FDA Approval Summary: Ruxolitinib for Treatment of Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease after Failure of One or Two Lines of Systemic Therapy.

On September 22, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration approved ruxolitinib for the treatment of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) after the failure of one or two lines of systemic therapy in adult and pediatric patients 12 years and older. Approval was based on Study INCB 18424-365 (REACH-3; CINC424D2301; NCT03112603), a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial of ruxolitinib in comparison to best available therapy (BAT) for the treatment of corticosteroid-refractory cGVHD occurring after the allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. A total of 329 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either ruxolitinib 10 mg twice daily (n = 165) or BAT (n = 164). BAT was selected by the investigator prior to randomization. The overall response rate through Cycle 7 Day 1 was 70% (95% CI, 63-77) in the ruxolitinib arm, and 57% (95% CI, 49-65) in the BAT arm. The median duration of response, calculated from first response to progression, death, or initiation of new systemic therapies for cGVHD, was 4.2 months (95% CI, 3.2-6.7) for the ruxolitinib arm and 2.1 months (95% CI, 1.6-3.2) for the BAT arm; and the median time from first response to death or initiation of new systemic therapies for cGVHD was 25 months (95% CI, 16.8-not estimable) for the ruxolitinib arm and 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.1-7.8) for the BAT arm. Common adverse reactions included anemia, thrombocytopenia, and infections. Given the observed response rate with durability, the clinical benefit of ruxolitinib appears to outweigh the risks of treatment for cGVHD after the failure of one or two lines of systemic therapy.

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.

Oncology Expanded Access and FDA's Project Facilitate.

The Oncology Center of Excellence at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration launched Project Facilitate on May 31, 2019, to assist oncology health care providers with Expanded Access requests for investigational drugs. Expanded Access, sometimes called "compassionate use," is a regulatory pathway for physicians caring for patients who have a life-threatening condition or a serious disease to gain access to an investigational drug for treatment when no comparable or satisfactory alternative treatment options are available. Herein we describe the Project Facilitate program and the process for requesting Expanded Access to an investigational drug.

Benefit-Risk Summary of Nivolumab for the Treatment of Patients with Unresectable Advanced, Recurrent, or Metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma After Prior Fluoropyrimidine- and Platinum-Based Chemotherapy.

On June 10, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved nivolumab (OPDIVO; Bristol Myers Squibb, New York, NY) for the treatment of patients with unresectable advanced, recurrent, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) after prior fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based chemotherapy. Approval was based on the results of a single, randomized, active-control study (ATTRACTION-3) that randomized patients to receive nivolumab or investigator's choice of taxane chemotherapy (docetaxel or paclitaxel). The study demonstrated a significant improvement in overall survival (OS; hazard ratio = 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.62-0.96; p = .0189) with an estimated median OS of 10.9 months in the nivolumab arm compared with 8.4 months in the chemotherapy arm. Overall, fewer patients in the nivolumab arm experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of any grade, grade 3-4 TEAEs, and serious adverse events compared with the control arm. The safety profile of nivolumab in patients with ESCC was generally similar to the known safety profile of nivolumab in other cancer types with the following exception: esophageal fistula was identified as a new, clinically significant risk in patients with ESCC treated with nivolumab. Additionally, the incidence of pneumonitis was higher in the ESCC population than in patients with other cancer types who are treated with nivolumab. This article summarizes the FDA review of the data supporting the approval of nivolumab for the treatment of ESCC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The approval of nivolumab for the treatment of adult patients with unresectable advanced, recurrent, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) after prior fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based chemotherapy was based on an overall survival (OS) benefit from a randomized, open-label, active-controlled study called ATTRACTION-3. Prior to this study, no drug or combination regimen had demonstrated an OS benefit in a randomized study for patients with ESCC after prior fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based chemotherapy.

FDA Approval Summary: Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab for the Treatment of Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Previously Treated with Sorafenib.

