Trends in the approval of cancer therapies by the FDA in the twenty-first century.

The cancer treatment landscape has changed dramatically since the turn of the century, resulting in substantial improvements in outcomes for patients. This Review summarizes trends in the approval of oncology therapeutic products by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from January 2000 to October 2022, based on a categorization of these products by their mechanism of action and primary target. Notably, the rate of oncology indication approvals has increased in this time, driven by approvals for targeted therapies, as has the rate of introduction of new therapeutic approaches. Kinase inhibitors are the dominant product class by number of approved products and indications, yet immune checkpoint inhibitors have the second most approvals despite not entering the market until 2011. Other trends include a slight increase in the share of approvals for biomarker-defined populations and the emergence of tumour-site-agnostic approvals. Finally, we consider the implications of the trends for the future of oncology therapeutic product development, including the impact of novel therapeutic approaches and technologies.

FDA Approval Summary: Pembrolizumab, Atezolizumab, and Cemiplimab-rwlc as Single Agents for First-Line Treatment of Advanced/Metastatic PD-L1-High NSCLC.

FDA's approval of cemiplimab-rwlc on February 22, 2021, follows prior approvals of pembrolizumab and atezolizumab for similar indications as first-line treatment for patients with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1)-high advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Approvals of these anti-PD-L1 agents were supported by statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in overall survival (OS) in international, multicenter, active-controlled randomized trials. In KEYNOTE-024, the OS HR was 0.60 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.41-0.89; P = 0.005] favoring pembrolizumab over platinum-doublet chemotherapy. In IMpower110, the OS HR was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.40-0.89; P = 0.0106) favoring atezolizumab over platinum-doublet chemotherapy. In Study 1624, the OS HR was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.53-0.87; P = 0.0022) favoring cemiplimab-rwlc over platinum-doublet chemotherapy. The progression-free survival (PFS) effect sizes for these anti-PD-L1 antibodies were also comparable across their respective registrational trials, and their safety profiles were consistent with the anti-PD-L1 class adverse event profile. The consistent survival benefits and manageable toxicity profiles of these single-agent anti-PD-L1 antibodies have established them as important treatment options in the PD-L1-high NSCLC treatment landscape. FDA approvals of these anti-PD-L1 antibodies, based on their favorable benefit-risk profiles, present effective chemotherapy-free therapeutic options for patients with advanced PD-L1-high NSCLC in the United States.

Response Rate, Event-Free Survival, and Overall Survival in Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia: US Food and Drug Administration Trial-Level and Patient-Level Analyses.

PURPOSE: To explore trial-level and patient-level associations between response (complete remission [CR] and CR + CR with incomplete hematologic [CRi] or platelet [CRp] recovery), event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS) in newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) trials of intensive chemotherapy. METHODS: We identified data from eight randomized, active-controlled trials of intensive chemotherapy submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of newly diagnosed AML (N = 4,482). Associations between trial-level odds ratios (ORs) for CR and CR + CRi or CRp, and hazard ratios (HRs) for EFS and OS were analyzed using weighted linear regression models. We performed patient-level responder analyses to compare OS by response using pooled data from all studies. RESULTS: In trial-level analyses, association between HR for OS and OR for CR was moderate (R2 = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.86), as was the association with OR for CR + CRi or CRp (R2 = 0.48; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.99). For OS versus EFS, a strong association was observed (R2 = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.98) when EFS definitions were harmonized across trials using raw data. In the patient-level responder analyses, patients who achieved CR had better OS compared with CRi or CRp responders (0.73; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.84) and nonresponders (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.37). CONCLUSION: On a trial level, there is a moderate association between OS and CR rate. A strong association between EFS and OS was observed. However, CIs were wide, and results became moderate using alternative definitions for EFS. Patient-level analyses showed CR responders have better OS compared with CRi or CRp responders and nonresponders. A therapy in newly diagnosed AML with benefit in EFS or substantial benefit in CR rate would be likely to have an OS effect.

Treatment-related toxicity and improved outcome from immunotherapy in hepatocellular cancer: Evidence from an FDA pooled analysis of landmark clinical trials with validation from routine practice.

