was based on a total of 466 patients, 146 of whom had cholangiocarcinoma and received the recommended dose. Efficacy endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR) determined by an independent review committee using RECIST 1.1. ORR was 36% (95% confidence interval: 27-45). Median DOR was 9.1 months. The most common adverse reactions were hyperphosphatemia, alopecia, diarrhea, nail toxicity, fatigue, dysgeusia, nausea, constipation, stomatitis, dry eye, dry mouth, decreased appetite, vomiting, arthralgia, abdominal pain, hypophosphatemia, back pain, and dry skin. Ocular toxicity and hyperphosphatemia are important risks of pemigatinib. The recommended dosage is 13.5 mg orally once daily for 14 consecutive days followed by 7 days off therapy in 21-day cycles. FDA also approved the FoundationOne CDX (Foundation Medicine, Inc.) as a companion diagnostic for patient selection.

FDA analysis of ineligibility for acute myeloid leukemia clinical trials by race and ethnicity

BACKGROUND

Patients of certain racial and ethnic groups have been underrepresented in clinical trials for treatment of malignancy. One potential barrier to participation is entry requirements that lead to patients in various racial and ethnic groups not meeting eligibility criteria for studies (ie, "screen failure"). The objective of this study was to analyze the rates and reasons for trial ineligibility by race and ethnicity in trials of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2016 and 2019.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Multicenter, global clinical trials submitted to the FDA to support AML drugs and biologics. We examined the rate of ineligibility among participants screened for studies of AML therapies submitted to the FDA from 2016 to 2019. Data were extracted from 13 trials used in approval evaluations, including race, screen status, and reason for ineligibility.

RESULTS

Overall, patients in historically underrepresented racial and ethnic groups were less likely to meet entry criteria for studies compared to White patients, with 26.7% of White patients, 29.4% of Black patients, and 35.9% of Asian patients not meeting entry criteria. Lack of relevant disease mutation was the reason for ineligibility more frequently among Black and Asian patients. The findings were limited by the small number of underrepresented patients screened for participation.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that entry requirements for studies may put underrepresented patients at a disadvantage, leading to less eligible patients and thus lower participation in clinical trials.

Use of Single-Arm Trials for US Food and Drug Administration Drug Approval in Oncology, 2002-2021

Importance

Single-arm trials have allowed for transformative therapies to be made available to patients expeditiously. However, using single-arm trials to support drug approval presents several challenges that must be carefully considered.

Observations

Between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration granted 176 new malignant hematology and oncology indications based on single-arm trials, including 116 accelerated approvals (AAs) and 60 traditional approvals. Overall, 87 approvals (49%) were for new molecular entities or original biologics and 89 (51%) were supplemental indications. Response rate (RR) was the most common end point used to support approval in these single-arm trials (173 of 176 [98%]). Of the 116 AAs based on single-arm trials, 45 (38%) fulfilled their postmarketing requirement to verify clinical benefit, 61 (52%) are pending verification of benefit, and 10 (9%) were withdrawn from the market as of December 31, 2021. Most (56 of 61 [92%]) AAs based on single-arm trials pending verification of benefit occurred during the previous 5 years and have ongoing confirmatory trials as of December 2021.

Conclusions and Relevance

Single-arm trials have been a common development strategy to support regulatory approval as early-stage expansion cohorts with promising durable RRs have become more prevalent. In the appropriate context, single-arm trials using durable RRs can allow patients expedited access to novel therapies and will continue to serve a role in advancing drug development in oncology. However, single-arm trials have a smaller noncomparative safety data set, inability to use time-to-event end points, and other limitations that require careful consideration within the context of the disease and available therapies. The randomized clinical trial remains the preferred approach in clinical investigation.

FDA Approval Summary: Belantamab Mafodotin for Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma

On August 5, 2020, the FDA granted accelerated approval to belantamab mafodotin-blmf (BLENREP; GlaxoSmithKline) for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who have received at least four prior therapies including an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, a proteasome inhibitor, and an immunomodulatory agent. Substantial evidence of effectiveness was obtained from the phase II, multicenter DREAMM-2 trial. Patients received belantamab mafodotin 2.5 or 3.4 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The trial demonstrated an overall response rate of 31% in the 2.5 mg/kg cohort and 34% in the 3.4 mg/kg cohort. Keratopathy was the most frequent adverse event, occurring in 71% and 77% of patients, respectively. Other ocular toxicities included changes in visual acuity, blurred vision, and dry eye. The U.S. prescribing information for belantamab mafodotin includes a boxed warning for ocular toxicity, and belantamab mafodotin is available only through a restricted program under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy. This article summarizes the data and the FDA review process supporting accelerated approval of belantamab mafodotin 2.5 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks. This approval may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trial(s).

Improving Dose-Optimization Processes Used in Oncology Drug Development to Minimize Toxicity and Maximize Benefit to Patients

This review highlights strategies to integrate dose optimization into premarketing drug development and discusses the underlying statistical principles. Poor dose optimization can have negative consequences for patients, most commonly because of toxicity, including poor quality of life, reduced effectiveness because of inability of patients to stay on current therapy or receive subsequent therapy because of toxicities, and difficulty in developing combination regimens. We reviewed US Food and Drug Administration initial approvals (2019-2021) of small molecules and antibody-drug conjugates for oncologic indications to determine the proportion with a recommended dosage at the maximum tolerated dose or the maximal administered dose, to characterize the use of randomized evaluations of multiple dosages in dose selection, to describe the frequency of dose modifications at the recommended dosage, and to identify case examples that highlight key principles for premarket dose optimization during drug development. Herein, we highlight major principles for dose optimization and review examples of recent US Food and Drug Administration approvals that illustrate how investigation of dose- and exposure-response relationships and use of randomized dose trials can support dose optimization. Although there has been some progress, dose optimization through randomized dose evaluation in oncology trials is not routinely conducted. Dose optimization is essential to ensure that patients receive therapies which maximize efficacy while minimizing toxicity.

