Correlations of response rate and progression-free survival with overall survival in immunotherapy trials for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: an FDA pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Radiographic changes might not fully capture the treatment effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We aimed to assess correlations of overall response rate and progression-free survival with overall survival in trials of ICIs for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: To assess trial-level and patient-level correlations of overall response rate and progression-free survival with overall survival, we conducted a pooled analysis of first-line randomised trials (including patients aged ≥18 years with metastatic squamous and non-squamous NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1) submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration from June 24, 2016, to March 16, 2021. Eligible trials evaluated at least one ICI in the experimental group versus chemotherapy in the control group. At the trial level, we used weighted linear regression to derive coefficients of determination (R2). At the patient level, we used Cox proportional hazards models to compare overall survival between responders versus non-responders per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1). FINDINGS: A total of 13 trials including 9285 patients evaluated ICIs alone or in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. At the trial level, the R2 was 0·61 (95% CI 0·32-0·84) for correlation of overall response rate with overall survival and 0·70 (0·40-0·89) for correlation of progression-free survival with overall survival. Correlations ranged from weak to moderate when evaluating subgroups by PD-L1 expression and were consistent across trials evaluating ICIs alone or in combination with chemotherapy. At the patient level, responders had longer overall survival than non-responders (hazard ratio [HR] 0·28 [95% CI 0·26-0·30]). Among responders, overall survival was longer in patients enrolled in experimental groups than in control groups (HR 0·54 [95% CI 0·48-0·61]). INTERPRETATION: Correlations of overall response rate and progression-free survival with overall survival were generally moderate in this pooled analysis. The findings support routine analysis of mature overall survival data, where feasible, in first-line randomised trials of ICIs for metastatic NSCLC. FUNDING: US Food and Drug Administration.

Recommendations on the use of item libraries for patient-reported outcome measurement in oncology trials: findings from an international, multidisciplinary working group.

The use of item libraries for patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement in oncology allows for the customisation of PRO assessment to measure key health-related quality of life concepts of relevance to the target population and intervention. However, no high-level recommendations exist to guide users on the design and implementation of these customised PRO measures (item lists) across different PRO measurement systems. To address this issue, a working group was set up, including international stakeholders (academic, independent, industry, health technology assessment, regulatory, and patient advocacy), with the goal of creating recommendations for the use of item libraries in oncology trials. A scoping review was carried out to identify relevant publications and highlight any gaps. Stakeholders commented on the available guidance for each research question, proposed recommendations on how to address gaps in the literature, and came to an agreement using discussion-based methods. Nine primary research questions were identified that formed the scope and structure of the recommendations on how to select items and implement item lists created from item libraries. These recommendations address methods to drive item selection, plan the structure and analysis of item lists, and facilitate their use in conjunction with other measures. The findings resulted in high-level, instrument-agnostic recommendations on the use of item-library-derived item lists in oncology trials.

The Development of the Oncology Center of Excellence Patient-Friendly Language Glossary of Oncology Clinical Trial Terms.

Oncology clinical trials terms and definitions have become increasingly complex, which has led to shortcomings among research staff and healthcare providers in informing clinical trial participants with the study results and consenting procedures in simple language. Understanding oncology clinical trial terms is of critical importance to assist patients and caregivers in making cancer treatment decisions, including enrollment into clinical trials. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE) organized a physician and patient advocate-led focus group, with the primary goal of publishing a patient-centric public glossary of select cancer clinical trial terms for healthcare providers, patients, and caregivers. This commentary reports the results of the focus group sessions that gave FDA OCE valuable insights into how patients perceive clinical trial terms and how oncology clinical trial definitions can be improved to effectively communicate information to the patients to make better informed decisions about their treatment options.

