Assessing Patient Risk, Benefit, and Outcomes in Drug Development: Insights From Afatinib Clinical Trials Across Diverse Cancer Indications.

PURPOSE: In 2013, afatinib was approved for non-small-cell lung cancer with subsequent indication expansion. We investigated published afatinib clinical trials to assess risk and benefit profiles for the drug in its approved indication of non-small-cell lung cancer as well as in off-label uses. Previous literature demonstrates excessive patient burden and limited benefit as afatinib has spread into more indications. A trial analysis is needed to establish efficacy and risk. METHODS: In this investigation, we screened literature databases and clinical trial registries for trials of afatinib as monotherapy or in combination interventions for cancer treatment. We extracted participant demographics, adverse event characteristics, as well as clinical and surrogate endpoints for each trial. Studies were deemed positive, negative, or indeterminate based on their achieving of primary endpoints as well as their safety. RESULTS: Our search yielded 2444 articles; we excluded 2352 articles for a final inclusion of 92 trials of 8859 patients. Our sample had 49 (53%) positive trials, 27 (29%) negative trials, and 16 (17%) indeterminate trials. The most common off-label indications for afatinib were breast cancer and squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck. The median OS for all trials was 8.4 months, median PFS 3.4 months, and the total ORR was 29.6%. Our study found that trials performed in disease states beyond the initial indications were largely negative with little patient benefit. The adverse events within our trial sample appear to be in line with expectations for toxicity. IMPLICATIONS: These results are consistent with other studies that present similar findings, such as in Carlisle et al which indicate limited efficacy in nonapproved indications. Future trials should keep this potential evidence and patient burden in mind before initiation of those trials. This study contributes to the understanding of afatinib's risk-benefit profile across many clinical applications.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Characteristics and outcomes of new molecular oncology drug approvals, in combination or monotherapy.

IMPORTANCE: Understanding the factors that are associated with new molecular entity (NME) cancer drug approvals as a single agent and in combination, and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) scores, can aid in identifying suitable factors to consider in trial designs for future drugs. In addition, the association between the various outcomes can aid in determining benefit when surrogate outcomes are used in approval consideration. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to (1) use the measures used in evaluating clinical trials by ESMO scores to determine the differences in the characteristics of 2013-2022 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oncology NME drug approvals for those approved for use in combination or as a monotherapy, and (2) analyze the association between survival outcomes and the response rate for monotherapy NME drugs and/or drugs approved in combination. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: US FDA Oncology Drug Approvals (2013-2022) PARTICIPANTS: US FDA Oncology Drug Approvals (2013-2022) EXPOSURES: Trial-level characteristics (tumor types, basis of approval, randomized or not, phase) and associations between overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), or overall response rate (ORR) and whether NME drugs were approved as monotherapy or in combination . RESULTS: Drugs approved for use as a monotherapy are less likely to be approved using a randomized study (p < 0.001) and more likely to be approved via the accelerated pathway (p = 0.012) and be open-label (p < 0.001). Drugs approved for use as a combination or monotherapy significantly differed on their approval basis (p = 0.002), phase of trial at the time of approval (p = 0.02), and ESMO scores (p = 0.02). There was low correlation between response rate and either PFS or OS metrics. However, nearly all of the drugs with large improvements in OS (> 5months) were drugs with robust ORR. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Drugs approved as monotherapy with a low response rate are likely to have marginal benefit in OS and PFS.

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.

Cancer Drug Price and Novelty in Mechanism of Action.

Importance: Many economic theories point to regulatory issues and subsidization of research and development costs as the primary factor in the high cancer drug prices in the US. Even so, the association between the median annual cost and novelty of cancer drugs approved in the US remains unclear. Objective: To evaluate the association between the median annual cost and novelty of cancer drugs approved in the US over a 6-year period. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included all cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2020. Drug names, indications, manufacturer, dosage, and measures of activity/efficacy were extracted from the FDA announcement. The search was performed in December 2021. Data were analyzed from January 2022 until April 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual cost of treatment was calculated based on average wholesale price collected from the 2021 Micromedex Red Book database. Mechanism of action was inferred from trial publication or its references. Results: There were 224 cancer drug approvals across 119 individual drugs, with a median annual cost of $196 000 (IQR, $170 000-$277 000). Gene and viral therapies were the most expensive (median, $448 000 [IQR, $448 000-$479 000]), followed by small molecule therapy (median, $244 000 [IQR, $203 000-$321 000), and biologics (median, $185 000 [IQR, $148 000-$195 000]). There was no significant difference in cost between first-in-class, next-in-class, and subsequent approvals of an already approved drug. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this study indicate that the median annual price of anticancer drugs in the US is not associated with the novelty of their mechanism of action.

