Clinical Trial Diversity in Oncology: FDA Takes Action with Post-Marketing Requirements or Commitments.

In recent years, there has been a renewed focus on promoting the inclusion of patients from racial and ethnic minority groups in oncology clinical trials. FDA Oncology has long pointed to the underrepresentation of racial minorities in registration trials leading to approval. US FDA's Guidance on diversity discusses how diversity could be handled within clinical trials, giving recommendations on broadening eligibility criteria, inclusive trial practices, and alternative trial designs. While there is no specific guidance from the FDA on cancer clinical trials, the recommendation is to include a representative population applicable to the US population. With the recent renewed focus on diversity in oncology clinical trials, FDA Oncology has recently asked for the completion of a Diversity Plan during drug development and has issued post-marketing commitments and requirements at the time of approval. As FDA has started to issue post-marketing requirements or commitments regarding diversity in 2020, we sought to analyze the post-marketing studies asking for a study of racial and ethnic minorities issued by the FDA's Office of Oncologic Diseases (OOD). The analysis demonstrated the need to increase the enrollment of a diverse patient population in cancer clinical trials.

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.

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.

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.

An Analysis of Recent FDA Oncology Scientific Publications.

In addition to its primary regulatory role, the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is engaged in many forms of scientific authorship. During the period of 2010 to 2018, FDA oncology staff contributed to 356 publications in the scientific literature. Here, we collaborated with analysts in the Office of Program Planning, Analysis, and Evaluation at the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health (NIH), to present a series of analyses aimed at quantifying the characteristics and potential impact of these contributions, as well as characterizing the areas of work addressed. We found that FDA oncology papers are enriched for high-impact publications and have about two times the number of citations as an average NIH-funded paper. Further impact of the publications was measured based on the presence of 65 publications that were cited by guidelines and 12 publications cited by publicly listed clinical trials. The results seen here are promising in determining the impact of FDA oncology publication work but prompt further investigation into longer-term impacts, such as the influence of this work on other regulatory activities at FDA. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This article describes the first comprehensive study of scientific publications produced by U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oncology staff. The analysis illustrates that staff are highly engaged in publishing in the scientific literature in addition to completing regulatory review work. Publications are generally in clinical medicine, consistent with the large number of medical oncologists working at the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products (OHOP). OHOP publications generally focus either on communicating important regulatory work (approval summaries) or highlighting regulatory science issues to encourage dialogue with the scientific community (commentaries, reviews, and expert working papers). The analysis also suggests that several FDA oncology publications may influence clinical guidelines, but further work is needed to evaluate impact.

FDA Approval Summary: Ruxolitinib for Treatment of Steroid-Refractory Acute Graft-Versus-Host Disease.

On May 24, 2019, the Food and Drug Administration approved ruxolitinib for steroid-refractory acute graft-versus-host disease (SR-aGVHD) in adult and pediatric patients 12 years and older. Approval was based on Study INCB 18424-271 (REACH-1; NCT02953678), an open-label, single-arm, multicenter trial that included 49 patients with grades 2-4 SR-aGVHD occurring after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Ruxolitinib was administered at 5 mg twice daily, with dose increases to 10 mg twice daily permitted after 3 days in the absence of toxicity. The Day-28 overall response rate was 57.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 42.2-71.2). The median duration of response was 0.5 months (95% CI: 0.3-2.7), and the median time from Day-28 response to either death or need for new therapy for acute GVHD was 5.7 months (95% CI: 2.2 to not estimable). Common adverse reactions included anemia, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, infections, edema, bleeding, and elevated transaminases. Ruxolitinib is the first drug approved for treatment of SR-aGVHD. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Ruxolitinib is the first Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment for steroid-refractory acute graft-versus-host disease in adult and pediatric patients 12 years and older. Its approval provides a treatment option for the 60% of those patients who do not respond to steroid therapy.

FDA Approval Summary: Brentuximab Vedotin in First-Line Treatment of Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma.

