Exploring the Potential of External Control Arms created from Patient Level Data: A case study in non-small cell lung cancer.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluation of new medical products. However, RCTs may not always be ethical or feasible. In cases where the investigational product is available outside the trial (e.g., through accelerated approval), patients may fail to enroll in clinical trials or drop out early to take the investigational product. These challenges to enrolling or maintaining a concurrent control arm may compromise timely recruitment, retention, or compliance. This can threaten the study's integrity, including the validity of results. External control arms (ECAs) may be a promising augmentation to RCTs when encountered with challenges that threaten the feasibility and reliability of a randomized controlled clinical trial. Here, we propose the use of ECAs created from patient-level data from previously conducted clinical trials or real-world data in the same indication. Propensity score methods are used to balance observed disease characteristics and demographics in the previous clinical trial or real-world data with those of present-day trial participants assigned to receive the investigational product. These methods are explored in a case study in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) derived from multiple previously conducted open label or blinded phase 2 and 3 multinational clinical trials initiated between 2004 and 2013. The case study indicated that when balanced for baseline characteristics, the overall survival estimates from the ECA were very similar to those of the target randomized control, based on Kaplan-Meier curves and hazard ratio and confidence interval estimates. This suggests that in the future, a randomized control may be able to be augmented by an ECA without compromising the understanding of the treatment effect, assuming sufficient knowledge, measurement, and availability of all or most of the important prognostic variables.

Overall survival in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced or metastatic breast cancer treated with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor plus fulvestrant: a US Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDKIs) are oral targeted agents approved for use in combination with endocrine therapy as first-line or second-line treatment of patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced or metastatic breast cancer. We previously reported the pooled analyses of progression-free survival in patients in specific clinicopathological subgroups, all of whom received consistent benefit from the addition of a CDKI to hormonal therapy. Here, we report the pooled overall survival results in patients treated with a CDKI and fulvestrant. METHODS: In this exploratory analysis, we pooled individual patient data from three phase 3 randomised trials of CDKI or placebo in combination with fulvestrant in patients with breast cancer submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration and approved before Aug 1, 2020, in support of marketing applications. All analysed patients were aged at least 18 years, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, had hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer, and received at least one dose of CDKI or placebo in combination with fulvestrant. The median overall survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and hazard ratios (HRs) with corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using Cox regression models. Patients were analysed collectively, by number of previous lines of systemic endocrine therapy in any disease setting (first-line or endocrine naive vs second-line and later), and in various clinicopathological subgroups of interest. The estimated median overall survival was not reported by group when the pooled population included patients treated across lines of therapy because of potential patient heterogeneity. All results presented are considered exploratory and hypothesis generating. FINDINGS: Across the three pooled trials, 1960 patients were randomly assigned between Oct 7, 2013, and June 10, 2016 (12 patients were not treated and 1296 [66%] patients were randomly assigned to CDKI and 652 [33%] to placebo). In all treated patients (n=1948), the estimated HR for overall survival was 0·77 (95% CI 0·68-0·88), with a median follow-up of 43·7 months (IQR 37·8-47·7) and deaths in 935 (48%) of the 1948 patients. The difference in estimated median overall survival was 7·1 months, favouring CDKIs. In patients who received CDKIs or placebo in combination with fulvestrant as first-line systemic endocrine therapy (two trials; n=396), the estimated HR for overall survival was 0·74 (95% CI 0·52-1·07), with a median follow-up of 39·4 months (IQR 37·0-42·2). 123 (31%) of these patients died. The difference in estimated median overall survival could not be calculated because median overall survival was not estimable (95% CI 50·9-not estimable) in the CDKI group and was 45·7 months (95% CI 41·7-not estimable) in the placebo group. In patients who received CDKIs or placebo in combination with fulvestrant as second-line or later systemic endocrine therapy (three trials; n=1552), the estimated HR for overall survival was 0·77 (95% CI 0·67-0·89), with a median follow-up of 45·1 months (95% CI 39·2-48·5). 812 (52%) of these patients died. The difference in estimated median overall survival was 7·0 months, favouring CDKIs. INTERPRETATION: The addition of CDKIs to fulvestrant resulted in a consistent overall survival benefit in all pooled patients and within most clinicopathological subgroups of interest. These findings support the existing standard of care of CDKIs plus fulvestrant for the treatment of patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer. FUNDING: None.