PURPOSE: The development of treatment-related adverse events (trAE) correlates favorably with clinical outcomes in multiple studies of patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI); however, this relationship is undefined in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We derived a cohort of 406 patients with unresectable/advanced HCC receiving ICI therapy as part of international clinical trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in support of marketing applications. We tested whether the development of clinically significant trAE (i.e. graded ≥2, trAE2) predicted improved overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rates (ORR) following ICI. We established an international consortium of 10 tertiary-care referral centres located in Europe (n = 67), United States (US, n = 248) and Asia (n = 42) to validate this association. RESULTS: In the FDA dataset of 406 patients, 325 (80%) with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage C HCC mostly treated with ICI monotherapy (n = 258, 64%), trAE2 were reported in 228 patients (56.1%). Development of trAE2 was associated with longer OS (16.7 versus 11.2 months) and PFS (5.5 versus 2.2 months) and persisted as an independent predictor of outcome after adjusting for viral aetiology, gender, Child-Pugh class, BCLC stage, AFP levels, ECOG-PS, ICI regimen (mono/combination therapy) and receipt of corticosteroid therapy. In a multi-institutional cohort of 357 patients with similar characteristics mostly treated with ICI monotherapy (n = 304, 85%), the development of trAE2 was associated with longer OS (23.3 versus 12.1 months) and PFS (9.6 versus 3.9 months). TrAE2 were confirmed predictors of improved OS (HR 0.43; 95% CI:0.25-0.75) and PFS (HR 0.48; 95% CI: 0.31-0.75), with multivariable analyses confirming their association with outcome independent of clinicopathologic features of interest. Additional time-varying multivariable analyses also indicated that trAEs were associated with a decreased risk of progression (HR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.46-0.67) in the FDA dataset and death (HR 0.55; 95% CI: 0.32-0.95) in the multi-institutional dataset. CONCLUSION: Development of trAE2 correlates with improved outcomes in patients with HCC receiving ICI in clinical trials and in routine practice. Prospective studies aimed at understanding the underlying immunologic foundations of such relationships are warranted to identify predictive biomarkers of toxicity and response.

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.

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.

Model Development of CDK4/6 Predicted Efficacy in Patients With Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Three cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDKIs) are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer in combination with hormonal therapy (HT). We hypothesized that on an individual basis, efficacy outcomes and adverse event (AE) development can be predicted using baseline patient and tumor characteristics. METHODS: Individual-level data from seven randomized controlled trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration for new or supplemental marketing applications of CDKIs were pooled. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and AE prediction models were developed for specific treatment regimens (HT v HT plus CDKI). An individual's characteristics were used in all models simultaneously to create a group of predicted outcomes that are comparable across treatment settings. RESULTS: Accuracy of the PFS and OS prediction models for HT were 66% and 64%, respectively, with the strongest predictors being menopausal status and therapy line. The corresponding AE prediction models resulted in an average area under the curve of 0.613. Accuracy of the PFS and OS prediction models for HT plus CDKI were 62% and 63%, respectively, with the strongest predictors being histologic grade for both. The corresponding AE prediction models resulted in an average area under the curve of 0.639. CONCLUSION: This exploratory analysis demonstrated that models of efficacy outcomes and AE development can be developed using baseline patient and tumor characteristics. Comparison of paired models can inform treatment selection for individuals on the basis of the patient's personalized goals and concerns. Although use of CDKIs is standard of care in the first- or second-line setting, this model provides prognostic information that may inform individual treatment decisions.

The FDA Oncology Center of Excellence Scientific Collaborative: Charting a Course for Applied Regulatory Science Research in Oncology.

The FDA Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE) is a leader within the agency in scientific outreach activities and regulatory science research. On the basis of analysis of scientific workshops, internal meetings, and publications, the OCE identified nine scientific priority areas and one cross-cutting area of high interest for collaboration with external researchers. This article describes the process for identifying these scientific interest areas and highlights funded and unfunded opportunities for external researchers to work with FDA staff on critical regulatory science challenges.

A novel approach for personalized response model: deep learning with individual dropout feature ranking.

Deep learning is the fastest growing field in artificial intelligence and has led to many transformative innovations in various domains. However, lack of interpretability sometimes hinders its application in hypothesis-driven domains such as biology and healthcare. In this paper, we propose a novel deep learning model with individual feature ranking. Several simulated datasets with the scenarios that contributing features are correlated and buried among non-contributing features were used to characterize the novel analysis approach. A publicly available clinical dataset was also applied. The performance of the individual level dropout feature ranking model was compared with commonly used artificial neural network model, random forest model, and population level dropout feature ranking model. The individual level dropout feature ranking model provides a reasonable prediction of the outcomes. Unlike the random forest model and population level dropout feature ranking model, which can only identify global-wise contributing features (i.e., at population level), the individual level dropout feature ranking model allows further identification of impactful features on response at individual level. Therefore, it provides a basis for clustering patients into subgroups. This may provide a new tool for enriching patients in clinical drug development and developing personalized or individualized medicine.

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.

