Need for aligning the definition and reporting of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in immuno-oncology clinical trials.

As cancer immunotherapies continue to expand across all areas of oncology, it is imperative to establish a standardized approach for defining and capturing clinically important toxicities, such as cytokine release syndrome (CRS). In this paper, we provide considerations for categorizing the variety of adverse events that may accompany CRS and for recognizing that presentations of CRS may differ among various immunotherapies (e.g., monoclonal antibodies, CAR T cell therapies and T cell engagers, which can include bispecific antibodies and other constructs). The goals of this paper are to ensure accurate and consistent identification of CRS in patients receiving immunotherapies in clinical studies to aid in reporting; enable more precise evaluation of the therapeutic risk-benefit profile and cross-study analyses; support evidence-based monitoring and management of important toxicities related to cancer immunotherapies; and improve patient care and outcomes. These efforts will become more important as the number and variety of molecular targets for immunotherapies broaden and as therapies with novel mechanisms continue to be developed.

FDA Approval Summary: Pembrolizumab, Atezolizumab, and Cemiplimab-rwlc as Single Agents for First-Line Treatment of Advanced/Metastatic PD-L1-High NSCLC.

FDA's approval of cemiplimab-rwlc on February 22, 2021, follows prior approvals of pembrolizumab and atezolizumab for similar indications as first-line treatment for patients with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1)-high advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Approvals of these anti-PD-L1 agents were supported by statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in overall survival (OS) in international, multicenter, active-controlled randomized trials. In KEYNOTE-024, the OS HR was 0.60 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.41-0.89; P = 0.005] favoring pembrolizumab over platinum-doublet chemotherapy. In IMpower110, the OS HR was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.40-0.89; P = 0.0106) favoring atezolizumab over platinum-doublet chemotherapy. In Study 1624, the OS HR was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.53-0.87; P = 0.0022) favoring cemiplimab-rwlc over platinum-doublet chemotherapy. The progression-free survival (PFS) effect sizes for these anti-PD-L1 antibodies were also comparable across their respective registrational trials, and their safety profiles were consistent with the anti-PD-L1 class adverse event profile. The consistent survival benefits and manageable toxicity profiles of these single-agent anti-PD-L1 antibodies have established them as important treatment options in the PD-L1-high NSCLC treatment landscape. FDA approvals of these anti-PD-L1 antibodies, based on their favorable benefit-risk profiles, present effective chemotherapy-free therapeutic options for patients with advanced PD-L1-high NSCLC in the United States.

Recommendations for Dose Selection for Adolescent Patients in Relevant Adult Oncology Clinical Trials.

Our research supported the dose selection recommendations for adolescents in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance on Inclusion of Adolescent Patients in Adult Oncology Clinical Trials. The FDA Guidance states that for drugs administered as a flat dose in adults and data showing no clinically meaningful effect of body size on drug exposure and toxicity in adults, a minimum body weight threshold may need to be defined to prevent adolescents who have a lower body weight from exceeding adult exposures. Our review of adult population pharmacokinetic analyses of new molecular entities approved for oncology between January 2015 and March 2021 suggested that 40 kg (the approximate median body weight of a 12-year-old) is generally the lower end of the body weight range that has no clinically relevant effect on drug pharmacokinetics or safety. The minimum body weight threshold and selection of an appropriate dose for adolescents in relevant adult oncology clinical trials should ultimately be determined based on available data on pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics of the investigational drug with consideration of body size effect on drug exposure, toxicity, and efficacy data (if available), the therapeutic index of the drug, and dose- and exposure-response relationships in adults.

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.

Reducing Uninformative IND Safety Reports: A List of Serious Adverse Events anticipated to Occur in Patients with Lung Cancer.