FDA Approval Summary: Oral Azacitidine for Continued Treatment of Adults with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Unable to Complete Intensive Curative Therapy

On September 1, 2020, the FDA granted approval for oral azacitidine (Onureg, CC-486) for continued treatment of adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who achieved complete remission (CR) or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi) following intensive induction chemotherapy and who are not able to complete intensive curative therapy. Approval was based on improvement in overall survival using CC-486 300 mg daily in a 2 weeks on/2 weeks off schedule in comparison with placebo (HR, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.86; P = 0.0009) in the randomized trial CC-486-AML-001 (QUAZAR) in adults ≥ 55 years old with AML in CR/CRi who did not complete standard intensive induction and postremission therapy. Of note, the study was not designed to test CC-486 as maintenance after standard postremission therapy or as an alternative to standard postremission therapy. Gastrointestinal toxicities, fatigue, and pneumonia were more common in patients treated with CC-486 compared with placebo. Additional studies are needed to establish safe dosing for patients with hepatic impairment. The pharmacokinetic parameters, recommended dose, and recommended schedule of CC-486 differ substantially from those of other azacitidine formulations; therefore, inappropriate substitutions between formulations pose a considerable risk for harm.

FDA Approval Summary: Belumosudil for Adult and Pediatric Patients 12 Years and Older with Chronic GvHD after Two or More Prior Lines of Systemic Therapy

On July 16, 2021, the FDA approved belumosudil, a kinase inhibitor, for adult and pediatric patients 12 years and older with chronic GvHD (cGvHD) after failure of at least two prior lines of systemic therapy. Approval was based on the results of Study KD025-213, which included 65 patients with cGvHD treated with belumosudil 200 mg daily in an open-label, single-arm cohort. Efficacy was determined by the overall response rate (ORR) through Cycle 7 Day 1, which included complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) according to the 2014 NIH consensus criteria, and durability of response. The ORR through Cycle 7 Day 1 was 75% [95% confidence interval (CI), 63-85]; 6% of patients achieved a CR, and 69% achieved a PR. The median duration of response was 1.9 months (95% CI, 1.2-2.9), and 62% (95% CI, 46-74) of responding patients remained alive without new systemic therapy for at least 12 months from response. The common adverse reactions were infections, asthenia, nausea, diarrhea, dyspnea, cough, edema, hemorrhage, abdominal pain, musculoskeletal pain, headache, phosphate decreased, gamma-glutamyl transferase increased, lymphocytes decreased, and hypertension. Additional study is warranted to confirm safety with long-term use.

FDA Approval Summary: Ruxolitinib for Treatment of Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease after Failure of One or Two Lines of Systemic Therapy

On September 22, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration approved ruxolitinib for the treatment of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) after the failure of one or two lines of systemic therapy in adult and pediatric patients 12 years and older. Approval was based on Study INCB 18424-365 (REACH-3; CINC424D2301; NCT03112603), a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial of ruxolitinib in comparison to best available therapy (BAT) for the treatment of corticosteroid-refractory cGVHD occurring after the allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. A total of 329 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either ruxolitinib 10 mg twice daily (n = 165) or BAT (n = 164). BAT was selected by the investigator prior to randomization. The overall response rate through Cycle 7 Day 1 was 70% (95% CI, 63-77) in the ruxolitinib arm, and 57% (95% CI, 49-65) in the BAT arm. The median duration of response, calculated from first response to progression, death, or initiation of new systemic therapies for cGVHD, was 4.2 months (95% CI, 3.2-6.7) for the ruxolitinib arm and 2.1 months (95% CI, 1.6-3.2) for the BAT arm; and the median time from first response to death or initiation of new systemic therapies for cGVHD was 25 months (95% CI, 16.8-not estimable) for the ruxolitinib arm and 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.1-7.8) for the BAT arm. Common adverse reactions included anemia, thrombocytopenia, and infections. Given the observed response rate with durability, the clinical benefit of ruxolitinib appears to outweigh the risks of treatment for cGVHD after the failure of one or two lines of systemic therapy.

FDA Approval Summary: Idecabtagene Vicleucel for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma

In March 2021, the FDA approved idecabtagene vicleucel, a chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy targeting the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), for adult patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) after ≥4 lines of therapy including an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 mAb. Approval was based on overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, and duration of response (DOR) in 100 adult patients with RRMM treated with idecabtagene vicleucel in a single-arm trial. Patients received a single infusion of idecabtagene vicleucel, preceded by lymphodepleting chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide and fludarabine. Of the 100 patients in the efficacy evaluable population, ORR was 72% [95% confidence interval (CI), 62-81] with stringent CR rate of 28% (95% CI, 19-38). After median follow-up of 10.7 months, median DOR was 11 months (95% CI, 10.3-11.4) in responders (partial response or better) and 19 months [95% CI, 11.4 months, not estimable (NE)] in patients who achieved stringent CR. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 67% of 127 patients evaluated for safety. Grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome and neurologic toxicities occurred in 9% and 4%, respectively, leading to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy. Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome occurred in 4%, with two fatalities. Prolonged cytopenia requiring hematopoietic rescue occurred in 2% (3/127), with two fatalities.

