Clinical benefit, reimbursement outcomes, and prices of FDA-approved cancer drugs reviewed through Project Orbis in the USA, Canada, England, and Scotland: a retrospective, comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Project Orbis is a global initiative that aims to streamline regulatory review processes across international regulators in the USA, Canada, Australia, UK, Israel, Brazil, Singapore, and Switzerland to bring promising cancer drugs to patients earlier. We explored the clinical benefit, time to regulatory approval and health technology assessment recommendations, reimbursement outcomes, and monthly treatment prices of cancer drugs reviewed through this initiative. METHODS: For this retrospective, comparative analysis, we identified cancer drug approvals reviewed through Project Orbis in the USA, Canada, and the UK between May 1, 2019, and Nov 1, 2023. Approvals of cancer drugs reviewed Project Orbis were extracted from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Oncology Centre of Excellence and all other FDA approvals from the Drugs@FDA database. The co-primary outcomes were time of regulatory review, time from regulatory approval to health technology assessment recommendation (England, Scotland, and Canada), reimbursement outcomes, clinical benefit (defined as median gains in progression-free survival and overall survival) between cancer drug approvals reviewed by Project Orbis and other FDA approval processes, and monthly treatment prices. The Wilcoxon rank-sum and Fisher's Exact tests were used to examine statistical significance between approvals reviewed through Project Orbis and other FDA approvals during the same period. FINDINGS: Between May 1, 2019 and Nov 1, 2023, 81 (33%) of 244 cancer drugs approved by the FDA were reviewed through Project Orbis. The median overall survival gains were 4·1 months (IQR 3·3-5·1) compared with 2·7 months (2·1-3·9) for other FDA approvals. Similarly, progression-free survival gains were 2·6 months (IQR 1·7-4·9) for Project Orbis compared with 2·6 months (0·6-5·1) for other FDA approvals. Neither overall survival (p=0·11) nor progression-free survival (p=0·44) gains were significantly different between the two cohorts of approvals. Of the 14 UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) approvals reviewed by the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), the agency gave positive recommendations for all 14 (100%). Of the 15 MHRA approvals reviewed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the agency gave positive recommendations for six (40%). Of the 49 approvals reviewed by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), the agency conditionally recommended 44 (90%). The time between regulatory approval to NICE recommendation increased from a median of 137 days (IQR 102-172) in 2021 to 302 days (184-483) in 2023, SMC recommendation increased from 185 days (in 2021 for one drug only) to 368 days (IQR 313-476) in 2023, and CADTH decision increased from 97 days (in 2020 for one drug only) to 202 days (IQR 153-304) in 2023. The median monthly price of approvals reviewed through Project Orbis was US$20 000 per month (IQR 13 000-37 000). INTERPRETATION: Clinical outcomes of Project Orbis were no different than other FDA approvals during the same time, and access, after a successful health technology assessment, was considerably delayed or absent, raising questions about whether Project Orbis participation translates into faster patient access to medicines with high clinical benefit and sustainable costs. Although future challenges might benefit from regulatory harmonisation, the advantages are currently unclear. FUNDING: None.

Assessing patient burden and benefit: A decade of cabozantinib clinical trials.

Drug development is complex and costly. Clinical trial participants take on risks, making it essential to maximize trial efficiency and maintain participant safety. Identifying periods of excessive burden during drug development can inform trial design, ensure patient benefit and prevent harm. This study aims to examine all published clinical trials for cabozantinib to assess patient benefit and burden over time. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional review of interventional clinical trials of cabozantinib for solid cancer treatment. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane (CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov. We extracted adverse event rates, median progression-free survival (PFS), median overall survival and objective response rate (ORR) for each included trial. We calculated frequencies of trial characteristics, cumulative grade 3-5 adverse event rates and cumulative ORRs. Out of 1735 studies, 54 publications were included that involved 6372 participants and 21 cancers. Of the 54 studies in our sample, 31 (57.41%) were single-arm trials and 23 (42.60%) had negative results. Trials among and within various indications had conflicting results over time. Cumulative risk to participants increased over time, and clinical benefit decreased. The findings suggest that the risk profile of cabozantinib increased from 2011 to 2016 and has remained elevated but stable while benefit has decreased over time. The use of non-randomized and single-arm trials is concerning, and more methodologically rigorous trials are needed. The results of trials for different indications are inconsistent, and empirical administration may reduce the drug's efficacy.

