Health-related quality of life in trials with high rates of early censoring: Caution advised.

Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data are central to capturing the quality of patients' life, while endpoints like overall survival (OS) focus on the quantity of life. When analyzing HRQoL data gathered from patients in a randomized trial, a key consideration is the completion rate - indicating the proportion of patients remaining in the trial and with completed questionnaires. When completion rates are disproportionately low in one treatment arm, one likely explanation is that patients who did not complete questionnaires suffered more from toxicities, negatively impacting their HRQoL. This is likely the case when low completion rates occur in the more toxic arm within a randomized trial. If the HRQoL analysis is run as a complete-case analysis - only considering patients without missing data - a decrement in HRQoL can be missed. Conversely, when completion rates are high, the HRQoL data are thought to be more reliable, and informative censoring is less likely. We describe why this reasoning can be inadequate. In trials where high and imbalanced rates of early censoring affect progression-free survival or OS endpoints, the completion rates only apply to the fraction of patients remaining in the trial. In those, HRQoL results should be considered with caution, and reasons for censoring in the primary time-to-event analyses should be explored before making definite conclusions about HRQoL. This is even more relevant in trials with non-inferiority design, where a benefit in HRQoL could be used as a justification to modify practice.

Assessing patient risk, benefit, and outcomes in drug development: A decade of ramucirumab clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate published clinical trials of ramucirumab to assess the risk/benefit profile and burden over time for patients. BACKGROUND: The burden of oncologic drug development on patients paired with increasing clinical trial failure rates emphasizes the need for reform of drug development. Identifying and addressing patterns of excess burden can guide policy, ensure evidence-based protections for trial participants, and improve medical decision-making. METHODS: On May 25, 2023 a literature search was performed on Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for clinical trials using ramucirumab as monotherapy or in combination with other interventions for cancer treatment. Authors screened titles and abstracts for potential inclusion in a masked, duplicate fashion. Following data screening, data was extracted in a masked, duplicate fashion. Trials were classified as positive when meeting their primary endpoint and safety, negative or indeterminate. RESULTS: Ramucirumab was initially approved for gastric cancer but has since been tested in 20 cancers outside of its FDA approved indications. In our analysis of ramucirumab trials, there were a total of 10,936 participants and 10,303 adverse events reported. Gains in overall survival and progression-free survival for patients were 1.5 and 1.2 months, respectively. FDA-approved indications have reported more positive outcomes in comparison to off-label indications. CONCLUSION: We found that FDA-approved indications for ramucirumab had better efficacy outcomes than non-approved indications. However, a concerning number of adverse events were observed across all trials assessed. Participants in ramucirumab randomized controlled trials saw meager gains in overall survival when evaluated against a comparison group. Clinicians should carefully weigh the risks associated with ramucirumab therapy given its toxicity burden and poor survival gains.

Dual Checkpoint Inhibition in Melanoma With ≥1% PD-L1-Time to Reassess the Evidence.

This Viewpoint discusses use of anti­PD-1 monotherapy as the primary treatment option for patients with treatment-naive metastatic melanoma staining positive for PD-L1 over dual checkpoint inhibition therapy.

Neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab in melanoma: time biases in the data analysis of the SWOG S1801 trial.

The SWOG S1801 trial investigated the role of pembrolizumab, an anti-PD1 immune checkpoint inhibitor, in the perioperative setting of stage III or IV melanoma. This phase 2 trial compared two groups: one receiving pembrolizumab both before and after surgery (neoadjuvant-adjuvant), and another receiving it only post-surgery (adjuvant-only), with event-free survival (EFS) as the primary endpoint. Neoadjuvant strategies, involving pre-surgical drug administration, potentially offer rapid tumor control and a unique opportunity to assess tumor response. However, they may expose to toxicity and delay or preclude surgery. The study met its primary endpoint, with a 72 % EFS rate in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group, and 49 % in the adjuvant group. Here, we question the results' applicability with three potential limitations. Key concerns include an arbitrary rule in event assignment, possibly affecting the event distribution over time. Second, different rates of early censoring between groups introduce the possibility of informative censoring, which could have led to an artefactual benefit in EFS. Lastly, phase 2 trial results, by definition, carry risk of fluke results, and should be confirmed in phase 3 trial before wide adoption. Collectively, these factors must be integrated into a careful interpretation of the SWOG S1801 trial outcomes. More robust data are needed to fully appraise strengths and limitations of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab in melanoma treatment.

An empirical analysis of overall survival in drug approvals by the US FDA (2006-2023).

