The evidence base of US Food and Drug Administration approvals of novel cancer therapies from 2000 to 2020.

Concerns have been raised that regulatory programs to accelerate approval of cancer drugs in cancer may increase uncertainty about benefits and harms for survival and quality of life (QoL). We analyzed all pivotal clinical trials and all non-pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for all cancer drugs approved for the first time by the FDA between 2000 and 2020. We report regulatory and trial characteristics. Effects on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival and tumor response were summarized in meta-analyses. Effects on QoL were qualitatively summarized. Between 2000 and 2020, the FDA approved 145 novel cancer drugs for 156 indications based on 190 clinical trials. Half of indications (49%) were approved without RCT evidence; 82% had a single clinical trial only. OS was primary endpoint in 14% of trials and QoL data were available from 25%. The median OS benefit was 2.55 months (IQR, 1.33-4.28) with a mean hazard ratio for OS of 0.75 (95%CI, 0.72-0.79, I2  = 42). Improvement for QoL was reported for 7 (4%) of 156 indications. Over time, priority review was used increasingly and the mean number of trials per indication decreased from 1.45 to 1.12. More trials reported results on QoL (19% in 2000-2005; 41% in 2016-2020). For 21 years, novel cancer drugs have typically been approved based on one single, often uncontrolled, clinical trial, measuring surrogate endpoints. This leaves cancer patients without solid evidence that novel drugs improve their survival or QoL and there is no indication towards improvement.

The short- and long-term outcome after the surgical management of common bile duct stones in a tertiary referral hospital.

BACKGROUND: The removal of common bile duct stones by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) shows excellent results with low complication rates and is therefore considered a gold standard. However, in case of stones non-removable by ERCP, surgical extraction is needed. The surgical approach is still controversial and clinical guidelines are missing. This study aims to analyze the outcomes of patients treated with choledochotomy or hepaticojejunostomy for common bile duct stones. METHODS: All patients who underwent choledochotomy or hepaticojejunostomy for common bile duct stones at a tertiary referral hospital over 11 years were included. The analyzed data contains basic demographics, diagnostics, surgical parameters, length of hospitalization, and morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Over the study period, 4375 patients underwent cholecystectomy, and 655 received an ERCP with stone extraction, with 48 of these patients receiving subsequent surgical treatment. ERCP was attempted in 23/30 (77%) of the choledochotomy patients pre/intraoperatively and 11/18 (56%) in hepaticojejunostomy patients. The 30-day major complication rate (Clavien-Dindo > II) was 1/30 (3%) in the choledochotomy group and 2/18 (11%) in the hepaticojejunostomy group. Complications after 30 days occurred in 3/30 (10%) patients and 2/18 (11%), respectively, and no mortality occurred. CONCLUSION: ERCP should still be considered the gold standard, although due to low short- and long-term morbidity rates, choledochotomy and hepaticojejunostomy represent effective surgical solutions for common bile duct stones.

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). METHODS: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. RESULTS: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care.

Association of Convalescent Plasma Treatment With Clinical Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Convalescent plasma is a proposed treatment for COVID-19. Objective: To assess clinical outcomes with convalescent plasma treatment vs placebo or standard of care in peer-reviewed and preprint publications or press releases of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Data Sources: PubMed, the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, and the Living Overview of Evidence platform were searched until January 29, 2021. Study Selection: The RCTs selected compared any type of convalescent plasma vs placebo or standard of care for patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 in any treatment setting. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted data on relevant clinical outcomes, trial characteristics, and patient characteristics and used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. The primary analysis included peer-reviewed publications of RCTs only, whereas the secondary analysis included all publicly available RCT data (peer-reviewed publications, preprints, and press releases). Inverse variance-weighted meta-analyses were conducted to summarize the treatment effects. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, clinical improvement, clinical deterioration, mechanical ventilation use, and serious adverse events. Results: A total of 1060 patients from 4 peer-reviewed RCTs and 10 722 patients from 6 other publicly available RCTs were included. The summary risk ratio (RR) for all-cause mortality with convalescent plasma in the 4 peer-reviewed RCTs was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.38), the absolute risk difference was -1.21% (95% CI, -5.29% to 2.88%), and there was low certainty of the evidence due to imprecision. Across all 10 RCTs, the summary RR was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.92 to 1.12) and there was moderate certainty of the evidence due to inclusion of unpublished data. Among the peer-reviewed RCTs, the summary hazard ratio was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.07 to 20.34) for length of hospital stay, the summary RR was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.20 to 2.87) for mechanical ventilation use (the absolute risk difference for mechanical ventilation use was -2.56% [95% CI, -13.16% to 8.05%]), and there was low certainty of the evidence due to imprecision for both outcomes. Limited data on clinical improvement, clinical deterioration, and serious adverse events showed no significant differences. Conclusions and Relevance: Treatment with convalescent plasma compared with placebo or standard of care was not significantly associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality or with any benefit for other clinical outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate for all-cause mortality and low for other outcomes.