FDA Approval Summary: Enfortumab Vedotin for Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

On December 18, 2019, the FDA granted accelerated approval to enfortumab vedotin-ejfv (PADCEV; Astellas and Seattle Genetics) for treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer who have previously received a programmed cell death protein 1 or programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor, and a platinum-containing chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant/adjuvant, locally advanced or metastatic setting. Substantial evidence of effectiveness for this application is obtained from Cohort 1 of the single-arm, multicenter Study EV-201. Patients received enfortumab vedotin (EV) 1.25 mg/kg (up to a maximum dose of 125 mg) intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Confirmed objective response rate in the 125-patient efficacy population determined by blinded independent central review was 44% [95% confidence interval (CI), 35.1-53.2], with complete responses in 12%. Median response duration was 7.6 months (95% CI, 6.3-not estimable). Grade 3-4 adverse reactions occurred in 73% of patients. Hyperglycemia, peripheral neuropathy, ocular disorders, skin reactions, infusion site extravasations, and embryo-fetal toxicity are labeled as warnings and precautions for EV. The article summarizes the data and the FDA thought process supporting accelerated approval of EV. This approval may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trial(s).

FDA Approval Summary: Tucatinib for the Treatment of Patients with Advanced or Metastatic HER2-positive Breast Cancer.

On April 17, 2020, the FDA approved tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for the treatment of patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer, including patients with brain metastases, who have received one or more prior anti-HER2-based regimens in the metastatic setting. This was the first new molecular entity evaluated under Project Orbis, an FDA Oncology Center of Excellence initiative, which supports concurrent review of oncology drugs by multiple global health authorities. Approval was based on the HER2CLIMB trial, which randomized patients to receive tucatinib or placebo with trastuzumab and capecitabine. Tucatinib demonstrated efficacy compared with placebo in progression-free survival [PFS; HR: 0.54; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.42-0.71; P < 0.00001] and overall survival (OS; HR: 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50-0.87; P = 0.00480). Patients with either treated and stable or active brain metastases made up 48% of the study population. PFS in patients with brain metastases confirmed benefit (HR: 0.48; 95% CI, 0.34-0.69; P < 0.00001). The benefit in patients with brain metastases allowed for inclusion of this specific population in the indication. Important safety signals included diarrhea and hepatotoxicity which are listed under Warnings and Precautions. This article summarizes the FDA thought process and data supporting the favorable benefit-risk profile and approval of tucatinib.

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.

FDA Approval Summary: Alpelisib Plus Fulvestrant for Patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative, PIK3CA-mutated, Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer.

On May 24, 2019, the FDA granted regular approval to alpelisib in combination with fulvestrant for postmenopausal women, and men, with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative, phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA)-mutated, advanced or metastatic breast cancer as detected by an FDA-approved test following progression on or after an endocrine-based regimen. Approval was based on the SOLAR-1 study, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of alpelisib plus fulvestrant versus placebo plus fulvestrant. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1 in the cohort of trial participants whose tumors had a PIK3CA mutation. The estimated median PFS by investigator assessment in the alpelisib plus fulvestrant arm was 11 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 7.5-14.5] compared with 5.7 months (95% CI, 3.7-7.4) in the placebo plus fulvestrant arm (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.50-0.85; two-sided P = 0.001). The median overall survival was not yet reached for the alpelisib plus fulvestrant arm (95% CI, 28.1-NE) and was 26.9 months (95% CI, 21.9-NE) for the fulvestrant control arm. No PFS benefit was observed in trial participants whose tumors did not have a PIK3CA mutation (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.58-1.25). The most common adverse reactions, including laboratory abnormalities, on the alpelisib plus fulvestrant arm were increased glucose, increased creatinine, diarrhea, rash, decreased lymphocyte count, increased gamma glutamyl transferase, nausea, increased alanine aminotransferase, fatigue, decreased hemoglobin, increased lipase, decreased appetite, stomatitis, vomiting, decreased weight, decreased calcium, decreased glucose, prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time, and alopecia.

FDA Approval Summary: Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab, and Hyaluronidase-zzxf Injection for Subcutaneous Use in Patients with HER2-positive Breast Cancer.