Eligibility for Human Leukocyte Antigen-Based Therapeutics by Race and Ethnicity.

Importance: The development of therapeutics for patients who are positive for specific human leukocyte antigen (HLA) subtypes evokes the question of whether certain racial and ethnic groups are more or less likely to be eligible for novel products. Objective: To determine whether racial and ethnic inequities were present with regard to trial eligibility in trials investigating a therapeutic restricted to patients with specific HLA subtypes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included all clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov through March 18, 2022, that investigated an interventional study of a therapeutic strategy and restricted participants to those with at least 1 HLA subtype. Data were analyzed from May 8 to July 1, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: The type of therapeutics used in trials, the condition under study, the HLA subtypes used, and the likelihood of being enrolled in such a trial according to race and ethnicity. Results: Of 2135 trials identified, 263 met inclusion criteria. Overall, the estimated likelihood of being eligible for an HLA-based trial was 50.3%. Individuals of African American descent had the lowest likelihood of eligibility (33.0%), while being an individual of European descent conferred the highest (53.0%; 1.6 times more likely than African American individuals). Most trials studied anticancer therapeutics (258 [98.1%; 95% CI, 96.4%-99.7%]), and most were a therapeutic vaccine (179 [68.1%; 95% CI, 62.4%-73.7%]). The HLA-A*02:01 allele and the HLA-A2 serotype were the most frequent HLA subtypes for trial eligibility. The frequency of the HLA-A*02:01 allele in the population varied, with 11.9% (95% CI, 11.8%-12.0%) in African or African American individuals and 27.1% (95% CI, 27.1%-27.1%) in individuals of European descent. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that enrollment restrictions for clinical trials investigating novel HLA therapeutics may be associated with racial and ethnic inequities with regard to trial eligibility. Overcoming these restrictions poses biological challenges, but solutions must be implemented to provide equal access to innovative strategies regardless of race or ethnicity.

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.

Cost of Drug Wastage From Dose Modification and Discontinuation of Oral Anticancer Drugs.

Importance: Oral chemotherapy is often dispensed to patients as a 1-month supply, with pill dose and package size predetermined by the drug manufacturer; thus, changing the patient dosage may waste the remaining initial drug supply. The cost of pills wasted due to dose modification and discontinuation is often unreported. Objective: To estimate the cost of pill wastage due to dose modification and discontinuation for oral anticancer drugs that were recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or that are commonly prescribed. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional economic evaluation initially identified 26 oral anticancer drugs newly approved between January 1, 2020, and August 31, 2022, from the FDA website and the top 50 best-selling pharmaceuticals in 2021 abstracted from the Drug Discovery Trends website managed by Drug Discovery and Development. The monthly costs of each agent were extracted from the Micromedex RED BOOK database. The FDA package insert, and in some cases PubMed, of each identified drug and indication was searched (matching on trial registration number) for information on registration trials. Information extracted for each drug included the name of the drug approved, drug target, cost of the drug, number of pills per bottle, available strengths, indication, name of the trial, number of patients exposed to treatment drug, number of dose level reductions, median duration of treatment, percentage of patients who received dose reduction, and percentage of dose discontinuation. All variables included in calculations were derived from the package insert or original trial publication. Main Outcomes and Measures: The cost of wastage for selected oral anticancer drugs due to dose reduction or discontinuation and the percentage of wastage in comparison with the total cost of treatment. Results: After removing duplicates, 22 oral anticancer medications were included in the study. Because some drugs had more than 1 indication, data from 35 clinical trials were analyzed. Eight of the medications (covering 9 indications) had pill strengths divisible at each dose-reduction level; thus the cost of reduction for these pills was assumed to be zero. Two medications did not allow for dose reduction. The median cost of wastage from dose reduction and discontinuation was $1750 (range, $43-$27 200), with a mean cost of $4290 (SD, $5720) per patient. The median percentage of wastage from the total cost of treatment was 1.04% (range, 0.04%-10.80%) with a mean of 1.78% (SD, 2.21%). Conclusions and Relevance: This economic evaluation found that due to both the high cost per pill and limited pill strength availability, the mean cost of wastage associated with dose reduction or discontinuation was $4290 per patient. These results suggest that to reduce the financial burden for patients with cancer, regulatory bodies should enforce availability of pill strengths that will limit pill wastage during dose modification or recommend that drug manufacturers issue credit for unused pills.

Quality of life in the adjuvant setting: A meta-analysis of US Food and Drug Administration approved anti-cancer drugs from 2018 to 2022.