FDA Approval Summary: Revised Indication and Dosing Regimen for Ponatinib Based on the Results of the OPTIC Trial

On December 18, 2020, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a supplemental application for ponatinib extending the indication in patients with chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML) to patients with resistance or intolerance of at least 2 prior kinase inhibitors. Ponatinib was initially approved in December 2012 but was briefly voluntarily withdrawn due to serious safety concerns including the risk of arterial occlusive events (AOE). It returned to the market in December 2013 with an indication limited to patients with T315I mutation or for whom no other tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy was indicated with revised warnings and precautions. A post-marketing requirement was issued to identify the optimal safe and effective dose for CP-CML. Thus, the OPTIC trial was performed, which randomized patients to 1 of 3 doses, 45 mg, 30 mg, or 15 mg, with a dose reduction to 15 mg on achievement of MR2 (BCR-ABLIS ≤1%). Patients enrolled were treated with at least 2 prior TKIs or had a T315I mutation. Patients with a history of clinically significant, uncontrolled, or active cardiovascular disease were excluded. Efficacy was established on an interim analysis based on the rate of MR2 at 12 months in the modified intent-to-treat population of 261 patients, with 88, 86, and 87 patients in the 45, 30, and 15 mg cohorts, respectively. With a median follow-up of 28 months, the rate of achievement of MR2 at 12 months was 42%, 28%, and 24% in the respective cohorts. The safety profile was consistent with that observed in prior evaluations of ponatinib with notable adverse reactions including pancreatitis, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, liver dysfunction, and AOE. Of patients treated at the 45/15 mg dose, AOEs were seen in 13%, with a higher rate being observed in patients age 65 or older compared to younger patients. A readjudication of AOEs seen on the prior pivotal phase 2 study resulted in a rate of 26%. Overall, the results supported a modification of the recommended dose for patients with CP-CML to 45 mg until the achievement of MR2 followed by a reduction to 15 mg. The expansion of the indication to patients with exposure to 2 prior TKIs was approved given data showing that ponatinib could be successfully used for the treatment of this population with appropriate monitoring and screening for risk factors.

Association of Radiation Therapy With Risk of Adverse Events in Patients Receiving Immunotherapy: A Pooled Analysis of Trials in the US Food and Drug Administration Database

Importance

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and radiation therapy (RT) are widely used to treat various cancers, but little data are available to guide clinicians on ICI use sequentially with RT.

Objective

To assess whether there is an increased risk of serious adverse events (AEs) associated with RT given within 90 days prior to an ICI.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Individual patient data were pooled from 68 prospective trials of ICIs submitted in initial or supplemental licensing applications in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) databases through December 2019. Two cohorts were generated: (1) patients who received RT within the 90 days prior to beginning ICI therapy and (2) those who did not receive RT within the 90 days prior to beginning ICI therapy, and AE frequencies were determined. A 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis was performed.

Interventions

All patients received an ICI (atezolizumab, avelumab, cemiplimab, durvalumab, ipilimumab, nivolumab, or pembrolizumab); 1733 received RT within the 90 days prior to starting ICI therapy, and 13 956 did not.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was frequency and severity of AEs. Incidence of AEs was compared descriptively between participants who did vs did not receive RT in the propensity score-matched set. Because all analyses are exploratory (ie, not preplanned and no alpha allocated), assessment for statistical significance of the differences between groups was not considered appropriate.

Results

A total of 25 469 patients were identified; 8634 were excluded because they lacked comparators who had received RT (n = 976), did not receive an ICI (n = 4949), received RT outside of the target window (n = 2338), or had missing data in 1 or more variables used in the propensity analysis (n = 371), leaving 16 835 patients included in the analysis. The majority were younger than 65 years (9447 [56.1%]), male (10 459 [62.1%]), and White (13 422 [79.7%]). Patients receiving RT had generally similar rates of AEs overall to those patients who did not receive RT. The average absolute difference in rates across the AEs was 1.2%, and the difference ranged from 0% for neurologic AEs to 8% for fatigue. No difference in grade 3 to 4 AEs was observed between the 2 groups (absolute difference ranged from 0.01% to 2%). These findings persisted after propensity score matching.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this pooled analysis, administration of an ICI within 90 days following RT did not appear to be associated with an increased risk of serious AEs. Thus, it would appear to be safe to administer an ICI within 90 days of receiving RT. These findings should be confirmed in future prospective trials.

Project 2025: Proposals for the Continued Success of Drug Development in Acute Myeloid Leukemia

The Food and Drug Administration Oncology Center of Excellence initiated Project 2025 to develop five-year goals in specific areas of oncology drug development. This meeting, in October 2020, brought together a panel of regulators and academic experts in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) to discuss opportunities to maximize the success that has recently occurred in AML drug development. The panel discussed challenges and opportunities in clinical trial design and novel endpoints, and outlined key considerations for drug development to facilitate continued growth in the field.

The FDA Oncology Center of Excellence Scientific Collaborative: Charting a Course for Applied Regulatory Science Research in Oncology

The FDA Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE) is a leader within the agency in scientific outreach activities and regulatory science research. On the basis of analysis of scientific workshops, internal meetings, and publications, the OCE identified nine scientific priority areas and one cross-cutting area of high interest for collaboration with external researchers. This article describes the process for identifying these scientific interest areas and highlights funded and unfunded opportunities for external researchers to work with FDA staff on critical regulatory science challenges.

Systematic Review of PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors in Oncology: From Personalized Medicine to Public Health

BACKGROUND

To review and summarize all U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of programmed death (PD)-1 and PD-ligand 1 blocking antibodies (collectively referred to as PD-[L]1 inhibitors) over a 6-year period and corresponding companion/complementary diagnostic assays.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To determine the indications and pivotal trials eligible for inclusion, approval letters and package inserts available on Drugs@FDA were evaluated for approved PD-[L]1 inhibitors to identify all new indications granted from the first approval of a PD-[L]1 inhibitor on September 4, 2014, through September 3, 2020. The corresponding FDA drug and device reviews from the marketing applications for the approved indications were identified through FDA internal records. Two reviewers independently extracted information for the endpoints, efficacy data, basis for approval, type of regulatory approval, and corresponding in vitro diagnostic device test. The results were organized by organ system and tumor type.

RESULTS

Of 70 Biologic Licensing Application or supplement approvals that resulted in new indications, 32 (46%) were granted based on response rate (ORR) and durability of response, 26 (37%) on overall survival, 9 (13%) on progression-free survival, 2 (3%) on recurrence-free survival, and 1 (1%) on complete response rate. Most ORR-based approvals were granted under the accelerated approval provisions and were supported with prolonged duration of response. Overall, 21% of approvals were granted with a companion diagnostic. Efficacy results according to tumor type are discussed.