On March 10, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) previously treated with sorafenib. The recommended approved dosage was nivolumab 1 mg/kg i.v. plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by nivolumab 240 mg i.v. every 2 weeks. The approval was based on data from cohort 4 of CheckMate 040, which randomized patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HCC previously treated with or who were intolerant to sorafenib to receive one of three different dosing regimens of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab. Investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR) was the primary endpoint, and ORR assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) was an exploratory endpoint. BICR-assessed ORR and duration of response (DoR) form the primary basis of the FDA's regulatory decision, and BICR-assessed ORR was comparable in all three arms at 31%-32% with 95% confidence interval [CI] 18%-47%. The DoR ranged from 17.5 to 22.2 months across the three arms, with overlapping 95% CIs. Adverse events (AEs) were generally consistent with the known AE profiles of nivolumab and ipilimumab, and no new safety events were identified. This article summarizes the FDA review of the data supporting the approval of nivolumab and ipilimumab for the treatment of HCC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy is another option for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who experience radiographic progression during or after sorafenib or sorafenib intolerance. No new toxicities were identified, but, as expected, increased toxicity was observed with the addition of ipilimumab to nivolumab as compared with nivolumab alone, which is also approved for the same indication. Whether to administer nivolumab as a single agent or in combination with ipilimumab is expected to be a joint decision between the oncologist and patient, taking into consideration the potential for a higher likelihood of response and the potentially higher rate of toxicity with the combination.

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.

FDA Approval Summary: Rucaparib for the Treatment of Patients with Deleterious BRCA-Mutated Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to rucaparib in May 2020 for the treatment of adult patients with deleterious BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic)-associated metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who have been treated with androgen receptor-directed therapy and a taxane. This approval was based on data from the ongoing multicenter, open-label single-arm trial TRITON2. The primary endpoint, confirmed objective response rate, in the 62 patients who met the above criteria, was 44% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 31%-57%). The median duration of response was not estimable (95% CI: 6.4 to not estimable). Fifty-six percent of patients had a response duration of >6 months and 15% >12 months. The safety profile of rucaparib was generally consistent with that of the class of poly-(ADP-ribose) polymerase enzyme inhibitors and other trials of rucaparib in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Deaths due to adverse events (AEs) occurred in 1.7% of patients, and 8% discontinued rucaparib because of an AE. Grade 3-4 AEs occurred in 59% of patients. No patients with prostate cancer developed myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia. The trial TRITON3 in patients with mCRPC is ongoing and is planned to verify the clinical benefit of rucaparib in mCRPC. This article summarizes the FDA thought process and data supporting this accelerated approval. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The accelerated approval of rucaparib for the treatment of adult patients with deleterious BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic)-associated metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer who have been treated with androgen receptor-directed therapy and a taxane represents the first approved therapy for this selected patient population. This approval was based on a single-arm trial demonstrating a confirmed objective response rate greater than that of available therapy with a favorable duration of response and an acceptable toxicity profile. The ongoing trial TRITON3 is verifying the clinical benefit of this drug.

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.

FDA Accelerated Approval of Pembrolizumab for Recurrent Locally Advanced or Metastatic Merkel Cell Carcinoma.

On December 19, 2018, the Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to pembrolizumab (KEYTRUDA, Merck & Co. Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ) for adult and pediatric patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC). Approval was based on Cancer Immunotherapy Trials Network protocol 9, also known as KEYNOTE-017 (NCT02267603), a multicenter, nonrandomized, open-label trial that enrolled 50 patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic MCC who had not received prior systemic therapy for their advanced disease. The major efficacy outcome measures were overall response rate (ORR) and response duration assessed by blinded independent central review per RECIST 1.1. The ORR was 56% (95% confidence interval: 41, 70) with a complete response rate of 24%. The median response duration was not reached. Among the 28 patients with responses, 96% had response durations of greater than 6 months and 54% had response durations of greater than 12 months. The most common adverse reactions of pembrolizumab reported in at least 20% of patients who received pembrolizumab as a single agent were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, decreased appetite, pruritus, diarrhea, nausea, rash, pyrexia, cough, dyspnea, constipation, pain, and abdominal pain. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This report presents key information on the basis for the Food and Drug Administration's accelerated approval of pembrolizumab for the treatment of recurrent locally advanced or metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma, including efficacy and safety information. This approval provides patients and physicians with an additional treatment option for this aggressive and life-threatening carcinoma.

