Clinical benefit and cost of breakthrough cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.

BACKGROUND: The clinical benefit and pricing of breakthrough-designated cancer drugs are uncertain. This study compares the magnitude of the clinical benefit and monthly price of new and supplemental breakthrough-designated and non-breakthrough-designated cancer drug approvals. METHODS: A cross-sectional cohort comprised approvals of cancer drugs for solid tumors from July 2012 to December 2017. For each indication, the clinical benefit from the pivotal trials was scored via validated frameworks: the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF), the American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Research Committee (ASCO-CRC), the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Evidence Blocks. A high clinical benefit was defined as scores ≥ 45 for the ASCO-VF, overall survival gains ≥ 2.5 months or progression-free survival gains ≥ 3 months for all cancer types for the ASCO-CRC criteria, a grade of A or B for trials of curative intent and a grade of 4 or 5 for trials of noncurative intent for the ESMO-MCBS, and scores of 4 and 5 and a combined score ≥ 16 for the NCCN Evidence Blocks. Monthly Medicare drug prices were calculated with Medicare prices and DrugAbacus. RESULTS: This study identified 106 trials supporting approval of 52 drugs for 96 indications. Forty percent of these indications received the breakthrough designation. Among the included trials, 33 (43%), 46 (73%), 35 (34%), and 67 (69%) met the thresholds established by the ASCO-VF, ASCO-CRC, ESMO-MCBS, and NCCN, respectively. In the metastatic setting, there were higher odds of clinically meaningful grades in trials supporting breakthrough drugs with the ASCO-VF (odds ratio [OR], 3.69; P = .022) and the NCCN Evidence Blocks (OR, 5.80; P = .003) but not with the ASCO-CRC (OR, 3.54; P = .11) or version 1.1 (v1.1) of the ESMO-MCBS (OR, 1.22; P = .70). The median costs of breakthrough therapy drugs were significantly higher than those of nonbreakthrough therapies (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: In advanced solid cancers, drugs that received the breakthrough therapy designation were more likely than nonbreakthrough therapy drugs to be scored as providing a high clinical benefit with the ASCO-VF and the NCCN Evidence Blocks but not with the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 or the ASCO-CRC scale.

Pharmacogenetic clinical randomised phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FOLFIRI with high-dose irinotecan (HD-FOLFIRI) in metastatic colorectal cancer patients according to their UGT1A 1 genotype.

BACKGROUND: Patients harbouring the UGT1A1*28/*28 genotype are at risk of severe toxicity with the standard irinotecan dose. However, this dose is considerably lower than the dose that can be tolerated by UGT1A1*1/*1 and *1/*28 patients. This randomised phase II trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of the FOLFIRI regimen with high-dose irinotecan (HD-FOLFIRI) in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. METHODS: Eighty-two patients with the UGT1A1*1/*1 or the *1/*28 genotype were randomised to receive HD-FOLFIRI versus FOLFIRI. Patients with the UGT1A1*28/*28 genotype were excluded. In the experimental group, the irinotecan dose was 300 mg/m2 for UGT1A1*1/*1 and 260 mg/m2 for *1/*28 patients. In the control group, the dose was 180 mg/m2. We analysed the overall response rate (ORR), toxicity, and survival. RESULTS: The ORR was significantly higher in the HD-FOLFIRI group (67.5 versus 43.6%; p = 0.001 OR: 1.73 [95% CI:1.03-2.93]). Neutropenia (17.7%), diarrhoea (5.1%), and asthenia (5.1%) were the most common grade 3-4 toxicity. No differences were observed in severe toxicity (22.5% versus 20.5%), dose reduction (22.5% versus 28.2%), or prophylactic G-CSF (17.5% versus 12.8%). No difference in survival was found. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with the UGT1A1*1/*1 and *1/*28 genotypes can receive high doses of irinotecan to achieve a more favourable ORR without significant adverse events.