In November 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved brentuximab vedotin (BV) for the treatment of adult patients with previously untreated systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma or other CD30-expressing peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL), including angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma and PTCL not otherwise specified, in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (CHP). Approval was based on ECHELON-2, a randomized, double-blind, actively controlled trial that compared BV+CHP with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) in 452 patients with newly diagnosed, CD30-expressing PTCL. Efficacy was based on independent review facility-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). The median PFS was 48.2 months with BV+CHP versus 20.8 months with CHOP, resulting in a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54-0.93). The trial also demonstrated improvement in overall survival (HR 0.66; 95% CI: 0.46-0.95), complete response rate (68% vs. 56%), and overall response rate (83% vs. 72%) with BV+CHP. The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥20%) observed ≥2% more with BV+CHP were nausea, diarrhea, fatigue or asthenia, mucositis, pyrexia, vomiting, and anemia. Peripheral neuropathy rates were similar (52% with BV+CHP, 55% with CHOP). Through the Real-Time Oncology Review pilot program, which allows FDA early access to key data, FDA granted this approval less than 2 weeks after official submission of the application. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This is the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for treatment of patients with newly diagnosed peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL). Improvement in progression-free and overall survival over cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone chemotherapy, which has been the standard of care for decades, is unprecedented. The new regimen represents a major advance for the frontline treatment of patients with CD30-expressing PTCL.

A Pilot Study of Sirolimus in Subjects with Cowden Syndrome or Other Syndromes Characterized by Germline Mutations in PTEN.

LESSONS LEARNED: This is the first human interventional study in patients with Cowden syndrome that is driven by inactivation of germline PTEN gene.Single-agent sirolimus, a mTOR inhibitor, suppressed mTOR signaling in surrogate human tissues without significant toxicity. BACKGROUND: Cowden syndrome is characterized by inactivating germline PTEN mutations, which can lead to activation of the PI3K-Akt-mTOR pathway. METHODS: Adult subjects with germline PTEN mutation who met international diagnostic criteria for Cowden syndrome and who had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-2 and adequate organ function were enrolled. Subjects were treated with a 56-day course of daily oral sirolimus. In addition to symptom assessment and physical examination, dermatologic, endoscopic, neurologic (cerebellar), and radiographic assessments were conducted. Inhibition of the mTOR pathway in benign skin and gastrointestinal (GI) lesion was assessed by immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: A total of 18 patients and 16 families were enrolled. PTEN mutations were located at exons 1-8. Regression of skin and GI lesions was observed by dermoscopy or endoscopy. Neurological evaluation showed improvement in cerebellar function score at 1 month. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) analysis in skin and GI benign lesions showed a decrease in the ratio of phosphorylated (p)S6 to total S6 in response to sirolimus. Ratios of pS6K to total S6 at days 14 and 56 were significantly lower than at baseline (p = .0026, p = .00391, respectively). A 56-day course of sirolimus was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: A 56-day course of sirolimus was well tolerated in subjects with Cowden syndrome and was associated with some evidence of improvement in symptoms, skin and GI lesions, cerebellar function, and decreased mTOR signaling.

Real-World Outcomes of Patients with Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated with Programmed Cell Death Protein 1 Inhibitors in the Year Following U.S. Regulatory Approval.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from cancer clinical trials has strong internal validity but can be difficult to generalize to real-world patient populations. Here we analyzed real-world outcomes of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) treated with programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors in the first year following U.S. regulatory approval. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study leveraged electronic health record (EHR) data collected during routine patient care in community cancer care clinics. The cohort included patients with mNSCLC who had received nivolumab or pembrolizumab for metastatic disease (n = 1,344) with >1 EHR-documented visit from January 1, 2011, to March 31, 2016. Patients with a > 90-day gap between advanced disease diagnosis and first EHR structured data entry were excluded. RESULTS: Estimated median overall survival (OS) was 8.0 months (95% confidence interval 7.4-9.0 months). Estimated median OS was 4.7 months (3.4-6.6) for patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement- and epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive tumors, and 8.6 months (7.7-10.6) for patients without such mutations. Age at PD-1 inhibitor initiation or line of therapy did not impact OS. CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests OS in real-world patients may be shorter than in conventional clinical trial patient cohorts, potentially due to narrow trial eligibility criteria. The lack of difference in OS by line of therapy or age at immunotherapy initiation suggests sustained benefit of PD-1 inhibitors in multitreated patients with mNSCLC and that age is not a predictor of outcome. Further studies are underway in patients with comorbidities, organ dysfunction, and multiple prior therapies. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study evaluated data derived from electronic health records of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer treated with programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors in the year following regulatory approval. This real-world cohort had shorter overall survival (OS) indexed to PD-1 inhibitor initiation than reported in clinical trials. Late-line treatment did not influence OS, and patients aged >75 at immunotherapy initiation did not have worse outcomes than younger patients. As new therapies enter clinical practice, real-world data can complement clinical trial evidence providing information on generalizability and helping inform clinical treatment decisions.