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.

A novel framework to assess haematology and oncology registration trials: The THEOREMM project.

BACKGROUND: Methodological limitations affect a significant number of oncology and haematology trials, raising concerns about the applicability of their results. For example, a suboptimal control arm or limited access to best care upon progression may skew the trial results toward a benefit in the experimental arm. Beyond the fact that such limitations do not prevent drugs reaching the market, other assessment tools, such as those developed by professional societies-ESMO-MCBS and ASCO Value Framework-do not integrate these important shortcomings. METHODS: We propose creating a novel framework with the scope of assessing registration cancer clinical trials in haematology and oncology (randomized or single arm)-that is trials leading to a marketing authorization. The main steps of the methods are (1) assembling a scientific board; (2) defining the scope, goal and methods through pre-specified, pre-registered and protocolized methodology; (3) preregistration of the protocol; (4) conducting a scoping review of limitations and biases affecting oncology trials and assessing existing scores or methods; (5) developing a list of features to be included and assessed within the framework; (6) assessing each feature through a questionnaire sent to highly cited haematologists and oncologists involved in clinical trials; and (7) finalizing the first version of framework. RESULTS: Not applicable. CONCLUSIONS: Our proposal emerged in response to the lack of consideration for key limitations in current trial assessments. The goal is to create a framework specifically designed to assess single trials leading to marketing authorization in the field of oncology and haematogy.

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.

Long COVID clinics and services offered by top US hospitals: an empirical analysis of clinical options as of May 2023.

BACKGROUND: The economic and health burden of COVID-19 has transformed the healthcare system in the US. Hospitals have adapted to the heterogeneity in long COVID symptoms, and the sheer number of people affected by this condition, by building long COVID centers and programs. OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe characteristics, services, and clinical trials of long COVID centers at top US hospitals. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Long COVID treatment programs or centers at top US hospitals. EXPOSURES: Frequency of long COVID centers, eligibility for being treated, the services they provide, specialist to whom the patients may be referred, and the long COVID clinical trials in which these hospitals participate. FINDINGS: Most top hospitals in the US (n = 43/50; 86%) offer long COVID services. 65% (28/43) did not describe the services provided. 12 (28%) required a referral from a primary care physician. The most common services were meeting with a team member (n = 20; 47%), ordering lab and/or radiology services (n = 8; 18.6%), and administering a physical exam (n = 7; 16%). 7 (16%) centers/programs treated only adults; 5 (12%) treated both adults and children, and 31 (72%) did not specify. The most common specialists described were psychology (n = 25; 58%), neurology (n = 25; 58%), and pulmonary (n = 24; 56%). Sixty-three trials (of 134 long COVID clinical trials) had at least one top hospital listed as a study site. The median number of clinical trials that each hospital sponsored or was a study site was 2 (interquartile range: 1, 3). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We find that services offered at long COVID clinics at top hospitals in the US often include meeting with a team member and referrals to a wide range of specialists. The diversity in long COVID services offered parallels the diversity in long COVID symptoms, suggesting a need for better consensus in developing and delivering treatment.

Eventual success rate and predictors of success for oncology drugs tested in phase I trials.

Previous estimates of the likelihood of a drug tested in phase I trials obtaining FDA clearance are out of date. In the intervening years, newer pharmaceuticals have been developed, resulting in new delivery systems and lines of therapies. We sought to explore and update these estimates by comprehensively searching drugs tested in phase I trials and to determine the factors associated with later receiving FDA approval. In a cross-sectional analysis, we searched for anti-tumor drugs tested in phase I trials and published in scientific journals or presented at hematology/oncology conferences. For each drug, we searched PubMed for phase II and phase III studies testing the drug for the same indication tested in phase I studies. We found 51 drug approvals; four were withdrawn. The probability of a drug tested in 2015 being approved by 2021 was 6.2%. Drugs tested as monotherapy were more likely to receive approval than drugs tested in combination, and monoclonal antibodies were more likely to receive approval than drugs of other mechanisms. In adjusted models, response rates higher than 40% in phase I studies, demonstrating an improvement in overall survival (OS) in phase III studies, and drugs tested as monotherapy were associated with receiving FDA approval. When looking at all drugs tested during a single year, most drugs were not approved, and among those that are approved, almost 8% are withdrawn. Response rates higher than 40%, testing a drug as monotherapy, and demonstrating an improvement in OS were associated with receiving FDA approval.