FDA Approval Summary: Olaparib Monotherapy or in Combination with Bevacizumab for the Maintenance Treatment of Patients with Advanced Ovarian Cancer.

On December 19, 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted approval to olaparib monotherapy for first-line maintenance treatment of BRCA-mutated (BRCAm) advanced ovarian cancer and, on May 8, 2020, expanded the indication of olaparib to include its use in combination with bevacizumab for first-line maintenance treatment of homologous recombination deficient (HRD)-positive advanced ovarian cancer. Both these approvals were based on randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Approval for olaparib monotherapy was based on the SOLO-1 trial, comparing the efficacy of olaparib versus placebo in patients with BRCAm advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer after surgical cytoreduction and first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Two companion diagnostic (CDx) tests were approved with this indication: BRACAnalysis CDx, for germline BRCA1/2 alterations, and FoundationOne CDx, for BRCA1/2 alterations in tissue specimens. Approval for olaparib in combination with bevacizumab was based on the results of the PAOLA-1 trial that compared olaparib with bevacizumab versus placebo plus bevacizumab in patients with advanced high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab. Myriad myChoice CDx was designated as a companion diagnostic device for use of olaparib plus bevacizumab combination for ovarian cancer associated with HRD-positive status. Both trials demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in progression-free survival and favorable benefit-risk profiles for the indicated populations. This article summarizes the FDA thought process and data supporting the approval of olaparib as monotherapy and in combination with bevacizumab for maintenance therapy in this setting. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: These approvals represent the first poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, alone or in combination with bevacizumab, approved in first-line maintenance treatment of women with advanced ovarian cancer after cytoreductive surgery and chemotherapy. In patients with BRCA-mutated tumors, olaparib monotherapy demonstrated a 70% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death compared with placebo, and olaparib in combination with bevacizumab demonstrated a 67% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death compared with bevacizumab alone in homologous recombination deficient-positive tumors. These approvals represent a major advance for the treatment of women with advanced ovarian cancer who are in complete or partial response after their initial platinum-based chemotherapy.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

A Bayesian approach in design and analysis of pediatric cancer clinical trials.

It is well recognized that cancer drug development for children and adolescents has many challenges, from biological and societal to economic. Pediatric cancer consists of a diverse group of rare diseases, and the relatively small population of children with multiple, disparate tumor types across various age groups presents a significant challenge for drug development programs as compared to oncology drug development programs for adults. Due to the different types of cancers, limited opportunities exist for extrapolation of efficacy from adult cancer indications to children. Thus, innovative study designs including Bayesian statistical approaches should be considered. A Bayesian approach can be a flexible tool to formally leverage prior knowledge of adult or external controls in pediatric cancer trials. In this article, we provide in a case example of how Bayesian approaches can be used to design, monitor, and analyze pediatric trials. Particularly, Bayesian sequential monitoring can be useful to monitor pediatric trial results as data accumulate. In addition, designing a pediatric trial with both skeptical and enthusiastic priors with Bayesian sequential monitoring can be an efficient mechanism for early trial cessation for both efficacy and futility. The interpretation of efficacy using a Bayesian approach is based on posterior probability and is intuitive and interpretable for patients, parents and prescribers given limited data.

US Food and Drug Administration review of statistical analysis of patient-reported outcomes in lung cancer clinical trials approved between January, 2008, and December, 2017.