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the use of surrogate markers in drugs approved for oncology/hematology indications. This has likely resulted in a greater number of approvals and possibly drugs coming to market faster, but it is unknown whether these drugs also improve overall survival (OS) for patients taking them. METHODS: We sought to estimate the percentage of oncology drugs that have shown to improve OS in a cross-sectional analysis of US FDA oncology drug approvals (2006-2023). We searched for OS data in registration trials and the peer-reviewed literature. RESULTS: We found 392 oncology drug approvals. Eighty-seven (22%) drug approvals were based on OS, 147 drug approvals were later tested for OS benefit (38% of all approvals and 48% of drugs approved on a surrogate), and 130 (33%) have yet to be tested for OS benefit. Of the 147 drug approvals later tested for OS, 109 (28% of all approvals and 74% of drugs later tested for OS) have yet to show OS benefit, whereas 38 (10% of all approvals and 26% of drugs later tested for OS benefit) were later shown to have OS benefit. In total, 125 out of 392 (32%) drugs approved for any indication have been shown to improve OS benefit at some point, and 267 (68%) have yet to show approval. CONCLUSION: About 32% of all oncology drug approvals have evidence for an improvement in OS. Higher standards are needed in drug regulation to ensure that approved drugs are delivering better patient outcomes, specifically in regards to survival.

Protocol to identify biomarkers in patients with post-COVID condition using multi-omics and machine learning analysis of human plasma.

Here, we present a workflow for analyzing multi-omics data of plasma samples in patients with post-COVID condition (PCC). Applicable to various diseases, we outline steps for data preprocessing and integrating diverse assay datasets. Then, we detail statistical analysis to unveil plasma profile changes and identify biomarker-clinical variable associations. The last two steps discuss machine learning techniques for unsupervised clustering of patients based on their inherent molecular similarities and feature selection to identify predictive biomarkers. For complete details on the use and execution of this protocol, please refer to Wang et al.1.

COVID-19 vaccines: history of the pandemic's great scientific success and flawed policy implementation.

The COVID-19 vaccine has been a miraculous, life-saving advance, offering staggering efficacy in adults, and was developed with astonishing speed. The time from sequencing the virus to authorizing the first COVID-19 vaccine was so brisk even the optimists appear close-minded. Yet, simultaneously, United States' COVID-19 vaccination roll-out and related policies have contained missed opportunities, errors, run counter to evidence-based medicine, and revealed limitations in the judgment of public policymakers. Misplaced utilization, contradictory messaging, and poor deployment in those who would benefit most-the elderly and high-risk-alongside unrealistic messaging, exaggeration, and coercion in those who benefit least-young, healthy Americans-is at the heart. It is important to consider the history of COVID-19 vaccines to identify where we succeeded and where we failed, and the effects that these errors may have more broadly on vaccination hesitancy and routine childhood immunization programs in the decades to come.

Cardiovascular/anti-inflammatory drugs repurposed for treating or preventing cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Due to encouraging pre-clinical data and supportive observational studies, there has been growing interest in applying cardiovascular drugs (including aspirin, angiotensin-converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitors, statins, and metformin) approved to treat diseases such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus to the field of oncology. Moreover, given growing costs with cancer care, these medications have offered a potentially more affordable avenue to treat or prevent recurrence of cancer. We sought to investigate the anti-cancer effects of drugs repurposed from cardiology or anti-inflammatories to treat cancer. We specifically evaluated the following drug classes: HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins), cyclo-oxygenase inhibitors, aspirin, metformin, and both angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. We also included non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) because they exert a similar mechanism to aspirin by blocking prostaglandins and reducing inflammation that is thought to promote the development of cancer. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review using PubMed and Web of Science with search terms including "aspirin," "NSAID," "statin" (including specific statin drug names), "metformin," "ACE inhibitors," and "ARBs" (including specific anti-hypertensive drug names) in combination with "cancer." Searches were limited to human studies published between 2000 and 2023. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The number and percentage of studies reported positive results and pooled estimates of overall survival, progression-free survival, response, and disease-free survival. RESULTS: We reviewed 3094 titles and included 67 randomized clinical trials. The most common drugs that were tested were metformin (n = 21; 30.9%), celecoxib (n = 20; 29.4%), and simvastatin (n = 8; 11.8%). There was only one study that tested cardiac glycosides and none that studied ACE inhibitors. The most common tumor types were non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 19; 27.9%); breast (n = 8; 20.6%), colorectal (n = 7; 10.3%), and hepatocellular (n = 6; 8.8%). Most studies were conducted in a phase II trial (n = 38; 55.9%). Most studies were tested in metastatic cancers (n = 49; 72.1%) and in the first-line setting (n = 36; 521.9%). Four studies (5.9%) were stopped early because of difficulty with accrual. The majority of studies did not demonstrate an improvement in either progression-free survival (86.1% of studies testing progression-free survival) or in overall survival (94.3% of studies testing overall survival). Progression-free survival was improved in five studies (7.4%), and overall survival was improved in three studies (4.4%). Overall survival was significantly worse in two studies (3.8% of studies testing overall survival), and progression-free survival was worse in one study (2.8% of studies testing progression-free survival). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Despite promising pre-clinical and population-based data, cardiovascular drugs and anti-inflammatory medications have overall not demonstrated benefit in the treatment or preventing recurrence of cancer. These findings may help guide future potential clinical trials involving these medications when applied in oncology.