Time-to-event surrogate end-points in multiple myeloma randomised trials from 2005 to 2019: A surrogacy analysis.

Use of surrogate end-points such as progression-free survival (PFS) and other time-to-event (TTE) end-points is common in multiple myeloma (MM) clinical trials. This systematic review characterises all published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in MM using PFS or other TTE end-points between 2005 and 2019 and assesses strength of surrogacy of PFS for overall survival (OS). The association between OS hazard ratios (HRs) and PFS HRs was evaluated with linear regression, and the coefficient of determination with Pearson's correlation. We identified 88 RCTs of which 67 (76%) used PFS as the primary/co-primary end-point. One trial indicated whether progression was biochemical or clinical. Of the variance in OS, 39% was due to variance in PFS. Correlation between PFS and OS was weak (0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.78). In newly diagnosed MM, 43% of the variance in OS was due to changes in PFS. The correlation between PFS and OS was weak (0.65, 95% CI 0.30-0.84). In relapsed/refractory MM, 58% of the variance in OS was due to changes in PFS. Correlation between PFS and OS was medium (0.76, 95% CI 0.42-0.91). We demonstrate that PFS and progression characteristics are characterised poorly in MM trials and that PFS is a poor surrogate for OS in MM.

Additional considerations before using a ctDNA-guided approach for informing adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The DYNAMIC trial investigated the use of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) to guide adjuvant treatment decisions in stage II colon cancer. Despite the DYNAMIC trial's assertion that a ctDNA-guided approach could minimize the use of adjuvant treatment without compromising recurrence-free survival (RFS), we raised concerns regarding the trial's methodology and the practical implications of its findings in a Debate article. Here, we expand upon these concerns in a response to a correspondence by the authors of the DYNAMIC trial. MAIN BODY: We dispute the choice of a large non-inferiority margin in the DYNAMIC trial, simply because an 8.5 percentage points decrease in recurrence-free survival could result in significant harm to patients. We challenge the authors' comparisons of the DYNAMIC trial outcomes with observational studies. Such comparison is subject to selection bias and changes over time that limit their relevance. The prognostic role of ctDNA do not automatically imply that more treatment in patients with ctDNA positivity would improve outcomes, which we highlight. In real-world settings, we anticipate a potential rise in chemotherapy use due to clinicians utilizing ctDNA alongside existing clinicopathologic factors, rather than using ctDNA as an entire replacement. Lastly, a key concern in DYNAMIC was an 350% higher use of oxaliplatin in the ctDNA arm compared with standard management (9.5% versus 2.7%, respectively), which poses a risk for long-term neuropathy. CONCLUSION: We look forward improvements in patient selection in the adjuvant setting, but we maintain our reservations about the DYNAMIC trial and the real-life implementation of its results. As an alternative to exploring de-escalation strategies with large margins non-inferiority trials, we propose that superiority trials in stage II patients could be a more effective strategy.

The definition of long COVID used in interventional studies.

INTRODUCTION: There has been little consensus for a specific definition of long COVID, though several organizations have created varying ones. We sought to examine the definition of long COVID used in ongoing clinical trials. METHODS: We searched 'long COVID' and related terms on both PubMed and clinicaltrials.gov for randomized studies that either included patients with long COVID or had a persistent or long-term COVID-related outcome and abstracted long COVID definition components. RESULTS: Of the 92 studies, a laboratory-only confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 was stipulated in 54.3% (n = 50) studies. We found eight different time durations specified for how long symptoms needed to have occurred, ranging from 4 to 52 weeks, with 12 weeks being the most common (34.8%; n = 32). 35.9% (n = 33) did not specify a time duration. There were 57 different symptoms specified in total, with a median of one symptom identified per study (range 0-32). 8.7% of trials adhered to NICE or WHO definitions. CONCLUSION: Standardized definitions of long COVID should be applied in studies assessing this condition to unify and harmonize research on this topic.

Post-progression treatment in cancer randomized trials: a cross-sectional study of trials leading to FDA approval and published trials between 2018 and 2020.