Patient reported outcomes in anti-PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor immunotherapy registration trials: FDA analysis of data submitted and future directions.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures can be used to capture the patient's experience with disease and treatment. Immunotherapy agents including the anti-programmed death receptor-1/programmed death-ligand-1 inhibitor therapies have unique symptomatic side effects and patient-reported outcome data can help to characterize the benefits and burdens associated with therapy. METHODS: We reviewed registration trials in the Food and Drug Administration database for five anti-programmed death receptor-1/programmed death-ligand-1 inhibitor therapies to characterize trial design and patient-reported outcome assessment strategy (cutoff 31 December 2017). We evaluated the patient-reported outcome measurement coverage of eight key symptoms related to adverse events reported in immunotherapy agent product labels (fatigue, diarrhea, cough, shortness of breath, musculoskeletal pain, rash, pruritus, and fever). RESULTS: There were a total of 28 trials across seven disease types and one tumor agnostic indication reviewed, of which 17 were randomized and 25 were open label. Of the 28 trials, 21 contained patient-reported outcome measures and all 21 used >1 instrument. The most common instruments were the EuroQol five dimension (N = 19), and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (N = 17). Disease-specific patient-reported outcome tools were included in nine trials (six lung, one head and neck, one melanoma and one renal cell). No trial used a patient-reported outcome strategy assessing all eight selected adverse events. CONCLUSION: Collection of patient-reported outcome data in anti-programmed death receptor-1/programmed death-ligand-1 inhibitor trials were variable and did not consistently assess important symptomatic adverse events. Use of a patient-reported outcome instrument with well-defined functional scales supplemented by item libraries to incorporate relevant symptomatic adverse events may allow for improved understanding of the patient experience while receiving therapy. These data, along with other clinical data such as hospitalizations and supportive care medication use can help inform the benefit-risk assessment for regulatory purposes.

Patients with melanoma treated with an anti-PD-1 antibody beyond RECIST progression: a US Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients who receive immunotherapeutic drugs might develop an atypical response pattern, wherein they initially meet conventional response criteria for progressive disease but later have decreases in tumour burden. Such responses warrant further investigation into the potential benefits and risks for patients who continue immunotherapy beyond disease progression defined by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. METHODS: For this pooled analysis, we included all submissions of trial reports and data to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in support of marketing applications for anti-programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) antibodies (alone or in combination) for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma that allowed for continuation of the antibody beyond RECIST-defined progression in the anti-PD-1 group and were approved by FDA before Jan 1, 2017. To investigate the effect of treatment beyond progression in patients with metastatic melanoma and to better characterise which of these patients would benefit from extended treatment, we pooled individual patient data from patients who received at least one dose of an anti-PD-1 antibody in the included trials. We included any patient receiving the anti-PD-1 antibody after their RECIST-defined progression date in the treatment beyond progression cohort and analysed them descriptively at baseline and at time of progression versus the cohort not receiving treatment beyond progression. We analysed the target lesion response after progression in patients in the treatment beyond progression cohort relative to progressive disease and baseline target lesion burden. We defined a treatment beyond progression response as a decrease in target lesion tumour burden (sum of the reference diameters) of at least 30% from the burden at the time of RECIST-defined progression that did not require confirmation at a subsequent assessment. We also compared individual timepoint responses, overall survival, and adverse events in the treatment beyond progression versus no treatment beyond progression cohorts. FINDINGS: Among the eight multicentre clinical trials meeting this study's inclusion criteria, we pooled the data from 2624 patients receiving immunotherapy. 1361 (52%) had progressive disease, of whom 692 (51%) received continued anti-PD-1 antibody treatment beyond RECIST-defined progression and 669 (49%) did not. 95 (19%) of 500 patients in the treatment beyond progresssion cohort with evaluable assessments had a 30% or more decrease in tumour burden, when considering burden at RECIST-defined progression as the reference point, representing 14% of the 692 patients treated beyond progression and 4% of all 2624 patients treated with immunotherapy. Median overall survival in patients with RECIST-defined progressive disease given anti-PD-1 antibody was longer in the treatment beyond progression cohort (24·4 months, 95% CI 21·2-26·3) than in the cohort of patients who did not receive treatment beyond progression (11·2 months, 10·1-12·9). 362 (54%) of 669 patients in the no treatment beyond progression cohort had a serious adverse event up to 90 days after treatment discontinuation compared with 295 (43%) of 692 patients in the treatment beyond progression cohort. Immune-related adverse events that occurred up to 90 days from discontinuation were similar between the treatment beyond progression cohort (78 [11%] of 692 patients) and the no treatment beyond progression cohort (106 [16%] of 669). INTERPRETATION: Continuation of treatment beyond progression in the product labelling of these immunotherapies has not been recommended because the clinical benefit remains to be proven. Treatment beyond progression with anti-PD-1 antibody therapy might be appropriate for selected patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma, identified by specific criteria at the time of progression, based on the potential for late responses in the setting of the known toxicity profile. FUNDING: None.

