Eligibility criteria and enrollment of a diverse racial and ethnic population in multiple myeloma clinical trials.

The narrow eligibility criteria may contribute to the underrepresentation of racial and ethnic subgroups in cancer clinical trials. We conducted a retrospective pooled analysis of multicenter global clinical trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration between 2006 and 2019 to support the approval of the use of multiple myeloma (MM) therapies that analyze the rates and reasons for trial ineligibility based on race and ethnicity in MM clinical trials. Race and ethnicity were coded per Office of Management and Budget standards. Patients flagged as having screen failures were identified as ineligible. Ineligibility rates were calculated as the percentage of patients who were ineligible compared with the screened population within the respective racial and ethnic subgroups. Trial eligibility criteria were grouped into specific categories to analyze the reasons for trial ineligibility. Black patients (24%) and other (23%) race subgroups had higher ineligibility rates than White patients (17%). The Asian race had the lowest ineligibility rate (12%) among all racial subgroups. Failure to meet the hematologic laboratory criteria (19%) and treatment-related criteria (17%) were the most common reasons for ineligibility among Black patients and were more common in Black patients than in other races. Failure to meet disease-related criteria was the most common reason for ineligibility among White (28%) and Asian (29%) participants. Our analysis indicates that specific eligibility criteria may contribute to enrollment disparities for racial and ethnic subgroups in MM clinical trials. However, the small number of screened patients in the underrepresented racial and ethnic subgroups limits definitive conclusions.

Correlations of response rate and progression-free survival with overall survival in immunotherapy trials for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: an FDA pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Radiographic changes might not fully capture the treatment effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We aimed to assess correlations of overall response rate and progression-free survival with overall survival in trials of ICIs for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: To assess trial-level and patient-level correlations of overall response rate and progression-free survival with overall survival, we conducted a pooled analysis of first-line randomised trials (including patients aged ≥18 years with metastatic squamous and non-squamous NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1) submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration from June 24, 2016, to March 16, 2021. Eligible trials evaluated at least one ICI in the experimental group versus chemotherapy in the control group. At the trial level, we used weighted linear regression to derive coefficients of determination (R2). At the patient level, we used Cox proportional hazards models to compare overall survival between responders versus non-responders per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1). FINDINGS: A total of 13 trials including 9285 patients evaluated ICIs alone or in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. At the trial level, the R2 was 0·61 (95% CI 0·32-0·84) for correlation of overall response rate with overall survival and 0·70 (0·40-0·89) for correlation of progression-free survival with overall survival. Correlations ranged from weak to moderate when evaluating subgroups by PD-L1 expression and were consistent across trials evaluating ICIs alone or in combination with chemotherapy. At the patient level, responders had longer overall survival than non-responders (hazard ratio [HR] 0·28 [95% CI 0·26-0·30]). Among responders, overall survival was longer in patients enrolled in experimental groups than in control groups (HR 0·54 [95% CI 0·48-0·61]). INTERPRETATION: Correlations of overall response rate and progression-free survival with overall survival were generally moderate in this pooled analysis. The findings support routine analysis of mature overall survival data, where feasible, in first-line randomised trials of ICIs for metastatic NSCLC. FUNDING: US Food and Drug Administration.

FDA approval summary: fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki for unresectable or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with activating HER2 mutations.

On August 11, 2022, FDA granted accelerated approval to fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki (DS-8201a, T-DXd, ENHERTU, Daiichi Sankyo) for adult patients with unresectable or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors have activating human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) mutations, as detected by an FDA-approved test, and who have received a prior systemic therapy. The approval was based on a prespecified interim analysis of DESTINY-Lung02 (Study U206), a multi-center, randomized, dose-optimization trial in patients with NSCLC harboring activating HER2-mutations. At the approved dose of 5.4 mg/kg given intravenously every 3 weeks, the overall response rate (ORR) was 58% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 43, 71). The median duration of response was 8.7 months (95% CI: 7.1, not estimable). These results were consistent with response rates observed at the 6.4 mg/kg dose level. The most common (≥ 20%) adverse reactions were nausea, constipation, decreased appetite, vomiting, fatigue, and alopecia. The rate of interstitial lung disease (ILD) or pneumonitis was 6% at the 5.4 mg/kg dose level and 14% at the 6.4 mg/kg dose level. In the setting of similar efficacy and reduced toxicity, approval was granted for the 5.4 mg/kg dose level. The applicant conducted a randomized, dose-optimization study with guidance from the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence's Project Optimus. This is the first approval of a targeted therapy for HER2-mutated NSCLC.