BACKGROUND: Suboptimal treatment upon progression may affect overall survival (OS) results in oncology randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aim to assess the proportion of trials reporting post-progression treatment. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis included two concurrent analyses. The first one examined all published RCTs of anti-cancer drugs in six high impact medical/oncology journals between January 2018 and December 2020. The second studied all US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved anti-cancer drugs during the same period. Included trials needed to study an anti-cancer drug in the advanced or metastatic setting. Data abstracted included the tumor type, characteristics of trials, and reporting and assessment of post-progression treatment. RESULTS: There were 275 published trials and 77 US FDA registration trials meeting inclusion criteria. Assessable post-progression data were reported in 100/275 publications (36.4%) and 37/77 approvals (48.1%). Treatment was considered substandard in 55 publications (n = 55/100, 55.0%) and 28 approvals (n = 28/37, 75.7%). Among trials with assessable post-progression data and positive OS results, a subgroup analysis identified substandard post-progression treatment in 29 publications (n = 29/42, 69.0%) and 20 approvals (n = 20/26, 76.9%). Overall, 16.4% of publications (45/275) and 11.7% of registration trials (9/77) had available post-progression data assessed as appropriate. CONCLUSION: We found that most anti-cancer RCTs do not report assessable post-progression treatment. When reported, post-progression treatment was substandard in most trials. In trials reporting positive OS results and with assessable post-progression data, the proportion of trials with subpar post-progression treatment was even higher. Discrepancies between post-progression therapy in trials and the standard of care can limit RCT results' applicability. Regulatory rules should enforce higher requirements regarding post-progression treatment access and reporting.

Umbrella review of basket trials testing a drug in tumors with actionable genetic biomarkers.

BACKGROUND: The utilization of basket trials in oncology has gained popularity because of the drive for precision medicine and the increasing ease of genetically profiling tumors. However, it is unknown if this has translated into patient benefit, either through higher response rates because of precision treatment or because of increasing options for less-common tumor types that are less represented in oncology drug trials. We sought to characterize basket studies for oncology drugs targeting a genetic biomarker, determine the responses for various tumor types and genetic biomarkers, and test for correlation between the number of participants in each tumor basket and the incidence of the respective tumor. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional review of oncology basket trials on Embase or clinicaltrials.gov with published data. We included studies that reported on oncology drugs that target a genetic biomarker. We examined the response for basket trial participants, stratified by tumor type and genetic biomarker and the correlation between the number of participants in each tumor basket and the incidence of the respective tumor. RESULTS: The overall response rate for all 25 included trials was 23%. The response for each genetic biomarker ranged from 0 to 69%, and for half of the genetic biomarkers, the response rate ranged from 0 to 100%, depending on tumor type. There is low correlation between the number of participants in each tumor basket and the incidence of the respective tumor (66.41 + -0.20x, R2 = 0.003, p = 0.75). CONCLUSION: While there has been an increase in the number of published basket trials and individuals included in these trials, the response rate is low, but varies widely, depending on tumor type and genetic biomarker.

Quality of biomarker defined subgroups in FDA approvals of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors 2014 to 2020.

PD-L1 expression is associated with differential response in cancers treated with checkpoint inhibitors. Clinical trials for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibitors include limited subgroup analyses based on PD-L1 expression. We aimed to define the characteristics of PD-L1 defined subgroups of clinical trials leading to FDA approvals for new indications of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. FDA approvals for PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors from January 2014 to December 2020 were identified and the clinical trials leading to each drug approval were reviewed. We collected key variables from publicly available information on FDA website and peer-reviewed publications of clinical trials. We assessed regulatory characteristics (approval date, approved drug[s], cancer type, line of therapy and biomarker-restricted approval criteria) of each approval. Clinical trials leading to approvals were reviewed for trial design (RCT vs single arm study, primary endpoint) and PD-L1 defined subgroup design (no subgroup analysis, single threshold 2-group analysis, nested subgroups and adjacent subgroups). We then compared regulatory and trials characteristics (trial design, primary endpoint and biomarker approval criteria) between studies with nested and adjacent subgroups. There were 60 approvals for PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors between January 2014 and December 2020. Twelve of 60 (20%) did not include any PD-L1 subgroups. Twenty-five of 60 (42%) approvals reported only two subgroups, 14 (23%) included adjacent subgroups and 9 (15%) had nested subgroups. Twenty-five of 60 trials (42%) are single arm studies. Comparison of characteristics between trials with nested subgroup design and adjacent subgroup design did not show differences. We conclude that approvals for new indications of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors are based on studies that do not include comprehensive reporting of outcomes by PD-L1 biomarker subgroups.

