Clinical Benefit and Regulatory Outcomes of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval.

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) accelerated approval pathway allows approval of investigational drugs treating unmet medical needs based on changes to surrogate measures considered "reasonably likely" to predict clinical benefit. Postapproval clinical trials are then required to confirm whether these drugs offer clinical benefit. Objective: To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately demonstrate clinical benefit and to evaluate the basis of conversion to regular approval. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, publicly available FDA data were used to identify cancer drugs granted accelerated approval from 2013 to 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Demonstrated improvement in quality of life or overall survival in accelerated approvals with more than 5 years of follow-up, as well as confirmatory trial end points and time to conversion for drug-indication pairs converted to regular approval. Results: A total of 129 cancer drug-indication pairs were granted accelerated approval from 2013 to 2023. Among 46 indications with more than 5 years of follow-up (approved 2013-2017), approximately two-thirds (29, 63%) were converted to regular approval, 10 (22%) were withdrawn, and 7 (15%) remained ongoing after a median of 6.3 years. Fewer than half (20/46, 43%) demonstrated a clinical benefit in confirmatory trials. Time to withdrawal decreased from 9.9 years to 3.6 years, and time to regular approval increased from 1.6 years to 3.6 years. Among 48 drug-indication pairs converted to regular approval, 19 (40%) were converted based on overall survival, 21 (44%) on progression-free survival, 5 (10%) on response rate plus duration of response, 2 (4%) on response rate, and 1 (2%) despite a negative confirmatory trial. Comparing accelerated and regular approval indications, 18 of 48 (38%) were unchanged, while 30 of 48 (63%) had different indications (eg, earlier line of therapy). Conclusions and Relevance: Most cancer drugs granted accelerated approval did not demonstrate benefit in overall survival or quality of life within 5 years of accelerated approval. Patients should be clearly informed about the cancer drugs that use the accelerated approval pathway and do not end up showing benefits in patient-centered clinical outcomes.

Dietary interventions in cancer: a systematic review of all randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Prior systematic reviews addressing the impact of diet on cancer outcomes have focused on specific dietary interventions. In this systematic review, we assessed all RCTs investigating dietary interventions for cancer patients, examining the range of interventions, endpoints, patient populations, and results. METHODS: This systematic review identified all RCTs conducted prior to January 2023 testing dietary interventions in patients with cancer. Assessed outcomes included quality of life, functional outcomes, clinical cancer measurements (eg, progression-free survival, response rates), overall survival, and translational endpoints (eg, inflammatory markers). RESULTS: 252 RCTs were identified involving 31,067 patients. The median sample size was 71 (interquartile range 41 to 118), and 80 (32%) studies had a sample size greater than 100. Most trials (n = 184, 73%) were conducted in the adjuvant setting. Weight/body composition and translational endpoints were the most common primary endpoints (n = 64, 25%; n = 52, 21%, respectively). Direct cancer measurements and overall survival were a primary endpoint in 20 (8%) and seven (3%) studies respectively. Eight trials with a primary endpoint of cancer measurement (40%) met their endpoint. Large trials in colon (n = 1429), breast (n = 3088), and prostate cancer (n = 478) each showed no effect of dietary interventions on endpoints measuring cancer. CONCLUSION: Most RCTs of dietary interventions in cancer are small and measure non-clinical endpoints. Although only a small number of large RCTs have been conducted to date, these trials have not shown an improvement in cancer outcomes. Currently, there is limited evidence to support dietary interventions as a therapeutic tool in cancer care.