BACKGROUND: In oncology, quality of life (QoL) questionnaires were historically designed to be used in the advanced or metastatic setting. We sought to determine the effects of contemporary treatments on QoL in the adjuvant setting and to determine if the QoL instruments used in these studies provide a relevant assessment. METHODS: We conducted a systematic identification of all anti-cancer drugs used in the adjuvant setting and approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from January 2018 to March 2022. We conducted a quality evaluation and a meta-analysis of reported QoL results. We used the global QoL results when multiple QoL outcomes were reported. RESULTS: There were 224 FDA approvals reviewed, of which 12 met the inclusion criteria. The placebo was the control arm in 10 out of 12 trials. Of those, 11 trials (92 %) assessed QoL, and ten (83 %) reported results. In reports with QoL results, a moderate-risk of bias was found in 3 out of 10 (30 %) and a high-risk of bias in 6 out of 10 (60 %) of reports, respectively. No trial reported a meaningful difference between arms. The meta-analysis found an overall detrimental effect on QoL in the experimental arm, though it was not statistically different. CONCLUSION: This study identified 12 FDA registration trials in the adjuvant setting between 2018 and 2022. We found a moderate- to high-risk of bias in 90 % of the ten trials reporting QoL data. Our meta-analysis suggested a detrimental effect on QoL in the experimental arm, questioning the relevancy, in the adjuvant setting, of thresholds that were mostly developed in the advanced or metastatic setting. POLICY SUMMARY: Future works should focus on specificities of the adjuvant setting when considering QoL evaluation.

Cross-sectional analysis characterizing the use of rank preserving structural failure time in oncology studies: changes to hazard ratio and frequency of inappropriate use.

BACKGROUND: Rank preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) is a statistical method to correct or adjust for crossover in clinical trials, by estimating the counterfactual effect on overall survival (OS) when control arm patients do not receive the interventional drug when their tumor progresses. We sought to examine the strength of correlation between differences in uncorrected and corrected OS hazard ratios and percentage of crossover, and characterize instances of fundamental and sequential efficacy. METHODS: In a cross-sectional analysis (2003-2023), we reviewed oncology randomized trials that used RPSFT analysis to adjust the OS hazard ratio for patients who crossed over to an anti-cancer drug. We calculated the percentage of RPSFT studies evaluating a drug for fundamental efficacy (with or without a standard of care (SOC)) or sequential efficacy and the correlation between the OS hazard ratio difference (unadjusted and adjusted) and the percentage of crossover. RESULTS: Among 65 studies, the median difference between the uncorrected and corrected OS hazard ratio was -0.1 (quartile 1, quartile 3 : -0.3 to -0.06). The median percentage of crossover was 56% (quartile 1, quartile 3: 37% to 72%). All studies were funded by the industry or had authors who were employees of the industry. Twelve studies (19%) tested a drug's fundamental efficacy when there was no SOC; 34 studies (52%) tested a drug's fundamental efficacy when there was already a SOC; and 19 studies (29%) tested a drug's sequential efficacy. The correlation between the uncorrected and corrected OS hazard ratio difference and the percentage of crossover was 0.44 (95% CI: 0.21 to 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: RPSFT is a common tactic used by the industry to reinterpret trial results. Nineteen percent of RPSFT use is appropriate. We recognize that while crossover can bias OS results, the allowance and handling of crossover in trials should be limited to appropriate circumstances.

Scoping Review of Published Oncology Meta-analyses in High-Impact Oncology Journals.

Importance: Many meta-analyses have been conducted on a wide array of topics, and many of these have focused on treatment efficacy of drugs or bias in interventional studies on a specific topic. Objective: To examine the factors associated with having a positive study conclusion in meta-analyses in the field of oncology. Evidence Review: All meta-analyses published between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2021, on 5 oncology journal websites were identified and study characteristics, study results, and information on study authors were abstracted. The meta-analysis authors' conclusions were coded as positive, negative, or equivocal, and each article subject matter was coded as one that could affect profits and marketing of a company. Whether an association existed between study characteristics and authors' conclusions was also examined. Findings: Database searches resulted in 3947 potential articles, of which 93 meta-analyses were included in this study. Of the 21 studies with author funding from industry, 17 studies (81.0%) reported favorable conclusions. Of the 9 studies that received industry funding, 7 (77.8%) reported favorable conclusions, and of the 63 studies that did not have author or study funding from industry, 30 (47.6%) reported favorable conclusions. Studies that were funded through nonindustry sources and authors who had no relevant conflict of interest had the lowest percentage of positive conclusions and the highest percentage of negative and equivocal conclusions compared with studies with other sources of potential conflict of interest. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of meta-analyses published in oncology journals, multiple factors were associated with having a positive study conclusion, which suggests that future research should be performed to elucidate reasons for more favorable conclusions among studies with study or author industry funding.