Expedited reporting of unexpected serious adverse reactions that occur during clinical trials conducted under an IND is a critical component of the clinical trial process designed to protect patients by identifying potential safety issues with new agents. However, in recent years, the US FDA has presented extensive data about the problem of uninformative IND safety reporting. Despite published guidance documents aimed at clarifying requirements for submission of IND safety reports for individual events, there continues to be significant over-reporting of these events by many sponsors. This leads to excessive burden for the sponsors, the investigators who conduct clinical trials, and the FDA reviewers, who must evaluate each individual report submitted by the sponsor. This trend has the potential to endanger patients by obscuring true safety signals. To address this problem, LUNGevity Foundation empaneled a multi-sector working group of its Scientific and Clinical Research Roundtable (SCRT) charged with identifying ways to reduce unnecessary distribution of serious adverse events (SAEs) reports. This paper outlines the working group's activities, including a brief list of serious adverse events "anticipated" to occur within the lung cancer population that are either related to the underlying disease or condition being studied, concomitant or background therapy, or events associated with a demographic parameter such as age. These "anticipated" events, while required to be reported by investigators to sponsors, in general, should not then be individually reported by sponsors to FDA and to individual investigators in an IND safety report because these events require aggregate analysis across the development program to determine if they occur more frequently in treated versus untreated patients. This paper also includes discussion of how the use of background threshold values, generated from real-world data, could serve as one potential tool to guide sponsors in making causality assessments. If sponsors and other key stakeholders within the clinical research ecosystem embrace this type of approach and refrain from reporting "anticipated" events as single IND safety reports to the FDA staff and to each participating investigator, it could significantly reduce the amount of unnecessary reporting and serve as a model for other disease areas.

Evaluation of Serious Postmarket Safety Signals Within 2 Years of FDA Approval for New Cancer Drugs.

BACKGROUND: We examined how often new serious safety signals were identified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration within the first 2 years after approval for new molecular entities (NMEs) for treatment of cancer that required specific regulatory actions described here. METHODS: We identified, for all NMEs approved for treatment of cancer or malignant hematology indications between 2010 and 2016, substantial safety-related changes within the first 2 years after approval, which included a new Boxed Warning or Warning and Precaution; requirement for (or modification of existing) Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS); and withdrawal from the market because of safety concerns. RESULTS: Fifty-five NMEs were approved between 2010 and 2016: 32 (58%) under regular approval (RA) and 23 (42%) under accelerated approval (AA). Of these 55 NMEs, 9 (16%) had substantial safety-related changes after approval. Across all 55 NMEs, one was temporarily withdrawn from the market for safety reasons (1.8%); one (1.8%) required a new REMS; nine required labeling revisions-new Boxed Warnings were required for two NMEs (3.6%), and new Warnings and Precautions subsections were required for eight (14.6%). One drug (ponatinib) was responsible for several of the substantial safety-related changes (withdrawal, REMS, Boxed Warnings). One of 32 NMEs approved under RA required a new Warning and Precaution, whereas 7 of 23 NMEs approved under AA had substantial safety-related changes in the first 2 years after approval. CONCLUSION: Based on our analysis we conclude that although there was a greater incidence of substantial safety-related changes to AA drugs versus RA drugs, the majority of these were changes to the Warnings and Precautions and did not substantially alter the benefit-risk profile of the drug. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The majority of new cancer drugs (84%) approved in the U.S. do not have new substantial safety information being added to the label within the first 2 years of approval. Unprecedented efficacy seen in contemporary cancer drug development has led to early availability of effective cancer therapies based on large effects in smaller populations. More limited premarket safety data require diligent postmarketing safety surveillance as we continue to learn and update drug labeling throughout the product lifecycle.

Assessing an ASCO Decision Aid for Improving the Accuracy and Attribution of Serious Adverse Event Reporting From Investigators to Sponsors.