Final Results of the Randomized Phase II NorCap-CA223 Trial Comparing First-Line All-Oral Versus Taxane-Based Chemotherapy for HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of 3 first-line chemotherapy combination regimens for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this open-label, 3-arm, randomized phase II trial, patients were randomized to all-oral NORCAP (vinorelbine/capecitabine), GEMPAC (gemcitabine/paclitaxel), or GEMDOC (gemcitabine/docetaxel) as first-line chemotherapy for HER2-negative mBC. Stratification factors were center, previous (neo)adjuvant anthracycline, and age. The primary end point was disease control rate (DCR; complete or partial response, or stable disease for ≥3 months). RESULTS: The DCR was 73% (95% confidence interval [CI], 59-85) with NORCAP (36 of 49 patients), 78% (95% CI, 64-88) with GEMPAC (39 of 50 patients), and 80% (95% CI, 66-90) with GEMDOC (40 of 50 patients). Objective response rates were 33% (16 of 49 patients), 24% (12 of 50 patients), and 50% (25 of 50 patients), respectively; median progression-free survival was 7.6, 9.0, and 11.4 months, respectively. Median overall survival was 30 to 31 months with all regimens. The most common Grade ≥3 adverse event with each regimen was neutropenia (24 patients [50%], 23 patients [46%], and 43 patients [86%], respectively). The most common nonhematological Grade ≥3 adverse event was fatigue. Grade 2 alopecia occurred in 36 patients (72%) who received GEMPAC and 38 patients (76%) who received GEMDOC, but only 4 patients (8%) who received NORCAP. There was no evidence of a detrimental effect of NORCAP on quality of life. CONCLUSION: All-oral NORCAP is an active first-line chemotherapy regimen and might be offered as an alternative to first-line taxane-based therapy for HER2-negative mBC, particularly if patients wish to avoid alopecia or frequent intravenous administrations.

Epirubicin Plus Cyclophosphamide Followed by Docetaxel Versus Epirubicin Plus Docetaxel Followed by Capecitabine As Adjuvant Therapy for Node-Positive Early Breast Cancer: Results From the GEICAM/2003-10 Study.

PURPOSE: Capecitabine is an active drug in metastatic breast cancer (BC). GEICAM/2003-10 is an adjuvant trial to investigate the integration of capecitabine into a regimen of epirubicin and docetaxel for node-positive early BC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with operable node-positive BC (T1-3/N1-3) were eligible. After surgery, 1,384 patients were randomly assigned to receive epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide (EC; 90 and 600 mg/m(2), respectively, × four cycles), followed by docetaxel (100 mg/m(2) × four cycles; EC-T) or epirubicin plus docetaxel (ET; 90 and 75 mg/m(2), respectively, × four cycles), followed by capecitabine (1,250 mg/m(2) twice a day on days 1 to 14, × four cycles; ET-X); all regimens were given every 3 weeks. The primary end point was invasive disease-free survival. Secondary end points included safety (with an alopecia-specific study) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 6.6 years and 297 events, 86% of patients who received EC-T and 82% of those who received ET-X were invasive disease free at 5 years (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.64; log-rank P = .03). The OS difference between arms was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.55; log-rank P = .46). The most frequent grade 3 to 4 adverse events in the EC-T versus ET-X arms were neutropenia (19% v 10%), with 7% febrile neutropenia across arms; fatigue (13% v 11%); diarrhea (3% v 11%); hand-foot syndrome (2% v 20%); mucositis (6% v 5%); vomiting (both, 5%); and myalgia (4.5% v 1%). Incomplete scalp hair recovery was more frequent in the EC-T than ET-X arm (30% v 14%), and patients who received EC-T wore wigs significantly longer than those who received ET-X (8.35 v 6.03 months). CONCLUSION: Invasive disease-free survival, but not OS, was significantly superior for patients with node-positive early BC who received the adjuvant standard schedule EC-T than for those who received the experimental ET-X regimen. Toxicity profiles differed substantially across arms.

Fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FAC) versus FAC followed by weekly paclitaxel as adjuvant therapy for high-risk, node-negative breast cancer: results from the GEICAM/2003-02 study.

