Lessons learned from postmarketing withdrawals of expedited approvals for oncology drug indications.

In the past decade, there have been a record number of oncology therapy approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Besides the EMA's conditional marketing authorisation programme and the FDA's Accelerated Approval Program, we observe a tendency towards fast approval for exploratory studies with non-randomised, uncontrolled designs and surrogate endpoints. This issue raises concerns about the robustness and effectiveness of accepted treatments, leaving patients and health-care professionals in a state of uncertainty. A substantial number of accelerated approvals have recently been withdrawn in the USA, with some still authorised in Europe, emphasising discrepancies in regulatory standards that affect both patients and society as a whole. We highlight examples of drugs, authorised on the basis of surrogate endpoints, that were later withdrawn due to an absence of overall survival benefit. Our findings address the challenges and consequences of accelerated approval pathways in oncology. In conclusion, this Policy Review calls for regulatory bodies to better align their procedures and insist on robust evidence, preferably through unbiased randomised controlled trials. Drug approval processes should prioritise patient benefit, overall survival, and quality of life to minimise risks and uncertainties for patients.

Differences in time to patient access to innovative cancer medicines in six European countries.

Patients across Europe face inequity regarding access to anticancer medicines. While access is typically evaluated through reimbursement status or sales data, patients can receive first access through early access programs (EAPs) or off-label use. This study aims to assess the time to patient access at the hospital level, considering different indications and countries. (Pre-)registered access to six innovative medicines (Olaparib, Niraparib, Ipilimumab, Osimeritinib, Nivolumab and Ibritunib) was measured using a cross-sectional survey. First patient access to medicines and indications were collected using the hospital databases. Nineteen hospitals from Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and France participated. Analysis showed that some hospitals achieved patient access before national reimbursement, primarily through EAPs. The average time from EMA-approval to patient access for these medicines was 2.1 years (Range: -0.9-7.1 years). Hospitals in Italy and France had faster access compared to Hungary and Belgium. Variation was also found within countries, with specialized hospitals (x̄: -0.9 years; SD: 2.0) more likely to provide patient access prior to national reimbursement than general hospitals (x̄: 0.4 years; SD: 2.9). Contextual differences were observed, with EAPs or off-label use being more prevalent in Switzerland than Hungary. Recent EMA-approved indications and drug combinations reached patients at a later stage. Substantial variation in patient access time was observed between and within countries. Improving pricing and reimbursement timelines, fostering collaboration between national health authorities and market authorization holders, and implementing nationally harmonized, data-generating EAPs can enhance timely and equitable patient access to innovative cancer treatments in Europe.

Cytoreductive surgery with or without hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with advanced ovarian cancer (OVHIPEC-1): final survival analysis of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The OVHIPEC-1 trial previously showed that the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to interval cytoreductive surgery resulted in improved progression-free and overall survival compared with cytoreductive surgery alone at 4·7 years of follow-up in patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer who were ineligible for primary cytoreduction. We report the final survival outcomes after 10 years of follow-up. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial, patients with primary epithelial stage III ovarian cancer were recruited at eight HIPEC centres in the Netherlands and Belgium. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18-76 years, had not progressed during at least three cycles of neoadjuvant carboplatin plus paclitaxel, had a WHO performance status score of 0-2, normal blood counts, and adequate renal function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo interval cytoreductive surgery without HIPEC (surgery group) or with HIPEC (100 mg/m2 cisplatin; surgery-plus-HIPEC group). Randomisation was done centrally by minimisation with a masked web-based allocation procedure at the time of surgery when residual disease smaller than 10 mm diameter was anticipated, and was stratified by institution, previous suboptimal cytoreductive surgery, and number of abdominal regions involved. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival and a secondary endpoint was overall survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all randomly assigned patients). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00426257, and is closed. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 2007, and April 30, 2016, 245 patients were enrolled and followed up for a median of 10·1 years (95% CI 8·4-12·9) in the surgery group (n=123) and 10·4 years (95% CI 9·5-13·3) in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group (n=122). Recurrence, progression, or death occurred in 114 (93%) patients in the surgery group (median progression-free survival 10·7 months [95% CI 9·6-12·0]) and 109 (89%) patients in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group (14·3 months [12·0-18·5]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·63 [95% CI 0·48-0·83], stratified log-rank p=0·0008). Death occurred in 108 (88%) patients in the surgery group (median overall survival 33·3 months [95% CI 29·0-39·1]) and 100 (82%) patients in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group (44·9 months [95% CI 38·6-55·1]; HR 0·70 [95% CI 0·53-0·92], stratified log-rank p=0·011). INTERPRETATION: These updated survival results confirm the long-term survival benefit of HIPEC in patients with primary stage III epithelial ovarian cancer undergoing interval cytoreductive surgery. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Foundation (KWF Kankerbestrijding).