CONCLUSION

PD-[L]1 inhibitors are an effective anticancer therapy in a subset of patients. This class of drugs has provided new treatment options for patients with unmet need across a wide variety of cancer types. Yet, the modest response rates in several tumor types signal a lack of understanding of the biology of these diseases. Further preclinical and clinical investigation may be required to identify a more appropriate patient population, particularly as drug development continues and additional treatment alternatives become available.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The number of PD-[L]1 inhibitors in drug development and the associated companion and complementary diagnostics have led to regulatory challenges and questions regarding generalizability of trial results. The interchangeability of PD-L1 immunohistochemical assays between PD-1/PD-L1 drugs is unclear. Furthermore, robust responses in some patients with low levels of PD-L1 expression have limited the use of PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker across all cancers, particularly in the setting of diseases with few alternative treatment options. This review summarizes the biomarker thresholds and assays approved as complementary and companion diagnostics and provides regulatory perspective on the role of biomarkers in oncology drug development.

FDA Approval Summary: Pembrolizumab for the First-line Treatment of Patients with MSI-H/dMMR Advanced Unresectable or Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma

The FDA approved pembrolizumab on June 29, 2020, for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) colorectal cancer with no prior systemic treatment for advanced disease. The approval was based on data from Study Keynote-177, which randomly allocated patients to receive either pembrolizumab or standard of care (SOC) with chemotherapy. Overall survival (OS) and independently assessed progression-free survival (PFS) were the primary endpoints. At the time of the final PFS analysis and second prespecified interim OS analysis, the estimated median PFS was 16.5 months (95% CI: 5.4-32.4) versus 8.2 months (95% CI: 6.1-10.2) in the pembrolizumab and SOC arms, respectively [HR: 0.60 (95% CI: 0.45-0.80); two-sided P = 0.0004]. FDA assessed unblinded OS data during the review of the application and identified no safety concerns that would preclude approval of this supplement. Adverse reactions occurring in >30% of patients receiving pembrolizumab were diarrhea, fatigue/asthenia, and nausea. Adverse reactions occurring in >30% of patients receiving SOC were diarrhea, nausea, fatigue/asthenia, neutropenia, decreased appetite, peripheral neuropathy (high-level term), vomiting, abdominal pain, constipation, and stomatitis. Duration of treatment in the pembrolizumab arm was almost double (median 11.1 months, range 0-30.6 months) than the duration of treatment in patients receiving SOC (median, 5.7 months). Approval of pembrolizumab is likely to change the treatment paradigm for first-line treatment with MSI-H advanced colorectal cancer given the study results and different safety profile.

FDA Approval Summary: Fam-Trastuzumab Deruxtecan-Nxki for the Treatment of Unresectable or Metastatic HER2-Positive Breast Cancer

On December 20, 2019, the FDA granted accelerated approval to fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki [DS-8201a; T-DXd; tradename ENHERTU (Daiichi Sankyo)] for the treatment of adult patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer who have received two or more prior anti-HER2-based regimens in the metastatic setting. Approval was based on data from study DS8201-A-U201 (DESTINY-Breast01) with supportive safety data from study DS8201-A-J101. The primary efficacy endpoint in DESTINY-Breast01 was overall response rate (ORR) based on confirmed responses by blinded independent central review (ICR) using RECIST v1.1 in all participants who were assigned to receive the recommended dose of 5.4 mg/kg while secondary endpoints included duration of response (DoR). The confirmed ORR based on ICR in these 184 patients was 60.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 52.9-67.4] and the median DoR was 14.8 months (95% CI: 13.8-16.9). Interstitial lung disease, including pneumonitis, was experienced in patients treated with T-DXd and can be severe, life threatening, or fatal. In addition, neutropenia and left ventricular dysfunction were included as Warnings and Precautions in labeling. Other important common adverse reactions were nausea, fatigue, vomiting, alopecia, constipation, decreased appetite, anemia, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia. Overall, the totality of efficacy and safety data supported the accelerated approval of T-DXd for the intended indication.

FDA Approval Summary: Selumetinib for Plexiform Neurofibroma

On April 10, 2020, the FDA approved selumetinib (KOSELUGO, AstraZeneca) for the treatment of pediatric patients 2 years of age and older with neurofibromatosis type 1 who have symptomatic, inoperable plexiform neurofibromas. Approval was based on demonstration of a durable overall response rate per Response Evaluation in Neurofibromatosis and Schwannomatosis criteria and supported by observed clinical improvements in plexiform neurofibroma-related symptoms and functional impairments in 50 pediatric patients with inoperable plexiform neurofibromas in a single-arm, multicenter trial. The overall reponse rate per NCI investigator assessment was 66% (95% confidence interval, 51-79) with at least 12 months of follow-up. The median duration of response was not reached, and 82% of responding patients experienced duration of response ≥12 months. Clinical outcome assessment endpoints provided supportive efficacy data. Risks of selumetinib are consistent with MAPK (MEK) inhibitor class effects, including ocular, cardiac, musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, and dermatologic toxicities. Safety was assessed across a pooled database of 74 pediatric patients with plexiform neurofibromas and supported by adult and pediatric selumetinib clinical trial data in cancer indications. The benefit-risk assessment for selumetinib in patients with inoperable plexiform neurofibromas was considered favorable.