FDA Approval Summary: Dabrafenib and Trametinib for the Treatment of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancers Harboring BRAF V600E Mutations.

On June 22, 2017, the Food and Drug Administration expanded indications for dabrafenib and trametinib to include treatment of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring BRAF V600E mutations. Approval was based on results from an international, multicenter, multicohort, noncomparative, open-label trial, study BRF113928, which sequentially enrolled 93 patients who had received previous systemic treatment for advanced NSCLC (Cohort B, n = 57) or were treatment-naïve (Cohort C, n = 36). All patients received dabrafenib 150 mg orally twice daily and trametinib 2 mg orally once daily. In Cohort B, overall response rate (ORR) was 63% (95% confidence interval [CI] 49%-76%) with response durations ≥6 months in 64% of responders. In Cohort C, ORR was 61% (95% CI 44%-77%) with response durations ≥6 months in 59% of responders. Results were evaluated in the context of the Intergroupe Francophone de Cancérologie Thoracique registry and a chart review of U.S. electronic health records at two academic sites, characterizing treatment outcomes data for patients with metastatic NSCLC with or without BRAF V600E mutations. The treatment effect of dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily was evaluated in 78 patients with previously treated BRAF mutant NSCLC, yielding an ORR of 27% (95% CI 18%-38%), establishing that dabrafenib alone is active, but that the addition of trametinib is necessary to achieve an ORR of >40%. The most common adverse reactions (≥20%) were pyrexia, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dry skin, decreased appetite, edema, rash, chills, hemorrhage, cough, and dyspnea. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The approvals of dabrafenib and trametinib, administered concurrently, provide a new regimen for the treatment of a rare subset of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and demonstrate how drugs active for treatment of BRAF-mutant tumors in one setting predict efficacy and can provide supportive evidence for approval in another setting. The FDA also approved the first next-generation sequencing oncology panel test for simultaneous assessment of multiple actionable mutations, which will facilitate selection of optimal, personalized therapy. The test was shown to accurately and reliably select patients with NSCLC with the BRAF V600E mutation for whom treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib is the optimal treatment.

Characteristics of Real-World Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Treated with Nivolumab and Pembrolizumab During the Year Following Approval.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from cancer clinical trials can be difficult to generalize to real-world patient populations, but can be complemented by real-world evidence to optimize personalization of care. Further, real-world usage patterns of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors following approval can inform future studies of subpopulations underrepresented in clinical trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a multicenter analysis using electronic health record data collected during routine care of patients treated in community cancer care clinics in the Flatiron Health network. Real-world metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who received nivolumab or pembrolizumab in the metastatic setting (n = 1,344) were selected from a starting random sample of 55,969 NSCLC patients with two or more documented visits from January 1, 2011, through March 31, 2016. The primary study outcome measurement was demographic and treatment characteristics of the cohort. RESULTS: Median age at PD-1 inhibitor initiation was 69 years (interquartile range 61-75). Patients were 56% male, 88% smokers, 65% nonsquamous histology, and 64% diagnosed at stage IV. Of 1,344 patients, 112 (8%) were tested for programmed death-ligand 1 expression. Overall, 50% received nivolumab or pembrolizumab in the second line, with a substantial proportion of third and later line use that began to decline in Q4 2015. CONCLUSION: During the year following U.S. regulatory approval of PD-1 inhibitors for treatment of NSCLC, real-world patients receiving nivolumab or pembrolizumab were older at treatment initiation and more had smoking history relative to clinical trial cohorts. Studies of outcomes in underrepresented subgroups are needed to inform real-world treatment decisions. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Evidence gathered in conventional clinical trials used to assess safety and efficacy of new therapies is not necessarily generalizable to real-world patients receiving these drugs following regulatory approval. Real-world evidence derived from electronic health record data can yield complementary evidence to enable optimal clinical decisions. Examined here is a cohort of programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor-treated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer patients in the first year following regulatory approval of these therapies in this indication. The analysis revealed how the real-world cohort differed from the clinical trial cohorts, which will inform which patients are underrepresented and warrant additional studies.