Progression-free survival estimates are shaped by specific censoring rules: Implications for PFS as an endpoint in cancer randomized trials.

Kaplan-Meier analysis hinges on the assumption that patients who are censored- lost to follow-up, or only recently enrolled on the study- are no different, on average, than patients who are followed. As such, censoring these patients- omitting their future information and taking the average of those who were followed- should not dramatically change the overall estimate. Yet, in a recent clinical trial, two sets of censoring rules- one favored by trialists and one favored by the US Food and Drug Administration- were applied to a progression-free survival (PFS) estimate. In response, the PFS estimate changed dramatically, increasing the median in the experimental arm from 32 to 43 months, while the control arm was essentially unchanged. In this commentary, we explore the reasons why PFS changed so dramatically. We provide a broad overview of censoring in oncology clinical trials, and suggestions to ensure that PFS is a more reliable endpoint.

Assessing Patient Risk, Benefit, and Outcomes in Drug Development: A Decade of Lenvatinib Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review.

IMPORTANCE: Chemotherapy agents are typically initially tested in their most promising indications; however, following initial US FDA approval, new clinical trials are often initiated in less promising indications where patients experience a worse burden-benefit ratio. The current literature on the burden-benefit profile of lenvatinib in non-FDA-approved indications is lacking. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate published clinical trials of lenvatinib in order to determine the burden-benefit profile for patients over time. EVIDENCE REVIEW: On 25 May 2023, we searched the Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for clinical trials of lenvatinib used to treat solid cancers. Eligible articles were clinical trials, containing adult participants, published in English, and involving solid tumors. Screening and data collection took place in a masked, duplicate fashion. For each eligible study, we collected adverse event data, trial characteristics, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR). Trials were classified as positive when meeting their primary endpoint and safety, negative (not meeting either criteria), or indeterminate (lacking prespecified primary endpoint). FINDINGS: Expansion of clinical trial testing beyond lenvatinib's initial FDA indication demonstrated a consistent rise in cumulative adverse events, along with a decline in drug efficacy. Lenvatinib was tested in 16 cancer indications, receiving FDA approval in 4. A total of 5390 Grade 3-5 adverse events were experienced across 6225 clinical trial participants. Expanded indication testing further demonstrated widely variable ORR (11-69%), OS (6.2-32 months), and PFS (3.6-15.7 months) across all indications. After initial FDA approval, clinical trial results in expanded indications were less likely to meet their primary endpoints, particularly among non-randomized clinical trials. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Our paper evaluated the effectiveness of lenvatinib for its FDA-approved indications; however, expansion of clinical trials into novel indications was characterized by diminished efficacy, while patients experienced a high burden of adverse events consistent with lenvatinib's established safety profile. Furthermore, clinical trials testing in novel indications was marked by repeated phase I and II clinical trials along with a failure to progress to phase III clinical trials. Future clinical trials using lenvatinib as an intervention should carefully evaluate the potential benefits and burden patients may experience.

Justification for unequal allocation ratios in clinical trials: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to provide an overview of the justification reported for using unequal allocation ratios in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) testing a medical intervention. METHODS: Using the PICOS framework, we conducted a systematic search to find meta-studies within PubMed (a Medline database interface) that addressed the objective. RESULTS: The developed search strategy generated 525 results, of which, three studies met criteria for inclusion. These studies found that 22-43% of RCTs provided a justification for the use of unequal allocation based on publication alone, and between 38.7 and 66% after seeking input from trial authors. The most common reason given for this design was to gather increased safety data according to two reviews and to gain experience with an intervention according to the third review. CONCLUSION: Reporting of justification for RCTs designed with unequal allocation appears to occur less than half the time in the included studies. The reasons given for designing clinical trials with unequal participants encompass many domains, including ethical considerations. As such, this design feature should be implemented with intentionality to maximize the ethical features of clinical trials for participants. Coupling lack of justification with lack of adjusting for sample size estimations depicts an overall landscape in which there is significant room for improvement in methodological transparency within this area of RCTs.

