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

In 2020, the FDA'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 article reflects on the experiences of four alumni, showcasing the program's transformative impact across diverse oncology career paths in government, academia, and industry.

A Pooled Analysis of Treatment-Free Survival in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: A clinically meaningful attribute of some immune-oncology (IO) regimens is potential durable clinical benefit during a treatment-free interval. We characterize treatment-free survival (TFS) with and without ongoing toxicity in trials of frontline IO-VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) combinations in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Individual patient data were pooled by treatment arm from randomized trials submitted to the FDA evaluating IO-TKI combination in treatment-naïve aRCC with at least 30 months of median follow-up. OS, TFS, TFS with and without toxicity, and time to all protocol therapy cessation were assessed. TFS was estimated by 30-month restricted mean times, defined as area between Kaplan-Meier curves for two time-to-event endpoints originating at randomization: time to all protocol therapy cessation and time to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death. RESULTS: Three trials met criteria for analysis; 1,183 patients received IO-TKI versus 1,184 on control arms receiving TKI alone (sunitinib, SUN). IO-TKI and SUN groups spent 9% {2.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.8-3.5]} and 10% [2.9 months (95% CI, 2.1-3.8)] of the 30-month period alive and treatment-free, respectively. Mean TFS without grade ≥3 toxicity was 1.7 and 2.3 months in IO-TKI and SUN groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc partitioned survival analysis, TFS and TFS without toxicity appeared similar in the IO-TKI group compared with the SUN group. These findings may reflect contin-uation of TKI until progression per protocol design in all trials and discontinuation of IO after 2 years in two trials. See related commentary by Stadler and Karrison, p. 3098.

FDA Oncology Center of Excellence Crowdsourcing Initiative: Outreach to the Scientific Community to Identify Research Questions for Pooled Analyses of Oncology Clinical Trial Data.

The FDA Oncology Center of Excellence recently launched a crowdsourcing pilot to request ideas from the scientific community for research questions that FDA could address with pooled analyses of clinical trial data submitted to the agency for regulatory purposes. This effort builds on FDA's track record of publishing pooled analyses to explore scientific questions that cannot be addressed in a single trial due to limited sample size. The research crowdsourcing pilot tested a new approach for obtaining external input on regulatory science activities, because FDA is generally unable to share patient-level data outside of the agency due to federal disclosure laws and regulations protecting different types of data submitted in regulatory applications. We received 29 submissions over the 28-day crowdsourcing campaign, including one research idea that we are exploring for possible follow-up. Based on our experience with this pilot, we learned that crowdsourcing is a promising new approach to gather external input and feedback. We identified opportunities to build understanding in the external oncology community about the types of data typically included in regulatory applications and expand the dissemination of published FDA pooled analyses to help inform future drug development and clinical practice.

The Association Between Baseline Hepatic or Renal Function and Clinical Outcomes for Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated With a PD-1/PD-L1 Blocking Antibody Using Real-World and Trial Data.

Clinical trials have demonstrated the benefit of PD-1/PD-L1 blocking antibodies for the treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in defined patient populations that often exclude patients with moderate or severe hepatic or renal impairment. We assessed the association between overall survival (OS) and baseline organ function in patients with advanced NSCLC treated with PD-1/PD-L1 blocking antibodies in real-world data (RWD; patient-level data from electronic health records) and pooled clinical trial data submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Kaplan-Meier estimator was used to estimate OS in different subgroups based on organ function. Unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the association between OS and organ function. In this hypothesis-generating study, baseline renal impairment did not appear to be associated with OS, while patients with baseline liver impairment had shorter OS. RWD provided information on a broader range of renal and hepatic function than was evaluated in clinical trials and hold promise to complement trial data in better understanding populations not represented in clinical trials.

Improving Dose-Optimization Processes Used in Oncology Drug Development to Minimize Toxicity and Maximize Benefit to Patients.

