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.

US Food and Drug Administration Approval Summary: Elacestrant for Estrogen Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative, ESR1-Mutated Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved elacestrant for the treatment of postmenopausal women or adult men with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-), estrogen receptor 1 (ESR1)-mutated advanced or metastatic breast cancer with disease progression after at least one line of endocrine therapy (ET). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Approval was based on EMERALD (Study RAD1901-308), a randomized, open-label, active-controlled, multicenter trial in 478 patients with ER+, HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer, including 228 patients with ESR1 mutations. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either elacestrant 345 mg orally once daily (n = 239) or investigator's choice of ET (n = 239). RESULTS: In the ESR1-mut subgroup, EMERALD demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review assessment (n = 228; hazard ratio [HR], 0.55 [95% CI, 0.39 to 0.77]; P value = .0005). Although the overall survival (OS) end point was not met, there was no trend toward a potential OS detriment (HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.63 to 1.30]) in the ESR1-mut subgroup. PFS also reached statistical significance in the intention-to-treat population (ITT, N = 478; HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.55 to 0.88]; P value = .0018). However, improvement in PFS in the ITT population was primarily attributed to results from patients in the ESR1-mut subgroup. More patients who received elacestrant experienced nausea, vomiting, and dyslipidemia. CONCLUSION: The approval of elacestrant in ER+, HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer was restricted to patients with ESR1 mutations. Benefit-risk assessment in the ESR1-mut subgroup was favorable on the basis of a statistically significant improvement in PFS in the context of an acceptable safety profile including no evidence of a potential detriment in OS. By contrast, the benefit-risk assessment in patients without ESR1 mutations was not favorable. Elacestrant is the first oral estrogen receptor antagonist to receive FDA approval for patients with ESR1 mutations.

Realizing the promise of Project Optimus: Challenges and emerging opportunities for dose optimization in oncology drug development.

Project Optimus is a US Food and Drug Administration Oncology Center of Excellence initiative aimed at reforming the dose selection and optimization paradigm in oncology drug development. This project seeks to bring together pharmaceutical companies, international regulatory agencies, academic institutions, patient advocates, and other stakeholders. Although there is much promise in this initiative, there are several challenges that need to be addressed, including multidimensionality of the dose optimization problem in oncology, the heterogeneity of cancer and patients, importance of evaluating long-term tolerability beyond dose-limiting toxicities, and the lack of reliable biomarkers for long-term efficacy. Through the lens of Totality of Evidence and with the mindset of model-informed drug development, we offer insights into dose optimization by building a quantitative knowledge base integrating diverse sources of data and leveraging quantitative modeling tools to build evidence for drug dosage considering exposure, disease biology, efficacy, toxicity, and patient factors. We believe that rational dose optimization can be achieved in oncology drug development, improving patient outcomes by maximizing therapeutic benefit while minimizing toxicity.

FDA Approval Summary: Mirvetuximab Soravtansine-Gynx for FRα-Positive, Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer.

On November 14, 2022, the FDA granted accelerated approval to mirvetuximab soravtansine-gynx for treatment of adult patients with folate receptor-α (FRα)-positive, platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who have received one to three prior systemic therapies. The VENTANA FOLR1 (FOLR-2.1) RxDx Assay was approved as a companion diagnostic device to select patients for this indication. Approval was based on Study 0417 (SORAYA, NCT04296890), a single-arm, multicenter trial. In 104 patients with measurable disease who received mirvetuximab soravtansine-gynx, the overall response rate was 31.7% [95% confidence interval (CI), 22.9-41.6] with a median duration of response of 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.6-9.7). Ocular toxicity was included as a Boxed Warning in the U.S. Prescribing Information (USPI) to alert providers of the risks of developing severe ocular toxicity including vision impairment and corneal disorders. Pneumonitis and peripheral neuropathy were additional important safety risks included as Warnings and Precautions in the USPI. This is the first approval of a targeted therapy for FRα-positive, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer and the first antibody-drug conjugate approved for ovarian cancer. This article summarizes the favorable benefit-risk assessment leading to FDA's approval of mirvetuximab soravtansine-gynx.

