Fragility of randomized trials supporting cancer drug approvals stratified by approval pathway and review designations

Background: It has been suggested that the results from fragile trials are less likely to translate into benefit in routine clinical practice. Methods: We searched the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) archives to identify drug approvals for solid organ malignancies between 2010 and 2019. We calculated the Fragility Index (FI) supporting each approval, using methods to account for time-to-event. We compared FI and trial and approval characteristics using Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis test. Using logistic regression, we examined study characteristics associated with withdrawal of consent or lost to follow-up (WCLFU) exceeding the calculated FI. Results: The median FI among 125 included studies was 23 (range 1-322). The FI was ≤10 in 35 studies (28%), 11-20 in 21 (17%), and >20 in 69 (55%). The median FI/Nexp was 7.7% (range 0.1-51.7%). The median FI was significantly lower among approvals processed through the accelerated vs regular pathway (5.5 vs 25, p = 0.001), but there was no difference in median FI/Nexp. The WCLFU exceeded FI in 42% of studies. Overall survival endpoints were more likely to have a WCLFU exceeding FI (OR 3.16, p = 0.003). WCLFU exceeding FI was also associated with a lesser magnitude of effect (median HR 0.69 vs 0.55, p FI. Conclusion: The median FI among all trials was 23, and WCLFU exceeded FI in 42%. Comparative trials in solid tumors supporting approval through the accelerated pathway are more fragile compared to trials approved through the regular pathway, an observation likely explained by a lower sample size in the experimental arm

Clinical benefit of cancer drugs approved in Switzerland 2010-2019

Background It is unknown to what extent cancer drugs approved in Switzerland by the Swissmedic fulfil criteria of clinical benefit according to the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS), the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework version 2 (ASCO-VF) and the Swiss OLUtool v2 (OLUtool). Patients and methods An electronic search identified studies that led to marketing authorisations in Switzerland 2010-2019. Studies were evaluated according to ESMO-MCBS, ASCO-VF and OLUtool. Substantial benefit for ESMO-MCBS, was defined as a grade A or B for (neo)adjuvant intent and 4 or 5 for palliative intent. For ASCO-VF and OLUtool clinical benefit was defined as score ≥45 and A or B, respectively. Concordance between the frameworks was calculated with Cohen's Kappa (κ). Factors associated with clinical benefit were evaluated by logistic regression. Results In the study period, 48 drugs were approved for 92 evaluable indications, based on 100 studies. Ratings for ESMO-MCBS, ASCO-VF and OLUtool could be performed for 100, 86, and 97 studies, respectively. Overall, 39 (39%), 44 (51%), 45 (46%) of the studies showed substantial clinical benefit according to ESMO-MCBS v1.1, ASCO-VF, OLUtool criteria, respectively. There was fair concordance between ESMO-MCBS and ASCO-VF in the palliative setting (κ = 0.31, P = 0.004) and moderate concordance between ESMO-MCBS and OLUtool (κ = 0.41, P<0.001). There was no significant concordance between ASCO-VF and OLUtool (κ = 0.18, P = 0.12). Factors associated with substantial clinical benefit in multivariable analysis were HRQoL benefit reported as secondary outcome for ESMO-MCBS and the ASCO-VF and blinded studies for OLUtool. Conclusions At the time of approval, only around half of the trials supporting marketing authorisation of recently approved cancer drugs in Switzerland meet the criteria for substantial clinical benefit when evaluated with ESMO-MCBS, ASCO-VF or OLUtool. There was at best only moderate concordance between the grading systems

Clinical Benefit and Expedited Approval of Cancer Drugs in the United States, European Union, Switzerland, Japan, Canada, and Australia