Perspectives on Drug Development in Multiple Myeloma-Looking Forward to 2025

The multiple myeloma treatment landscape has evolved considerably over the last 20 years with the development of multiple therapies with novel mechanisms of action and new combination regimens. However, the recent failure of several large phase III trials, coupled with an increased understanding of the mutational landscape of multiple myeloma has provided opportunities to explore optimal strategies for future multiple myeloma drug development. The Office of Oncologic Diseases at the FDA held an educational symposium, "Drug Development in MM-Project 2025," in November 2019. The symposium brought together select U.S.-based academic thought leaders in the field of multiple myeloma to explore issues relevant to regulatory science in the field, including considerations for trial design, combination strategies, control arms, and precision medicine. This article summarizes the highlights of this educational symposium held at the FDA, including discussions on the future development of novel drugs and drug combinations and biomarker-directed therapies for patients with multiple myeloma.

Survival outcomes in older men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with androgen receptor inhibitors: a US Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis of patient-level data from three randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the benefit-risk profile of second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors in older men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors in men aged 80 years or older with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

METHODS

We searched for all randomised controlled clinical trials evaluating second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration before Aug 15, 2020, and pooled data from three trials that met the selection criteria. All three trials enrolled patients who were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, castration-resistant prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 2·0 μg/L or greater, PSA doubling time of 10 months or less, and no evidence of distant metastatic disease on conventional imaging per the investigator's assessment at the time of screening. All patients had histologically or cytologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate without neuroendocrine differentiation or small-cell features. All patients who were randomly assigned to androgen receptor inhibitor or placebo groups in these trials were considered assessable and were included in this pooled analysis. We evaluated the effect of age on metastasis-free survival and overall survival across age groups (<80 years vs ≥80 years) in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study treatment.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 14, 2013, and March 9, 2018, 4117 patients were assigned to androgen receptor inhibitor (apalutamide, enzalutamide, or daralutamide; n=2694) or placebo (n=1423) across three randomised trials. The median follow-up duration for metastasis-free survival was 18 months (IQR 11-26) and for overall survival was 44 months (32-55). In patients aged 80 years or older (n=1023), the estimated median metastasis-free survival was 40 months (95% CI 36-41) in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups and 22 months (18-29) in the placebo groups (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·37 [95% CI 0·28-0·47]), and the median overall survival was 54 months (50-61) versus 49 months (43-58), respectively (adjusted HR 0·79 [0·64-0·98]). In patients younger than 80 years of age (n=3094), the estimated median metastasis-free survival was 41 months (95% CI 36-not estimable [NE]) in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups and 16 months (15-18) in the placebo groups (adjusted HR 0·31 [95% CI 0·27-0·35]), and the median overall survival was 74 months (74-NE) versus 61 months (56-NE), respectively (adjusted HR 0·69 [0·60-0·80]). In patients aged 80 years or older, grade 3 or worse adverse events were reported in 371 (55%) of 672 patients in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups and 140 (41%) of 344 patients in the placebo groups, compared with 878 (44%) of 2015 patients in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups and 321 (30%) of 1073 patients in the placebo groups among patients younger than 80 years. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (168 [8%] of 2015 patients aged <80 years and 51 [8%] of 672 patients aged ≥80 years in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups vs 53 [5%] of 1073 patients aged <80 years and 22 [6%] of 344 patients aged ≥80 years in the placebo groups) and fracture (61 [3%] and 36 [5%] in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups vs 15 [1%] and 11 [3%] in the placebo groups).

INTERPRETATION

The findings of this pooled analysis support the use of androgen receptor inhibitors in older men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Incorporating geriatric assessment tools in the care of older adults with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer might help clinicians to offer individualised treatment to each patient.

FUNDING

None.

Rethinking Cancer Clinical Trial Conduct Induced by COVID-19: An Academic Center, Industry, Government, and Regulatory Agency Perspective

The COVID-19 pandemic brought about major changes in cancer clinical trials. In its aftermath, the community has an opportunity to incorporate some of these changes as part of the future of trial conduct to make it more patient centered.

Subgroup Analyses in Oncology Trials: Regulatory Considerations and Case Examples

Subgroup analyses are assessments of treatment effects based on certain patient characteristics out of the total study population and are important for interpretation of pivotal oncology trials. However, appropriate use of subgroup analyses results for regulatory decision-making and product labeling is challenging. Typically, drugs approved by the FDA are indicated for use in the total patient population studied; however, there are examples of restriction to a subgroup of patients despite positive study results in the entire study population and also extension of an indication to the entire study population despite positive results appearing primarily in one or more subgroups. In this article, we summarize key issues related to subgroup analyses in the benefit-risk assessment of cancer drugs and provide case examples to illustrate approaches that the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence has taken when considering the appropriate patient population for cancer drug approval. In general, if a subgroup is of interest, the subgroup analysis should be hypothesis-driven and have adequate sample size to demonstrate evidence of a treatment effect. In addition to statistical efficacy considerations, the decision on what subgroups to include in labeling relies on the pathophysiology of the disease, mechanistic justification, safety data, and external information available. The oncology drug review takes the totality of the data into consideration during the decision-making process to ensure the indication granted and product labeling appropriately reflect the scientific evidence to support patient population for whom the drug is safe and effective.

FDA Approval Summary: Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab for the Treatment of Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Previously Treated with Sorafenib

On March 10, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) previously treated with sorafenib. The recommended approved dosage was nivolumab 1 mg/kg i.v. plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by nivolumab 240 mg i.v. every 2 weeks. The approval was based on data from cohort 4 of CheckMate 040, which randomized patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HCC previously treated with or who were intolerant to sorafenib to receive one of three different dosing regimens of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab. Investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR) was the primary endpoint, and ORR assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) was an exploratory endpoint. BICR-assessed ORR and duration of response (DoR) form the primary basis of the FDA's regulatory decision, and BICR-assessed ORR was comparable in all three arms at 31%-32% with 95% confidence interval [CI] 18%-47%. The DoR ranged from 17.5 to 22.2 months across the three arms, with overlapping 95% CIs. Adverse events (AEs) were generally consistent with the known AE profiles of nivolumab and ipilimumab, and no new safety events were identified. This article summarizes the FDA review of the data supporting the approval of nivolumab and ipilimumab for the treatment of HCC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy is another option for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who experience radiographic progression during or after sorafenib or sorafenib intolerance. No new toxicities were identified, but, as expected, increased toxicity was observed with the addition of ipilimumab to nivolumab as compared with nivolumab alone, which is also approved for the same indication. Whether to administer nivolumab as a single agent or in combination with ipilimumab is expected to be a joint decision between the oncologist and patient, taking into consideration the potential for a higher likelihood of response and the potentially higher rate of toxicity with the combination.