Rituximab in primary central nervous system lymphoma-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The CD-20 antibody rituximab is a standard component of treatment of non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphomas, including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Primary DLBCL of the central nervous system, also called primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL), is a DLBCL confined to the central nervous system. There has been debate whether intravenous rituximab accumulates sufficiently in the central nervous system to exert an effect. In this systematic review, we assess the benefits and harms of rituximab in the treatment of immunocompetent patients with PCNSL. By searching MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and ClincialTrials.gov up to March 2019, we identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of rituximab in patients with PCNSL. We extracted study characteristics and results, assessed risk of bias, performed trial-level random-effects meta-analyses, and graded the certainty of evidence. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019121965). Main outcomes were overall survival (time to death), progression-free survival (time to progression or death), quality of life, grades 3 and 4 toxicity, and treatment-related mortality. We included two RCTs with a total of 343 participants. Overall survival was not statistically significantly improved (HR 0.76; 95% CI, 0.52-1.12; low certainty), with 187 fewer to 39 more deaths after 2 years in 1000 treated patients. Low certainty of evidence indicated that rituximab improved progression-free survival (HR 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45-0.95), which translated into 137 fewer progressions or deaths after 2 years in 1000 treated patients (231 to 18 fewer). None of the RCTs provided data on quality of life. We found no evidence that rituximab increased grades 3 and 4 toxicity or treatment-related mortality (RR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.20-1.37; low certainty). Overall, the available evidence suggests with low certainty that rituximab in combination with methotrexate-based chemotherapy may improve progression-free survival in immunocompetent patients with newly diagnosed PCNSL, the pooled effect estimates did not show evidence for improvement of overall survival.

Ipilimumab plus nivolumab in patients with symptomatic melanoma brain metastasis requiring corticosteroids.

STUDY AIM: To investigate the efficacy of PD-1-directed antibody-based therapy in patients with symptomatic melanoma brain metastases (MBM) and concurrent treatment with corticosteroids. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients with cutaneous melanoma with symptomatic MBM and concurrent treatment with corticosteroids who received PD-1-directed antibody-based treatment at the Royal Marsden Hospital London between 2016 and 2021. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), secondary outcomes were intracranial response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR). We used the Kaplan-Meier method to describe survival. RESULTS: Between 2016 and 2021, 256 patients presented with metastatic melanoma, of whom 29 were eligible with symptomatic MBM requiring corticosteroids and receiving ipilimumab plus nivolumab. Median age was 54 (interquartile range 44, 66). Median OS was 5.45months (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.89, 29.40), with 21% of patients (95% CI 9%, 47%) alive after 3years. ORR was 28% (8/29) and DOR was 7.85months (95% CI 7.85, not estimably [NE]). Responding patients had a median OS of 56.4months (95% CI 46.03, NE). Elevated lactate dehydrogenase and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS> 2 were associated with poorer outcomes (median OS 29.4 versus 3.12months and 6.44 versus 5.13months), no such association was observed for corticosteroid dose, number of lesions, or line of treatment. CONCLUSION: Patients with symptomatic MBM derive only modest benefit from combination immunotherapy treatment. Nevertheless, those with disease response have the potential to derive long-term benefit, justifying ipilimumab plus nivolumab in this group in the absence of other more effective treatment options.