An Analysis of 5 Years of Randomized Trials in Gastroenterology and Hepatology Reveals 52 Medical Reversals.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: One manifestation of low-value medical practice is the medical reversal, a practice in widespread use that, once subjected to a randomized controlled trial (RCT), is found to be no better-or worse-than a prior established standard of care. We aimed to determine the prevalence of medical reversals in gastroenterology (GI) journals and characterize these reversals. METHODS: We searched the American Journal of Gastroenterology, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Gastroenterology, Gut, Hepatology, and the Journal of Hepatology, reviewing studies published in 2015-2019. We identified RCTs that tested an established clinical practice and produced negative results, considered tentative reversals. Any systematic review or meta-analysis that included the article was categorized as confirming the reversal, refuting the reversal, or providing insufficient data. RESULTS: During the 5-year period, we identified 5,898 original articles, of which 212 tested an established practice and 52 were categorized as unrefuted medical reversals (25% of articles testing standard of care). Of the reversals, 21 (40%) tested procedures and devices, 15 (29%) tested medications, and 8 (15%) tested vitamins/supplements/diet. Twenty-three (44%) considered the alimentary tract, 12 (23%) considered the liver, pancreas, or biliary tract, and 17 (33%) considered endoscopy. Thirty-eight (73%) were funded exclusively by non-industry sources. CONCLUSION: This review reveals a total of 52 reversals across all subfields of GI and medical, procedural, screening, and diagnostic interventions, occurring in 25% of randomized trials testing an established practice. More research is needed to determine the optimal way to engage stakeholders and remove reversed practices from medical care.

The effect of food prescription programs on chronic disease management in primarily low-income populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Having low-income limits one's ability to purchase foods that are high in nutritional value (e.g. vegetables and fruits (V/F)). Higher V/F intake is associated with less diet-related chronic disease. Food pharmacy programs are potential solutions to providing V/F to low-income populations with or at-risk for chronic disease. Aim: This systematic review aimed to determine the effect of food pharmacy programs, including interventions targeting populations at-risk for chronic disease. Methods: We searched Pubmed and Google Scholar databases for studies reporting on food pharmacy interventions and outcomes (hemoglobin A1c, body mass index (BMI), V/F intake, and blood pressure). We calculated pooled mean differences using a random-effects model. Seventeen studies met our inclusion criteria; 13 studies used a pre/post study design, three used a randomized controlled trial, and one was a post-survey only. Results: We found that the pooled mean daily servings of V/F (0.77; 95% CI: 0.30 to 1.24) was higher and BMI (-0.40; 95% CI: -0.50 to -0.31) was lower with food pharmacy interventions We did not find any differences in the pooled mean differences for hemoglobin A1c or systolic blood pressure. Conclusion: Findings posit that food pharmacy programs delivered to primarily low-income individuals with comorbidities may be a promising solution to improving V/F intake and possibly overall diet in these populations.

The response rate of alternative treatments for drugs approved on the basis of response rate.

We assessed the frequency that oncology drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on a single-arm study when there is already evidence of existing and available treatments. For this, we conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of FDA-approved oncology drugs based on a single-arm study. All FDA announcements for all oncology drugs approved from May 2014 through June 2019 on a single-arm trial were included. We then performed a systematic search in PubMed, looking for studies on other drugs for the same indication as the FDA drug approval. For the 60 indications, we found 38 instances (63%) of existing therapies being used for the same indication. Of those, we found that 20 drugs were approved based upon a response rate lower than response rates of existing therapies in the same indication. Among oncology drugs that were FDA-approved based on a single-arm study, we found evidence of existing, available therapies being used for the same indication as the FDA-approved drug in the majority of indications (63%), and in one-third of all indications, the response rates for existing therapies were numerically better than the FDA-approved drug. These results suggest that there are inconsistencies in the standards set for oncology drug approvals, and many uncontrolled trials leading to drug approvals could have contemporary controls for which equipoise exists.