Use of subjective minimizing language at hematology and oncology conferences: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Subjective minimizing language in oncology conferences may undermine patient-centered care and hinder comprehensive treatment strategies. Subjective terms like "safe," "tolerable," and "well-tolerated" can vary in interpretation among individuals, making it difficult to compare results across trials and potentially downplaying significant risks and limitations associated with treatments. METHODS: This study evaluates subjective minimizing language in major oncology conferences and its use in adverse event reporting. We conducted a search of three electronic databases, ASCO, ASH, and ESMO, for published abstracts from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021. This study included prospective cohort studies or clinical trials in humans that used safety terms like "safe," "well-tolerated," "tolerable," "no new safety signal," or "no new safety concern" in the abstract text. RESULTS: Out of 34,975 reviewed records, 5299 (15.2%) abstracts used subjective minimizing language terms. The analysis included 2797 (52.8%) abstracts meeting the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies were Phase 1 trials (45.5%), followed by Phase 2 (29.6%) and Phase 3 trials (7.4%). Solid tumors accounted for the most common disease category (56.5%), followed by malignant hematology following (37.1%). Subjective minimizing terms like "safe" (69.2%), "well-tolerated" (53.2%), "tolerable" (25.6%), and "no new safety signal/concerns" (10%) were used frequently. Of the abstracts using subjective minimizing language (n = 2797), 81.9% reported data on any grade adverse events (AEs). Grade I/II AEs were reported in 62.6% of abstracts, Grade III/IV AEs in 78%, and Grade V AEs (death related to AEs) in 8.8%. Discontinuation due to AEs occurred in 11.4% (SD 9.5%) of studies using subjective minimizing language terms. CONCLUSIONS: Frequent use of subjective minimizing language in major oncology conferences' abstracts may obscure interpretation of study results and the safety of novel treatments. Researchers and clinicians should provide precise and standardized information to avoid overstatement of benefits and understand the true impact of interventions on patients' safety and well-being.

Utility of FDG-PET in predicting the histology of relapsed or refractory lymphoma.

ABSTRACT: 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is a valuable prognostic tool in modern lymphoma care. In this study, we explored the use of quantitative FDG-PET parameters in predicting the histology of suspected relapsed or refractory (R/R) lymphoma. We retrospectively analyzed 290 FDG-PET scans performed for suspected R/R lymphoma. FDG-PET parameters measured were maximum and mean standardized uptake value (SUVMax and SUVMean), total metabolic tumor volume, and total lesion glycolysis (TLG). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to obtain the optimal thresholds that best discriminate (1) benign vs R/R lymphoma, (2) indolent vs aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and (3) aggressive transformation of indolent NHL. We found that although all 4 FDG-PET parameters discriminated R/R lymphoma from benign histology, TLG was the best performing parameter (optimal cut-off ≥245, sensitivity 63%, specificity 86%, positive predictive value [PPV] 97%, negative predictive value [NPV] 30%, area under the curve [AUC] 0.798, and P < .001). SUVMax discriminated aggressive from indolent NHL with modest accuracy (optimal threshold ≥15, sensitivity 46%, specificity 79%, PPV 82%, NPV 38%, AUC 0.638, and P < .001). In patients with a prior diagnosis of indolent NHL, SUVMax was a modest predictor of transformation (optimal cut-off ≥12, sensitivity 71%, specificity 61%, PPV 50%, NPV 78%, AUC 0.676, and P .006). Additionally, SUVMax ≥25 and an increase in SUVMax (ΔSUVMax) from baseline ≥150% were highly specific (96% and 94%, respectively). These FDG-PET thresholds can aid in identification of suspected R/R lymphoma cases with higher likelihood of R/R disease and aggressive transformation of indolent NHL, guiding the necessity and urgency of biopsy.

Clinician preferences on treatment of smoldering myeloma: a cross-sectional survey.