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.

Immune Response Evaluation and Treatment with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Beyond Clinical Progression: Response Assessments for Cancer Immunotherapy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review provides a comprehensive assessment of recent literature reports describing atypical response patterns observed with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), modifications to response evaluation criteria for ICIs, and treatment beyond progression in clinical trials. RECENT FINDINGS: Certain response patterns such as durable response, pseudoprogression, hyperprogression, and dissociated responses can be seen with ICI treatment. These patterns carry differing prognoses and are associated with varied factors. There are multiple modifications of standard Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) that have been proposed to better characterize immunotherapy response; however, standard RECIST1.1 remains most commonly used in clinical trials. Treatment beyond progression varies in frequency and benefit depending on assessment criteria and cancer type. Future research incorporating modified imaging criteria and biomarker assessments may serve to clarify who will benefit most from treatment beyond progression.

FDA Approval Summary: Pembrolizumab for Recurrent Locally Advanced or Metastatic Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma Expressing PD-L1.

On September 22, 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ) for the treatment of patients with recurrent, locally advanced or metastatic, gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma with disease progression on or after two or more systemic therapies, including fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy and, if appropriate, HER2/neu-targeted therapy, and whose tumors express programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), as determined by an FDA-approved test. Approval was based on demonstration of durable overall response rate (ORR) in a multicenter, open-label, multicohort trial (KEYNOTE-059/Cohort 1) that enrolled 259 patients with locally advanced or metastatic gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma. Among the 55% (n = 143) of patients whose tumors expressed PD-L1 based on a combined positive score ≥1 and either were microsatellite stable or had undetermined microsatellite instability or mismatch repair status, the confirmed ORR as determined by blinded independent central review was 13.3% (95% CI, 8.2-20.0); 1.4% had complete responses. Response durations ranged from 2.8+ to 19.4+ months; 11 patients (58%) had response durations of 6 months or longer, and 5 patients (26%) had response durations of 12 months or longer. The most common (≥20%) adverse reactions of pembrolizumab observed in KEYNOTE-059/Cohort 1 were fatigue, decreased appetite, nausea, and constipation. The most frequent (≥2%) serious adverse drug reactions were pleural effusion, pneumonia, dyspnea, pulmonary embolism, and pneumonitis. Pembrolizumab was approved concurrently with the PD-L1 immunohistochemistry 22C3 pharmDx test (Dako, Agilent, Santa Clara, CA) for selection of patients with gastric cancer for treatment with pembrolizumab based on PD-L1 tumor expression. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This report presents key information on the basis for Food and Drug Administration approval of pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1. The report discusses the basis for limiting the indication to patients with PD-L1-expressing tumors and the basis for recommending that PD-L1 status be assessed using a fresh tumor specimen if PD-L1 expression is not detected in an archival gastric or GEJ cancer specimen.