FDA Approval Summary: Revised Indication and Dosing Regimen for Ponatinib Based on the Results of the OPTIC Trial.

On December 18, 2020, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a supplemental application for ponatinib extending the indication in patients with chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML) to patients with resistance or intolerance of at least 2 prior kinase inhibitors. Ponatinib was initially approved in December 2012 but was briefly voluntarily withdrawn due to serious safety concerns including the risk of arterial occlusive events (AOE). It returned to the market in December 2013 with an indication limited to patients with T315I mutation or for whom no other tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy was indicated with revised warnings and precautions. A post-marketing requirement was issued to identify the optimal safe and effective dose for CP-CML. Thus, the OPTIC trial was performed, which randomized patients to 1 of 3 doses, 45 mg, 30 mg, or 15 mg, with a dose reduction to 15 mg on achievement of MR2 (BCR-ABLIS ≤1%). Patients enrolled were treated with at least 2 prior TKIs or had a T315I mutation. Patients with a history of clinically significant, uncontrolled, or active cardiovascular disease were excluded. Efficacy was established on an interim analysis based on the rate of MR2 at 12 months in the modified intent-to-treat population of 261 patients, with 88, 86, and 87 patients in the 45, 30, and 15 mg cohorts, respectively. With a median follow-up of 28 months, the rate of achievement of MR2 at 12 months was 42%, 28%, and 24% in the respective cohorts. The safety profile was consistent with that observed in prior evaluations of ponatinib with notable adverse reactions including pancreatitis, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, liver dysfunction, and AOE. Of patients treated at the 45/15 mg dose, AOEs were seen in 13%, with a higher rate being observed in patients age 65 or older compared to younger patients. A readjudication of AOEs seen on the prior pivotal phase 2 study resulted in a rate of 26%. Overall, the results supported a modification of the recommended dose for patients with CP-CML to 45 mg until the achievement of MR2 followed by a reduction to 15 mg. The expansion of the indication to patients with exposure to 2 prior TKIs was approved given data showing that ponatinib could be successfully used for the treatment of this population with appropriate monitoring and screening for risk factors.

FDA Approval Summary: Ruxolitinib for Treatment of Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease after Failure of One or Two Lines of Systemic Therapy.

On September 22, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration approved ruxolitinib for the treatment of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) after the failure of one or two lines of systemic therapy in adult and pediatric patients 12 years and older. Approval was based on Study INCB 18424-365 (REACH-3; CINC424D2301; NCT03112603), a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial of ruxolitinib in comparison to best available therapy (BAT) for the treatment of corticosteroid-refractory cGVHD occurring after the allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. A total of 329 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either ruxolitinib 10 mg twice daily (n = 165) or BAT (n = 164). BAT was selected by the investigator prior to randomization. The overall response rate through Cycle 7 Day 1 was 70% (95% CI, 63-77) in the ruxolitinib arm, and 57% (95% CI, 49-65) in the BAT arm. The median duration of response, calculated from first response to progression, death, or initiation of new systemic therapies for cGVHD, was 4.2 months (95% CI, 3.2-6.7) for the ruxolitinib arm and 2.1 months (95% CI, 1.6-3.2) for the BAT arm; and the median time from first response to death or initiation of new systemic therapies for cGVHD was 25 months (95% CI, 16.8-not estimable) for the ruxolitinib arm and 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.1-7.8) for the BAT arm. Common adverse reactions included anemia, thrombocytopenia, and infections. Given the observed response rate with durability, the clinical benefit of ruxolitinib appears to outweigh the risks of treatment for cGVHD after the failure of one or two lines of systemic therapy.