FDA Approval Summary: Pembrolizumab for the Treatment of Tumor Mutational Burden-High Solid Tumors

The FDA approved pembrolizumab on June 16, 2020, for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with unresectable or metastatic tumor mutational burden-high [TMB-H; ≥10 mutations/megabase (mut/Mb)] solid tumors, as determined by an FDA-approved test, that have progressed following prior treatment and who have no satisfactory alternative treatment options. FDA granted the approval based on a clinically important overall response rate (29%; 95% confidence interval, 21-39) and duration of response (57% of responses lasting ≥ 12 months) in the subset of patients with TMB-H solid tumors (n = 102) spanning nine different tumor types enrolled in a multicenter single-arm trial (KEYNOTE-158). The efficacy of pembrolizumab was supported by the results of whole-exome sequencing (WES) analyses of TMB in additional patients enrolled across multiple pembrolizumab clinical trials, and a scientific understanding of the effects of PD-1 inhibition. Overall, the adverse event profile of pembrolizumab was similar to the adverse event profile observed in prior trials that supported the approval of pembrolizumab in other indications. This approval of pembrolizumab is the first time that the FDA has approved a cancer treatment for an indication based on TMB, and the fourth based on the presence of a biomarker rather than the primary site of origin.

FDA Approval Summary: Pralsetinib for the Treatment of Lung and Thyroid Cancers With RET Gene Mutations or Fusions

The FDA granted accelerated approval for pralsetinib on September 4, 2020 for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and December 1, 2020 for thyroid cancer, for: (i) adult patients with metastatic RET fusion-positive NSCLC, (ii) adult and pediatric patients ≥12 years of age with advanced or metastatic RET-mutant medullary thyroid cancer who require systemic therapy, and (iii) adult and pediatric patients ≥12 years of age with advanced or metastatic RET fusion-positive thyroid cancer who require systemic therapy and who are radioactive iodine refractory (if radioactive iodine is appropriate). Approval was based on the results of a multicenter, open-label, multi-cohort clinical trial (ARROW, NCT03037385), demonstrating substantial overall response rates (ORR) and durable responses in patients with RET-altered tumors. ORRs within the approved patient populations ranged from 57% [95% confidence interval (CI), 46-68] in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC previously treated with platinum chemotherapy to 89% (95% CI, 52-100) in patients with RET fusion-positive thyroid cancer, with response duration of at least 6 months in most responders. The product label includes warnings and precautions for pneumonitis, hypertension, hepatotoxicity, hemorrhagic events, tumor lysis syndrome, risk of impaired wound healing, and embryo-fetal toxicity. This article summarizes the major considerations during FDA review leading to the approval of pralsetinib.

FDA Approval Summary: Alpelisib Plus Fulvestrant for Patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative, PIK3CA-mutated, Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer

On May 24, 2019, the FDA granted regular approval to alpelisib in combination with fulvestrant for postmenopausal women, and men, with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative, phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA)-mutated, advanced or metastatic breast cancer as detected by an FDA-approved test following progression on or after an endocrine-based regimen. Approval was based on the SOLAR-1 study, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of alpelisib plus fulvestrant versus placebo plus fulvestrant. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1 in the cohort of trial participants whose tumors had a PIK3CA mutation. The estimated median PFS by investigator assessment in the alpelisib plus fulvestrant arm was 11 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 7.5-14.5] compared with 5.7 months (95% CI, 3.7-7.4) in the placebo plus fulvestrant arm (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.50-0.85; two-sided P = 0.001). The median overall survival was not yet reached for the alpelisib plus fulvestrant arm (95% CI, 28.1-NE) and was 26.9 months (95% CI, 21.9-NE) for the fulvestrant control arm. No PFS benefit was observed in trial participants whose tumors did not have a PIK3CA mutation (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.58-1.25). The most common adverse reactions, including laboratory abnormalities, on the alpelisib plus fulvestrant arm were increased glucose, increased creatinine, diarrhea, rash, decreased lymphocyte count, increased gamma glutamyl transferase, nausea, increased alanine aminotransferase, fatigue, decreased hemoglobin, increased lipase, decreased appetite, stomatitis, vomiting, decreased weight, decreased calcium, decreased glucose, prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time, and alopecia.

FDA Approval Summary: Atezolizumab and Durvalumab in Combination with Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in Extensive Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted approval to atezolizumab and durvalumab in March of 2019 and 2020, respectively, for use in combination with chemotherapy for first-line treatment of patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer. These approvals were based on data from two randomized controlled trials, IMpower133 (atezolizumab) and CASPIAN (durvalumab). Both trials demonstrated an improvement in overall survival (OS) with anti-programmed death ligand 1 antibodies when added to platinum-based chemotherapy as compared with chemotherapy alone. In IMpower133, patients receiving atezolizumab with etoposide and carboplatin demonstrated improved OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.91; p = .0069), with median OS of 12.3 months compared with 10.3 months in patients receiving etoposide and carboplatin. In CASPIAN, patients receiving durvalumab with etoposide and either cisplatin or carboplatin also demonstrated improved OS (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.91; p = .0047) with median OS of 13.0 months compared with 10.3 months in patients receiving etoposide and either cisplatin or carboplatin. The safety profiles of both drugs were generally consistent with known toxicities of immune-checkpoint inhibitor therapies. This review summarizes the FDA perspective and data supporting the approval of these two agents. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Effective therapeutic options for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) are limited, and there has been modest improvement in the overall survival (OS) of patients with SCLC over the past 3 decades. The approvals of atezolizumab and of durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy for first-line treatment of patients with extensive stage SCLC represent the first approved therapies with OS benefit for this patient population since the approval of etoposide in combination with other approved chemotherapeutic agents. Additionally, the efficacy results from IMpower133 and CASPIAN lay the groundwork for possible further evaluation in other treatment settings in this disease.