Sotrovimab restores neutralization against current Omicron subvariants in patients with blood cancer.

Wu et al. report that patients with hematologic malignancies have reduced immunity against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariants and Sotrovimab retains neutralizing capacity against all tested Omicron subvariants.

Late-Stage Metastatic Melanoma Emerges through a Diversity of Evolutionary Pathways.

Understanding the evolutionary pathways to metastasis and resistance to immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in melanoma is critical for improving outcomes. Here, we present the most comprehensive intrapatient metastatic melanoma dataset assembled to date as part of the Posthumous Evaluation of Advanced Cancer Environment (PEACE) research autopsy program, including 222 exome sequencing, 493 panel-sequenced, 161 RNA sequencing, and 22 single-cell whole-genome sequencing samples from 14 ICI-treated patients. We observed frequent whole-genome doubling and widespread loss of heterozygosity, often involving antigen-presentation machinery. We found KIT extrachromosomal DNA may have contributed to the lack of response to KIT inhibitors of a KIT-driven melanoma. At the lesion-level, MYC amplifications were enriched in ICI nonresponders. Single-cell sequencing revealed polyclonal seeding of metastases originating from clones with different ploidy in one patient. Finally, we observed that brain metastases that diverged early in molecular evolution emerge late in disease. Overall, our study illustrates the diverse evolutionary landscape of advanced melanoma. SIGNIFICANCE: Despite treatment advances, melanoma remains a deadly disease at stage IV. Through research autopsy and dense sampling of metastases combined with extensive multiomic profiling, our study elucidates the many mechanisms that melanomas use to evade treatment and the immune system, whether through mutations, widespread copy-number alterations, or extrachromosomal DNA. See related commentary by Shain, p. 1294. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1275.

Atezolizumab, cobimetinib, and vemurafenib as first-line treatment for unresectable metastatic BRAF V600 mutated melanoma.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment of metastatic melanoma has been revolutionized by the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors and BRAF/MEK inhibition. Nevertheless, almost half of patients will progress or show primary resistance to treatment. The combination of BRAF/MEK and immune checkpoint inhibition might achieve higher response rates and improve long-term disease control. The IMspire150 trial investigated the combination of atezolizumab, cobimetinib and vemurafenib versus cobimetinib and vemurafenib alone. AREAS COVERED: This review covers the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab, cobimetinib and vemurafenib for patients with advanced or metastatic BRAF mutant melanoma. The combination is compared with the current standard of care including BRAF/MEK inhibition and treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors. EXPERT OPINION: Atezolizumab plus cobimetinib and vemurafenib showed superior progression-free survival in metastatic melanoma compared to cobimetinib and vemurafenib alone. Triplet therapy might be an option in situations of urgent need for disease control, when oncologists choose BRAF/MEK inhibition over immune checkpoint inhibition as first line treatment. At this time results are not mature yet, and longer follow-up including overall survival data is needed. The future role of this combination will also be determined by a comparison with the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab.

Outcome and Prognostic Factors of COVID-19 Infection in Swiss Cancer Patients: Final Results of SAKK 80/20 (CaSA).