FDA approval summary: Crizotinib for pediatric and young adult patients with relapsed or refractory systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma.

In January 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved crizotinib for pediatric patients 1 year and older and young adults with relapsed or refractory systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma (sALCL). This is the first approval for pediatric sALCL. Approval was based on a single-arm trial of crizotinib monotherapy that included 26 patients, aged 1-20 years, with previously treated sALCL. Efficacy was based on centrally assessed objective response rate (88%) and duration of response. Herein, we highlight unique aspects of the regulatory review, including extension of the indication to young adults, postmarketing safety, and dose optimization strategies.

Impact of an evolving regulatory landscape on skin cancer drug development in the U.S.

BACKGROUND: There has been a rapid proliferation of FDA-approved medications with labeled indications for skin cancer over the last decade, with particular growth over the last 5 years. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the impact of an evolving U.S. regulatory framework on drug development programs to better understand current trends and regulatory considerations when adjudicating drug approvals for patients with skin cancer. METHODS: We reviewed publicly-available regulatory documents of all systemic medications with a labeled indication for skin cancer. RESULTS: We identified 130 FDA approvals that resulted in a unique indication, usage, formulation, or dosage change in skin cancer since 1949. LIMITATIONS: Publicly available data from the mid-to-late 20th century is limited. CONCLUSIONS: The therapeutic landscape in skin cancer has changed greatly since the first approval in 1949. In concert, regulatory medicine has also evolved over the last 70 years with the aim of ensuring safe and effective medicines for a diverse array of patients.

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.

Survival outcomes in older men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with androgen receptor inhibitors: a US Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis of patient-level data from three randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the benefit-risk profile of second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors in older men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors in men aged 80 years or older with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: We searched for all randomised controlled clinical trials evaluating second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration before Aug 15, 2020, and pooled data from three trials that met the selection criteria. All three trials enrolled patients who were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, castration-resistant prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 2·0 µg/L or greater, PSA doubling time of 10 months or less, and no evidence of distant metastatic disease on conventional imaging per the investigator's assessment at the time of screening. All patients had histologically or cytologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate without neuroendocrine differentiation or small-cell features. All patients who were randomly assigned to androgen receptor inhibitor or placebo groups in these trials were considered assessable and were included in this pooled analysis. We evaluated the effect of age on metastasis-free survival and overall survival across age groups (<80 years vs ≥80 years) in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 14, 2013, and March 9, 2018, 4117 patients were assigned to androgen receptor inhibitor (apalutamide, enzalutamide, or daralutamide; n=2694) or placebo (n=1423) across three randomised trials. The median follow-up duration for metastasis-free survival was 18 months (IQR 11-26) and for overall survival was 44 months (32-55). In patients aged 80 years or older (n=1023), the estimated median metastasis-free survival was 40 months (95% CI 36-41) in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups and 22 months (18-29) in the placebo groups (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·37 [95% CI 0·28-0·47]), and the median overall survival was 54 months (50-61) versus 49 months (43-58), respectively (adjusted HR 0·79 [0·64-0·98]). In patients younger than 80 years of age (n=3094), the estimated median metastasis-free survival was 41 months (95% CI 36-not estimable [NE]) in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups and 16 months (15-18) in the placebo groups (adjusted HR 0·31 [95% CI 0·27-0·35]), and the median overall survival was 74 months (74-NE) versus 61 months (56-NE), respectively (adjusted HR 0·69 [0·60-0·80]). In patients aged 80 years or older, grade 3 or worse adverse events were reported in 371 (55%) of 672 patients in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups and 140 (41%) of 344 patients in the placebo groups, compared with 878 (44%) of 2015 patients in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups and 321 (30%) of 1073 patients in the placebo groups among patients younger than 80 years. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (168 [8%] of 2015 patients aged <80 years and 51 [8%] of 672 patients aged ≥80 years in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups vs 53 [5%] of 1073 patients aged <80 years and 22 [6%] of 344 patients aged ≥80 years in the placebo groups) and fracture (61 [3%] and 36 [5%] in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups vs 15 [1%] and 11 [3%] in the placebo groups). INTERPRETATION: The findings of this pooled analysis support the use of androgen receptor inhibitors in older men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Incorporating geriatric assessment tools in the care of older adults with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer might help clinicians to offer individualised treatment to each patient. FUNDING: None.