We studied all new cancer drugs approved in the six aforementioned jurisdictions from 2007 to 2020. We extracted all applicable expedited programs, total regulatory review times, and, for drugs first approved by the FDA, times to subsequent regulatory approval. Clinical benefit was assessed using the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale value framework and ASCO-Cancer Research Committee's targets. Nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare total review times for high versus low clinical benefit drugs. One hundred and twenty eight drugs received initial approval in at least one of the six included jurisdictions. Most drugs approved by the FDA (91%) and Health Canada (59%) qualified for at least one expedited program within those jurisdictions, compared with 46% of EMA approvals and 18% of PMDA approvals. The FDA was the first regulator to approve 102 (80%) drugs. Delays in submission accounted for a median of 20.2% (EMA) to 83.8% (PMDA) of the time to subsequent approval. There was no association between high clinical benefit and shorter total review times. Most new cancer therapies were approved first by the FDA, and delays in submission of regulatory applications accounted for substantial delays in approving cancer drugs in other countries. Regulators should prioritize faster review for drugs with high clinical benefit

Association between control group therapy and magnitude of clinical benefit of cancer drugs

Little is known about the impact of control group therapy on clinical benefit scales such as American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF), European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Evidence Blocks and ASCO Cancer Research Committee (ASCO-CRC). We searched Drugs@FDA to identify cancer drugs approved between January 2012 and December 2021 based on randomized trials (RCTs). Definition of substantial clinical benefit was based on recommendations for each scale. Associations between characteristics of control group therapy and clinical benefit were explored using logistic regression. RCTs with a control group of active treatment plus placebo were associated with significantly lower odds of substantial benefit with ESMO-MCBS (OR 0.27, P = 0.003) and ASCO-VF (OR 0.30, P = 0.008) but not with NCCN Evidence Blocks or ASCO-CRC. This effect was attenuated and lost statistical significance without adjustment for quality of life (QoL) and/or toxicity (ESMO-MCBS OR 0.50, P = 0.17; ASCO-VF OR 0.49, P = 0.11). Clinical benefit scales can be sensitive to control group therapy. RCTs with substantial overlap between experimental and control therapy showed lower magnitude of clinical benefit using ESMO-MCBS and ASCO-VF scales; possibly due to differences in the weighting of QoL and toxicity between different frameworks

Role of cooperative groups and funding source in clinical trials supporting guidelines for systemic therapy of breast cancer

Clinical research is conducted by academia, cooperative groups (CGs) or pharmaceutical industry. Here, we evaluate the role of CGs and funding sources in the development of guidelines for breast cancer therapies. We identified 94 studies. CGs were involved in 28 (30%) studies while industry either partially or fully sponsored 64 (68%) studies. The number of industry funded studies increased over time (from 0% in 1976 to 100% in 2014; p for trend = 0.048). Only 10 (11%) government or academic studies were identified. Studies conducted by GCs included a greater number of subjects (median 448 vs. 284; p = 0.015), were more common in the neo/adjuvant setting (p < 0.0001), and were more often randomized (p = 0.018) phase III (p < 0.0001) trials. Phase III trial remained significant predictor for CG-sponsored trials (OR 7.1 p = 0.004) in a multivariable analysis. Industry funding was associated with higher likelihood of positive outcomes favoring the sponsored experimental arm (p = 0.013) but this relationship was not seen for CG-sponsored trials (p = 0.53). ASCO, ESMO, and NCCN guidelines were searched to identify systemic anti-cancer therapies for early-stage and metastatic breast cancer. Trial characteristics and outcomes were collected. We identified sponsors and/or the funding source(s) and determined whether CGs, industry, or government or academic institutions were involved. Chi-square tests were used for comparison between studies. Industry funding is present in the majority of studies providing the basis for which recommendations about treatment of breast cancer are made. Industry funding, but not CG-based funding, was associated with higher likelihood of positive outcomes in clinical studies supporting guidelines for systemic therapy

Electronic health records and patient registries in medical oncology departments in Spain