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

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

FDA Approval Summary: Pembrolizumab for Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Treatment of Patients with High-Risk Early-Stage Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

On July 26, 2021, the FDA granted approval to pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy for neoadjuvant treatment and then continued as a single agent for adjuvant treatment following surgery for patients with high-risk, early-stage triple-negative breast cancer. Approval was based on results from KEYNOTE-522, an ongoing randomized (2:1) trial evaluating pembrolizumab or placebo in combination with chemotherapy for neoadjuvant treatment and then as a single agent for adjuvant treatment. The co-primary endpoints were pathological complete response (pCR) rate and event-free survival (EFS). The trial demonstrated an improvement in pCR and EFS in the pembrolizumab arm compared with the control arm. The number of patients who experienced an EFS event was 123 (16%) and 93 (24%), respectively [HR: 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.48-0.82, P = 0.00031]. Patients on the pembrolizumab arm experienced EFS benefit regardless of tumor PD-L1 status. The absolute pCR rate improvement with the addition of pembrolizumab was 7.5% (95% CI, 1.6-13.4). Among patients receiving pembrolizumab, 44% experienced an immune-related adverse reaction. This article summarizes FDA's review of pembrolizumab and the data supporting the favorable benefit-risk assessment.

Olaparib Use in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer Harboring Somatic BRCA1/2 Mutations or Mutations in Non-BRCA1/2, DNA Damage Repair Genes.

BACKGROUND: Poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi) are active in patients with germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2)-mutated breast cancer, accounting for 5% to 10% of all breast cancers. Another 5% to 10% harbor somatic BRCA1/2 (sBRCA1/2) mutations or mutations in non-BRCA1/2, homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes but until recently, there were no data for the use of PARPi in these patients. This study examines the use of olaparib in patients with metastatic breast cancer harboring sBRCA1/2 or germline or somatic non-BRCA1/2, HRR mutations and demonstrates potential activity of PARPi in this setting. METHODS: In this retrospective, single institution study, patients who were treated with off-label, off-protocol olaparib for metastatic breast cancer harboring sBRCA1/2 or germline or somatic non-BRCA1/2, HRR mutations were identified. The primary aim was to describe these patients' demographics, tumor characteristics, mutations, safety and tolerability, response rates, progression free survival, PARPi-associated survival and subsequent treatment. RESULTS: Seven patients were treated off-label, off-trial with olaparib for sBRCA1/2-mutated cancers (n = 4) or non-BRCA1/2, HRR-mutated cancers (n = 3). All patients with sBRCA1/2-mutated cancers responded to PARP inhibition; patients with non-BRCA1/2, HRR-mutated cancers did not respond. The median progression free survival in patients with a sBRCA1/2 mutation was 6.5 months (range 5-9 months) vs. 3 months (range 2-4 months) in patients with non-BRCA1/2, HRR mutations. CONCLUSION: This single institution experience adds to recent larger reports confirming evidence for PARPi therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer harboring sBRCA1/2 mutations. No activity was observed in patients with either germline or somatic non-BRCA1/2, HRR-mutated cancers.

U.S. FDA Drug Approvals for Gynecological Malignancies: A Decade in Review.

Over the last decade, there has been tremendous progress in the treatment of patients with gynecologic cancers with a changing therapy landscape. This summary provides an overview of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for gynecologic cancers from 2010 to 2020, totaling 17 new indications. For each of the approved indications, endpoints, trial design, results, and regulatory considerations are outlined. Among these 17 indications, six received accelerated approval (AA) and 11 received regular approval (RA). As of September 2021, of the six AA, three have subsequently demonstrated clinical benefit resulting in conversion to RA and the remaining three have ongoing clinical trials that have not yet reported results. Approval decisions for these 17 indications were supported by primary efficacy endpoints of progression-free survival (n = 10), objective response rate (n = 6), and overall survival (n = 1) and showed a favorable benefit-risk profile. Among the 17 indications, 15 received priority review and three applications participated in one or more novel Oncology Center of Excellence initiatives, including Real Time Oncology Review, Assessment Aid, and Project Orbis. Current FDA thinking on drug development opportunities and regulatory initiatives currently under way will be discussed.

U.S. FDA Drug Approvals for Breast Cancer: A Decade in Review.

Over the last decade, the treatment of patients with breast cancer has been greatly impacted by the approval of multiple drugs and indications. This summary describes 30 FDA approvals of treatments for breast cancer from 2010 to 2020. The trial design endpoints, results, and regulatory considerations are described for each approved indication. Of the 30 indications, 23 (76.6%) received regular and 7 (23.3%) received accelerated approval. Twenty-six approvals were granted in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and four in early breast cancer. Approval decisions for the 26 MBC indications were initially supported by progression-free survival (PFS) in 21 (80.8%), overall survival (OS) or a combination of OS and PFS in two (7.7%), and objective response rate (ORR) in three (11.5%). The four approvals in early breast cancer utilized pathologic complete response (pCR) in one (25%) and invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) in three (75%) trials. Among the 30 indications, 22 received priority review, seven were granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation, and 10 applications participated in one or more pilot Oncology Center of Excellence regulatory review initiatives, including Real Time Oncology Review, Assessment Aid, and Project Orbis. FDA initiatives to advance breast cancer drug development are also described.