Oncology Expanded Access and FDA's Project Facilitate.

The Oncology Center of Excellence at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration launched Project Facilitate on May 31, 2019, to assist oncology health care providers with Expanded Access requests for investigational drugs. Expanded Access, sometimes called "compassionate use," is a regulatory pathway for physicians caring for patients who have a life-threatening condition or a serious disease to gain access to an investigational drug for treatment when no comparable or satisfactory alternative treatment options are available. Herein we describe the Project Facilitate program and the process for requesting Expanded Access to an investigational drug.

FDA Supplemental Approval Summary: Lenvatinib for the Treatment of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

On August 16, 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved lenvatinib (Lenvima, Eisai Inc.) for first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Approval was based on an international, multicenter, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial (REFLECT; NCT01761266) conducted in 954 patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable HCC. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive lenvatinib (12 mg orally once daily for patients with a baseline body weight ≥60 kg and 8 mg orally once daily for patients with a baseline body weight <60 kg) or sorafenib (400 mg orally twice daily) until radiological disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. REFLECT demonstrated that lenvatinib was noninferior but not statistically superior to sorafenib for overall survival (OS; hazard ratio, [HR] 0.92; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.79-1.06), with median OS of 13.6 and 12.3 months in the lenvatinib and sorafenib arms, respectively. REFLECT also demonstrated statistically significant improvements in investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS; HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.77]; p < 0.001), corresponding to median PFS of 7.4 and 3.7 months and overall response rate of 24.1% vs 9.2% per modified RECIST for HCC (mRECIST) in the lenvatinib and sorafenib arms, respectively. Consistent results were observed by an independent review facility per RECISTv1.1 and per mRECIST. The most common adverse reactions observed in the lenvatinib-treated patients (≥20%) in decreasing frequency were hypertension, fatigue, diarrhea, decreased appetite, arthralgia/myalgia, decreased weight, abdominal pain, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, proteinuria, dysphonia, hemorrhagic events, hypothyroidism, and nausea. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This article describes the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's review of data from a single trial, REFLECT, that supported the approval of lenvatinib, as a single agent, for the first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). REFLECT was an open-label, noninferiority trial that randomized 954 patients with HCC who were ineligible for liver-directed therapy with no prior systemic therapy for HCC to lenvatinib or sorafenib. REFLECT demonstrated that lenvatinib-treated patients had similar survival, more responses, and longer time to progression than those receiving sorafenib. Serious side effects were more common among lenvatinib-treated patients. Lenvatinib is an effective treatment for patients with previously untreated HCC.

FDA Approval Summary: Selinexor for Relapsed or Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.

In June 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to selinexor for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), not otherwise specified, including DLBCL arising from follicular lymphoma, after at least two lines of systemic therapy. Approval was based on SADAL, a multicenter trial of selinexor monotherapy in patients with DLBCL after two to five systemic regimens. Efficacy was based on independent review committee-assessed objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response using Lugano criteria. In 134 patients treated with the approved dosage (60 mg orally on days 1 and 3 of each week), the ORR was 29% (95% confidence interval, 22-38), with complete response in 13% and with 38% of responses lasting at least 6 months. Gastrointestinal toxicity developed in 80% of patients, hyponatremia in 61%, central neurological toxicity (such as dizziness and mental status changes) in 25%, and ocular toxicity in 18%. New or worsening grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia, lymphopenia, neutropenia, anemia, or hyponatremia developed in ≥15%. Adverse reactions led to selinexor dose interruption in 61% of patients, dose reduction in 49%, and permanent discontinuation in 17%, with thrombocytopenia being the leading cause of dose modifications. Postmarketing studies will evaluate reduced dosages of selinexor and further evaluate clinical benefit in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Selinexor is a new potential option for adults with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified, in the third-line setting or beyond. Toxicities are typically manageable but can be difficult to tolerate and necessitate close monitoring and supportive care.