On June 29, 2020, the FDA approved pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and hyaluronidase-zzxf subcutaneous injection (Phesgo) for the treatment of patients with HER2-positive early-stage and metastatic breast cancer. Patients should be selected for therapy based on an FDA-approved companion diagnostic test. Approval was primarily based on the FeDeriCa trial, a randomized, open-label, multicenter comparability study of pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and hyaluronidase-zzxf subcutaneous injection compared with intravenous pertuzumab and intravenous trastuzumab administered in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings with chemotherapy for the treatment of patients with early breast cancer. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were, first, to demonstrate that the exposure of subcutaneous pertuzumab was not inferior to that of intravenous pertuzumab, and then to demonstrate that the exposure of subcutaneous trastuzumab was not inferior to that of intravenous trastuzumab. The primary endpoints were met with the observed lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence intervals above the prespecified noninferiority margins. The most common adverse reactions were alopecia, nausea, diarrhea, anemia, and asthenia. The totality of the evidence demonstrated comparability of the subcutaneous product to intravenous, allowing for extrapolation and approval of all breast cancer indications for which intravenous trastuzumab and pertuzumab are approved.

Reducing Uninformative IND Safety Reports: A List of Serious Adverse Events anticipated to Occur in Patients with Lung Cancer.

Expedited reporting of unexpected serious adverse reactions that occur during clinical trials conducted under an IND is a critical component of the clinical trial process designed to protect patients by identifying potential safety issues with new agents. However, in recent years, the US FDA has presented extensive data about the problem of uninformative IND safety reporting. Despite published guidance documents aimed at clarifying requirements for submission of IND safety reports for individual events, there continues to be significant over-reporting of these events by many sponsors. This leads to excessive burden for the sponsors, the investigators who conduct clinical trials, and the FDA reviewers, who must evaluate each individual report submitted by the sponsor. This trend has the potential to endanger patients by obscuring true safety signals. To address this problem, LUNGevity Foundation empaneled a multi-sector working group of its Scientific and Clinical Research Roundtable (SCRT) charged with identifying ways to reduce unnecessary distribution of serious adverse events (SAEs) reports. This paper outlines the working group's activities, including a brief list of serious adverse events "anticipated" to occur within the lung cancer population that are either related to the underlying disease or condition being studied, concomitant or background therapy, or events associated with a demographic parameter such as age. These "anticipated" events, while required to be reported by investigators to sponsors, in general, should not then be individually reported by sponsors to FDA and to individual investigators in an IND safety report because these events require aggregate analysis across the development program to determine if they occur more frequently in treated versus untreated patients. This paper also includes discussion of how the use of background threshold values, generated from real-world data, could serve as one potential tool to guide sponsors in making causality assessments. If sponsors and other key stakeholders within the clinical research ecosystem embrace this type of approach and refrain from reporting "anticipated" events as single IND safety reports to the FDA staff and to each participating investigator, it could significantly reduce the amount of unnecessary reporting and serve as a model for other disease areas.

Tuning the Wettability of Metal-Organic Frameworks via Defect Engineering for Efficient Oil/Water Separation.

Zirconium-based metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) have attracted interest due to their chemical and thermal stabilities and structural tunability. In this work, we demonstrate the tuning of the wettability of a UiO-66 structure via defect-engineering for efficient oil/water separation. UiO-66 crystals with controlled levels of missing-linker defects were synthesized using a modulation approach. As a result, the hydrophilicity of the defect-engineered UiO-66 (d-UiO-66) can be varied. In addition, a thin layer of hydrophilic d-UiO-66 was successfully fabricated on a series of stainless steel meshes (d-UiO-66@mesh), which exhibited excellent superhydrophilic and underwater superoleophobic properties and displayed interesting separation performance for various oil/water mixtures.

An Analysis of Recent FDA Oncology Scientific Publications.

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

FDA Approval Summary: Atezolizumab Plus Paclitaxel Protein-bound for the Treatment of Patients with Advanced or Metastatic TNBC Whose Tumors Express PD-L1.

On March 8, 2019, the FDA granted accelerated approval to atezolizumab in combination with paclitaxel protein-bound for the treatment of adult patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) whose tumors express PD-L1 [PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC) of any intensity covering ≥1% of the tumor area], as determined by an FDA-approved test. Approval was based on data from IMpassion130, which randomized patients to receive atezolizumab or placebo in combination with paclitaxel protein-bound. Investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1-positive populations were coprimary endpoints. After 13-month median follow-up, the estimated median PFS in the PD-L1-positive population was 7.4 months in the atezolizumab arm and 4.8 months in the placebo arm [HR = 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.48-0.77]. Overall survival (OS) results were immature with 43% deaths in the ITT population, representing 59% of the OS events required to perform the final OS analysis. Adverse reactions occurring in ≥20% of patients receiving atezolizumab with paclitaxel protein-bound were alopecia, peripheral neuropathies, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, anemia, constipation, cough, headache, neutropenia, vomiting, and decreased appetite. Accelerated approval was appropriate taking into account the unmet medical need along with the immaturity of the OS results and potential for PFS in the PD-L1-expressing population to predict clinical benefit.