Efficacy and safety of anticancer drug combinations: a meta-analysis of randomized trials with a focus on immunotherapeutics and gene-targeted compounds.

Hundreds of trials are being conducted to evaluate combination of newer targeted drugs as well as immunotherapy. Our aim was to compare efficacy and safety of combination versus single non-cytotoxic anticancer agents. We searched PubMed (01/01/2001 to 03/06/2018) (and, for immunotherapy, ASCO and ESMO abstracts (2016 through March 2018)) for randomized clinical trials that compared a single non-cytotoxic agent (targeted, hormonal, or immunotherapy) versus a combination with another non-cytotoxic partner. Efficacy and safety endpoints were evaluated in a meta-analysis using a linear mixed-effects model (guidelines per PRISMA Report).We included 95 randomized comparisons (single vs. combination non-cytotoxic therapies) (59.4%, phase II; 41.6%, phase III trials) (29,175 patients (solid tumors)). Combinations most frequently included a hormonal agent and a targeted small molecule (23%). Compared to single non-cytotoxic agents, adding another non-cytotoxic drug increased response rate (odds ratio [OR]=1.61, 95%CI 1.40-1.84)and prolonged progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR]=0.75, 95%CI 0.69-0.81)and overall survival (HR=0.87, 95%CI 0.81-0.94) (all p<0.001), which was most pronounced for the association between immunotherapy combinations and longer survival. Combinations also significantlyincreased the risk of high-grade toxicities (OR=2.42, 95%CI 1.98-2.97) (most notably for immunotherapy and small molecule inhibitors) and mortality at least possibly therapy related (OR: 1.33, 95%CI 1.15-1.53) (both p<0.001) (absolute mortality = 0.90% (single agent) versus 1.31% (combinations)) compared to single agents. In conclusion, combinations of non-cytotoxic drugs versus monotherapy in randomized cancer clinical trials attenuated safety, but increased efficacy, with the balance tilting in favor of combination therapy, based on the prolongation in survival

Lessons From the Development of the Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Oncology.

Immunotherapies are becoming increasingly important in the treatment armamentarium of a variety of malignancies. Immune checkpoint inhibitors are the most representative drugs receiving regulatory approval over the past few years. In a recent study published in Clinical Cancer Research, we demonstrated that these agents are being developed faster than other prior anticancer therapies. All checkpoint inhibitors received priority review, being granted with at least one Food and Drug Administration expedited program. Hence, some of them are getting marketing approval after preliminary trials. The model continues to rely on phase I trials, designed with traditional models for dose definition, although a substantial number of patients are treated during the dose expansion cohorts. We demonstrated that efficacy and safety are reasonably predicted from the dose-finding portion of phase I trials with these agents, assuring a low treatment-related mortality for patients throughout the development process. In this article, we further discuss and summarize these findings and update some recent approval information for immune checkpoint inhibitors

Lessons From the Development of the Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Oncology.

Immunotherapies are becoming increasingly important in the treatment armamentarium of a variety of malignancies. Immune checkpoint inhibitors are the most representative drugs receiving regulatory approval over the past few years. In a recent study published in Clinical Cancer Research, we demonstrated that these agents are being developed faster than other prior anticancer therapies. All checkpoint inhibitors received priority review, being granted with at least one Food and Drug Administration expedited program. Hence, some of them are getting marketing approval after preliminary trials. The model continues to rely on phase I trials, designed with traditional models for dose definition, although a substantial number of patients are treated during the dose expansion cohorts. We demonstrated that efficacy and safety are reasonably predicted from the dose-finding portion of phase I trials with these agents, assuring a low treatment-related mortality for patients throughout the development process. In this article, we further discuss and summarize these findings and update some recent approval information for immune checkpoint inhibitors

MET abnormalities in patients with genitourinary malignancies and outcomes with c-MET inhibitors.

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of MET amplification and mutation among GU malignancies and its association with clinical factors and responses to c-MET inhibitors.Patients and methodsPatients with GU malignancies referred to our Phase I Clinical Trials Program were evaluated for MET mutation and amplification and outcomes using protocols with c-MET inhibitors.ResultsMET amplification was found in 7 of 97 (7.2%) patients (4/27 renal [all clear cell], 1/18 urothelial, and 2/12 adrenocortical carcinoma), with MET mutation/variant in 3 of 54 (5.6%) (2/20 renal cell carcinoma [RCC] [1 clear cell and 1 papillary] and 1/16 prostate cancer). No demographic characteristics were associated with specific MET abnormalities, but patients who tested positive for mutation or amplification had more metastatic sites (median, 4 vs. 3 for wild type MET). Median overall survival after phase I consultation was 6.1 and 11.5 months for patients with and without a MET alteration, respectively (hazard ratio, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 6.9; P = .034). Twenty-nine (25%) patients were treated according to a c-MET inhibitor protocol. Six (21%) had a partial response (prostate and RCC) and 10 (34%) had stable disease as best response. Median time to tumor progression was 2.3 months (range, 0.4-19.7) for all treated patients with no responses in patients with a MET abnormality or single-agent c-MET inhibitor treatment.ConclusionMET genetic abnormalities occur in diverse GU malignancies and are associated with a worse prognosis in a phase I setting. Efficacy of c-MET inhibitors was more pronounced in patients without MET abnormalities and when combined with other targets/drugs

Cost-effectiveness analysis of Oncotype DX from a Brazilian private medicine perspective: a GBECAM multicenter retrospective study

Background: Oncotype DX (ODX) is a validated assay for the prediction of risk of recurrence and benefit of chemotherapy (CT) in both node negative (N0) and 1–3 positive nodes (N1), hormone receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) early breast cancer (eBC). Due to limited access to genomic assays in Brazil, treatment decisions remain largely driven by traditional clinicopathologic risk factors. ODX has been reported to be cost-effective in different health system, but limited data are available considering the reality of middle-income countries such as Brazil. We aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ODX across strata of clinical risk groups using data from a dataset of patients from Brazilian institutions. Methods: Clinicopathologic and ODX information were analyzed for patients with T1–T3, N0–N1, HR+/HER2− eBC who had an ODX performed between 2005 and 2020. Projections of CT indication by clinicopathologic criteria were based on binary clinical risk categorization based on the Adjuvant! Algorithm. The ODX score was correlated with the indication of CT according to TAILORx and RxPONDER data. Two decision-tree models were developed. In the first model, low and high clinical risk patients were included while in the second, only high clinical risk patients were included. The cost for ODX and CT was based on the Brazilian private medicine perspective. Results: In all, 645 patients were analyzed; 411 patients (63.7%) had low clinical risk and 234 patients (36.3%) had high clinical risk disease. The ODX indicated low (25) risk in 119 (18.4%), 415 (64.3%), and 111 (17.2%) patients, respectively. Among 645 patients analyzed in the first model, ODX was effective (5.6% reduction in CT indication) though with an incremental cost of United States Dollar (US$) 2288.87 per patient. Among 234 patients analyzed in the second model (high clinical risk only), ODX led to a 57.7$ 4350.66 per patient. Conclusions: Our study suggests that ODX is cost-saving for patients with high clinical risk HR+/HER2− eBC and cost-attractive for the overall population in the Brazilian private medicine perspective. Its incorporation into routine practice should be strongly considered by healthcare providers