With the advent of patient-focused drug development, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has redoubled its efforts to review patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in cancer trials submitted as part of a drug's marketing application. This Review aims to characterise the statistical analysis of PRO data from pivotal lung cancer trials submitted to support FDA drug approval between January, 2008, and December, 2017. For each trial and PRO instrument identified, we evaluated prespecified PRO concepts, statistical analysis, missing data and sensitivity analysis, instrument completion, and clinical relevance. Of the 37 pivotal lung cancer trials used to support FDA drug approval, 25 (68%) trials included PRO measures. The most common prespecified PRO concepts were cough, dyspnoea, and chest pain. At the trial level, the most common statistical analyses were descriptive (24 trials [96%]), followed by time-to-event analyses (19 trials [76%]), longitudinal analyses (12 trials [48%]), and basic inferential tests or general linear models (10 trials [40%]). Our findings indicate a wide variation in the analytic techniques and data presentation methods used, with very few trials reporting clear PRO research objectives and sensitivity analyses for PRO results. Our work further supports the need for focused research objectives to justify and to guide the analytic strategy of PROs to facilitate the interpretation of patient experience.

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.

Analyzing patient-reported outcome data when completion differs between arms in open-label trials: an application of principal stratification.

PURPOSE: Cancer trials are often open-label and include patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Previous work has demonstrated that patients may complete PRO assessments less frequently in the control arm compared with the experimental arm in open-label trials. Such differential completion may affect PRO results. This paper sought to explore principal stratification methodology to address potential bias caused by the posttreatment intermediate variable of questionnaire completion. METHODS: We evaluated six randomized trials (five open-label and one double-blind) of anticancer therapies with varying levels of PRO completion submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We applied complete case analysis (CCA), multiple imputation (MI), and principal stratification to evaluate PRO results for quality of life (QOL) and the domains of physical, role, and emotional function (PF, RF, and EF). Assignment to potential principal strata was by the expectation maximization algorithm using patient baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Completion rates in the experimental arm ranged from 66% to 94% and 51% to 95% in the control arm. Four trials had negligible completion differences between arms (1%-2%), and two had large differences favoring the experimental arm (15%-17%). For trials with negligible completion differences, principal stratification results were similar to CCA and MI results for all domains. Notable differences in point estimates may be observed in trials with large differences in completion rates. However, in the examined trials, the confidence intervals for the principal stratification estimates overlapped with the ones obtained using CCA. CONCLUSIONS: The principal stratification estimand may be a useful additional analysis, especially if PRO completion differs between arms.

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.

Informing the Tolerability of Cancer Treatments Using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Summary of an FDA and Critical Path Institute Workshop.

The US Food and Drug Administration and the Critical Path Institute's Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Consortium convened a cosponsored workshop on the use of PRO measures to inform the assessment of safety and tolerability in cancer clinical trials. A broad array of international stakeholders involved in oncology drug development and PRO measurement science provided perspectives on the role of PRO measures to provide complementary clinical data on the symptomatic side effects of anticancer agents. Speakers and panelists explored the utility of information derived from existing and emerging PRO measures, focusing on the PRO version of the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Panelists and speakers discussed potential ways to improve the collection, analysis, and presentation of PRO data describing symptomatic adverse events to support drug development and better inform regulatory and treatment decisions. Workshop participants concluded the day with a discussion of possible approaches to the patient-reported assessment of an investigational drug's overall side effect burden as a potential clinical trial end point. The Food and Drug Administration reiterated its commitment to collaborate with international drug development stakeholders to identify rigorous methods to incorporate the patient perspective into the development of cancer therapeutics.

Moving forward toward standardizing analysis of quality of life data in randomized cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: There is currently a lack of consensus on how health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomized clinical trials are analyzed and interpreted. This makes it difficult to compare results across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) synthesize scientific research, and use that evidence to inform product labeling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data for Cancer Clinical Trials (SISAQOL) Consortium aims to develop guidelines and recommendations to standardize analyses of patient-reported outcome data in cancer RCTs. METHODS AND RESULTS: Members from the SISAQOL Consortium met in January 2017 to discuss relevant issues. Data from systematic reviews of the current state of published research in patient-reported outcomes in cancer RCTs indicated a lack of clear reporting of research hypothesis and analytic strategies, and inconsistency in definitions of terms, including "missing data,""health-related quality of life," and "patient-reported outcome." Based on the meeting proceedings, the Consortium will focus on three key priorities in the coming year: developing a taxonomy of research objectives, identifying appropriate statistical methods to analyze patient-reported outcome data, and determining best practices to evaluate and deal with missing data. CONCLUSION: The quality of the Consortium guidelines and recommendations are informed and enhanced by the broad Consortium membership which includes regulators, patients, clinicians, and academics.