PURPOSE: Investigators often send reports to sponsors that incorrectly categorize adverse event (AE)s as serious or attribute AEs to investigational drugs. Such errors can contribute to high volumes of uninformative investigational new drug safety reports that sponsors submit to the US Food and Drug Administration and participating investigators, which strain resources and impede the detection of valid safety signals. To improve the quality of serious AE (SAE) reporting by physician-investigators and research staff, ASCO developed and tested a Decision Aid. METHODS: A preliminary study with crossover design was conducted in a convenience sample. Physician-investigators and research staff were randomly assigned to receive case studies. Case studies were assessed for seriousness and attribution, first unassisted and then with the Decision Aid. Participants completed a feedback survey about the Decision Aid. Effectiveness of reporting and attribution are reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CI. Power to detect associations was limited because of a small sample size. RESULTS: The Decision Aid did not significantly affect accuracy of determining seriousness (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.31 to 2.46), but it did significantly increase accuracy of attributing an SAE to a drug (OR, 3.60; 95% CI, 1.15 to 11.4). Most of the 29 participants reported that the Decision Aid was helpful (93%) and improved decision-making time (69%) and confidence in reporting (83%), and that they would use the Decision Aid in practice (83%). CONCLUSION: The Decision Aid shows promise as a method to improve the quality of SAE attribution, which may improve the detection of valid safety signals and reduce the administrative burden of uninformative investigational new drug safety reports. Study of the Decision Aid in a larger sample with analysis stratified by participant role and SAE reporting experience would further assess the tool's impact.

A phase 1 study of cabozantinib in children and adolescents with recurrent or refractory solid tumors, including CNS tumors: Trial ADVL1211, a report from the Children's Oncology Group.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a phase 1 trial to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), toxicity profile, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and preliminary activity of cabozantinib in children with refractory or relapsed solid tumors. METHODS: Patients received cabozantinib tablets on a continuous dosing schedule in a rolling-six escalating phase 1 trial design. PK and PD studies were performed. RESULTS: Forty-one patients, median (range) age 13 (4-18) years, received cabozantinib to achieve a weekly cumulative dose equivalent to 30 (n = 6), 40 (n = 23). or 55 (n = 12) mg/m2 /day. At 40 mg/m2 /d, dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, mucositis, and elevated alanine aminotransferase, lipase, and bilirubin. At 55 mg/m2 /d, hypertension, reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome, headache, fatigue, and proteinuria were DLTs. Frequent non-DLTs included diarrhea, hypothyroidism, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, elevated hepatic transaminases, and proteinuria. In subsequent cycles, DLTs occurred at all dose levels. Across all dose levels, the steady-state exposure and peak cabozantinib concentrations were similar. Four patients experienced a confirmed partial response: medullary thyroid cancer (MTC; n = 2), Wilms tumor, and clear cell sarcoma. Stable disease (>6 cycles) was seen in seven patients (MTC [n = 2], Ewing sarcoma, synovial sarcoma, alveolar soft part sarcoma, paraganglioma, and ependymoma). CONCLUSIONS: A protocol-defined MTD was not reached; DLTs and dose reductions for toxicity occurred in the first and subsequent cycles at all dose levels. Based on the toxicity profile, pharmacokinetics, and responses, the recommended dose of cabozantinib in pediatric patients with refractory solid tumors is 40 mg/m2 /day. A phase 2 study of cabozantinib is being conducted.