Clinical and immunologic impact of short-course enzalutamide alone and with immunotherapy in non-metastatic castration sensitive prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The standard treatment for non-metastatic castration sensitive prostate cancer (nmCSPC) is androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or surveillance. This study evaluated the potential synergy of immunotherapy and enzalutamide (without ADT) in nmCSPC. In addition, the immunologic impact of enzalutamide was also evaluated in men with normal testosterone.

METHODS

Patients with rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) after definitive therapy, normal testosterone and no radiographic metastasis were randomized to enzalutamide for 3 months with/without PROSTVAC for 6 months. Thereafter, patients could be retreated with another 3 month course of enzalutamide when PSA returned to baseline. Immune profiles were evaluated in these patients.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients were randomized with a median PSA=4.38 ng/dL and PSA doubling time=4.1 months. No difference was observed between the two groups for PSA growth kinetics, but PSA responses to enzalutamide were noteworthy regardless of PROSTVAC. The median PSA decline after short-course enzalutamide without ADT/testosterone lowering therapy was 99% in both courses. The median time to PSA recovery to baseline after each 84-day course of enzalutamide was also noteworthy because of the duration of response after enzalutamide was discontinued. After the first and second 3 month cycle of enzalutamide, PSA recovery to baseline took a median 224 (range 84-1246) and 189 days (78-400), respectively. The most common adverse events related to the enzalutamide were grade 1 fatigue (71%) and grade 1 breast pain/nipple tenderness (81%). The only grade 3 toxicity was aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevation in two patients. Enzalutamide was independently associated with immune changes, increasing natural killer cells, naïve-T cells, and decreasing myeloid-derived suppressor cells.

CONCLUSIONS

Three months of enzalutamide without ADT induced substantial PSA control beyond the treatment period and was repeatable, perhaps representing an alternative to intermittent ADT in nmCSPC. In addition, enzalutamide was associated with immune changes that could be relevant as future immune combinations are developed. TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01875250).

Neoadjuvant Therapy for Melanoma: A U.S. Food and Drug Administration-Melanoma Research Alliance Public Workshop

Tremendous progress has been made in treating patients with metastatic melanoma over the past decade. In that timeframe, the FDA has approved 12 novel treatments for patients with advanced unresectable melanoma, comprising both kinase-targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), and five treatments for adjuvant (postoperative) use in patients with high-risk resectable stage III melanoma. It is not known whether outcomes can be further improved by administering kinase inhibitors or ICI in the neoadjuvant (presurgical) setting in patients with high-risk resectable melanomas. Noting research community interest in exploring the neoadjuvant approach for treating melanoma and recognizing that early harmonization of methodologies may expedite the development of therapeutics in this space, the FDA and Melanoma Research Alliance convened a public workshop on November 6, 2019, in National Harbor, Maryland, to discuss key issues. The workshop consisted of 23 faculty and included more than 250 live participants. Topics discussed included opportunities for advancing novel endpoints for regulatory purposes as well as translational research, clinical trial design considerations, and strategies for optimizing patient selection while mitigating risk.

Regulatory Considerations for Contribution of Effect of Drugs Used in Combination Regimens: Renal Cell Cancer Case Studies

The development and review of combination drug regimens in oncology may present unique challenges to investigators and regulators. For regulatory approval of combination regimens, it is necessary to demonstrate the contribution of effect of each monotherapy to the overall combination. Alternative approaches to traditional designs may be needed to accelerate oncology drug development, for example, when combinations are substantially superior to available therapy, to reduce exposure to less effective therapies, and for drugs that are inactive as single agents and that in combination potentiate activity of another drug. These approaches include demonstration of activity in smaller randomized trials and/or monotherapy trials conducted in a similar disease setting. This article will discuss alternative approaches used in the development of approved drugs in combination, based on examples of recent approvals of combination regimens in renal cell carcinoma.

FDA Approval Summary: Lurbinectedin for the Treatment of Metastatic Small Cell Lung Cancer

On June 15, 2020, the FDA granted accelerated approval to lurbinectedin for the treatment of adult patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer (SCLC) with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Approval was granted on the basis of the clinically meaningful effects on overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR), and the safety profile observed in a multicenter, open-label, multicohort clinical trial (PM1183-B-005-14, NCT02454972), referred to as Study B-005, in patients with advanced solid tumors. The trial included a cohort of 105 patients with metastatic SCLC who had disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy. The confirmed ORR determined by investigator assessment using RECIST 1.1 in the approved SCLC patient population was 35% [95% confidence interval (CI): 26-45], with a median DOR of 5.3 (95% CI: 4.1-6.4) months. The drug label includes warnings and precautions for myelosuppression, hepatotoxicity, and embryo-fetal toxicity. This is the first drug approved by the FDA in over 20 years in the second line for patients with metastatic SCLC. Importantly, this approval includes an indication for patients who have platinum-resistant disease, representing an area of particular unmet need.