This review highlights strategies to integrate dose optimization into premarketing drug development and discusses the underlying statistical principles. Poor dose optimization can have negative consequences for patients, most commonly because of toxicity, including poor quality of life, reduced effectiveness because of inability of patients to stay on current therapy or receive subsequent therapy because of toxicities, and difficulty in developing combination regimens. We reviewed US Food and Drug Administration initial approvals (2019-2021) of small molecules and antibody-drug conjugates for oncologic indications to determine the proportion with a recommended dosage at the maximum tolerated dose or the maximal administered dose, to characterize the use of randomized evaluations of multiple dosages in dose selection, to describe the frequency of dose modifications at the recommended dosage, and to identify case examples that highlight key principles for premarket dose optimization during drug development. Herein, we highlight major principles for dose optimization and review examples of recent US Food and Drug Administration approvals that illustrate how investigation of dose- and exposure-response relationships and use of randomized dose trials can support dose optimization. Although there has been some progress, dose optimization through randomized dose evaluation in oncology trials is not routinely conducted. Dose optimization is essential to ensure that patients receive therapies which maximize efficacy while minimizing toxicity.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Subgroup Analyses in Oncology Trials: Regulatory Considerations and Case Examples.

Subgroup analyses are assessments of treatment effects based on certain patient characteristics out of the total study population and are important for interpretation of pivotal oncology trials. However, appropriate use of subgroup analyses results for regulatory decision-making and product labeling is challenging. Typically, drugs approved by the FDA are indicated for use in the total patient population studied; however, there are examples of restriction to a subgroup of patients despite positive study results in the entire study population and also extension of an indication to the entire study population despite positive results appearing primarily in one or more subgroups. In this article, we summarize key issues related to subgroup analyses in the benefit-risk assessment of cancer drugs and provide case examples to illustrate approaches that the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence has taken when considering the appropriate patient population for cancer drug approval. In general, if a subgroup is of interest, the subgroup analysis should be hypothesis-driven and have adequate sample size to demonstrate evidence of a treatment effect. In addition to statistical efficacy considerations, the decision on what subgroups to include in labeling relies on the pathophysiology of the disease, mechanistic justification, safety data, and external information available. The oncology drug review takes the totality of the data into consideration during the decision-making process to ensure the indication granted and product labeling appropriately reflect the scientific evidence to support patient population for whom the drug is safe and effective.

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.

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.

Neoadjuvant Therapy for Melanoma: A U.S. Food and Drug Administration-Melanoma Research Alliance Public Workshop.

Tremendous progress has been made in treating patients with metastatic melanoma over the past decade. In that timeframe, the FDA has approved 12 novel treatments for patients with advanced unresectable melanoma, comprising both kinase-targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), and five treatments for adjuvant (postoperative) use in patients with high-risk resectable stage III melanoma. It is not known whether outcomes can be further improved by administering kinase inhibitors or ICI in the neoadjuvant (presurgical) setting in patients with high-risk resectable melanomas. Noting research community interest in exploring the neoadjuvant approach for treating melanoma and recognizing that early harmonization of methodologies may expedite the development of therapeutics in this space, the FDA and Melanoma Research Alliance convened a public workshop on November 6, 2019, in National Harbor, Maryland, to discuss key issues. The workshop consisted of 23 faculty and included more than 250 live participants. Topics discussed included opportunities for advancing novel endpoints for regulatory purposes as well as translational research, clinical trial design considerations, and strategies for optimizing patient selection while mitigating risk.

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.

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.

Regulatory Considerations for Contribution of Effect of Drugs Used in Combination Regimens: Renal Cell Cancer Case Studies.

The development and review of combination drug regimens in oncology may present unique challenges to investigators and regulators. For regulatory approval of combination regimens, it is necessary to demonstrate the contribution of effect of each monotherapy to the overall combination. Alternative approaches to traditional designs may be needed to accelerate oncology drug development, for example, when combinations are substantially superior to available therapy, to reduce exposure to less effective therapies, and for drugs that are inactive as single agents and that in combination potentiate activity of another drug. These approaches include demonstration of activity in smaller randomized trials and/or monotherapy trials conducted in a similar disease setting. This article will discuss alternative approaches used in the development of approved drugs in combination, based on examples of recent approvals of combination regimens in renal cell carcinoma.

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.