Targeted combination therapies in oncology: Challenging regulatory frameworks designed for monotherapies in Europe.

The pharmaceutical value chain, including clinical trials, pricing, access, and reimbursement, is designed for classical monotherapies. Although there has been a paradigm shift that increases the relevance of targeted combination therapies (TCTs), regulation and common practice have been slow to adapt. We explored access to 23 TCTs for advanced melanoma and lung cancer as reported by 19 specialists from 17 leading cancer institutions in nine European countries. We find heterogeneous patient access to TCTs between countries, differences in country-specific regulations, and differences in the clinical practice of melanoma and lung cancer. Regulation that is better tailored to the context of combinational therapies can increase equity in access across Europe and promote an evidence-based and authorized use of combinations.

Effect of HIPEC according to HRD/BRCAwt genomic profile in stage III ovarian cancer: Results from the phase III OVHIPEC trial.

The addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) with cisplatin to interval cytoreductive surgery improves recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with stage III ovarian cancer. Homologous recombination deficient (HRD) ovarian tumors are usually more platinum sensitive. Since hyperthermia impairs BRCA1/2 protein function, we hypothesized that HRD tumors respond best to treatment with HIPEC. We analyzed the effect of HIPEC in patients in the OVHIPEC trial, stratified by HRD status and BRCAm status. Clinical data and tissue samples were collected from patients included in the randomized, phase III OVHIPEC-1 trial. DNA copy number variation (CNV) profiles, HRD-related pathogenic mutations and BRCA1 promotor hypermethylation were determined. CNV-profiles were categorized as HRD or non-HRD, based on a previously validated algorithm-based BRCA1-like classifier. Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 99% confidence intervals (CI) for the effect of RFS and OS of HIPEC in the BRCAm, the HRD/BRCAwt and the non-HRD group were estimated using Cox proportional hazard models. Tumor DNA was available from 200/245 (82%) patients. Seventeen (9%) tumors carried a pathogenic mutation in BRCA1 and 14 (7%) in BRCA2. Ninety-one (46%) tumors classified as BRCA1-like. The effect of HIPEC on RFS and OS was absent in BRCAm tumors (HR 1.25; 99%CI 0.48-3.29), and most present in HRD/BRCAwt (HR 0.44; 99%CI 0.21-0.91), and non-HRD/BRCAwt tumors (HR 0.82; 99%CI 0.48-1.42), interaction P value: 0.024. Patients with HRD tumors without pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutation appear to benefit most from treatment with HIPEC, while benefit in patients with BRCA1/2 pathogenic mutations and patients without HRD seems less evident.

Cell-Free DNA at Diagnosis for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Costs, Time to Diagnosis and Clinical Relevance.

Tissue biopsies can be burdensome and are only effective in 10-30% of patients with metastasized non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). Next-generation sequencing (NGS) on cell-free DNA (cfDNA) might be an attractive alternative. We evaluated the costs, throughput time, and diagnostic yield of two diagnostic scenarios with tissue and cfDNA for mNSCLC patients, compared to diagnostics based on tissue biopsy alone. Data were retrieved from 209 stage IV NSCLC patients included in 10 hospitals in the Netherlands in the observational Lung cancer Early Molecular Assessment (LEMA) trial. Discrete event simulation was developed to compare three scenarios, using LEMA data as input where possible: (1) diagnostics with "tissue only"; (2) diagnostics with "cfDNA first", and subsequent tissue biopsy if required (negative for EGFR, BRAF ALK, ROS1); (3) cfDNA if tissue biopsy failed ("tissue first"). Scenario- and probabilistic analyses were performed to quantify uncertainty. In scenario 1, 84% (Credibility Interval [CrI] 70-94%) of the cases had a clinically relevant test result, compared to 93% (CrI 86-98%) in scenario 2, and 93% (CrI 86-99%) in scenario 3. The mean throughput time was 20 days (CrI 17-23) pp in scenario 1, 9 days (CrI 7-11) in scenario 2, and 19 days (CrI 16-22) in scenario 3. Mean costs were €2304 pp (CrI €2067-2507) in scenario 1, compared to €3218 (CrI €3071-3396) for scenario 2, and €2448 (CrI €2382-2506) for scenario 3. Scenarios 2 and 3 led to a reduction in tissue biopsies of 16% and 9%, respectively. In this process-based simulation analysis, the implementation of cfDNA for patients with mNSCLC resulted in faster completion of molecular profiling with more identified targets, with marginal extra costs in scenario 3.