FDA Approval Summary: Selpercatinib for the Treatment of Lung and Thyroid Cancers with RET Gene Mutations or Fusions

On May 8, 2020, the FDA granted accelerated approval to selpercatinib for (i) adult patients with metastatic RET fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), (ii) adult and pediatric patients ≥12 years of age with advanced or metastatic RET-mutant medullary thyroid cancer who require systemic therapy, and (iii) adult and pediatric patients ≥12 years of age with advanced or metastatic RET fusion-positive thyroid cancer who require systemic therapy and who are radioactive iodine refractory (if radioactive iodine is appropriate). Approval was granted on the basis of the clinically important effects on the overall response rate (ORR) with prolonged duration of responses observed in a multicenter, open-label, multicohort clinical trial (LIBRETTO-001, NCT03157128) in patients whose tumors had RET alterations. ORRs within the approved patient populations ranged from 64% [95% confidence interval (CI), 54-73] in prior platinum-treated RET fusion-positive NSCLC to 100% (95% CI, 63-100) in systemic therapy-naïve RET fusion-positive thyroid cancer, with the majority of responders across indications demonstrating responses of at least 6 months. The product label includes warnings and precautions for hepatotoxicity, hypertension, QT interval prolongation, hemorrhagic events, hypersensitivity, risk of impaired wound healing, and embryo-fetal toxicity. This is the first approval of a drug specifically for patients with RET alterations globally.

FDA Approval Summary: Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab for the Treatment of Patients with Advanced Unresectable or Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma

On May 29, 2020, the FDA approved atezolizumab for use in combination with bevacizumab, for the treatment of adult patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with no prior systemic treatment. The approval was based on data from Study IMbrave150, which randomly allocated (2:1) patients to receive either atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (atezolizumab-bevacizumab) or sorafenib. Overall survival (OS) and independently assessed progression-free survival (PFS) in the intent-to-treat population were the primary endpoints. At the time of the primary analysis, the estimated median OS could not be estimated in the atezolizumab-bevacizumab arm and was 13.2 months in the sorafenib arm [HR, 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.42-0.79]. The estimated median PFS was 6.8 months (95% CI, 5.8-8.3) and 4.3 months (95% CI, 4.0-5.6) in the atezolizumab-bevacizumab and sorafenib arms, respectively. Adverse reactions occurring in >20% of patients receiving atezolizumab-bevacizumab were hypertension, fatigue/asthenia, and proteinuria. Adverse reactions occurring in >20% of patients receiving sorafenib were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, diarrhea, hypertension, and decreased appetite. Hemorrhage was reported more frequently in patients receiving atezolizumab-bevacizumab (25%) than in patients receiving sorafenib (17%). An evaluation for the presence of varices is recommended within 6 months of initiation of atezolizumab-bevacizumab in patients with HCC. Approval of atezolizumab-bevacizumab is likely to change the treatment paradigm for HCC, given that treatment with atezolizumab-bevacizumab resulted in improved OS and PFS compared with sorafenib, an accepted standard of care for first-line treatment of patients with unresectable HCC.See related commentary by Castet et al., p. 1827.

Comparison of iRECIST versus RECIST V.1.1 in patients treated with an anti-PD-1 or PD-L1 antibody: pooled FDA analysis

Background

Response criteria developed when cytotoxic chemotherapy was the predominant therapeutic modality to treat patients with cancer, do not capture the full spectrum of tumor response patterns observed with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibody treatment. iRECIST was developed to capture both typical and atypical response patterns.

Methods

Target, non-target, and new lesion measurements for 7920 patients receiving anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibody (n=4751) or anti-CTLA-4 antibody (n=613) or undergoing chemotherapy (n=2556) from 14 randomized controlled trials submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration were used to calculate the best overall response, objective response rate and progression-free survival (PFS) per iRECIST (iPFS) and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST). Associations between either PFS or iPFS and overall survival (OS) were evaluated using the method adopted by Oba et al.1

Results

Among 4751 anti-PD-1/PD-L1-antibody treated patients, 31.5% (95% CI 30.2% to 32.9%) and 30.5% (95% CI 29.2% to 31.8%) achieved an objective response per iRECIST or RECIST V.1.1, respectively. OS among the 48 patients with objective response by iRECIST only resembled that in patients with responses per RECIST V.1.1. The association between iPFS and OS was R²=0.277 and that between PFS and OS was R²=0.260.

Conclusions

Patients treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies with initial progressive disease per RECIST V.1.1 can experience prolonged stability or substantial reductions in tumor burden per iRECIST, atypical response patterns associated with prolonged OS. In the subgroup of patients with atypical responses, the application of iRECIST retrospectively in the evaluation of the objective response durations and the magnitude of PFS results in large differences compared with RECIST V.1.1. For the overall pooled population, the magnitude of these differences was modest, although a large proportion of patients had no further tumor assessments following RECIST V.1.1-defined progressive disease. Prospective studies employing iRECIST will be required to assess whether this response criteria more fully captures the benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Cabozantinib plus docetaxel and prednisone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of cabozantinib combined with docetaxel.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a phase 1/2 multicentre study in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Docetaxel (75 mg/m² every 3 weeks with daily prednisone 10 mg) was combined with escalating doses of daily cabozantinib (20, 40 and 60 mg). Based on the results of the phase 1 study, the investigation was expanded into a randomized study of docetaxel with prednisone (hereafter 'docetaxel/prednisone') plus the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of cabozantinib compared with docetaxel/prednisone alone.

RESULTS

A total of 44 men with mCRPC were enrolled in this phase 1/2 trial. An MTD of 40 mg cabozantinib plus docetaxel/prednisone was determined. Dose-limiting toxicities were neutropenic fever and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, and there was one death attributable to a thromboembolic event. In addition, grade 3 or 4 myelosuppression, hypophosphataemia and neuropathy were seen in three or more patients. In the phase 1 study, the median time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) time were 13.6 and 16.3 months, respectively. In the phase 2 study, which was terminated early because of poor accrual, the median TTP and OS favoured the combination (n = 13) compared to docetaxel/prednisone alone (n = 12; 21.0 vs 6.6 months; P = 0.035 and 23.8 vs 15.6 months; P = 0.072, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Despite the limited number of patients in this study, preliminary data suggest that cabozantinib can be safely added to docetaxel/prednisone with possible enhanced efficacy.