Background: Smoldering myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic precursor condition to multiple myeloma (MM) with a variable risk of progression. The management of high-risk SMM (HR-SMM) remains controversial, particularly with changes in diagnostic criteria that led to reclassifying of some patients with SMM to MM. This study aimed to assess clinician preferences for whether to treat patients with HR-SMM and/or patients with MM diagnosed solely by SLiM criteria (free light chain ratio >100, bone marrow plasma cell percentage >60, greater than two focal marrow lesions on MRI) through an electronic survey. Methods: This was a cross-sectional survey of clinicians, conducted via an anonymous online REDCap survey from May 16th to July 5th, 2023. The survey included questions on demographics, SMM surveillance practices, and management preferences for two clinical scenarios (HR-SMM and MM based solely on the free light chain ratio >100 criterion). Data was analysed descriptively via Microsoft Excel. Findings: A total of 146 clinicians completed the full survey, with 92% recommending against routine treatment for a patient with HR-SMM based on a single time point assessment, instead preferring active surveillance. For patients with MM diagnosed solely on the basis of a free light chain ratio >100, 61% recommended active treatment, while 37% recommended active surveillance. The most common reasons recommending against treatment of HR-SMM were toxicity, lack of demonstrated overall survival benefit, and low MM-defining event rates in clinical trials. Interpretation: The survey indicates that most clinicians recommend against routine treatment for HR-SMM. Active surveillance is the prevailing standard of care and it is therefore an appropriate control arm in future SMM trials. More randomised trials are needed to determine if early treatment of modern-era SMM offers a net benefit to patients. Funding: None.

Second-Line Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: First-line treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) achieves durable remission in approximately 60% of patients. In relapsed or refractory disease, only about 20% achieve durable remission with salvage chemoimmunotherapy and consolidative autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). The ZUMA-7 (axicabtagene ciloleucel [axi-cel]) and TRANSFORM (lisocabtagene maraleucel [liso-cel]) trials demonstrated superior event-free survival (and, in ZUMA-7, overall survival) in primary-refractory or early-relapsed (high-risk) DLBCL with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) compared with salvage chemoimmunotherapy and consolidative ASCT; however, list prices for CAR-T exceed $400 000 per infusion. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of second-line CAR-T versus salvage chemoimmunotherapy and consolidative ASCT. DESIGN: State-transition microsimulation model. DATA SOURCES: ZUMA-7, TRANSFORM, other trials, and observational data. TARGET POPULATION: "High-risk" patients with DLBCL. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Health care sector. INTERVENTION: Axi-cel or liso-cel versus ASCT. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) in 2022 U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $200 000 per QALY. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: The increase in median overall survival was 4 months for axi-cel and 1 month for liso-cel. For axi-cel, the ICER was $684 225 per QALY and the iNMB was -$107 642. For liso-cel, the ICER was $1 171 909 per QALY and the iNMB was -$102 477. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: To be cost-effective with a WTP of $200 000, the cost of CAR-T would have to be reduced to $321 123 for axi-cel and $313 730 for liso-cel. Implementation in high-risk patients would increase U.S. health care spending by approximately $6.8 billion over a 5-year period. LIMITATION: Differences in preinfusion bridging therapies precluded cross-trial comparisons. CONCLUSION: Neither second-line axi-cel nor liso-cel was cost-effective at a WTP of $200 000 per QALY. Clinical outcomes improved incrementally, but costs of CAR-T must be lowered substantially to enable cost-effectiveness. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: No research-specific funding.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guideline Recommendations of Cancer Drugs With Accelerated Approval.

Importance: Many cancer drugs are approved under the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accelerated approval pathway based on preliminary evidence. It is unclear how this limited evidence is integrated into the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, which are common references for clinicians and are used by public and private payers to determine reimbursement for oncology treatments. Objective: To analyze the NCCN guidelines' assessments for cancer drug indications that received FDA accelerated approval compared with cancer drug indications that received FDA regular approval. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzes FDA-approved indications for cancer drugs that were granted accelerated approval from program inception in 1992 to June 30, 2022. For each drug, the FDA-approved labeling was reviewed to identify all indications. All analyses were performed at the drug-indication level. Exposure: The exposure was FDA regulatory status as of October 2022, including regular approval, accelerated approval, accelerated approval converted to regular approval, and withdrawn accelerated approval. Main Outcomes and Measures: The level of evidence and consensus (category 1, 2A, 2B, and 3) and treatment preference (preferred, alternative preferred, other recommended, and useful in certain circumstances) ratings assigned by NCCN committees as of February 2023. Results: A total of 315 oncology indications for 100 drugs were analyzed. These indications included 156 (50%) with regular approval, 60 (38%) with accelerated approval, 78 (49%) with accelerated approval that was converted to regular approval, and 21 (13%) with withdrawn accelerated approvals. Among all indications, 105 (33%) were rated by the NCCN as having category 1 evidence, 185 (59%) with category 2A, 6 (2%) with category 2B, and 2 (1%) with category 3 evidence. Compared with indications with regular approval, those with accelerated approval were less frequently assigned category 1 evidence (47% vs 3%; P < .001) and were less often listed as preferred treatment options (58% vs 40%; P = .008). Among the 21 withdrawn accelerated approval indications, 8 (38%) remained in the NCCN guidelines, with most having level 2A evidence ratings. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that cancer drug indications with accelerated approval were less likely to be assigned high-level evidence ratings and preferred status in the NCCN guidelines compared with indications with regular approval; most accelerated and regular approval drugs had low-quality evidence ratings but high levels of consensus among oncologists on NCCN committees. Greater clarity on the thresholds and definitions of evidence levels would make the NCCN guidelines more useful to clinicians, patients, and payers.