Purpose: These are the final results of a national registry on cancer patients with COVID-19 in Switzerland. Methods: We collected data on symptomatic COVID-19-infected cancer patients from 23 Swiss sites over a one-year period starting on 1 March 2020. The main objective was to assess the outcome (i.e., mortality, rate of hospitalization, ICU admission) of COVID-19 infection in cancer patients; the main secondary objective was to define prognostic factors. Results: From 455 patients included, 205 patients (45%) had non-curative disease, 241 patients (53%) were hospitalized for COVID-19, 213 (47%) required oxygen, 43 (9%) invasive ventilation and 62 (14%) were admitted to the ICU. Death from COVID-19 infection occurred in 98 patients, resulting in a mortality rate of 21.5%. Age ≥65 years versus <65 years (OR 3.14, p = 0.003), non-curative versus curative disease (OR 2.42, p = 0.012), ICU admission (OR 4.45, p < 0.001) and oxygen requirement (OR 20.28, p < 0.001) were independently associated with increased mortality. Conclusions: We confirmed high COVID-19 severity and mortality in real-world cancer patients during the first and second wave of the pandemic in a country with a decentralized, high-quality, universal-access health care system. COVID-19-associated mortality was particularly high for those of older age in a non-curative disease setting, requiring oxygen or ICU care.

Functional immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern after fourth COVID-19 vaccine dose or infection in patients with blood cancer.

Patients with blood cancer continue to have a greater risk of inadequate immune responses following three COVID-19 vaccine doses and risk of severe COVID-19 disease. In the context of the CAPTURE study (NCT03226886), we report immune responses in 80 patients with blood cancer who received a fourth dose of BNT162b2. We measured neutralizing antibody titers (NAbTs) using a live virus microneutralization assay against wild-type (WT), Delta, and Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 and T cell responses against WT and Omicron BA.1 using an activation-induced marker (AIM) assay. The proportion of patients with detectable NAb titers and T cell responses after the fourth vaccine dose increased compared with that after the third vaccine dose. Patients who received B cell-depleting therapies within the 12 months before vaccination have the greatest risk of not having detectable NAbT. In addition, we report immune responses in 57 patients with breakthrough infections after vaccination.

Association of Supporting Trial Evidence and Reimbursement for Off-Label Use of Cancer Drugs.

Importance: In many health systems, access to off-label drug use is controlled through reimbursement restrictions by health insurers, especially for expensive cancer drugs. Objective: To determine whether evidence from randomized clinical trials is associated with reimbursement decisions for requested off-label use of anticancer drugs in the Swiss health system. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used reimbursement requests from routinely collected health records of 5809 patients with drug treatment for cancer between January 2015 and July 2018 in 3 major cancer centers, covering cancer care of approximately 5% of the Swiss population, to identify off-label drug use. For each off-label use indication with 3 or more requests, randomized clinical trial evidence on treatment benefits was systematically identified for overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS). Data were analyzed from August 2018 to December 2020. Exposures: Available randomized clinical trial evidence on benefits for OS or PFS for requested off-label use indications. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the association between evidence for treatment benefit (expressed as improved OS or PFS) and reimbursement in multivariable regression models. Results: Among 3046 patients with cancer, 695 off-label use reimbursement requests in 303 different indications were made for 598 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 64 [53-73] years; 420 [60%] men). Off-label use was intended as first-line treatment in 311 requests (45%). Reimbursement was accepted in 446 requests (64%). For 71 indications, including 431 requests for 376 patients, there were 3 or more requests. Of these, 246 requests (57%) had no supporting evidence for OS or PFS benefit. Reimbursement was granted in 162 of 246 requests without supporting evidence (66%). Of 117 requests supported by OS benefit, 79 (67%) were reimbursed, and of 68 requests supported by PFS benefit alone, 54 (79%) were reimbursed. Evidence of OS benefit from randomized clinical trials was not associated with a higher chance of reimbursement (odds ratio, 0.76, 95% CI, 0.45-1.27). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that in a health care system enabling access to off-label use, it was frequently intended as a first-line treatment in cancer care. Availability of randomized clinical trial evidence showing survival benefit was not associated with reimbursement decisions for off-label anticancer drug treatment in Switzerland. A transparent process with criteria considering clinical evidence is needed for evidence-based reimbursement decisions to ensure fair access to cancer treatments.

Adaptive immunity and neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern following vaccination in patients with cancer: The CAPTURE study.