The frequency of medical reversals in a cross-sectional analysis of high-impact oncology journals, 2009-2018.

BACKGROUND: Identifying ineffective practices that have been used in oncology is important in reducing wasted resources and harm. We sought to examine the prevalence of practices that are being used but have been shown in RCTs to be ineffective (medical reversals) in published oncology studies. METHODS: We cross-sectionally analyzed studies published in three high-impact oncology medical journals (2009-2018). We abstracted data relating to the frequency and characterization of medical reversals. RESULTS: Of the 64 oncology reversals, medications (44%) represented the most common intervention type (39% were targeted). Fourteen (22%) were funded by pharmaceutical/industry only and 56% were funded by an organization other than pharmaceutical/industry. The median number of years that the practice had been in use prior to the reversal study was 9 years (range 1-50 years). CONCLUSION: Here we show that oncology reversals most often involve the administration of medications, have been practiced for years, and are often identified through studies funded by non-industry organizations.

An Empirical Analysis of Noninferiority Studies in Oncology: Are They Good Enough?

BACKGROUND: Noninferiority (NI) trials should help identify interventions that offer some benefit (eg, lower financial costs, more tolerable, or less invasive) without sacrificing noticeable effectiveness, and researchers should adhere to appropriate standards in the conduct and reporting of methods. This study describes the characteristics of a systematic sampling of NI studies from an updated search of recent published oncology trials. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of NI research published between 2014 and 2018 in the top 3 medical journals and top 3 oncology journals. We estimated the percentage of NI trials in oncology that report informative details of study, such as justification for conducting NI trial, justification of NI margin, analysis population, and alpha level. RESULTS: There were 94 NI studies and 104 comparisons, and 59.6% (n=62) of comparisons declared NI. The median NI margin of comparisons reporting an odds or hazard ratio was 1.3 (1.05-3.2; n=64). Twenty-three percent (n=22) of studies did not provide a justification for conducting a NI study; 54.3% (n=51) of studies did not provide a justification of the margin they used in their study. Only approximately 46% (n=43) of comparisons used both an intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analysis, and 37.3% (n=35) of studies used a one-sided alpha level of >.025. There is notable variation in key elements of the conduct and reporting of NI trials, including the NI margin, the alpha level, and the population analyzed. Furthermore, a high number of studies do not provide justification for conducting a NI study or the margin used for determining NI. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that there is room for improvement in the reporting and conduct of NI trials in oncology.

Relationship Between Response and Dose in Published, Contemporary Phase I Oncology Trials.

BACKGROUND: As progress continues in oncology drug development, this study aimed to examine whether the previously established association between drug dose and efficacy in the era of cytotoxic therapies remains true in today's phase I dose-escalation oncology trials. METHODS: A systematic review of early-phase dose-finding trials of single-agent oncology drugs from 2015 to 2018 was conducted to examine the relationship between drug dose and objective responses. Cancer-specific trials were included if they determined maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and/or recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Data related to the study drug, study design, treatment response, cancer type, dose levels, MTD, and RP2D were all collected. Dose level was categorized into 4 categories (≤40%, 41%-80%, 81%-120%, and >120% of the RP2D) and was further analyzed by class of drug. RESULTS: A total of 175 phase I studies were identified, with a total of 7,330 patients showing a median response rate of 5% (range, 0%-83%) across trials. A total of 93 trials with 2,506 participants had response data corresponding to drug dose level. In this subset, the median response rate was 5% (range, 0%-83%) across trials. Across all participants in this subset, the response rate was 12% (57 of 491) among those in the dose range of ≤40% of RP2D, 17% (95 of 562) among those in 41% to 80% of RP2D, 23% (272 of 1,206) among those in 81% to 120% of RP2D, and 29% (71 of 247) among those in >120% of RP2D (P<.001). The response rate at ≤40% of RP2D for targeted antibody was 5%, 4% for cellular therapy, 19% for immunotherapy, and 21% for small-molecule targeted inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas our study of published phase I trials continued to show a low response rate consistent with earlier studies, the relationship between response and dose does not always peak at 81% to 120% of RP2D anymore, likely due to the use of novel immunotherapy and targeted agents with distinct efficacy and toxicity patterns.