Adverse Event Reporting in Randomized Clinical Trials for Multiple Myeloma.

Importance: Cancer treatment can result in burdensome toxic effects that profoundly affect patient quality of life. In seeking to emphasize the efficacy of tested treatments, clinical trial reports may use subjective or minimizing terms to describe adverse events (AEs). Objective: To evaluate patterns of AE reporting in multiple myeloma (MM) randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published between 2015 and early 2023. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this cohort study, the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched to assess the prevalence of minimizing terms in MM RCTs published between January 1, 2015, and March 1, 2023. Minimizing terms were defined as subjective terms used to favorably describe the safety profile of the intervention. The terms searched included convenient, manageable, acceptable, expected, well-tolerated, tolerable, favorable, and safe. Final data analysis was performed on July 21, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the occurrence of at least 1 minimizing term in an article. Univariate logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between the presence of at least 1 minimizing term and the actual incidence of grade 3 or 4 AEs, serious AEs, or grade 5 AEs. Results: Of the 65 RCTs included, 56 (86%) used minimizing terms when describing treatment-emergent AEs. The most frequently used minimizing terms were well-tolerated or tolerable in 29 trials (45%), manageable in 18 (28%), and acceptable in 16 (25%). Grade 3 or 4 AE rate in the examined RCTs ranged from 23% to 94%, with a median of 75% (IQR, 59%-82%). A univariate regression analysis demonstrated no association between the use of minimizing terms and grade 3 or 4 AE rates (odds ratio [OR], 1.35 [95% CI, 0.88-2.10] per 10% AE rate increase; P = .17) or grade 5 AE rates (OR, 3.16 [95% CI, 0.27-12.7] per 10% AE rate increase; P = .45). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that trial investigators and sponsors regularly use minimizing terms to describe toxic effects in MM trials, and use of this terminology may not reflect actual AE rates in these studies. Instead of using these terms, trial investigators should highlight event rates and patient-reported outcomes, to allow clinicians and patients to better evaluate the true tolerability of AEs.

Characteristics of post hoc subgroup analyses of oncology clinical trials: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Subgroup analyses in clinical trials assess intervention effects on specific patient subgroups, ensuring generalizability. However, they are usually only able to generate hypotheses rather than definitive conclusions. This study examined the prevalence and characteristics of post hoc subgroup analysis in oncology. METHODS: We systematically reviewed published subgroup analyses from 2000 to 2022. We included articles presenting secondary, post hoc, or subgroup analyses of interventional clinical trials in oncology, cancer survivorship, or cancer screening, published separately from the original clinical trial publication. We collected cancer type, year of publication, where and how subgroup analyses were reported, and funding. RESULTS: Out of 16 487 screened publications, 1612 studies were included, primarily subgroup analyses of treatment trials for solid tumors (82%). Medical writers contributed to 31% of articles, and 58% of articles reported conflicts of interest. Subgroup analyses increased significantly over time, with 695 published between 2019 and 2022, compared to 384 from 2000 to 2014. Gastrointestinal tumors (25%) and lymphoid lineage tumors (39%) were the most frequently studied solid and hematological malignancies, respectively. Industry funding and reporting of conflicts of interest increased over time. Subgroup analyses often neglected to indicate their secondary nature in the title. Most authors were from high-income countries, most commonly North America (45%). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the rapidly growing use of post hoc subgroup analysis of oncology clinical trials, revealing that the majority are supported by pharmaceutical companies, and they frequently fail to indicate their secondary nature in the title. Given the known methodological limitations of subgroup analyses, caution is recommended among authors, readers, and reviewers when conducting and interpreting these studies.