FDA Approval Summary: Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab for the Treatment of Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Previously Treated with Sorafenib.

On March 10, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) previously treated with sorafenib. The recommended approved dosage was nivolumab 1 mg/kg i.v. plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by nivolumab 240 mg i.v. every 2 weeks. The approval was based on data from cohort 4 of CheckMate 040, which randomized patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HCC previously treated with or who were intolerant to sorafenib to receive one of three different dosing regimens of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab. Investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR) was the primary endpoint, and ORR assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) was an exploratory endpoint. BICR-assessed ORR and duration of response (DoR) form the primary basis of the FDA's regulatory decision, and BICR-assessed ORR was comparable in all three arms at 31%-32% with 95% confidence interval [CI] 18%-47%. The DoR ranged from 17.5 to 22.2 months across the three arms, with overlapping 95% CIs. Adverse events (AEs) were generally consistent with the known AE profiles of nivolumab and ipilimumab, and no new safety events were identified. This article summarizes the FDA review of the data supporting the approval of nivolumab and ipilimumab for the treatment of HCC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy is another option for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who experience radiographic progression during or after sorafenib or sorafenib intolerance. No new toxicities were identified, but, as expected, increased toxicity was observed with the addition of ipilimumab to nivolumab as compared with nivolumab alone, which is also approved for the same indication. Whether to administer nivolumab as a single agent or in combination with ipilimumab is expected to be a joint decision between the oncologist and patient, taking into consideration the potential for a higher likelihood of response and the potentially higher rate of toxicity with the combination.

Benefit-Risk Summary of Nivolumab for the Treatment of Patients with Unresectable Advanced, Recurrent, or Metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma After Prior Fluoropyrimidine- and Platinum-Based Chemotherapy.

On June 10, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved nivolumab (OPDIVO; Bristol Myers Squibb, New York, NY) for the treatment of patients with unresectable advanced, recurrent, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) after prior fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based chemotherapy. Approval was based on the results of a single, randomized, active-control study (ATTRACTION-3) that randomized patients to receive nivolumab or investigator's choice of taxane chemotherapy (docetaxel or paclitaxel). The study demonstrated a significant improvement in overall survival (OS; hazard ratio = 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.62-0.96; p = .0189) with an estimated median OS of 10.9 months in the nivolumab arm compared with 8.4 months in the chemotherapy arm. Overall, fewer patients in the nivolumab arm experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of any grade, grade 3-4 TEAEs, and serious adverse events compared with the control arm. The safety profile of nivolumab in patients with ESCC was generally similar to the known safety profile of nivolumab in other cancer types with the following exception: esophageal fistula was identified as a new, clinically significant risk in patients with ESCC treated with nivolumab. Additionally, the incidence of pneumonitis was higher in the ESCC population than in patients with other cancer types who are treated with nivolumab. This article summarizes the FDA review of the data supporting the approval of nivolumab for the treatment of ESCC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The approval of nivolumab for the treatment of adult patients with unresectable advanced, recurrent, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) after prior fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based chemotherapy was based on an overall survival (OS) benefit from a randomized, open-label, active-controlled study called ATTRACTION-3. Prior to this study, no drug or combination regimen had demonstrated an OS benefit in a randomized study for patients with ESCC after prior fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based chemotherapy.