Patients with melanoma treated with an anti-PD-1 antibody beyond RECIST progression: a US Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients who receive immunotherapeutic drugs might develop an atypical response pattern, wherein they initially meet conventional response criteria for progressive disease but later have decreases in tumour burden. Such responses warrant further investigation into the potential benefits and risks for patients who continue immunotherapy beyond disease progression defined by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. METHODS: For this pooled analysis, we included all submissions of trial reports and data to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in support of marketing applications for anti-programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) antibodies (alone or in combination) for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma that allowed for continuation of the antibody beyond RECIST-defined progression in the anti-PD-1 group and were approved by FDA before Jan 1, 2017. To investigate the effect of treatment beyond progression in patients with metastatic melanoma and to better characterise which of these patients would benefit from extended treatment, we pooled individual patient data from patients who received at least one dose of an anti-PD-1 antibody in the included trials. We included any patient receiving the anti-PD-1 antibody after their RECIST-defined progression date in the treatment beyond progression cohort and analysed them descriptively at baseline and at time of progression versus the cohort not receiving treatment beyond progression. We analysed the target lesion response after progression in patients in the treatment beyond progression cohort relative to progressive disease and baseline target lesion burden. We defined a treatment beyond progression response as a decrease in target lesion tumour burden (sum of the reference diameters) of at least 30% from the burden at the time of RECIST-defined progression that did not require confirmation at a subsequent assessment. We also compared individual timepoint responses, overall survival, and adverse events in the treatment beyond progression versus no treatment beyond progression cohorts. FINDINGS: Among the eight multicentre clinical trials meeting this study's inclusion criteria, we pooled the data from 2624 patients receiving immunotherapy. 1361 (52%) had progressive disease, of whom 692 (51%) received continued anti-PD-1 antibody treatment beyond RECIST-defined progression and 669 (49%) did not. 95 (19%) of 500 patients in the treatment beyond progresssion cohort with evaluable assessments had a 30% or more decrease in tumour burden, when considering burden at RECIST-defined progression as the reference point, representing 14% of the 692 patients treated beyond progression and 4% of all 2624 patients treated with immunotherapy. Median overall survival in patients with RECIST-defined progressive disease given anti-PD-1 antibody was longer in the treatment beyond progression cohort (24·4 months, 95% CI 21·2-26·3) than in the cohort of patients who did not receive treatment beyond progression (11·2 months, 10·1-12·9). 362 (54%) of 669 patients in the no treatment beyond progression cohort had a serious adverse event up to 90 days after treatment discontinuation compared with 295 (43%) of 692 patients in the treatment beyond progression cohort. Immune-related adverse events that occurred up to 90 days from discontinuation were similar between the treatment beyond progression cohort (78 [11%] of 692 patients) and the no treatment beyond progression cohort (106 [16%] of 669). INTERPRETATION: Continuation of treatment beyond progression in the product labelling of these immunotherapies has not been recommended because the clinical benefit remains to be proven. Treatment beyond progression with anti-PD-1 antibody therapy might be appropriate for selected patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma, identified by specific criteria at the time of progression, based on the potential for late responses in the setting of the known toxicity profile. FUNDING: None.

Challenges in Opening and Enrolling Patients in Clinical Trials.

Clinical trials are key elements of the processes that account for many of the recent advances in cancer care, including decreased mortality rates and increased survivorship; better supportive care; and improved understanding of cancer risk, prevention, and screening. This research also has led to the validation of numerous exciting new types of cancer treatments, such as molecularly targeted therapies and immunotherapies. Clinical trials, however, are becoming more and more challenging to conduct. Research programs must comply with legal and regulatory requirements that can be inefficient and costly to implement and often are variably interpreted by institutions and sponsors and sponsors' representatives, including contract research organizations. Some of these requirements are essential to protect the safety of trial participants, to promote the scientific integrity of research, or to ensure that trial conduct is efficient and adequately resourced. Such requirements are important to preserve. However, some requirements do not fulfill any of these goals and, in fact, hinder research and slow patient access to safe and effective treatments. This article discusses some of the identified issues that are slowing the process of cancer clinical trials, such as conservatively interpreted guidelines by pharmaceutical companies and contract research organizations; overprotective language for contracts; and patient protections by health systems and universities. The article also discusses possible solutions to these problems that are slowing down the cancer therapies that patients need.

Clinical trial enrollment of adolescents and young adults with sarcoma.

More than half of all sarcomas occur in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) aged 15 to 39 years. After the publication of the AYA series in the April 1, 2016 issue of Cancer, several leaders in the field of sarcoma across disciplines gathered to discuss the status of sarcoma clinical research in AYAs. They determined that a focused effort to include the underrepresented and understudied AYA population in current and future sarcoma clinical trials is overdue. Trial enrichment for AYA-aged sarcoma patients will produce more meaningful results that better represent the disease's biology, epidemiology, and treatment environment. To address the current deficit, this commentary outlines changes believed to be necessary to expediently achieve an increase in the enrollment of AYAs in sarcoma clinical trials. Cancer 2017;123:3434-40. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

FDA Approval Summary: Eribulin for Patients with Unresectable or Metastatic Liposarcoma Who Have Received a Prior Anthracycline-Containing Regimen.