An Empirical Investigation of Bayesian Clinical Trial Design in Metastatic Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Over the past 20 years, there has been increasing interest in the use of Bayesian statistical methods for the analysis of clinical trials used to support regulatory decisions. Bayesian methods for the analysis of clinical trials are an attractive option when good prior information is available. Yet, in many cases, prior information is scarce and only tentative or proprietary prior information exists. In these situations, it is necessary to use noninformative type or skeptical-type priors. METHODS: We undertook a systematic study of Bayesian methods and applied them to 13 randomized clinical trials in metastatic breast cancer submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for registrational purposes. Across all 13 studies, there were a total of 10,521 patients using 10 experimental agents. RESULTS: Our results demonstrated that Bayesian analyses with noninformative priors provided similar results to more traditional analyses. We also found that early interim looks at the study results can vary widely based upon the type of prior used. Finally, we found that pre-defined threshold stopping rules need to be relatively strong to prevent trials from stopping very early. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that, when prior information is limited and a noninformative prior is used, there is little numerical difference between Bayesian methods and more traditional analysis methods. Bayesian methods, however, may provide additional summaries of the data that are more easily interpretable than means and confidence intervals.

Differentiation Syndrome with Ivosidenib and Enasidenib Treatment in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory IDH-Mutated AML: A U.S. Food and Drug Administration Systematic Analysis.

PURPOSE: Differentiation syndrome (DS) is a serious adverse reaction of isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) inhibitors ivosidenib and enasidenib in patients with (IDH)1- and IDH2-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML), respectively. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: During FDA review of marketing applications for ivosidenib and enasidenib, data from pivotal trials were queried to identify cases of DS in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) AML. One hundred seventy-nine patients with R/R AML received ivosidenib and 214 received enasidenib. Adverse events, labs, and vital signs in the first 90 days of treatment were screened per diagnostic criteria, and narratives were reviewed to adjudicate DS cases. RESULTS: We identified 72 of 179 (40%) potential cases for ivosidenib and 86 of 214 (40%) for enasidenib; 34 of 179 (19%) and 41 of 214 (19%) were adjudicated as DS. Leukocytosis was present in 79% and 61% of cases, respectively. Median (range) time to onset was 20 (1-78) and 19 (1-86) days. Grade ≥ 3 adverse reactions occurred in 68% and 66%; 6% and 5% were fatal. Univariate analyses suggested baseline bone marrow blasts ≥ 48% and peripheral blood blasts ≥ 25% and 15% for ivosidenib and enasidenib, respectively, were associated with increased risk of DS. Complete remission (CR) + CR with partial hematologic recovery rates were lower in patients with versus without DS [ivosidenib 18% (95% confidence interval, 7%-35%) vs. 36% (28%-45%); enasidenib 18% (7%-33%) vs. 25% (18%-32%)]. CONCLUSIONS: DS is a common and potentially fatal adverse reaction of IDH inhibitors, and use of standardized diagnostic criteria may aid in earlier diagnosis and treatment.See related commentary by Zeidner, p. 4174.

FDA Approval Summary: Pembrolizumab plus Lenvatinib for Endometrial Carcinoma, a Collaborative International Review under Project Orbis.

On September 17, 2019, FDA granted accelerated approval to pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib for the treatment of patients with advanced endometrial carcinoma that is not microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) or mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) and who have disease progression following prior systemic therapy but are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation. The submission and review of this application was conducted through an FDA Oncology Center of Excellence initiative named Project Orbis whereby the FDA, the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration, and Health Canada were able to simultaneously review and collaborate, rendering simultaneous approval decisions in all countries. Accelerated approval of the pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib combination was based on a single-arm trial of 94 patients, with previously treated metastatic endometrial cancer whose tumors were not MSI-H/dMMR. Efficacy was demonstrated on the basis of an objective response rate of 38.3% (95% confidence interval, 28.5%-48.9%) with 10 complete responses (10.6%) accompanied by supportive durations of response. Trials to confirm clinical benefit of this combination are ongoing. Here, we summarize the benefit-risk analysis supporting accelerated approval of the pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib combination and describe the methodology for the first Project Orbis review.