FDA Approval Summary: Atezolizumab or Pembrolizumab for the Treatment of Patients with Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma Ineligible for Cisplatin-Containing Chemotherapy.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to atezolizumab and pembrolizumab in April and May 2017, respectively, for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy. These approvals were based on efficacy and safety data demonstrated in the two single-arm trials, IMvigor210 (atezolizumab) and KEYNOTE-052 (pembrolizumab). The primary endpoint, confirmed objective response rate, was 23.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 16.2%-32.2%) in patients receiving atezolizumab and 28.6% (95% CI: 24.1%-33.5%) in patients receiving pembrolizumab. The median duration of response was not reached in either study and responses were seen regardless of PD-L1 status. The safety profiles of both drugs were generally consistent with approved agents targeting PD-1/PD-L1. Two ongoing trials (IMvigor130 and KEYNOTE-361) are verifying benefit of these drugs. Based on concerning preliminary reports from these trials, FDA revised the indications for both agents in cisplatin-ineligible patients. Both drugs are now indicated for patients not eligible for any platinum-containing chemotherapy or not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and whose tumors/infiltrating immune cells express a high level of PD-L1. The indications for atezolizumab and pembrolizumab in patients who have received prior platinum-based therapy have not been changed. This article summarizes the FDA thought process and data supporting the accelerated approval of both agents and the subsequent revision of the indications. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The accelerated approvals of atezolizumab and pembrolizumab for cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma represent the first approved therapies for this patient population. These approvals were based on single-arm trials demonstrating reasonable objective response rates and favorable durations of response with an acceptable toxicity profile compared with available non-cisplatin-containing chemotherapy regimens. However, based on concerning preliminary reports from two ongoing phase III trials, the FDA revised the indication for both agents in cisplatin-ineligible patients. Both are now indicated either for patients not eligible for any platinum-containing chemotherapy or not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and whose tumors have high expression of PD-L1.

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 Supplemental Approval: Blinatumomab for Treatment of Relapsed and Refractory Precursor B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.

On July 11, 2017, the Food and Drug Administration granted approval for blinatumomab for the treatment of relapsed or refractory (R/R) precursor B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Blinatumomab is a bispecific CD19-directed CD3 T-cell engager. The basis for the approval included results from two clinical trials, TOWER and ALCANTARA. TOWER, a randomized trial comparing overall survival in patients with Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-negative R/R ALL receiving blinatumomab versus standard-of-care (SOC) chemotherapy, demonstrated a hazard ratio of 0.71 favoring blinatumomab (p = .012; median survival, 7.7 months with blinatumomab and 4.0 months with SOC chemotherapy). Complete remission (CR) rates were 34% for patients receiving blinatumomab and 16% for those receiving SOC. Adverse events were consistent with those observed in prior trials, with cytokine release syndrome and some neurologic events, including tremor, encephalopathy, peripheral neuropathy, and depression, observed more frequently in the blinatumomab arm, whereas neutropenia and infection were less common among patients receiving blinatumomab. Depression emerged as a rare but potentially severe neurologic event associated with blinatumomab. In ALCANTARA, a single-arm trial of blinatumomab in patients with Ph-positive R/R ALL, the CR rate was 31%, and adverse events were similar to those observed previously in Ph-negative R/R ALL. These results support conversion from accelerated to regular approval of blinatumomab for R/R ALL and broadening of the intended population to include both Ph-positive and Ph-negative precursor B-cell R/R ALL. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: In TOWER, a randomized trial in patients with relapsed or refractory Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-negative precursor B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), treatment with blinatumomab showed superiority over conventional chemotherapy for complete remission (CR) rate (34% vs. 16%) and survival (3.7-month improvement in median; hazard ratio, 0.71). In ALCANTARA, a single-arm trial of blinatumomab for treatment of relapsed or refractory Ph-positive precursor B-cell ALL, the CR rate was 31%. Blinatumomab is now approved for treatment of relapsed or refractory precursor B-cell ALL that is Ph positive or Ph negative.

FDA Approval Summary: Lenalidomide as Maintenance Therapy After Autologous Stem Cell Transplant in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.