On January 28, 2016, the FDA approved eribulin (Halaven; Eisai Inc.) for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic liposarcoma who have received a prior anthracycline-containing regimen. The approval was based on results from a single, randomized, open-label, active-controlled trial (Trial E7389-G000-309) enrolling 452 patients with advanced, locally recurrent or metastatic liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma. Patients were randomized to eribulin 1.4 mg/m2 intravenously (i.v.) on days 1 and 8 or dacarbazine 850, 1,000, or 1,200 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. There was a significant improvement in overall survival [OS; HR, 0.75; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.61-0.94; P = 0.0119, stratified log-rank] for the overall population. Estimated median OS was 13.5 months (95% CI, 11.1-16.5) in the eribulin arm and 11.3 months (95% CI, 9.5-12.6) in the dacarbazine arm (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.94; P = 0.011).There were no differences in PFS for the overall population. The effects of eribulin were limited to patients with liposarcoma (n = 143) based on preplanned, exploratory subgroup analyses of OS (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.35-0.75) and progression-free survival (PFS; 0.52; 95% CI, 0.35-0.78). Response rates in both treatment arms were less than 5% in the overall population and in the liposarcoma subgroup. The safety profile was similar to that previously reported for eribulin. The FDA determined that, based on the data reviewed, the benefit-risk assessment for eribulin is positive for patients with advanced, pretreated liposarcoma. Clin Cancer Res; 23(21); 6384-9. ©2017 AACR.

FDA Approval Summary: Accelerated Approval of Pembrolizumab for Second-Line Treatment of Metastatic Melanoma.

On September 4, 2014, the FDA approved pembrolizumab (KEYTRUDA; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.) with a recommended dose of 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks by intravenous infusion for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma who have progressed following treatment with ipilimumab and, if BRAF V600 mutation positive, a BRAF inhibitor. Approval was based on demonstration of objective tumor responses with prolonged response durations in 89 patients enrolled in a randomized, multicenter, open-label, dose-finding, and activity-estimating phase 1 trial. The overall response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review per RECIST v1.1 was 24% (95% confidence interval, 15-34); with 6 months of follow-up, 86% of responses were ongoing. The most common (≥20%) adverse reactions were fatigue, cough, nausea, pruritus, rash, decreased appetite, constipation, arthralgia, and diarrhea. Immune-mediated adverse reactions included pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, hypophysitis, and thyroid disorders. The benefits of the observed ORR with prolonged duration of responses outweighed the risks of immune-mediated adverse reactions in this life-threatening disease and represented an improvement over available therapy. Important regulatory issues in this application were role of durability of response in the evaluation of ORR for accelerated approval, reliance on data from a first-in-human trial, and strategies for dose selection. Clin Cancer Res; 23(19); 5666-70. ©2017 AACR.

U.S. FDA Approval Summary: Nivolumab for Treatment of Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma Following Progression on Ipilimumab.

On December 22, 2014, the FDA granted accelerated approval to nivolumab (OPDIVO; Bristol-Myers Squibb) for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma and disease progression following ipilimumab and, if BRAF V600 mutation positive, a BRAF inhibitor. Approval was based on a clinically meaningful, durable objective response rate (ORR) in a non-comparative analysis of 120 patients who received 3 mg/kg of nivolumab intravenously every 2 weeks with at least 6-month follow-up in an ongoing, randomized, open-label, active-controlled clinical trial. The ORR as assessed by a blinded independent review committee per RECIST v1.1 was 31.7% (95% confidence interval, 23.5-40.8). Ongoing responses were observed in 87% of responding patients, ranging from 2.6+ to 10+ months. In 13 patients, the response duration was 6 months or longer. The risks of nivolumab, including clinically significant immune-mediated adverse reactions (imARs), were assessed in 268 patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab. The FDA review considered whether the ORR and durations of responses were reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, the adequacy of the safety database, and systematic approaches to the identification, description, and patient management for imARs in product labeling. Clin Cancer Res; 23(14); 3484-8. ©2017 AACR.