Measuring Frailty Using Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Data: A Feasibility Study in Patients with Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE: The objective of this retrospective study was to determine the feasibility of measuring frailty using patient responses to relevant EORTC QLQ-C30 items as proxy criteria for the Fried Frailty Phenotype, in a cohort of patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM). METHODS: Data were pooled from nine Phase III randomized clinical trials submitted to the FDA for regulatory review between 2010 and 2021, for the treatment of RRMM. Baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 responses were used to derive a patient-reported frailty phenotype (PRFP), based on the Fried definition of frailty. PRFP was assessed for internal consistency reliability, structural validity, and known groups validity. RESULTS: This study demonstrated the feasibility of adapting patient responses to relevant EORTC QLQ-C30 items to serve as proxy Fried frailty criteria. Selected items were well correlated with one another and PRFP as a whole demonstrated adequate internal consistency reliability and structural validity. Known groups analysis demonstrated that PRFP could be used to detect distinct comorbidity levels and distinguish between different functional profiles, with frail patients reporting more difficulty in walking about, washing/dressing, and doing usual activities, as compared to their pre-frail and fit counterparts. Among the 4928 patients included in this study, PRFP classified 2729 (55.4%) patients as fit, 1209 (24.5%) as pre-frail, and 990 (20.1%) as frail. CONCLUSION: Constructing a frailty scale from existing PRO items commonly collected in cancer trials may be a patient-centric and practical approach to measuring frailty. Additional psychometric evaluation and research is warranted to further explore the utility of such an approach.

Time to deterioration of symptoms or function using patient-reported outcomes in cancer trials.

Time-to-event endpoints for patient-reported outcomes, such as time to deterioration of symptoms or function, are frequently used in cancer clinical trials. Although time-to-deterioration endpoints might seem familiar to cancer researchers for being similar to survival or disease-progression endpoints, there are unique considerations associated with their use. The complexity of time-to-deterioration endpoints should be weighed against the information that they add to the tumour, survival, and safety data used to inform the risks and benefits of an investigational drug. Here we use the estimand framework to show how analytical decisions answer different clinical questions of interest, some of which might be uninformative. Challenges including the consideration of intercurrent events, the difficulty in maintaining adequate completion rates, and considerable patient and trial burden from long-term, serial, patient-reported outcome measurements render time to deterioration a problematic approach for widespread use. For trials in which a comparative benefit in symptoms or function is an objective, an analysis at pre-specified relevant timepoints could be a better approach.

Floor and ceiling effects in the EORTC QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning Subscale among patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 Physical Functioning subscale is a widely used patient-reported outcome measure that quantifies cancer patients' physical functioning. Strong floor/ceiling effects can affect a scale's sensitivity to change. The aim of this study was to characterize floor/ceiling effects of the physical functioning domain in patients with advanced/metastatic breast cancer enrolled in commercial clinical trials and a community-based trial. METHODS: The clinical trial cohort comprised patients from 5 registrational trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration for review (2010-2017). The community cohort comprised a subgroup of patients from the Alliance Patient Reported Outcomes to Enhance Cancer Treatment (PRO-TECT) trial. The distribution of patient responses to Physical Functioning items and the summed score were assessed at the baseline and 3-month follow-up for both cohorts. Descriptive statistics were used to determine floor/ceiling effects at the item and scale levels. RESULTS: The clinical trial cohort and the community cohort consisted of 2407 and 178 patients, respectively. Twenty-four percent or more of the respondents reported "not at all" for having trouble/needing help with each Physical Functioning item across both cohorts and measurement time points. Fourteen to twenty percent of the patients scored perfectly (100 of 100) on the Physical Functioning subscale summary measure (where higher scores indicated better physical functioning) across both cohorts and time points. CONCLUSIONS: Minor floor effects and notable ceiling effects were found at the item and scale levels of the Physical Functioning subscale, regardless of cohort, and this creates some uncertainty about its ability to detect changes in physical functioning among high-functioning patients. Investigators may consider adding additional high-functioning items from the EORTC's item library to more accurately describe the impact of anticancer treatment on patients' physical functioning.