We aimed to evaluate the current situation of electronic health records (EHRs) and patient registries in the oncology departments of hospitals in Spain. This was a cross-sectional study conducted from December 2018 to September 2019. The survey was designed ad hoc by the Outcomes Evaluation and Clinical Practice Section of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) and was distributed to all head of medical oncology department members of SEOM. We invited 148 heads of oncology departments, and 81 (54.7%) questionnaires were completed, with representation from all 17 Spanish autonomous communities. Seventy-seven (95%) of the respondents had EHRs implemented at their hospitals; of them, over 80% considered EHRs to have a positive impact on work organization and clinical practice, and 73% considered that EHRs improve the quality of patient care. In contrast, 27 (35.1%) of these respondents felt that EHRs worsened the physician-patient relationship and conveyed an additional workload (n = 29; 37.6%). Several drawbacks in the implementation of EHRs were identified, including the limited inclusion of information on both outpatients and inpatients, information recorded in free text data fields, and the availability of specific informed consent. Forty-six (56.7%) respondents had patient registries where they recorded information from all patients seen in the department. Our study indicates that EHRs are almost universally implemented in the hospitals surveyed and are considered to have a positive impact on work organization and clinical practice. However, EHRs currently have several drawbacks that limit their use for investigational purposes. Not applicable The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12094-021-02614-9

Quality of life with palbociclib plus fulvestrant versus placebo plus fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with endocrine-sensitive hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative advanced breast cancer : patient-reported outcomes from the FLIPPER trial

In the FLIPPER trial, palbociclib/fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo/fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2− advanced breast cancer (ABC). We assessed health-related quality of life (QoL) using patient-reported outcomes (PROs). In this phase II double-blinded study, PROs were assessed at baseline after every three cycles and at the end of the treatment using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23. Time to deterioration (TTD) in global health status (GHS)/QoL was defined as a decrease of ⩾10 points. Changes from baseline (CFB) and TTD were analysed using linear mixed-effect and Cox regression models, respectively. Of the 189 randomised (1:1) patients, 178 (94%) completed ⩾1 post-baseline assessment; 50% received ⩾22 cycles of study treatment, with a questionnaire compliance >90%. Mean baseline scores were comparable between arms. GHS/QoL scores were maintained throughout the palbociclib/fulvestrant treatment. CFB showed significant differences for GHS/QoL, appetite loss, constipation and systemic therapy side effect scores favouring placebo/fulvestrant. TTD in GHS/QoL was delayed in placebo/fulvestrant versus palbociclib/fulvestrant [30.3 versus 11.1 months; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 1.57, 95% CI: 1.03-2.39, p = 0.036]; this difference was not significant in patients with progressive disease (aHR: 1.2, 95% CI: 0.6-2.2, p = 0.658). No statistically significant differences in TTD were found for the other QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 scales. Although TTD in GHS/QoL was prolonged with placebo/fulvestrant, no differences were observed on other functional or symptom scales. This finding and the improvement in PFS support the combination of palbociclib/fulvestrant as a beneficial therapeutic option for HR+/HER2− ABC. Sponsor Study Code: GEICAM/2014-12 EudraCT Number: 2015-002437-21 ClinTrials.gov reference: NCT0269048

Chromosome 17 Centromere Duplication and Responsiveness to Anthracycline-Based Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) and topoisomerase II alpha (TOP2A) genes have been proposed as predictive biomarkers of sensitivity to anthracycline chemotherapy. Recently, chromosome 17 centromere enumeration probe (CEP17) duplication has also been associated with increased responsiveness to anthracyclines. However, reports are conflicting and none of these tumor markers can yet be considered a clinically reliable predictor of response to anthracyclines. We studied the association of TOP2A gene alterations, HER2 gene amplification, and CEP17 duplication with response to anthracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 140 patients with operable or locally advanced breast cancer. HER2 was tested by fluorescence in situ hybridization and TOP2A and CEP17 by chromogenic in situ hybridization. Thirteen patients (9.3%) achieved pathologic complete response (pCR). HER2 amplification was present in 24 (17.5%) of the tumors. TOP2A amplification occurred in seven tumors (5.1%). CEP17 duplication was detected in 13 patients (9.5%). CEP17 duplication correlated with a higher rate of pCR [odds ratio (OR) 6.55, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.25-34.29, P =.026], and analysis of TOP2A amplification showed a trend bordering on statistical significance (OR 6.97, 95% CI 0.96-50.12, P =.054). TOP2A amplification and CEP17 duplication combined were strongly associated with pCR (OR 6.71, 95% CI 1.66-27.01, P =.007). HER2 amplification did not correlate with pCR. Our results suggest that CEP17 duplication predicts pCR to primary anthracycline-based chemotherapy. CEP17 duplication, TOP2A amplifications, and HER2 amplifications were not associated with prognosis