Enrolling Adolescents in Disease/Target-Appropriate Adult Oncology Clinical Trials of Investigational Agents.

The enrollment of adolescents with cancer in clinical trials is much lower than that of younger pediatric patients. For adolescents with "adult-type" cancers, lack of access to relevant trials is cited as one of the reasons for this discrepancy. Adolescents are generally not eligible for enrollment in adult oncology trials, and initial pediatric trials for many drugs are conducted years later, often after the drug is approved. As a result, accrual of adolescents to these trials may be slow due to off-label use, prospectively collected safety and efficacy data are lacking at the time of initial approval, and, most importantly, these adolescents have delayed access to effective therapies. To facilitate earlier access to investigational and approved drugs for adolescent patients with cancer, and because drug exposure is most often similar in adolescents and adults, we recommend the inclusion of adolescents (ages 12-17) in disease- and target-appropriate adult oncology trials. This approach requires careful monitoring for any differential safety signals, appropriate pharmacokinetic evaluations, and ensuring that ethical requirements are met. Inclusion of adolescents in adult oncology trials will require the cooperation of investigators, cooperative groups, industry, institutional review boards, and regulatory agencies to overcome real and perceived barriers. Clin Cancer Res; 23(1); 9-12. ©2016 AACR.

The Majority of Expedited Investigational New Drug Safety Reports Are Uninformative.

Sponsors of human drug and biologic products subject to an investigational new drug (IND) application are required to distribute expedited safety reports of serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions to participating investigators and the FDA to assure the protection of human subjects participating in clinical trials. On September 29, 2010, the FDA issued a final rule amending its regulations governing expedited IND safety reporting requirements that revised the definitions used for reporting and clarified when to submit relevant and useful information to reduce the number of uninformative reports distributed by sponsors. From January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2014, the FDA's Office of Hematology and Oncology Products received an average of 17,686 expedited safety reports per year. An analysis of FDA submissions by commercial sponsors covering this time period suggested a slight increase in the number of expedited safety reports per IND per year after publication of the final rule. An audit of 160 randomly selected expedited safety reports submitted to the FDA's Office of Hematology and Oncology Products in 2015 revealed that only 22 (14%) were informative. The submission of uninformative expedited safety reports by commercial sponsors of INDs continues to be a significant problem that can compromise detection of valid safety signals. Clin Cancer Res; 22(9); 2111-3. ©2016 AACR.

Expansion Cohorts in First-in-Human Solid Tumor Oncology Trials.

In 1962, the passage of the Kefauver-Harris Amendment to the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act required that sponsors seeking approval of new drugs demonstrate the drug's efficacy, in addition to its safety, through a formal process that includes "adequate and well-controlled" clinical trials as the basis to support claims of effectiveness. As a result of this amendment, FDA formalized in regulation the definitions of various phases of clinical investigations (i.e., phase I, phase II, and phase III). The clinical drug development paradigm for anticancer drugs intended to support marketing approval has historically followed this "phased" approach with sequential, stand-alone trials, with an increasing number of patients exposed to an investigational drug with each trial in order to fulfill the objectives of that particular stage in development. Increasingly, it is the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products' experience that commercial sponsors of solid tumor oncology drug development programs are amending ongoing phase I trials to add expansion cohorts designed to evaluate study objectives typical of later-phase trials. For investigational anticancer drugs that demonstrate preliminary clinical evidence of substantial antitumor activity early in clinical testing, use of expansion cohorts as a component of the solid tumor oncology drug development pathway, with appropriate measures to mitigate the risks of this approach, may fit in well with the goals and concepts described by FDA's expedited programs for serious conditions.