FDA Benefit-Risk Assessment of Osimertinib for the Treatment of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Harboring Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor T790M Mutation.

On March 30, 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved osimertinib for the treatment of patients with metastatic, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M mutation-positive, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as detected by an FDA-approved test, whose disease has progressed following EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy. Approval was based on demonstration of a statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) when comparing osimertinib with chemotherapy in an international, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial (AURA3). In this confirmatory trial, which enrolled 419 patients, the PFS hazard ratio for osimertinib compared with chemotherapy per investigator assessment was 0.30 (95% confidence interval 0.23-0.41), p < .001, with median PFS of 10.1 months in the osimertinib arm and 4.4 months in the chemotherapy arm. Supportive efficacy data included PFS per blinded independent review committee demonstrating similar PFS results and an improved confirmed objective response rate per investigator assessment of 65% and 29%, with estimated median durations of response of 11.0 months and 4.2 months, in the osimertinib and chemotherapy arms, respectively. Patients received osimertinib 80 mg once daily and had a median duration of exposure of 8 months. The toxicity profile of osimertinib compared favorably with the profile of other approved EGFR TKIs and chemotherapy. The most common adverse drug reactions (>20%) in patients treated with osimertinib were diarrhea, rash, dry skin, nail toxicity, and fatigue. Herein, we review the benefit-risk assessment of osimertinib that led to regular approval, for patients with metastatic NSCLC harboring EGFR TKI whose disease has progressed on or after EGFR TKI therapy. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Osimertinib administered to metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients harboring an EGFR T790M mutation, who have progressed on or following EGFR TKI therapy, demonstrated a substantial improvement over platinum-based doublet chemotherapy as well as durable intracranial responses. The ability to test for the T790M mutation in plasma using the FDA-approved cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2 (Roche, Basel, Switzerland) identifies patients with NSCLC tumors not amenable to biopsy. Since a 40% false-negative rate has been observed with the circulating tumor DNA test, re-evaluation of the feasibility of tissue biopsy is recommended to identify patients with a false-negative plasma test result who may benefit from osimertinib.

FDA Approval Summary: Pembrolizumab for Treatment of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: First-Line Therapy and Beyond.

On October 24, 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved pembrolizumab (Keytruda; Merck & Co., Inc., https://www.merck.com) for treatment of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) whose tumors express programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) as determined by an FDA-approved test, as follows: (a) first-line treatment of patients with mNSCLC whose tumors have high PD-L1 expression (tumor proportion score [TPS] ≥50%), with no epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) genomic tumor aberrations, and (b) treatment of patients with mNSCLC whose tumors express PD-L1 (TPS ≥1%), with disease progression on or after platinum-containing chemotherapy. Patients with EGFR or ALK genomic tumor aberrations should have disease progression on FDA-approved therapy for these aberrations prior to receiving pembrolizumab.Approval was based on two randomized, open-label, active-controlled trials demonstrating statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients randomized to pembrolizumab compared with chemotherapy. In KEYNOTE-024, patients with previously untreated mNSCLC who received pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously [IV] every 3 weeks) had a statistically significant improvement in OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-0.89; p = .005), and significant improvement in PFS (HR 0.50; 95% CI: 0.37-0.68; p < .001). In KEYNOTE-010, patients with disease progression on or after platinum-containing chemotherapy received pembrolizumab IV 2 mg/kg, 10 mg/kg, or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. The HR and p value for OS was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.58-0.88), p < .001 comparing pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg with chemotherapy and the HR and p value for OS was 0.61 (95% CI: 0.49-0.75), p < .001 comparing pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg with chemotherapy. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This is the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of a checkpoint inhibitor for first-line treatment of lung cancer. This approval expands the pembrolizumab indication in second-line treatment of lung cancer to include all patients with programmed death-ligand 1-expressing non-small cell lung cancer.