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.

Developing Workshops to Enhance Hope Among Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer and Oncologists: A Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: Hope is a modifiable entity that can be augmented. We evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of a short intervention to increase hopefulness in patients with advanced breast cancer and oncologists. METHODS: We enrolled eligible participants to two cohorts: one for patients with metastatic breast cancer and one for medical, radiation, or surgical oncologists. The intervention, a half-day hope enhancement workshop, included groups of 10-15 participants within each cohort. Participants in both cohorts completed preworkshop, postworkshop, and 3-month evaluations, which included the Adult Hope Scale (AHS), Herth Hope Index (HHI), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Global Health (PROMIS-GH) measures in patients, and the AHS, HHI, and a burnout self-assessment tool in physicians. RESULTS: We consented 13 patients and 26 oncologists for participation in the workshop and 76.9% (n = 10) of consented patients and 100% (n = 26) of consented physicians participated. Postworkshop, all participants planned to incorporate what they learned into their daily lives. In patients, AHS scores increased from preworkshop to postworkshop, and the mean change of 5.90 was significant (range 0-15, SD: 4.7, t = 3.99, P = .0032). HHI scores also increased, although the mean change was not significant. AHS and HHI scores did not significantly change in oncologists from preworkshop to postworkshop. At 3 months, less than half of the participants responded to the evaluation. CONCLUSION: We found that conducting a hope-enhancement workshop for patients with metastatic breast cancer and oncologists was feasible, generally acceptable to both populations, and associated with increased hopefulness in patients. Next steps should focus on confirming this effect in a randomized study and maintaining this effect in the postworkshop interval.

FDA Approval Summary: Tucatinib for the Treatment of Patients with Advanced or Metastatic HER2-positive Breast Cancer.

On April 17, 2020, the FDA approved tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for the treatment of patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer, including patients with brain metastases, who have received one or more prior anti-HER2-based regimens in the metastatic setting. This was the first new molecular entity evaluated under Project Orbis, an FDA Oncology Center of Excellence initiative, which supports concurrent review of oncology drugs by multiple global health authorities. Approval was based on the HER2CLIMB trial, which randomized patients to receive tucatinib or placebo with trastuzumab and capecitabine. Tucatinib demonstrated efficacy compared with placebo in progression-free survival [PFS; HR: 0.54; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.42-0.71; P < 0.00001] and overall survival (OS; HR: 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50-0.87; P = 0.00480). Patients with either treated and stable or active brain metastases made up 48% of the study population. PFS in patients with brain metastases confirmed benefit (HR: 0.48; 95% CI, 0.34-0.69; P < 0.00001). The benefit in patients with brain metastases allowed for inclusion of this specific population in the indication. Important safety signals included diarrhea and hepatotoxicity which are listed under Warnings and Precautions. This article summarizes the FDA thought process and data supporting the favorable benefit-risk profile and approval of tucatinib.

A Phase I Study of Dinaciclib in Combination With MK-2206 in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

The combination of drugs targeting Ral and PI3K/AKT signaling has antitumor efficacy in preclinical models of pancreatic cancer. We combined dinaciclib (small molecule cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor with MK-2206 (Akt inhibitor) in patients with previously treated/metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients were treated with dinaciclib (6-12 mg/m2 i.v.) and MK-2206 (60-135 mg p.o.) weekly. Tumor biopsies were performed to measure pAKT, pERK, and Ki67 at baseline and after one completed cycle (dose level 2 and beyond). Thirty-nine patients participated in the study. The maximum tolerated doses were dinaciclib 9 mg/m2 and MK-2206 135 mg. Treatment-related grade 3 and 4 toxicities included neutropenia, lymphopenia, anemia, hyperglycemia, hyponatremia, and leukopenia. No objectives responses were observed. Four patients (10%) had stable disease as their best response. At the recommended dose, median survival was 2.2 months. Survival rates at 6 and 12 months were 11% and 5%, respectively. There was a nonsignificant reduction in pAKT composite scores between pretreatment and post-treatment biopsies (mean 0.76 vs. 0.63; P = 0.635). The combination of dinaciclib and MK-2206 was a safe regimen in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer, although without clinical benefit, possibly due to not attaining biologically effective doses. Given the strong preclinical evidence of Ral and AKT inhibition, further studies with better tolerated agents should be considered.