CAPTURE (NCT03226886) is a prospective cohort study of COVID-19 immunity in patients with cancer. Here we evaluated 585 patients following administration of two doses of BNT162b2 or AZD1222 vaccines, administered 12 weeks apart. Seroconversion rates after two doses were 85% and 59% in patients with solid and hematological malignancies, respectively. A lower proportion of patients had detectable neutralizing antibody titers (NAbT) against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) vs wildtype (WT). Patients with hematological malignancies were more likely to have undetectable NAbT and had lower median NAbT vs solid cancers against both WT and VOCs. In comparison with individuals without cancer, patients with haematological, but not solid, malignancies had reduced NAb responses. Seroconversion showed poor concordance with NAbT against VOCs. Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection boosted NAb response including against VOCs, and anti-CD20 treatment was associated with undetectable NAbT. Vaccine-induced T-cell responses were detected in 80% of patients, and were comparable between vaccines or cancer types. Our results have implications for the management of cancer patients during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Functional antibody and T-cell immunity following SARS-CoV-2 infection, including by variants of concern, in patients with cancer: the CAPTURE study.

Patients with cancer have higher COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. Here we present the prospective CAPTURE study (NCT03226886) integrating longitudinal immune profiling with clinical annotation. Of 357 patients with cancer, 118 were SARS-CoV-2-positive, 94 were symptomatic and 2 patients died of COVID-19. In this cohort, 83% patients had S1-reactive antibodies, 82% had neutralizing antibodies against WT, whereas neutralizing antibody titers (NAbT) against the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants were substantially reduced. Whereas S1-reactive antibody levels decreased in 13% of patients, NAbT remained stable up to 329 days. Patients also had detectable SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells and CD4+ responses correlating with S1-reactive antibody levels, although patients with hematological malignancies had impaired immune responses that were disease and treatment-specific, but presented compensatory cellular responses, further supported by clinical. Overall, these findings advance the understanding of the nature and duration of immune response to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with cancer.

Functional antibody and T cell immunity following SARS-CoV-2 infection, including by variants of concern, in patients with cancer: the CAPTURE study.

Patients with cancer have higher COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. Here we present the prospective CAPTURE study, integrating longitudinal immune profiling with clinical annotation. Of 357 patients with cancer, 118 were SARS-CoV-2 positive, 94 were symptomatic and 2 died of COVID-19. In this cohort, 83% patients had S1-reactive antibodies and 82% had neutralizing antibodies against wild type SARS-CoV-2, whereas neutralizing antibody titers against the Alpha, Beta and Delta variants were substantially reduced. S1-reactive antibody levels decreased in 13% of patients, whereas neutralizing antibody titers remained stable for up to 329 days. Patients also had detectable SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells and CD4+ responses correlating with S1-reactive antibody levels, although patients with hematological malignancies had impaired immune responses that were disease and treatment specific, but presented compensatory cellular responses, further supported by clinical recovery in all but one patient. Overall, these findings advance the understanding of the nature and duration of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with cancer.

Adaptive immunity and neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern following vaccination in patients with cancer: the CAPTURE study.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) antiviral response in a pan-tumor immune monitoring (CAPTURE) ( NCT03226886 ) is a prospective cohort study of COVID-19 immunity in patients with cancer. Here we evaluated 585 patients following administration of two doses of BNT162b2 or AZD1222 vaccines, administered 12 weeks apart. Seroconversion rates after two doses were 85% and 59% in patients with solid and hematological malignancies, respectively. A lower proportion of patients had detectable titers of neutralizing antibodies (NAbT) against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern (VOC) versus wild-type (WT) SARS-CoV-2. Patients with hematological malignancies were more likely to have undetectable NAbT and had lower median NAbT than those with solid cancers against both SARS-CoV-2 WT and VOC. By comparison with individuals without cancer, patients with hematological, but not solid, malignancies had reduced neutralizing antibody (NAb) responses. Seroconversion showed poor concordance with NAbT against VOC. Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection boosted the NAb response including against VOC, and anti-CD20 treatment was associated with undetectable NAbT. Vaccine-induced T cell responses were detected in 80% of patients and were comparable between vaccines or cancer types. Our results have implications for the management of patients with cancer during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.