US Food and Drug Administration Analysis of Patient-Reported Diarrhea and Its Impact on Function and Quality of Life in Patients Receiving Treatment for Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Many trials conclude "no clinically meaningful detriment" to health-related quality of life (HRQL) or function between arms, even when notable differential toxicity is observed. Mean change from baseline analyses of function or HRQL can possibly obscure important change in subgroups experiencing symptomatic toxicity. We evaluate the impact of diarrhea, a key treatment arm toxicity, on patient-reported HRQL and functioning in clinical trials submitted to US Food and Drug Administration. METHODS: This study used 4 randomized, breast cancer trials (adjuvant to late-line metastatic) as case examples. Diarrhea, physical functioning (PF), and global health status and quality of life (GHS/QoL) from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 were analyzed at baseline and approximately 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: Generally, patients reporting very much diarrhea at months 3 and 6 had worse PF (9-19 points lower) and GHS/QoL (16-19 points lower) than patients reporting no diarrhea regardless of treatment arm. In the change from baseline analysis, patients reporting very much diarrhea also experienced a greater decrease in PF (6-13 points) and GHS/QoL (6-16 points) versus patients reporting no diarrhea in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: In trials with moderate to large differences in symptomatic toxicity by arm, reporting "no meaningful difference in functioning and HRQL between arms" based on mean change from baseline analysis is insufficient and may obscure important impacts on subgroups experiencing symptomatic adverse events. Additional exploratory analyses with simple data visualizations evaluating functioning or HRQL in patient subgroups experiencing expected symptomatic toxicities can further inform the safety and tolerability of an investigational agent.

Timing is everything: The importance of patient-reported outcome assessment frequency when characterizing symptomatic adverse events.

OBJECTIVE: Although patient-reported symptoms and side effects are increasingly measured in cancer clinical trials, an appropriate assessment frequency has not yet been established. To determine whether differences in assessment frequency affect the apparent incidence and severity of patient-reported symptoms using two well-established patient-reported outcome measures used within the same clinical trial. METHODS: We examined patient-reported outcome results from AURA3 (NCT02151981), a randomized open-label study comparing Tagrisso (osimertinib) with platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with previously treated estimated glomerular filtration rate/T790M mutation-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. The outcome of interest was the proportion of patients in each arm that reported worsening of nausea, vomiting, fatigue, diarrhea, constipation, and appetite loss from baseline measured using the patient-reported outcome-common terminology criteria for adverse event (weekly) or European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (every 6 weeks). RESULTS: Similar trends were observed for all six symptoms investigated. Using nausea in the chemotherapy arm as an example, 76% of patients reported any worsening from baseline based on weekly patient-reported outcome-common terminology criteria for adverse event assessments. When using an every 6-week assessment of Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 nausea and restricting analysis to an every 6-week assessment for patient-reported outcome-common terminology criteria for adverse event nausea, the proportion of chemotherapy arm patients reporting any worsening of nausea was 40% for both measures. Across the six patient-reported symptomatic adverse events, we observed differential proportions when comparing frequent versus sparse assessment. CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrates that more frequent assessment of patient-reported symptomatic adverse events will lead to improved detection, and therefore a more complete understanding of the tolerability of experimental anti-cancer therapies.

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.

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: 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.

Does Knowledge of Treatment Assignment Affect Patient Report of Symptoms, Function, and Health Status? An Evaluation Using Multiple Myeloma Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Unblinded trials are common in oncology, but patient knowledge of treatment assignment may bias response to questionnaires. We sought to ascertain the extent of possible bias arising from patient knowledge of treatment assignment. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of data from 2 randomized trials in multiple myeloma, 1 double-blind and 1 open label. We compared changes in patient reports of symptoms, function, and health status from prerandomization (screening) to baseline (pretreatment but postrandomization) across control and investigational arms in the 2 trials. Changes from prerandomization scores at ~2 and 6 months on treatment were evaluated only across control arms to avoid comparisons between 2 different experimental drugs. All scores were on 0- to 100-point scales. Inverse probability weighting, entropy balancing, and multiple imputation using propensity score splines were used to compare score changes across similar groups of patients. RESULTS: Minimal changes from screening were seen at baseline in all arms. In the control arm, mean changes of <7 points were seen for all domains at 2 and 6 months. The effect of unblinding at 6 months in social function was a decline of less than 6 points (weighting: -3.09; 95% confidence interval -8.41 to 2.23; balancing: -4.55; 95% confidence interval -9.86 to 0.76; imputation: -5.34; 95% confidence interval -10.64 to -0.04). CONCLUSION: In this analysis, we did not find evidence to suggest that there was a meaningful differential effect on how patients reported their symptoms, function or health status after knowing their treatment assignment.