No influence of sarcopenia on survival of ovarian cancer patients in a prospective validation study.

OBJECTIVE: Decrease in skeletal muscle index (SMI) during neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been associated with worse outcome in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. To validate these findings, we tested if a decrease in SMI was a prognostic factor for a homogenous cohort of patients who received NACT in the randomized phase 3 OVHIPEC-trial. METHODS: CT-scans were performed at baseline and after two cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage III ovarian cancer patients. The SMI (skeletal muscle area in cm2 divided by body surface area in m2) was calculated using SliceOMatic software. The difference in SMI between both CT-scans (ΔSMI) was calculated. Cox-regression analyses were performed to analyze the independent effect of a difference in SMI (ΔSMI) on outcome. Log-rank tests were performed to plot recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS). The mean number of adverse events per patient were compared between groups using t-tests. RESULTS: Paired CT-scans were available for 212 out of 245 patients (87%). Thirty-four of 74 patients (58%) in the group with a decrease in ΔSMI and 73 of 138 of the patients (53%) in the group with stable/increase in ΔSMI had died. Median RFS and OS did not differ significantly (p = 0.297 and p = 0.764) between groups. Patients with a decrease in SMI experienced more pre-operative adverse events, and more grade 3-4 adverse events. CONCLUSION: Decreased SMI during neoadjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with worse outcome in patients with stage III ovarian cancer included in the OVHIPEC-trial. However, a strong association between decreasing SMI and adverse events was found.

Central radiology assessment of the randomized phase III open-label OVHIPEC-1 trial in ovarian cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) improved investigator-assessed recurrence-free survival and overall survival in patients with stage III ovarian cancer in the phase III OVHIPEC-1 trial. We analyzed whether an open-label design affected the results of the trial by central blinded assessment of recurrence-free survival, and tested whether HIPEC specifically targets the peritoneal surface by analyzing the site of disease recurrence. METHODS: OVHIPEC-1 was an open-label, multicenter, phase III trial that randomized 245 patients after three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy to interval cytoreduction with or without HIPEC using cisplatin (100 mg/m2). Patients received three additional cycles of chemotherapy after surgery. Computed tomography (CT) scans and serum cancer antigen 125 (CA125) measurements were performed during chemotherapy, and during follow-up. Two expert radiologists reviewed all available CT scans. They were blinded for treatment allocation and clinical outcome. Central revision included Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 measurements and peritoneal cancer index scorings at baseline, during treatment, and during follow-up. Time to centrally-revised recurrence was compared between study arms using Cox proportional hazard models. Subdistribution models compared time to peritoneal recurrence between arms, accounting for competing risks. RESULTS: CT scans for central revision were available for 231 patients (94%) during neoadjuvant treatment and 212 patients (87%) during follow-up. Centrally-assessed median recurrence-free survival was 9.9 months in the surgery group and 13.2 months in the surgery+HIPEC group (HR for disease recurrence or death 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.94; p=0.015). The improved recurrence-free survival and overall survival associated with HIPEC were irrespective of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and baseline peritoneal cancer index. Cumulative incidence of peritoneal recurrence was lower after surgery+HIPEC, but there was no difference in extraperitoneal recurrences. CONCLUSION: Centrally-assessed recurrence-free survival analysis confirms the benefit of adding HIPEC to interval cytoreductive surgery in patients with stage III ovarian cancer, with fewer peritoneal recurrences. These results rule out radiological bias caused by the open-label nature of the study.