FDA Approval Summary: Atezolizumab and Durvalumab in Combination with Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in Extensive Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted approval to atezolizumab and durvalumab in March of 2019 and 2020, respectively, for use in combination with chemotherapy for first-line treatment of patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer. These approvals were based on data from two randomized controlled trials, IMpower133 (atezolizumab) and CASPIAN (durvalumab). Both trials demonstrated an improvement in overall survival (OS) with anti-programmed death ligand 1 antibodies when added to platinum-based chemotherapy as compared with chemotherapy alone. In IMpower133, patients receiving atezolizumab with etoposide and carboplatin demonstrated improved OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.91; p = .0069), with median OS of 12.3 months compared with 10.3 months in patients receiving etoposide and carboplatin. In CASPIAN, patients receiving durvalumab with etoposide and either cisplatin or carboplatin also demonstrated improved OS (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.91; p = .0047) with median OS of 13.0 months compared with 10.3 months in patients receiving etoposide and either cisplatin or carboplatin. The safety profiles of both drugs were generally consistent with known toxicities of immune-checkpoint inhibitor therapies. This review summarizes the FDA perspective and data supporting the approval of these two agents. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Effective therapeutic options for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) are limited, and there has been modest improvement in the overall survival (OS) of patients with SCLC over the past 3 decades. The approvals of atezolizumab and of durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy for first-line treatment of patients with extensive stage SCLC represent the first approved therapies with OS benefit for this patient population since the approval of etoposide in combination with other approved chemotherapeutic agents. Additionally, the efficacy results from IMpower133 and CASPIAN lay the groundwork for possible further evaluation in other treatment settings in this disease.

Systematic Review of PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors in Oncology: From Personalized Medicine to Public Health.

BACKGROUND: To review and summarize all U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of programmed death (PD)-1 and PD-ligand 1 blocking antibodies (collectively referred to as PD-[L]1 inhibitors) over a 6-year period and corresponding companion/complementary diagnostic assays. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To determine the indications and pivotal trials eligible for inclusion, approval letters and package inserts available on Drugs@FDA were evaluated for approved PD-[L]1 inhibitors to identify all new indications granted from the first approval of a PD-[L]1 inhibitor on September 4, 2014, through September 3, 2020. The corresponding FDA drug and device reviews from the marketing applications for the approved indications were identified through FDA internal records. Two reviewers independently extracted information for the endpoints, efficacy data, basis for approval, type of regulatory approval, and corresponding in vitro diagnostic device test. The results were organized by organ system and tumor type. RESULTS: Of 70 Biologic Licensing Application or supplement approvals that resulted in new indications, 32 (46%) were granted based on response rate (ORR) and durability of response, 26 (37%) on overall survival, 9 (13%) on progression-free survival, 2 (3%) on recurrence-free survival, and 1 (1%) on complete response rate. Most ORR-based approvals were granted under the accelerated approval provisions and were supported with prolonged duration of response. Overall, 21% of approvals were granted with a companion diagnostic. Efficacy results according to tumor type are discussed. CONCLUSION: PD-[L]1 inhibitors are an effective anticancer therapy in a subset of patients. This class of drugs has provided new treatment options for patients with unmet need across a wide variety of cancer types. Yet, the modest response rates in several tumor types signal a lack of understanding of the biology of these diseases. Further preclinical and clinical investigation may be required to identify a more appropriate patient population, particularly as drug development continues and additional treatment alternatives become available. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The number of PD-[L]1 inhibitors in drug development and the associated companion and complementary diagnostics have led to regulatory challenges and questions regarding generalizability of trial results. The interchangeability of PD-L1 immunohistochemical assays between PD-1/PD-L1 drugs is unclear. Furthermore, robust responses in some patients with low levels of PD-L1 expression have limited the use of PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker across all cancers, particularly in the setting of diseases with few alternative treatment options. This review summarizes the biomarker thresholds and assays approved as complementary and companion diagnostics and provides regulatory perspective on the role of biomarkers in oncology drug development.

FDA Approval Summary: Olaparib Monotherapy or in Combination with Bevacizumab for the Maintenance Treatment of Patients with Advanced Ovarian Cancer.