Patient-Reported Outcomes After Treatment Discontinuation: Commercial Clinical Trial Data From Four Cancer Types.

OBJECTIVES: How frequently patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are collected in commercial cancer clinical trials after treatment discontinuation and the quality of that data are poorly understood. We reviewed treatment discontinuation follow-up PRO data collection to learn about trials collecting these data and understand data quality. The review included 4 cancer types representing potential for long- (prostate cancer), medium-/long- (breast cancer), and short-term (pancreatic cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma) follow-up owing to disease trajectory. METHODS: We reviewed registration trials in US Food and Drug Administration databases between January 2010 and January 2019. Protocols were reviewed to determine whether PROs were collected and, if so, whether these included the follow-up phase. Clinical study reports were reviewed when follow-up PROs were collected to determine completion rates. Results were summarized using descriptive analyses. RESULTS: Of the 46 trials containing PRO data, 46% had at least 1 follow-up PRO assessment. Follow-up schedules of assessment were wide ranging; the first assessment occurred between 30 days and 6 months after stopping treatment with follow-up for as long as 3 years. PRO completion rates were reported in 57% of 21 trials; at the first follow-up assessment, completion rates for the treatment arm ranged from 38% to 91% and from 41% to 100% in the control arm. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the follow-up PRO data, based on completion rates, was variable, as was the duration of follow-up. A clear research objective should be developed for follow-up PRO data, accounting for patient burden. If PRO data are collected, monitoring should be implemented to improve completion because poor completion limits data use in the benefit-risk assessment.

Demystifying the estimand framework: a case study using patient-reported outcomes in oncology.

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures describe how a patient feels or functions and are increasingly being used in benefit-risk assessments in the development of cancer drugs. However, PRO research objectives are often ill-defined in clinical cancer trials, which can lead to misleading conclusions about patient experiences. The estimand framework is a structured approach to aligning a clinical trial objective with the study design, including endpoints and analysis. The estimand framework uses a multidisciplinary approach and can improve design, analysis, and interpretation of PRO results. On the basis of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use E9(R1) addendum, we provide an overview of the estimand framework intended for a multistakeholder audience. We apply the estimand framework to a hypothetical trial for breast cancer, using physical function to develop specific PRO research objectives. This Policy Review is not an endorsement of a specific study design or outcome; rather, it is meant to show the application of principles of the estimand framework to research study design and add to ongoing discussion. Use of the estimand framework to review medical products and label PROs in oncology can improve communication between stakeholders and ultimately provide a clearer interpretation of patient experience in the development of oncological drugs.

Glioma patient-reported outcome assessment in clinical care and research: a Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology collaborative report.

Clinical trials of treatments for high-grade gliomas have traditionally relied on measures of response or time-dependent metrics; however, these endpoints have limitations because they do not characterise the functional or symptomatic effect of the condition on the person. Including clinical outcome assessments, such as patient- reported outcomes (PROs), to determine net clinical benefit of a treatment strategy is needed because of the substantial burden of symptoms and impaired functioning in this patient population. The US National Cancer Institute convened a meeting to review previous recommendations and existing PRO measures of symptoms and function that can be applied to current trials and clinical practice for high-grade gliomas. Measures were assessed for relevance, relationship to disease and therapy, sensitivity to change, psychometric properties, response format, patient acceptability, and use of self-report. The group also relied on patient input including the results of an online survey, a literature review on available clinical outcomes, expert opinion, and alignment with work done by other organisations. A core set of priority constructs was proposed that allows more comprehensive evaluation of therapies and comparison of outcomes among studies, and enhances efforts to improve the measurement of these core clinical outcomes. The proposed set of constructs was then presented to the Society for Neuro-Oncology Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group and feedback was solicited.

CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment for patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a US Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDKIs) are indicated with endocrine therapy as first-line or second-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced or metastatic breast cancer. We aimed to investigate the benefit of adding CDKIs to endocrine therapy in patients whose tumours might have differing degrees of endocrine sensitivity. METHODS: We pooled individual patient data from all phase 3 randomised breast cancer trials of CDKIs plus endocrine therapy submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration before Jan 1, 2019, in support of marketing applications. Our pooled analysis included all randomly assigned patients in these trials who received at least one dose of CDKI or placebo with endocrine therapy (an aromatase inhibitor [letrozole or anastrazole] or fulvestrant). We did prespecified subgroup analyses in patients with progesterone receptor-negative disease; patients with a disease-free interval of 12 months or less; patients with de-novo metastases, lobular histology, and bone-only disease; patients with visceral metastases; and patients aged up to 40 years. Patients who were not treated, who received tamoxifen as endocrine therapy, or who were treated with an aromatase inhibitor but who had received previous chemotherapy in the metastatic setting (not first-line) were excluded from our pooled analyses. All studies had a primary endpoint of investigator-assessed progression-free survival, defined as time from date of randomisation to the initial date of documented cancer progression or death, whichever occurred first. Median progression-free survival was estimated with Kaplan-Meier methods. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% CIs for progression-free survival were estimated by means of Cox regression models. FINDINGS: The seven studies meeting this study's inclusion criteria were done between Feb 22, 2013, and Nov 3, 2017, with a median duration of follow-up of 19·7 months (IQR 15·9-25·9). 4200 patients were included in the pooled analysis, of whom 1320 received an aromatase inhibitor plus a CDKI, 932 received placebo plus an aromatase inhibitor, 1296 received fulvestrant plus a CDKI, and 652 received fulvestrant plus placebo. Across all seven pooled trials, the difference in estimated median progression-free survival was 8·8 months in favour of CDKI plus endocrine therapy over placebo plus endocrine therapy (range across the trials 6·8-13·3 months; HR 0·59, 95% CI 0·54-0·64). Progression-free survival results favoured the CDKI group in all prespecified clinicopathological subgroups analysed, with similar HRs to that for the broader intended-use population. In first-line aromatase inhibitor-treated patients (n=2252), the median progression-free survival in the CDKI plus aromatase inhibitor group was 28·0 months (95% CI 25·3-29·1) versus 14·9 months (14·0-16·7) in the placebo plus aromatase inhibitor group (difference 13·1 months; range across the trials 13·0-13·3 months; HR 0·55, 95% CI 0·49-0·62). In first-line fulvestrant-treated patients (n=396), the median progression-free survival was 18·6 months (95% CI 14·8-23·5) in the placebo plus fulvestrant group and not estimable (22·4 to not estimable) in the CDKI plus fulvestrant group (difference not estimable; HR 0·58, 95% CI 0·42-0·80). In the patients treated with fulvestrant in the second-line setting and beyond (n=1552), the difference in estimated median progression-free survival between the CDKI plus fulvestrant group and the placebo plus fulvestrant group was 6·9 months in favour of the CDKI group (range across the trials 5·5-7·3 months; HR 0·56, 95% CI 0·49-0·64). INTERPRETATION: Since the addition of CDKI to endocrine therapy seemed to benefit all clinicopathological subgroups of interest in this pooled analysis, further research is needed to identify patient subgroups for whom endocrine therapy alone might be appropriate for first-line or second-line treatment of hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. FUNDING: None.

International standards for the analysis of quality-of-life and patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer randomised controlled trials: recommendations of the SISAQOL Consortium.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, function, and other health-related quality-of-life aspects, are increasingly evaluated in cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to provide information about treatment risks, benefits, and tolerability. However, expert opinion and critical review of the literature showed no consensus on optimal methods of PRO analysis in cancer RCTs, hindering interpretation of results. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium was formed to establish PRO analysis recommendations. Four issues were prioritised: developing a taxonomy of research objectives that can be matched with appropriate statistical methods, identifying appropriate statistical methods for PRO analysis, standardising statistical terminology related to missing data, and determining appropriate ways to manage missing data. This Policy Review presents recommendations for PRO analysis developed through critical literature reviews and a structured collaborative process with diverse international stakeholders, which provides a foundation for endorsement; ongoing developments of these recommendations are also discussed.