PURPOSE: Adding taxanes to anthracycline-based adjuvant therapy improves survival outcomes of patients with node-positive breast cancer (BC). Currently, however, most patients with BC are node negative at diagnosis. The only pure node-negative study (Spanish Breast Cancer Research Group 9805) reported so far showed a docetaxel benefit but significant toxicity. Here we tested the efficacy and safety of weekly paclitaxel (wP) in node-negative patients, which is yet to be established. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with BC having T1-T3/N0 tumors and at least one high-risk factor for recurrence (according to St. Gallen 1998 criteria) were eligible. After primary surgery, 1,925 patients were randomly assigned to receive fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FAC) × 6 or FAC × 4 followed by wP × 8 (FAC-wP). The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS) after a median follow-up of 5 years. Secondary end points included toxicity and overall survival. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 63.3 months, 93% and 90.3% of patients receiving FAC-wP or FAC regimens, respectively, remained disease free (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.99; log-rank P = .04). Thirty-one patients receiving FAC-wP versus 40 patients receiving FAC died (one and seven from cardiovascular diseases, respectively; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.26; log-rank P = .31). The most relevant grade 3 and 4 adverse events in the FAC-wP versus the FAC arm were febrile neutropenia (2.7% v 3.6%), fatigue (7.9% v 3.4%), and sensory neuropathy (5.5% v 0%). CONCLUSION: For patients with high-risk node-negative BC, the adjuvant FAC-wP regimen was associated with a small but significant improvement in DFS compared with FAC therapy, in addition to manageable toxicity, especially regarding long-term cardiac effects.

Adjuvant docetaxel for high-risk, node-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: A regimen of docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC) is superior to a regimen of fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FAC) when used as adjuvant therapy in women with node-positive breast cancer. The value of taxanes in the treatment of node-negative disease has not been determined. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1060 women with axillary-node-negative breast cancer and at least one high-risk factor for recurrence (according to the 1998 St. Gallen criteria) to treatment with TAC or FAC every 3 weeks for six cycles after surgery. The primary end point was disease-free survival after at least 5 years of follow-up. Secondary end points included overall survival and toxicity. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 77 months, the proportion of patients alive and disease-free was higher among the 539 women in the TAC group (87.8%) than among the 521 women in the FAC group (81.8%), representing a 32% reduction in the risk of recurrence with TAC (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49 to 0.93; P=0.01 by the log-rank test). This benefit was consistent, regardless of hormone-receptor status, menopausal status, or number of high-risk factors. The difference in survival rates (TAC, 95.2%; FAC, 93.5%) was not significant (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.45 to 1.26); however, the number of events was small (TAC, 26; FAC, 34). Rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events were 28.2% with TAC and 17.0% with FAC (P<0.001). Toxicity associated with TAC was diminished when primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was provided. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with adjuvant FAC, adjuvant TAC improved the rate of disease-free survival among women with high-risk, node-negative breast cancer. (Funded by GEICAM and Sanofi-Aventis; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00121992.).

Influence of thymidylate synthase and methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase gene polymorphisms on the disease-free survival of breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant 5-fluorouracil/methotrexate-based therapy.

This paper considers the influence of thymidylate synthase (TS) and methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) polymorphisms on the disease-free survival of patients with breast cancer who were treated with adjuvant therapy containing 5-fluorouracil. Relevant clinical data were obtained from the clinical records of 93 patients included in the study. TS and MTHFR genotypes were determined by PCR-agarose gel electrophoresis (TS) and by means of real-time PCR on an ABI PRISM 7000 Sequence Detection System (MTHFR). The median age of 93 patients was 42 years (range 21-76). Fifty patients received CMF, 18 FAC and 25 FEC. The median follow-up of the series was 134 months, with 34 relapses (37%). Sixty patients had a low expression genotype of TS (64.5%) and 33 had a high expression genotype (35.5). No differences in disease-free survival were observed between the two groups (P=0.42). The MTHFR genotype of the 50 patients treated with a chemotherapy regime that included methotrexate was as follows: for C677T, 21 C/C, 21 C/T and eight T/T; for A1298C it was 22 A/A, 24 A/C and four C/C. No differences were found in disease-free survival as regards the MTHFR genotypes (P=0.1 and P=0.6, respectively). Nor were there differences in disease-free survival in the multivariate analyses that included the TS and MTHF genotypes and the relevant clinical variables (P=0.3 for TS, P=0.1 for C677T and P=0.6 for A1298C). This study shows that genotyping the TS or the MTHFR gene is of little value in the individual assessment of the use of adjuvant therapy in breast cancer patients.