FDA Approval Summary: Pembrolizumab for the Treatment of Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma with Disease Progression on or After Platinum-Containing Chemotherapy.

On August 5, 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to pembrolizumab (KEYTRUDA injection, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Kenilworth, NJ) for treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) with disease progression on or after platinum-containing chemotherapy. Approval was based on the objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DoR) in a cohort of patients in a nonrandomized multi-cohort trial (KEYNOTE-012) that included 174 patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC who had disease progression on or after platinum-containing chemotherapy. Patients received either intravenous pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 200 mg every 3 weeks. ORR was determined by independent review according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1. ORR was 16% (95% confidence interval 11, 22) with a complete response rate of 5%. DoR ranged from 2.4+ months to 27.7+ months. Twenty-three of 28 responding patients (82%) had response durations of ≥6 months. Safety was evaluated in 192 patients with HNSCC receiving at least one dose of pembrolizumab. Frequent (≥2%) serious adverse reactions were pneumonia, dyspnea, confusional state, vomiting, pleural effusion, and respiratory failure. Clinically significant immune-mediated adverse reactions included pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, adrenal insufficiency, diabetes mellitus, skin toxicity, myositis, and thyroid disorders. The benefit-risk profile of pembrolizumab was considered acceptable in this patient population. As a condition of accelerated approval, Merck is required to conduct a confirmatory trial; this trial, KEYNOTE-040, is ongoing. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This accelerated approval expands the U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved indications for pembrolizumab, providing health care providers with new information regarding pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) with disease progression on or after platinum-containing chemotherapy. Pembrolizumab is the first drug to receive approval for treatment of patients with HNSCC since cetuximab was approved for this indication in 2006.

Time dependent pharmacokinetics of pembrolizumab in patients with solid tumor and its correlation with best overall response.

Pembrolizumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the programmed death-1 receptor to induce immune-mediated clearance (CL) of tumor cells. Originally approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2014 for treating patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma, pembrolizumab is now also used to treat patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, classical Hodgkin lymphoma, head and neck cancer, and urothelial cancer. This paper describes the recently identified feature of pembrolizumab pharmacokinetics, the time-dependent or time-varying CL. Overall results indicate that CL decreases over the treatment period of a typical patient in a pattern well described by a sigmoidal function of time with three parameters: the maximum proportion change in CL from baseline (approximately Imax or exactly eImax - 1), the time to reach Imax/2 (TI50), and a Hill coefficient. Best overall response per response evaluation criteria in solid tumor category was found to be associated with the magnitude of Imax.

FDA Approval Summary: Pembrolizumab for the Treatment of Patients With Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Whose Tumors Express Programmed Death-Ligand 1.

UNLABELLED: : On October 2, 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for pembrolizumab, a breakthrough therapy-designated drug, for the treatment of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors express programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), as determined by an FDA-approved test, and who have disease progression on or after platinum-containing chemotherapy or targeted therapy against anaplastic lymphoma kinase or epidermal growth factor receptor, if appropriate. This indication was approved concurrently with the PD-L1 immunohistochemistry 22C3 pharmDx, a companion diagnostic test for patient selection based on PD-L1 tumor expression. The accelerated approval was granted based on durable objective response rate (ORR) and an acceptable toxicity profile demonstrated in a multicenter, open-label trial enrolling 550 patients with metastatic NSCLC. The efficacy population comprised 61 patients with tumors identified as strongly positive for PD-L1, and the confirmed ORR as determined by blinded independent central review was 41% (95% confidence interval: 28.6%, 54.3%); all were partial responses. At the time of the analysis, responses were ongoing in 21 of 25 patients (84%), with 11 patients (44%) having response duration of ≥6 months. The most commonly occurring (≥20%) adverse reactions included fatigue, decreased appetite, dyspnea, and cough. The most frequent (≥2%) serious adverse drug reactions were pleural effusion, pneumonia, dyspnea, pulmonary embolism, and pneumonitis. Immune-mediated adverse reactions occurred in 13% of patients and included pneumonitis, colitis, hypophysitis, and thyroid disorders. The accelerated approval regulations describe approval of drugs and biologic products for serious and life-threatening illnesses based on a surrogate endpoint likely to predict clinical benefit. Under these regulations, a confirmatory trial or trials is required to verify and describe the benefit of pembrolizumab for patients with metastatic NSCLC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This report presents key information on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accelerated approval of pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer whose tumors express programmed death-ligand 1, as determined by an FDA-approved test, and who have disease progression on or after platinum-containing chemotherapy or targeted therapy against anaplastic lymphoma kinase or epidermal growth factor receptor, if appropriate. The report discusses the data supporting the approval decision, specifically highlighting the incorporation of a companion diagnostic in the key study and the optimal dose of pembrolizumab.