On December 19, 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted approval to olaparib monotherapy for first-line maintenance treatment of BRCA-mutated (BRCAm) advanced ovarian cancer and, on May 8, 2020, expanded the indication of olaparib to include its use in combination with bevacizumab for first-line maintenance treatment of homologous recombination deficient (HRD)-positive advanced ovarian cancer. Both these approvals were based on randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Approval for olaparib monotherapy was based on the SOLO-1 trial, comparing the efficacy of olaparib versus placebo in patients with BRCAm advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer after surgical cytoreduction and first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Two companion diagnostic (CDx) tests were approved with this indication: BRACAnalysis CDx, for germline BRCA1/2 alterations, and FoundationOne CDx, for BRCA1/2 alterations in tissue specimens. Approval for olaparib in combination with bevacizumab was based on the results of the PAOLA-1 trial that compared olaparib with bevacizumab versus placebo plus bevacizumab in patients with advanced high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab. Myriad myChoice CDx was designated as a companion diagnostic device for use of olaparib plus bevacizumab combination for ovarian cancer associated with HRD-positive status. Both trials demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in progression-free survival and favorable benefit-risk profiles for the indicated populations. This article summarizes the FDA thought process and data supporting the approval of olaparib as monotherapy and in combination with bevacizumab for maintenance therapy in this setting. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: These approvals represent the first poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, alone or in combination with bevacizumab, approved in first-line maintenance treatment of women with advanced ovarian cancer after cytoreductive surgery and chemotherapy. In patients with BRCA-mutated tumors, olaparib monotherapy demonstrated a 70% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death compared with placebo, and olaparib in combination with bevacizumab demonstrated a 67% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death compared with bevacizumab alone in homologous recombination deficient-positive tumors. These approvals represent a major advance for the treatment of women with advanced ovarian cancer who are in complete or partial response after their initial platinum-based chemotherapy.

FDA Approval Summary: Rucaparib for the Treatment of Patients with Deleterious BRCA-Mutated Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to rucaparib in May 2020 for the treatment of adult patients with deleterious BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic)-associated metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who have been treated with androgen receptor-directed therapy and a taxane. This approval was based on data from the ongoing multicenter, open-label single-arm trial TRITON2. The primary endpoint, confirmed objective response rate, in the 62 patients who met the above criteria, was 44% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 31%-57%). The median duration of response was not estimable (95% CI: 6.4 to not estimable). Fifty-six percent of patients had a response duration of >6 months and 15% >12 months. The safety profile of rucaparib was generally consistent with that of the class of poly-(ADP-ribose) polymerase enzyme inhibitors and other trials of rucaparib in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Deaths due to adverse events (AEs) occurred in 1.7% of patients, and 8% discontinued rucaparib because of an AE. Grade 3-4 AEs occurred in 59% of patients. No patients with prostate cancer developed myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia. The trial TRITON3 in patients with mCRPC is ongoing and is planned to verify the clinical benefit of rucaparib in mCRPC. This article summarizes the FDA thought process and data supporting this accelerated approval. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The accelerated approval of rucaparib for the treatment of adult patients with deleterious BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic)-associated metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer who have been treated with androgen receptor-directed therapy and a taxane represents the first approved therapy for this selected patient population. This approval was based on a single-arm trial demonstrating a confirmed objective response rate greater than that of available therapy with a favorable duration of response and an acceptable toxicity profile. The ongoing trial TRITON3 is verifying the clinical benefit of this drug.

US Food and Drug Administration regulatory updates in neuro-oncology.

OBJECTIVE: Contemporary management of patients with neuro-oncologic disease requires an understanding of approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) related to nervous system tumors. To summarize FDA updates applicable to neuro-oncology practitioners, we sought to review oncology product approvals and Guidances that were pertinent to the field in the past year. METHODS: Oncology product approvals between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020, were reviewed for clinical trial outcomes involving tumors of the nervous system. FDA Guidances relevant to neuro-oncology were also reviewed. RESULTS: Five oncology product approvals described outcomes for nervous system tumors in the year 2020. These included the first regulatory approval for neurofibromatosis type 1: selumetinib for children with symptomatic, inoperable plexiform neurofibromas. Additionally, there were 4 regulatory approvals for non-central nervous system (CNS) cancers that described clinical outcomes for patients with brain metastases. These included the approval of tucatinib for metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer including patients with brain metastases, brigatinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and pralsetinib and selpercatinib for RET fusion-positive NSCLC. Finally, two FDA Guidances for Industry, "Cancer Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Brain Metastases" and "Evaluating Cancer Drugs in Patients with Central Nervous System Metastases" were published to facilitate drug development for and inclusion of patients with CNS metastases in clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the challenges of the past year brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, progress continues to be made in neuro-oncology. These include first-of-their-kind FDA approvals and Guidances that are relevant to the management of patients with nervous system tumors.

CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment for patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a US Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDKIs) are indicated with endocrine therapy as first-line or second-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced or metastatic breast cancer. We aimed to investigate the benefit of adding CDKIs to endocrine therapy in patients whose tumours might have differing degrees of endocrine sensitivity. METHODS: We pooled individual patient data from all phase 3 randomised breast cancer trials of CDKIs plus endocrine therapy submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration before Jan 1, 2019, in support of marketing applications. Our pooled analysis included all randomly assigned patients in these trials who received at least one dose of CDKI or placebo with endocrine therapy (an aromatase inhibitor [letrozole or anastrazole] or fulvestrant). We did prespecified subgroup analyses in patients with progesterone receptor-negative disease; patients with a disease-free interval of 12 months or less; patients with de-novo metastases, lobular histology, and bone-only disease; patients with visceral metastases; and patients aged up to 40 years. Patients who were not treated, who received tamoxifen as endocrine therapy, or who were treated with an aromatase inhibitor but who had received previous chemotherapy in the metastatic setting (not first-line) were excluded from our pooled analyses. All studies had a primary endpoint of investigator-assessed progression-free survival, defined as time from date of randomisation to the initial date of documented cancer progression or death, whichever occurred first. Median progression-free survival was estimated with Kaplan-Meier methods. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% CIs for progression-free survival were estimated by means of Cox regression models. FINDINGS: The seven studies meeting this study's inclusion criteria were done between Feb 22, 2013, and Nov 3, 2017, with a median duration of follow-up of 19·7 months (IQR 15·9-25·9). 4200 patients were included in the pooled analysis, of whom 1320 received an aromatase inhibitor plus a CDKI, 932 received placebo plus an aromatase inhibitor, 1296 received fulvestrant plus a CDKI, and 652 received fulvestrant plus placebo. Across all seven pooled trials, the difference in estimated median progression-free survival was 8·8 months in favour of CDKI plus endocrine therapy over placebo plus endocrine therapy (range across the trials 6·8-13·3 months; HR 0·59, 95% CI 0·54-0·64). Progression-free survival results favoured the CDKI group in all prespecified clinicopathological subgroups analysed, with similar HRs to that for the broader intended-use population. In first-line aromatase inhibitor-treated patients (n=2252), the median progression-free survival in the CDKI plus aromatase inhibitor group was 28·0 months (95% CI 25·3-29·1) versus 14·9 months (14·0-16·7) in the placebo plus aromatase inhibitor group (difference 13·1 months; range across the trials 13·0-13·3 months; HR 0·55, 95% CI 0·49-0·62). In first-line fulvestrant-treated patients (n=396), the median progression-free survival was 18·6 months (95% CI 14·8-23·5) in the placebo plus fulvestrant group and not estimable (22·4 to not estimable) in the CDKI plus fulvestrant group (difference not estimable; HR 0·58, 95% CI 0·42-0·80). In the patients treated with fulvestrant in the second-line setting and beyond (n=1552), the difference in estimated median progression-free survival between the CDKI plus fulvestrant group and the placebo plus fulvestrant group was 6·9 months in favour of the CDKI group (range across the trials 5·5-7·3 months; HR 0·56, 95% CI 0·49-0·64). INTERPRETATION: Since the addition of CDKI to endocrine therapy seemed to benefit all clinicopathological subgroups of interest in this pooled analysis, further research is needed to identify patient subgroups for whom endocrine therapy alone might be appropriate for first-line or second-line treatment of hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. FUNDING: None.