FDA Approval Summary: Nivolumab in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma After Anti-Angiogenic Therapy and Exploratory Predictive Biomarker Analysis.

On November 23, 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved nivolumab (OPDIVO, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company) for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who have received prior anti-angiogenic therapy. The approval was based on efficacy and safety data demonstrated in an open-label, randomized study of 821 patients with advanced RCC who progressed after at least one anti-angiogenic therapy. Patients were randomized to nivolumab or everolimus and followed for disease progression. The primary end point was overall survival. Subsequent therapies, including everolimus for patients who developed progressive disease on the nivolumab arm, were allowed, but no cross-over was permitted. The median overall survival was 25.0 months on the nivolumab arm and 19.6 months on everolimus arm (hazard ratio: 0.73; 95% confidence interval: 0.60-0.89). The confirmed response rates were 21.5% versus 3.9%; median durations of response were 23.0 versus 13.7 months, and median times to response were 3.0 versus 3.7 months in the nivolumab and everolimus arms, respectively. A statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival was not observed in this trial. The safety profile of nivolumab in renal cell cancer was similar to that in other disease settings. However, the incidence of immune-mediated nephritis appeared to be higher in patients with RCC. The Oncologist 2017;22:311-317 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The overall benefit/risk profile demonstrated in trial CA209025 supported the approval of nivolumab as an additional treatment option for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma after anti-angiogenic therapy. The use of nivolumab in patients who had received vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy resulted in a 5.4 month improvement in median overall survival compared with the everolimus arm. This difference is statistically significant and clinically meaningful.

FDA Approval Summary: Daratumumab for Treatment of Multiple Myeloma After One Prior Therapy.

On November 21, 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted regular approval to daratumumab in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, or bortezomib and dexamethasone, for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least one prior therapy. Approval was based on two randomized, open-label trials in which daratumumab was added to these backbone therapies. The MMY3003 trial demonstrated substantial improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) when daratumumab was added to lenalidomide and dexamethasone compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone. The estimated median PFS had not been reached in the daratumumab arm and was 18.4 months in the control arm (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.27-0.52; p < .0001), representing a 63% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death. Similar results were observed in the MMY3004 trial comparing the combination of daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone with bortezomib and dexamethasone. The estimated median PFS was not reached in the daratumumab arm and was 7.2 months in the control arm (HR = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.28-0.53; p < .0001), representing a 61% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death. The most frequently reported adverse reactions (greater than or equal to 20%) in MMY3003 were infusion reactions, diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, pyrexia, upper respiratory tract infection, muscle spasm, cough, and dyspnea. The most frequently reported adverse reactions (greater than or equal to 20%) in MMY3004 were infusion reactions, diarrhea, peripheral edema, upper respiratory tract infection, and peripheral sensory neuropathy. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia have been added to the Warnings and Precautions of the drug label. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Daratumumab, the first monoclonal antibody targeted against CD38, received U.S. Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval in 2015 based on data from single-agent, single-arm trials that provided response rate information. Results of the MMY3003 and MMY3004 trials established that daratumumab can be combined synergistically with some of the most highly active agents used to treat multiple myeloma, leading to daratumumab's regular approval in 2016. Daratumumab added to lenalidomide and dexamethasone, or bortezomib and dexamethasone, provides a substantial improvement in progression-free survival in previously treated patients with multiple myeloma. These combinations will likely improve the survival outlook for patients with multiple myeloma.

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.

Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pathological complete response has been proposed as a surrogate endpoint for prediction of long-term clinical benefit, such as disease-free survival, event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS). We had four key objectives: to establish the association between pathological complete response and EFS and OS, to establish the definition of pathological complete response that correlates best with long-term outcome, to identify the breast cancer subtypes in which pathological complete response is best correlated with long-term outcome, and to assess whether an increase in frequency of pathological complete response between treatment groups predicts improved EFS and OS. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Medline for clinical trials of neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer. To be eligible, studies had to meet three inclusion criteria: include at least 200 patients with primary breast cancer treated with preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery; have available data for pathological complete response, EFS, and OS; and have a median follow-up of at least 3 years. We compared the three most commonly used definitions of pathological complete response--ypT0 ypN0, ypT0/is ypN0, and ypT0/is--for their association with EFS and OS in a responder analysis. We assessed the association between pathological complete response and EFS and OS in various subgroups. Finally, we did a trial-level analysis to assess whether pathological complete response could be used as a surrogate endpoint for EFS or OS. FINDINGS: We obtained data from 12 identified international trials and 11 955 patients were included in our responder analysis. Eradication of tumour from both breast and lymph nodes (ypT0 ypN0 or ypT0/is ypN0) was better associated with improved EFS (ypT0 ypN0: hazard ratio [HR] 0·44, 95% CI 0·39-0·51; ypT0/is ypN0: 0·48, 0·43-0·54) and OS (0·36, 0·30-0·44; 0·36, 0·31-0·42) than was tumour eradication from the breast alone (ypT0/is; EFS: HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·55-0·66; OS 0·51, 0·45-0·58). We used the ypT0/is ypN0 definition for all subsequent analyses. The association between pathological complete response and long-term outcomes was strongest in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (EFS: HR 0·24, 95% CI 0·18-0·33; OS: 0·16, 0·11-0·25) and in those with HER2-positive, hormone-receptor-negative tumours who received trastuzumab (EFS: 0·15, 0·09-0·27; OS: 0·08, 0·03, 0·22). In the trial-level analysis, we recorded little association between increases in frequency of pathological complete response and EFS (R(2)=0·03, 95% CI 0·00-0·25) and OS (R(2)=0·24, 0·00-0·70). INTERPRETATION: Patients who attain pathological complete response defined as ypT0 ypN0 or ypT0/is ypN0 have improved survival. The prognostic value is greatest in aggressive tumour subtypes. Our pooled analysis could not validate pathological complete response as a surrogate endpoint for improved EFS and OS. FUNDING: US Food and Drug Administration.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration Approval Summary: Enzalutamide for the Treatment of Patients With Chemotherapy-Naïve Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved enzalutamide for the treatment of patients with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). At the prespecified interim analysis, a statistically significant improvement in overall survival was demonstrated for patients in the enzalutamide arm compared with patients in the placebo arm. The overall benefit-risk profile supports the expanded indication for enzalutamide. On September 10, 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved enzalutamide for the treatment of patients with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Enzalutamide was initially approved in 2012 for use in patients with mCRPC who had previously received docetaxel. The current approval was based on the results of a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial conducted in 1,717 asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. Patients were assigned to receive either enzalutamide 160 mg or placebo orally once daily. The coprimary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), which was assessed by independent central radiology review. At the prespecified interim analysis, a statistically significant improvement in OS was demonstrated for patients in the enzalutamide arm compared with patients in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.84). The median OS was 32.4 and 30.2 months in the enzalutamide and placebo arms, respectively. A statistically significant prolongation of rPFS was observed in patients in the enzalutamide arm (HR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.14-0.21). In addition, the time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy was prolonged in the enzalutamide arm (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.30-0.40), with median times of 28.0 and 10.8 months in the enzalutamide and placebo arms, respectively. The safety profile was similar to that previously reported for enzalutamide. Adverse reactions of interest included seizure, hypertension, and falls. Enzalutamide should be discontinued if a seizure occurs during treatment. The overall benefit-risk profile supports the expanded indication for enzalutamide.

Reflections and Roadmaps: Career Development Beyond the FDA-AACR Oncology Educational Fellowship.

In 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Oncology Center of Excellence, in collaboration with the American Association for Cancer Research, launched a novel educational partnership known as the FDA-AACR Oncology Educational Fellowship. This year-long program is aimed for hematology/oncology fellows, scientists, and early-career investigators, offering an in-depth exploration of the regulatory review process by blending didactic learning with practical cases discussing oncology drug approvals. The fellowship has been met with enthusiastic feedback, with participants lauding its role in demystifying the regulatory landscape and enhancing their professional careers. This paper reflects on the experiences of four alumni, showcasing the program's transformative impact across diverse oncology career paths in government, academia, and industry.