The Overall Survival Benefit in EV-302: Is Enfortumab Vedotin plus Pembrolizumab the New Frontline Standard of Care for Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma?

Recent findings reported for the phase 3 EV-302 trial indicate a survival benefit from enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in metastatic urothelial carcinoma. We discuss several key points regarding post-protocol therapies, extending the duration of therapy, toxicity, and costs, all of which may have a bearing on how physicians and patients balance the benefit against the potential harms associated with this regimen.

Equal censoring but still informative: When the reasons for censoring differ between treatment arms.

In randomized controlled trials, informative censoring has been described as a potential bias, mainly affecting time-to-event composite endpoints, like progression-free survival (PFS). It is usually suspected in the presence of unequal attrition rates between arms. Early censoring occurs for different reasons: patients may withdraw from a trial because of toxicity, or because of disappointment with their allocation arm. If censoring is more frequent in one arm due to increased toxicity, this removes the frailest individuals and introduces a bias favoring this arm. Conversely, patients who withdraw because of disappointment of their allocation arm may be more affluent and healthy patients, who will seek treatment options outside the protocol. In trials with one treatment arm presenting higher toxicity rates, and the other arm potentially leading to patient disappointment, censoring can occur for different reasons in each arm however with the same rates. We modeled this hypothesis in a randomized controlled trial where modifying only 15% of censored patients' fate in each arm at early time-points made the PFS gain fade. Equal censoring but for different reasons is a hitherto unexplored form of informative censoring with potentially large implications across the cancer clinical trials landscape.

Financial conflicts of interest among presenters, panellists and moderators at haematology and oncology FDA workshops.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the characteristics and financial conflicts of interest of presenters, panellists and moderators at haematology and oncology workshops held jointly with or hosted by the US FDA. SETTING: We included information on all publicly available haematology or oncology FDA workshop agendas held between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2022. EXPOSURE: General and research payments reported on Open Payments, industry funding to patient advocacy organizations reported on their webpages or 990 tax forms and employment in both pharmaceutical and regulatory settings. RESULTS: Among physicians eligible for payments, 78% received at least one payment from the industry between 2017 and 2021. The mean general payment amount was $82,170 for all years ($16,434 per year) and the median was $14,906 for all years ($2981 per year). Sixty-nine per cent of patient advocacy speakers were representing organizations that received financial support from the pharmaceutical industry. Among those representing regulatory agencies or pharmaceutical companies, 16% had worked in both settings during their careers. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our findings in this cross-sectional study show a majority of US-based physician presenters at haematology and oncology workshops held jointly with members of the US FDA have some financial conflict of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. These findings support the need for clear disclosures and suggest that a more balanced selection of presenters with fewer conflicts may help to limit bias in discussions between multiple stakeholders.

The importance of falsification endpoints in observational studies of vaccination to prevent severe disease: A critique of a harm-benefit analysis of BNT162b2 vaccination of 5- to 11-year-olds.

We explore one systematic review and meta-analysis of both observational and randomized studies examining COVID-19 vaccines in 5- to 11-year-olds, which reported substantial benefits associated with vaccinating this age group. We discuss the limitations of the individual studies that were used to estimate vaccination benefits. The review included five observational studies that evaluated vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 severe disease or hospitalization. All five studies failed to adequately assess differences in underlying health between vaccination groups. In terms of vaccination harms, looking only at the randomized studies, a significantly higher odds of adverse events was identified among the vaccinated compared with the unvaccinated. Observational studies are at risk of overestimating the effectiveness of vaccines against severe disease if healthy vaccinee bias is present. Falsification endpoints can provide valuable information about underlying healthy vaccinee bias. Studies that have not adequately ruled out bias due to better health among the vaccinated or more vaccinated should be viewed as unreliable for estimating the VE of COVID-19 vaccination against severe disease and mortality. Existing systematic reviews that include observational studies of the COVID-19 vaccine in children may have overstated or falsely inferred vaccine benefits due to unidentified or undisclosed healthy vaccinee bias.