Cell-of-origin effect of polatuzumab vedotin in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: no ordinary subgroup analysis.

ABSTRACT: Subgroup analysis from the POLARIX trial of polatuzumab vedotin plus chemotherapy for untreated large B-cell lymphoma suggests greater efficacy among patients with activated B-cell subtype disease. Both preclinical and additional clinical evidence support this interaction between cell-of-origin and polatuzumab efficacy.

Allogeneic stem cell transplantation achieves long-term remissions in mantle cell lymphoma, including in TP53-mutated disease.

Cytarabine-containing chemoimmunotherapy followed by autologous transplantation and rituximab maintenance achieves durable remissions for most patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). However, patients with TP53-mutated disease have poor outcomes with standard approaches. We previously reported that allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) achieved durable remissions in MCL, however follow-up among patients with TP53-mutated disease was limited. Here we report extended follow-up of the overall cohort (n = 36) and TP53-mutated subset (n = 13) (median follow-up 10.8 and 4.2 years, respectively). Estimated overall survival was 56% at 10 years for the overall cohort and 59% at 4 years for the TP53-mutated subset. Among patients with TP53-mutated disease, no relapses occurred beyond 6 months post-transplant. Survival after post-alloSCT disease relapse was poor (median 2.1 years). These data confirm that alloSCT can be curative in MCL, including patients with TP53-mutated disease, and should be considered for earlier utilization in this subgroup for whom conventional chemoimmunotherapy is ineffective.

High Cost of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cells: Challenges and Solutions.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells are a cellular immunotherapy with remarkable efficacy in treating multiple hematologic malignancies but they are associated with extremely high prices that are, for many countries, prohibitively expensive. As their use increases both for hematologic malignancies and other indications, and large numbers of new cellular therapies are developed, novel approaches will be needed both to reduce the cost of therapy, and to pay for them. We review the many factors that lead to the high cost of CAR T-cells and offer proposals for reform.

Infections following bispecific antibodies in myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Bispecific antibodies, a novel immunotherapy with promising efficacy against multiple myeloma, form immune synapses between T-cell surface marker CD3 and malignant cell markers, including B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), FcRH5, and G protein-coupled receptor GPRC5D. These bispecific antibodies so effectively deplete plasma cells (and to some extent T-cells) that patients are at increased risk of developing infections. A systematic review and meta-analysis of infections in published studies of patients with myeloma treated with bispecific antibodies was conducted to better characterize the infection risks. A literature search used MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane to identify relevant studies between inception and February 10, 2023, including major conference presentations. Phase 1b-3 clinical trials and observational studies were included. Sixteen clinical trials comprising 1666 patients were included. Median follow-up was 7.6 months and 38% of the cohort had penta-drug refractory disease. Pooled prevalence of all-grade infections was 56%, whereas the prevalence of grade ≥3 infections was 24%. Patients who were treated with BCMA-targeted bispecifics had significantly higher rates of grade ≥3 infections than non-BCMA bispecifics (25% vs 20%). Similarly, patients treated with bispecifics in combination with other agents had significantly higher rate of all-grade infection than those receiving monotherapy (71% vs 52%). In observational studies (n = 293), excluded from the primary analysis to ensure no overlap with patients in clinical trials, several infections classically associated with T-cell depletion were identified. This systematic review identifies BCMA-targeted bispecifics and bispecific combination therapy as having higher infection risk, requiring vigilant infection screening and prophylaxis strategies.