Cost Effectiveness of Interval Cytoreductive Surgery With Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Stage III Ovarian Cancer on the Basis of a Randomized Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: In the randomized open-label phase III OVHIPEC trial, the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to interval cytoreductive surgery (CRS) improved recurrence-free and overall survival in patients with stage III ovarian cancer. We studied the cost effectiveness of the addition of HIPEC to interval CRS in patients with ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We constructed a Markov health-state transition model to measure costs and clinical outcomes. Transition probabilities were derived from the OVHIPEC trial by fitting survival distributions. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as euros per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), was calculated from a Dutch societal perspective, with a time horizon of 10 years. Univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the decision uncertainty. RESULTS: Total health care costs were €70,046 (95% credibility interval [CrI], €64,016 to €76,661) for interval CRS compared with €85,791 (95% CrI, €78,766 to €93,935) for interval CRS plus HIPEC. The mean QALY in the interval CRS group was 2.12 (95% CrI, 1.66 to 2.64 QALYs) and 2.68 (95% CrI, 2.11 to 3.28 QALYs) in the interval CRS plus HIPEC group. The ICER amounted to €28,299/QALY. In univariable sensitivity analysis, the utility of recurrence-free survival and the number of days in the hospital affected the calculated ICER most. CONCLUSION: On the basis of the trial data, treatment with interval CRS and HIPEC in patients with stage III ovarian cancer was accompanied by a substantial gain in QALYs. The ICER is below the willingness-to-pay threshold in the Netherlands, indicating interval CRS and HIPEC is cost effective for this patient population. These results lend additional support for reimbursing the costs of treating these patients with interval CRS and HIPEC in countries with comparable health care systems.

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for ovarian cancer: The heat is on.

Patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer have a high incidence of peritoneal disease recurrence despite maximal efforts to surgically remove all visible tumor plus intravenous chemotherapy. The administration of intraperitoneal chemotherapy that specifically targets the peritoneal surface has been investigated in previous trials, but questions about the design of these studies has prevented this treatment from being widely adopted in clinical practice. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a single intraoperative approach that also targets the peritoneal surface. A randomized phase 3 trial showed significant benefit in recurrence-free and overall survival when HIPEC was added to interval cytoreductive surgery (CRS) in patients who were not eligible for primary surgery because of the extent of their disease (OVHIPEC trial; NCT00426257). The trial showed no important differences in toxicity or patient-reported outcomes between the study groups. The extent of surgery and the number of bowel resections were also similar between the 2 study groups, and the effect of HIPEC was homogeneous across the levels of predefined and post hoc subgroups. Nevertheless, the design and the results of the OVHIPEC trial were critically assessed, and this resembles the reluctance to adopt the positive results of the earlier intraperitoneal chemotherapy studies. This overview discusses the design and results of the OVHIPEC trial. The evidence that is currently available points to a clinically relevant and cost-effective benefit of HIPEC added to interval CRS for patients with stage III ovarian cancer who are not eligible for primary surgery. Ongoing collaborative research will provide further evidence regarding the role of HIPEC in ovarian cancer.

Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of newly diagnosed advanced-stage ovarian cancer typically involves cytoreductive surgery and systemic chemotherapy. We conducted a trial to investigate whether the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to interval cytoreductive surgery would improve outcomes among patients who were receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage III epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: In a multicenter, open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 245 patients who had at least stable disease after three cycles of carboplatin (area under the curve of 5 to 6 mg per milliliter per minute) and paclitaxel (175 mg per square meter of body-surface area) to undergo interval cytoreductive surgery either with or without administration of HIPEC with cisplatin (100 mg per square meter). Randomization was performed at the time of surgery in cases in which surgery that would result in no visible disease (complete cytoreduction) or surgery after which one or more residual tumors measuring 10 mm or less in diameter remain (optimal cytoreduction) was deemed to be feasible. Three additional cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel were administered postoperatively. The primary end point was recurrence-free survival. Overall survival and the side-effect profile were key secondary end points. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, events of disease recurrence or death occurred in 110 of the 123 patients (89%) who underwent cytoreductive surgery without HIPEC (surgery group) and in 99 of the 122 patients (81%) who underwent cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC (surgery-plus-HIPEC group) (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50 to 0.87; P=0.003). The median recurrence-free survival was 10.7 months in the surgery group and 14.2 months in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group. At a median follow-up of 4.7 years, 76 patients (62%) in the surgery group and 61 patients (50%) in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group had died (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.94; P=0.02). The median overall survival was 33.9 months in the surgery group and 45.7 months in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group. The percentage of patients who had adverse events of grade 3 or 4 was similar in the two groups (25% in the surgery group and 27% in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group, P=0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer, the addition of HIPEC to interval cytoreductive surgery resulted in longer recurrence-free survival and overall survival than surgery alone and did not result in higher rates of side effects. (Funded by the Dutch Cancer Society; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00426257 ; EudraCT number, 2006-003466-34 .).