ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale for haematological malignancies (ESMO-MCBS:H) version 1.0

BACKGROUND

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) has been accepted as a robust tool to evaluate the magnitude of clinical benefit reported in trials for oncological therapies. However, the ESMO-MCBS hitherto has only been validated for solid tumours. With the rapid development of novel therapies for haematological malignancies, we aimed to develop an ESMO-MCBS version that is specifically designed and validated for haematological malignancies.

METHODS

ESMO and the European Hematology Association (EHA) initiated a collaboration to develop a version for haematological malignancies (ESMO-MCBS:H). The process incorporated five landmarks: field testing of the ESMO-MCBS version 1.1 (v1.1) to identify shortcomings specific to haematological diseases, drafting of the ESMO-MCBS:H forms, peer review and revision of the draft based on re-scoring (resulting in a second draft), assessment of reasonableness of the scores generated, final review and approval by ESMO and EHA including executive boards.

RESULTS

Based on the field testing results of 80 haematological trials and extensive review for feasibility and reasonableness, five amendments to ESMO-MCBS were incorporated in the ESMO-MCBS:H addressing the identified shortcomings. These concerned mainly clinical trial endpoints that differ in haematology versus solid oncology and the very indolent nature of nevertheless incurable diseases such as follicular lymphoma, which hampers presentation of mature data. In addition, general changes incorporated in the draft version of the ESMO-MCBS v2 were included, and specific forms for haematological malignancies generated. Here we present the final approved forms of the ESMO-MCBS:H, including instructions.

CONCLUSION

The haematology-specific version ESMO-MCBS:H allows now full applicability of the scale for evaluating the magnitude of clinical benefit derived from clinical studies in haematological malignancies.

Off-label despite high-level evidence: a clinical practice review of commonly used off-patent cancer medicines

INTRODUCTION

Off-label use of medicines is generally discouraged. However, several off-patent, low-cost cancer medicines remain off-label for indications in which they are commonly used in daily practice, supported by high-level evidence based on results of phase III clinical trials. This discrepancy may generate prescription and reimbursement obstacles as well as impaired access to established therapies.

METHODS

A list of cancer medicines that remain off-label in specific indications despite the presence of high-level evidence was generated and subjected to European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) expert peer review to assess for accountability of reasonableness. These medicines were then surveyed on approval procedures and workflow impact. The most illustrative examples of these medicines were reviewed by experts from the European Medicines Agency to ascertain the apparent robustness of the supporting phase III trial evidence from a regulatory perspective.

RESULTS

A total of 47 ESMO experts reviewed 17 cancer medicines commonly used off-label in six disease groups. Overall, high levels of agreement were recorded on the off-label status and the high quality of data supporting the efficacy in the off-label indications, often achieving high ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scores. When prescribing these medicines, 51% of the reviewers had to implement a time-consuming process associated with additional workload, in the presence of litigation risks and patient anxiety. Finally, the informal regulatory expert review identified only 2 out of 18 (11%) studies with significant limitations that would be difficult to overcome in the context of a potential marketing authorisation application without additional studies.

CONCLUSIONS

We highlight the common use of off-patent essential cancer medicines in indications that remain off-label despite solid supporting data as well as generate evidence on the adverse impact on patient access and clinic workflows. In the current regulatory framework, incentives to promote the extension of indications of off-patent cancer medicines are needed for all stakeholders.

Impact of smoking status on the relative efficacy of the EGFR TKI/angiogenesis inhibitor combination therapy in advanced NSCLC-a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The ETOP 10-16 BOOSTER trial failed to demonstrate a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit for adding bevacizumab to osimertinib in second line. An exploratory subgroup analysis, however, suggested a PFS benefit of the combination in patients with a smoking history and prompted us to do this study.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the differential effect of smoking status on the benefit of adding an angiogenesis inhibitor to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy was carried out. All relevant randomized controlled trials appearing in main oncology congresses or in PubMed as of 1 November 2021 were used according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses statement. Primarily PFS according to smoking status, and secondarily overall survival (OS) were of interest. Pooled and interaction hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated by fixed or random effects models, depending on the detected degree of heterogeneity. Bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane tool for randomized controlled trials (RoB 2).

Results

Information by smoking was available for 1291 patients for PFS (seven studies) and 678 patients for OS (four studies). The risk of bias was low for all studies. Combination treatment significantly prolonged PFS for smokers [n = 502, HR = 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44-0.69] but not for nonsmokers (n = 789, HR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.66-1.27; treatment-by-smoking interaction P = 0.02). Similarly, a significant OS benefit was found for smokers (n = 271, HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.47-0.93) but not for nonsmokers (n = 407, HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.82-1.42; treatment-by-smoking interaction P = 0.03).

Conclusion

In advanced EGFR-non-small-cell lung cancer patients, the addition of an angiogenesis inhibitor to EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy provides a statistically significant PFS and OS benefit in smokers, but not in non-smokers. The biological basis for this observation should be pursued and could determine whether this might be due to a specific co-mutational pattern produced by tobacco exposure.

•

Target population consists of EGFR-non-small-cell lung cancer patients.

•

The relative effect of adding an angiogenesis inhibitor to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor by smoking status was explored.

•

In patients with smoking history, the addition of an angiogenesis inhibitor provides significant PFS and OS benefit.

•

This is not the case in patients with a negative smoking history.

•

The biological basis for this observation should be pursued.

Biases in study design, implementation, and data analysis that distort the appraisal of clinical benefit and ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scoring

Background

The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) is a validated, widely used tool developed to score the clinical benefit from cancer medicines reported in clinical trials. ESMO-MCBS scores assume valid research methodologies and quality trial implementation. Studies incorporating flawed design, implementation, or data analysis may generate outcomes that exaggerate true benefit and are not generalisable. Failure to either indicate or penalise studies with bias undermines the intention and diminishes the integrity of ESMO-MCBS scores. This review aimed to evaluate the adequacy of the ESMO-MCBS to address bias generated by flawed design, implementation, or data analysis and identify shortcomings in need of amendment.

Methods

As part of a refinement of the ESMO-MCBS, we reviewed trial design, implementation, and data analysis issues that could bias the results. For each issue of concern, we reviewed the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 approach against standards derived from Helsinki guidelines for ethical human research and guidelines from the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, the Food and Drugs Administration, the European Medicines Agency, and European Network for Health Technology Assessment.

Results

Six design, two implementation, and two data analysis and interpretation issues were evaluated and in three, the ESMO-MCBS provided adequate protections. Seven shortcomings in the ability of the ESMO-MCBS to identify and address bias were identified. These related to (i) evaluation of the control arm, (ii) crossover issues, (iii) criteria for non-inferiority, (iv) substandard post-progression treatment, (v) post hoc subgroup findings based on biomarkers, (vi) informative censoring, and (vii) publication bias against quality-of-life data.

Conclusion

Interpretation of the ESMO-MCBS scores requires critical appraisal of trials to understand caveats in trial design, implementation, and data analysis that may have biased results and conclusions. These will be addressed in future iterations of the ESMO-MCBS.

•

We reviewed trial design, implementation, and data analysis issues that could bias the results of trials.

•

These issues could skew the results of ESMO-MCBS scores.

•

Six design, two implementation, and two analysis issues were reviewed, and seven shortcomings were identified.

•

These issues will be addressed in future versions of the MCBS scale.

•

Interpretation of MCBS scores requires critical appraisal of trials.