On February 22, 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted approval for the use of lenalidomide as maintenance therapy after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) for patients with multiple myeloma. The approval was based on evidence from two randomized, blinded trials of maintenance lenalidomide versus placebo in patients with myeloma who had undergone auto-HSCT along with a third trial of lenalidomide versus no therapy. Each of the trials demonstrated superior progression-free survival for the patients treated with lenalidomide. The effect on overall survival was mixed, with one trial showing longer overall survival and another showing no effect. Subgroup analysis suggested better results for patients with International Staging System stage I or II disease compared with stage III disease. Safety evaluation did not reveal any new safety concerns. More second primary malignancies were observed in the lenalidomide arm compared with the placebo arm. The FDA concluded that lenalidomide maintenance showed a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio when used as maintenance therapy after auto-HSCT. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Prior to this approval, there were no U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved maintenance therapies for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who have undergone autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT). Maintenance therapy with lenalidomide after auto-HSCT in patients with MM demonstrated an approximately 15- to 18-month advantage in progression-free survival compared with placebo at the time of the primary analysis. Patients treated with lenalidomide also appeared to have a survival advantage compared with patients treated with placebo. Because of the high rate of relapse of MM in patients following auto-HSCT and because MM is a serious and often fatal disease, these results appear to be clinically meaningful.

FDA Approval Summary: Vemurafenib for the Treatment of Patients with Erdheim-Chester Disease with the BRAFV600 Mutation.

On November 6, 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted regular approval to vemurafenib for the treatment of adult patients with Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD) with BRAFV600 mutation. ECD is a type of histiocytosis, a rare disorder characterized by an abnormal accumulation and behavior of cells of the mononuclear phagocytic system, which includes antigen-processing cells, dendritic cells, monocytes, or macrophages. Recently published data confirm a frequency of 54% of BRAFV600E mutations in patients with ECD.Approval was based on a cohort of 22 patients who received 960 mg of vemurafenib twice daily within the VE Basket Trial (MO28072), a single-arm, multicenter, multiple cohort study. Patients in the ECD cohort had histologically confirmed ECD with BRAFV600 mutations that were refractory to standard therapy. The ECD cohort achieved an overall response rate of 54.5% (95% confidence interval: 32.2-75.6), with a complete response rate of 4.5%. With a median duration of follow-up of 26.6 months, the median duration of response has not been reached. The most frequently reported adverse reactions (>50%) in the ECD cohort were arthralgia, rash maculo-papular, alopecia, fatigue, electrocardiogram QT interval prolonged, and skin papilloma. The median treatment duration for ECD patients in this study was 14.2 months. This article describes the FDA review of the vemurafenib efficacy supplement for patients with ECD with BRAFV600 mutations. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Vemurafenib, an oral monotherapy targeting a mutation in BRAF, is the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD). ECD is an extremely rare hematopoietic neoplasm that represents clonal proliferation of myeloid progenitor cells. ECD may involve bone and one or more organ systems, primarily affecting adults in their 5th and 7th decades of life, with a slight male predominance. This approval provides an effective and reasonably safe therapy for patients with a serious and life-threatening condition for which no approved therapy exists.

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.

Benefit-Risk Summary of Regorafenib for the Treatment of Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma That Has Progressed on Sorafenib.

On April 27, 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved regorafenib for the treatment of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who had previously been treated with sorafenib. Approval was based on the results of a single, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (RESORCE) that demonstrated an improvement in overall survival (OS). Patients were randomly allocated to receive regorafenib160 mg orally once daily or matching placebo for the first 21 days of each 28-day cycle. The trial demonstrated a significant improvement in OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.79, p < .0001) with an estimated median OS of 10.6 months in the regorafenib arm and 7.8 months in the placebo arm. A statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) based on modified RECIST for HCC [Semin Liver Dis 2010;30:52-60] (HR = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.37-0.56, p < .0001) was also demonstrated; the estimated median PFS was 3.1 and 1.5 months in the regorafenib and placebo arms, respectively. The overall response rate, based on modified RECIST for HCC, was 11% in the regorafenib arm and 4% in the placebo arm. The toxicity profile was consistent with that observed in other indications; the most clinically significant adverse reactions were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, diarrhea, and hypertension. Based on the improvement in survival and acceptable toxicity, a favorable benefit-to-risk evaluation led to approval for treatment of patients with advanced HCC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Regorafenib is the first drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma that has progressed on sorafenib and is expected to become a standard of care for these patients.