FDA Approval Summary: Nivolumab for the Treatment of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Progression On or After Platinum-Based Chemotherapy.

UNLABELLED: : On October 9, 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration expanded the nivolumab metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) indication to include patients with nonsquamous NSCLC after a 3.25-month review timeline. Approval was based on demonstration of an improvement in overall survival (OS) in an international, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial comparing nivolumab to docetaxel in patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC with progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy. The CheckMate 057 trial enrolled 582 patients who were randomized (1:1) to receive nivolumab or docetaxel. Nivolumab demonstrated improved OS compared with docetaxel at the prespecified interim analysis with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.73 (p = .0015), and a median OS of 12.2 months (95% CI: 9.7-15.0 months) in patients treated with nivolumab compared with 9.4 months (95% CI: 8.0-10.7 months) in patients treated with docetaxel. A statistically significant improvement in objective response rate (ORR) was also observed, with an ORR of 19% (95% CI: 15%-24%) in the nivolumab arm and 12% (95% CI: 9%-17%) in the docetaxel arm. The median duration of response was 17 months in the nivolumab arm and 6 months in the docetaxel arm. Progression-free survival was not statistically different between arms. A prespecified retrospective subgroup analysis suggested that patients with programmed cell death ligand 1-negative tumors treated with nivolumab had similar OS to those treated with docetaxel. The toxicity profile of nivolumab was consistent with the known immune-mediated adverse event profile except for 1 case of grade 5 limbic encephalitis, which led to a postmarketing requirement study to better characterize immune-mediated encephalitis. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Based on the results from the CheckMate 057 clinical trial, nivolumab represents a new treatment option for patients requiring second-line treatment for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. The role of nivolumab in patients with sensitizing epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) alterations is less clear. Until dedicated studies are performed to better characterize the role and sequence of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) therapy, patients with EGFR or ALK alterations should have progressed on appropriate targeted therapy before initiating PD-1 inhibitor therapy. Some patients whose tumors lack programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression also appear to have durable responses. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted approval to Dako's PD-L1 test, PD-L1 IHC 28-8 pharmDx, which the applicant claimed as a nonessential complementary diagnostic for nivolumab use.

Benefit-Risk Summary of Crizotinib for the Treatment of Patients With ROS1 Alteration-Positive, Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

UNLABELLED: : On March 11, 2016, after an expedited 5-month review, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration expanded the crizotinib metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) indication to include the treatment of patients whose tumors harbor a ROS1 rearrangement. The approval was based on a clinically meaningful, durable objective response rate (ORR) in a multicenter, single-arm clinical trial (ROS1 cohort of Trial PROFILE 1001) in patients with ROS1-positive mNSCLC. The trial enrolled 50 patients (age range: 25-77 years) whose tumors were prospectively determined to have a ROS1 gene rearrangement by break-apart fluorescence in situ hybridization (96%) or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (4%) clinical trial assays. Crizotinib demonstrated an ORR of 66% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 51%-79%) with a median duration of response of 18.3 months by independent radiology review and 72% (95% CI: 58%-84%) by investigator review. Patients received crizotinib 250 mg twice daily and had a median duration of exposure of 34.4 months. The toxicity profile in ROS1-positive patients was generally consistent with the randomized safety data in the U.S. Product Insert from two ALK-positive mNSCLC trials. The most common (≥25%) adverse reactions and laboratory test abnormalities included vision disorders, elevation of alanine transaminase and aspartate transaminase levels, nausea, hypophosphatemia, diarrhea, edema, vomiting, constipation, neutropenia, and fatigue. There were no treatment-related deaths. A favorable benefit-to-risk evaluation led to the traditional approval of crizotinib for this new supplemental indication. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Given the results from the ROS1 cohort of the clinical trial PROFILE 1001, crizotinib represents a new treatment option and the first approved therapy for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer whose tumors are ROS1 positive. Crizotinib demonstrated efficacy irrespective of prior treatment status.