Public-private partnerships in transplant drug development.

The Transplant Therapeutics Consortium (TTC), a public-private partnership (PPP) led by the Critical Path Institute (C-Path), recently published a whitepaper titled "The Importance of Drug Safety and Tolerability in the Development of New Immunosuppressive Therapy for Transplant Recipients" by Stegall et al in the American Journal of Transplantation. As staff members of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Office of New Drugs and Office of Translational Science, and the Oncology Center of Excellence, we would like to provide our perspective on the TTCs efforts and the whitepaper.

Evaluation of Serious Postmarket Safety Signals Within 2 Years of FDA Approval for New Cancer Drugs.

BACKGROUND: We examined how often new serious safety signals were identified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration within the first 2 years after approval for new molecular entities (NMEs) for treatment of cancer that required specific regulatory actions described here. METHODS: We identified, for all NMEs approved for treatment of cancer or malignant hematology indications between 2010 and 2016, substantial safety-related changes within the first 2 years after approval, which included a new Boxed Warning or Warning and Precaution; requirement for (or modification of existing) Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS); and withdrawal from the market because of safety concerns. RESULTS: Fifty-five NMEs were approved between 2010 and 2016: 32 (58%) under regular approval (RA) and 23 (42%) under accelerated approval (AA). Of these 55 NMEs, 9 (16%) had substantial safety-related changes after approval. Across all 55 NMEs, one was temporarily withdrawn from the market for safety reasons (1.8%); one (1.8%) required a new REMS; nine required labeling revisions-new Boxed Warnings were required for two NMEs (3.6%), and new Warnings and Precautions subsections were required for eight (14.6%). One drug (ponatinib) was responsible for several of the substantial safety-related changes (withdrawal, REMS, Boxed Warnings). One of 32 NMEs approved under RA required a new Warning and Precaution, whereas 7 of 23 NMEs approved under AA had substantial safety-related changes in the first 2 years after approval. CONCLUSION: Based on our analysis we conclude that although there was a greater incidence of substantial safety-related changes to AA drugs versus RA drugs, the majority of these were changes to the Warnings and Precautions and did not substantially alter the benefit-risk profile of the drug. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The majority of new cancer drugs (84%) approved in the U.S. do not have new substantial safety information being added to the label within the first 2 years of approval. Unprecedented efficacy seen in contemporary cancer drug development has led to early availability of effective cancer therapies based on large effects in smaller populations. More limited premarket safety data require diligent postmarketing safety surveillance as we continue to learn and update drug labeling throughout the product lifecycle.

Development of Treatments for Localized Prostate Cancer in Patients Eligible for Active Surveillance: U.S. Food and Drug Administration Oncology Center of Excellence Public Workshop.

PURPOSE: The following is a summary of discussion at a United States FDA (Food and Drug Administration) public workshop reviewing potential trial designs and end points to develop therapies to treat localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The workshop focused on the challenge that drug and device development to treat localized prostate cancer has been limited by the large trial sizes and lengthy timelines required to demonstrate an improvement in overall or metastasis-free survival and by the lack of agreed on alternative end points. Additionally, evolving treatment paradigms in the management of localized prostate cancer include the widespread use of active surveillance of patients with low and some intermediate risk prostate cancer, and the availability of advances in imaging and genomics. RESULTS: The workshop addressed issues related to trial design in this setting. Attendees discussed several potential novel end points such as a delay of morbidity due to radiation or prostatectomy and pathological end points such as Gleason Grade Group upgrade. CONCLUSIONS: The workshop provided an open forum for multiple stakeholder engagement to advance the development of effective treatment options for men with localized prostate cancer.