marcadors biològics predictius de resposta a la quimioteràpia primària (neoadjuvant) amb antraciclines i taxans

Predir la resposta a la quimioteràpia és un repte fonamental en el tractament de pacients amb càncer de mama. El benefici de la quimioteràpia amb antraciclines i taxans en càncer de mama precoç és modest i els efectes secundaris a llarg termini no desdenyables. La identificació de factors predictius de resposta permetria millorar l'eficàcia de la quimioteràpia i minimitzar les toxicitats secundàries. Actualment no disposem de biomarcadors específics per predir la resposta del tumor a la quimioteràpia amb antraciclines i taxans. L’amplificació del gen Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), la topoisomerasa II alfa (TOP2A) i la duplicació del centròmer del cromosoma 17 (CEP17) s’han proposats com a biomarcadors predictius de resposta a les antraciclines mentre que una expressió disminuïda de la proteïna Tau i dels isotips I a IV de la β-tubulina s’han relacionat amb la resposta a la quimioteràpia amb taxans. Els resultats dels estudis són discordants i cap d’aquests biomarcadors tumorals pot ser considerat un marcador predictiu de resposta a les antraciclines i taxans. En el present estudi s’han analizat aquests potencials marcadors predictius de resposta al tractament en una cohort de 140 pacients amb càncer de mama estadis II i III tractades amb quimioteràpia neoadjuvant amb antraciclines i taxans, emprant la resposta completa patològica com a marcador subrogat de quimiosensibilitat. Posteriorment s'ha avaluat el seu impacte en la supervivència. Els resultats d’aquesta tesi demostren: que la duplicació del CEP17 prediu la resposta completa patològica en pacients amb càncer de mama tractades amb esquemes de quimioteràpia basades en antraciclines, i que la baixa expressió de la proteïna Tau s’associa a la resposta a la quimioteràpia neoadjuvant i al benefici amb taxans. Les pacients amb alta expressió de la proteïna Tau tenen millor pronòstic.Predicting response to chemotherapy is a central challenge in treating patients with breast cancer. Anthracycline–taxane-based chemotherapy produces a modest improvement in survival for women with early-stage breast cancer. However, these drugs are associated with serious side-effects and careful selection is needed to ensure that they are given only to patients who may benefit from them. To date, no specific biomarkers have been identified to predict tumor response to anthracycline-taxane-based chemotherapy. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), topoisomerase II alpha (TOP2A) genes and chromosome 17 centromere enumeration probe (CEP17) duplication have all been proposed as predictive biomarkers of anthracycline treatment, whereas low expression of the microtubule-associated protein Tau and classes I to IV β-tubulin isotypes has been linked to better response to taxane chemotherapy. However, reports are conflicting, and none of these tumor markers can yet be considered a clinically reliable predictor of response to anthracycline–taxane-based chemotherapy. We studied the predictive and prognostic value of TOP2A gene alterations, HER2 gene amplification, CEP17 duplication and Tau protein expression, as well as classes I to IV β-tubulin isotypes expression in 140 patients with operable or locally advanced breast cancer receiving anthracycline-taxane-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The results of this thesis show that: CEP17 duplication predicts pathologic complete response to primary anthracycline-based chemotherapy, and low Tau protein expression is associated with response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and taxane benefit. Patients with high Tau expression have a better prognosis