Oncology Fellow-Led Quality Improvement Project to Improve Rates of Palliative Care Utilization in Patients With Advanced Cancer.

PURPOSE: ASCO guidelines recommend palliative care (PC) referral for patients with advanced or metastatic cancer. Despite this, implementation has considerable hurdles. First-year oncology fellows at our institution identified low rates of PC utilization in their longitudinal clinic as a metric needing improvement. METHODS: A fellow-led multidisciplinary team aimed to increase PC utilization for patients with advanced cancer followed in he first-year fellows' clinic from a baseline of 11.5% (5 of 43 patients, July to December of 2018) to 30% over a 6-month period. Utilization was defined as evaluation in the outpatient PC clinic hosted in the cancer center. The team identified the following barriers to referral: orders difficult to find in the electronic medical record (EMR), multiple consulting mechanisms (EMR, by phone, or in person), EMR request not activating formal consult, no centralized scheduler to contact or confirm appointment, and poor awareness of team structure. Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles were implemented based on identified opportunities. Data were obtained from the EMR. RESULTS: The first PDSA cycle included focus groups with stakeholders, standardizing referral process via single order set, identifying a single scheduler with bidirectional communication, and disseminating process changes. PDSA cycles were implemented from January to June of 2019. Rates of PC use increased from 11.5% before the intervention to 48.4% (48 of 99 patients) after the intervention. CONCLUSION: A multidisciplinary approach and classic quality improvement methodology improved PC use in patients with advanced cancer. The pilot succeeded given the small number of fellows, buy-in from stakeholders, and institutional and leadership support. Straightforward EMR interventions and ancillary staff use are effective in addressing underreferrals.

CDK4/6 Inhibitors: Game Changers in the Management of Hormone Receptor­Positive Advanced Breast Cancer?

The cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib are rapidly transforming the care of patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer. Current clinical questions include how to choose among these agents and how to sequence them with other therapies. Areas of active inquiry include identifying predictive biomarkers for CDK4/6 inhibitors, deciding whether to continue CDK4/6 inhibitors after disease progression, creating novel treatment combinations, and expanding use beyond HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer. Here, we review the current use of and potential next directions for CDK4/6 inhibitors in the treatment of patients with HR+ breast cancer.

Prevention of influenza in healthy children.

Healthy children are high transmitters of influenza and can experience poor influenza outcomes. Many questions remain about the efficacy and impect of preventive measures because most existing studies report imprecise proxies of influenza incidence, do not follow subjects throughout the entire influenza season and across multiple influenza seasons, or do not control for important factors such as timing of implementation and social contact patterns. Modeling and simulation are key methodologies to answer questions regarding influenza prevention. While vaccination may be the most efficacious existing intervention, variations in circulating strains and children's immune systems keep current vaccines from being fully protective, necessitating further clinical and economic studies and technology improvements. Hand hygiene appears to be an important adjunct but improving compliance, standardizing regimens and quantifying its impact remain challenging. Future studies should help better define the specific indications and circumstances for antiviral use and the role of nutritional supplements and nonpharmaceutical interventions.

Assessment of a school-based mass treatment for soil-transmitted helminth infections in Capiz, the Philippines.

We evaluated the War on Worms in the Western Visayas (WOW-V) school-based mass treatment strategy in Capiz, the Philippines by assessing potential determinants of program acceptance among parents, teachers, and local health and education officials involved. Written surveys were distributed to parents and teachers assessing knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding soil-transmitted helminth (STH) infections. Associations between data were examined using the Fisher's exact test (alpha = 0.05). Descriptive statistics and t-tests were employed to analyze teacher survey results. Local health and education officials participated in key-informant interviews (KIs) to evaluate their attitudes and practices regarding WOW-V; data was qualitatively analyzed and grouped. A strong association was observed between parental consent during the first two rounds of treatment and willingness to do so again. Most parents gave consent for their child to receive treatment at least once and demonstrated a high level of knowledge regarding STH infections. The majority of teachers had positive attitudes toward their role in the program. Many identified lack of training and a fear of side effects as barriers to higher coverage. Lack of funding, program monitoring difficulties and insufficient parental education were identified by local officials as barriers. Proper planning and design is important to achieve high initial consent for program acceptance. The results correlate with studies showing relationships between health education and treatment acceptance. The implementation of health education and monitoring measures has the potential to greatly improve both treatment coverage and program infrastructure.