Clinical Value of Molecular Targets and FDA-Approved Genome-Targeted Cancer Therapies.

Importance: The number of new genome-targeted cancer drugs has increased, offering the possibility of personalized therapy, often at a very high cost. Objective: To assess the validity of molecular targets and therapeutic benefits of US Food and Drug Administration-approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on the outcomes of their corresponding pivotal clinical trials. Design and Settings: In this cohort study, all genome-targeted cancer drugs that were FDA-approved between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2022, were analyzed. From FDA drug labels and trial reports, key characteristics of pivotal trials were extracted, including the outcomes assessed. Main Outcomes and Measures: The strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability was assessed using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT). Clinical benefit for their approved indications was evaluated using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Substantial clinical benefit was defined as a grade of A or B for curative intent and 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. Molecular targets qualifying for ESCAT category level I-A and I-B associated with substantial clinical benefit by ESMO-MCBS were rated as high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments. Results: A total of 50 molecular-targeted drugs covering 84 indications were analyzed. Forty-five indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or phase 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials, and 48 (57%) were approved on the basis of subgroup analyses. By each indication, 46 of 84 primary end points (55%) were overall response rate (median [IQR] overall response rate, 57% [40%-69%]; median [IQR] duration of response, 11.1 [9.2-19.8] months). Among the 84 pivotal trials supporting these 84 indications, 38 trials (45%) had I-A ESCAT targetability, and 32 (38%) had I-B targetability. Overall, 24 of 84 trials (29%) demonstrated substantial clinical benefit via ESMO-MCBS. Combining these ratings, 24 of 84 indications (29%) were associated with high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cohort study demonstrate that among recently approved molecular-targeted cancer therapies, fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial patient benefits at approval. Benefit frameworks such as ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT can help physicians, patients, and payers identify therapies with the greatest clinical potential.

Benefit of adjuvant bisphosphonates in early breast cancer treated with contemporary systemic therapy: A meta-analysis of randomized control trials.

Background: The absolute and relative benefits of adjuvant bisphosphonates on disease-free survival and overall survival in patients receiving contemporary systemic therapy for early breast cancer is uncertain. Methods: Data from randomized trials of adjuvant bisphosphonates that recruited patients exclusively after 2000 and reported disease free survival and overall survival was utilized. Five-year disease-free survival and overall survival in bisphosphonates and control group along with associated hazard ratios were extracted. Absolute data were weighted by sample size and hazard ratios were pooled using inverse variance and random effects modelling. Meta-regression comprising linear regression weighted by sample size (mixed effects) was performed to explore association between disease and treatment related factors and absolute differences in benefit from bisphosphonates. Results: Eleven trials comprising 24023 patients were included in the analysis. For disease free survival, pooled hazard ratio was 0.89 (0.81-0.97, p = 0.008) with a 1.5 % weighted mean difference favoring bisphosphonates over control. There was no significant overall survival benefit (0.92, 0.82-1.03, p = 0.16). Among patients receiving anthracycline and taxane based chemotherapy, there were no differences in either disease free survival (0.95, 0.80-1.12) or overall survival (1.04, 0.81-1.32). Meta-regression showed lower benefits in higher risk patients (node-positive, larger tumor size, estrogen receptor-, grade 3 or those receiving chemotherapy). Overall, 1 % (95 % CI 0.75-1.15) of patients experienced osteonecrosis of jaw related to zoledronic acid. Conclusions: Compared to the Early Breast Cancer Trialist's Collaborative Group meta-analysis, benefit from adjuvant bisphosphonates is lower in recent trials especially in higher risk patients receiving contemporary chemotherapy. The balance between benefits and risks of adjuvant bisphosphonates should be considered in individual patients.

Prognostic value of human leukocyte antigen G expression in solid tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: Identification of modulators of the immune response with inhibitory properties that could be susceptible for therapeutic intervention is a key goal in cancer research. An example is the human leukocyte antigen G (HLA-G), a nonclassical major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I molecule, involved in cancer progression. Methods: In this article we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on the association between HLA-G expression and outcome in solid tumors. This study was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO. Results: A total of 25 studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies comprised data from 4871 patients reporting overall survival (OS), and 961 patients, reporting disease free survival (DFS). HLA-G expression was associated with worse OS (HR 2.09, 95% CI = 1.67 to 2.63; P < .001), that was higher in gastric (HR = 3.40; 95% CI = 1.64 to 7.03), pancreatic (HR = 1.72; 95% CI = 0.79 to 3.74) and colorectal (HR = 1.55; 95% CI = 1.16 to 2.07) cancer. No significant differences were observed between the most commonly utilized antibody (4H84) and other methods of detection. HLA-G expression was associated with DFS which approached but did not meet statistical significance. Discussion: In summary, we describe the first meta-analysis associating HLA-G expression and worse survival in a variety of solid tumors. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022311973.

Changes in circulating tumor DNA and outcomes in solid tumors treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Quantification of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) levels is a reliable prognostic tool in several malignancies. Dynamic changes in ctDNA levels in response to treatment may also provide prognostic information. Here, we explore the value of changes in ctDNA levels in response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (host: PubMed) for trials of ICIs in advanced solid tumors in which outcomes were reported based on change in ctDNA levels. ctDNA reduction was defined as reported in individual trials. Typically, this was either >50% reduction or a reduction to undetectable levels. We extracted HRs and related 95% CIs and/or p values comparing ctDNA reduction versus no reduction for progression-free survival (PFS) and/or overall survival (OS). Data were then pooled in a meta-analysis. Variation in effect size was examined using subgroup analyses. RESULTS: Eighteen trials were included in the meta-analysis. ctDNA levels were detectable in all participants in all studies prior to initiation of ICIs. A reduction in ctDNA measured 6-16 weeks after starting treatment was associated with significantly better PFS (HR 0.20; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.28; p<0.001). Similarly, OS was superior in patients with reduced ctDNA levels (HR 0.18; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.26; p<0.001). The results were consistent across all disease sites, lines of treatment, magnitude of change (to undetectable vs >50% reduction) and whether treatment exposure comprised single or combination ICIs. CONCLUSIONS: In advanced solid tumors, a reduction in ctDNA levels in response to ICIs is associated with substantial improvements in outcome. ctDNA change is an early response biomarker which may allow for de-escalation of cross-sectional imaging in patients receiving ICIs or support treatment de-escalation strategies.

Three-year disease-free survival in randomized trials of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and HER2-targeted therapy in breast cancer: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes for breast cancer patients with residual disease (RD) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and HER2-targeted therapy may be better than anticipated leading to a smaller absolute benefit of adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1). Therefore, accurate estimates of 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) can aid in treatment planning. METHODS: We reviewed randomized trials of NACT and HER2-targeted therapy in breast cancer (excluding T-DM1) and calculated mean 3-year DFS weighted by study sample size. Meta-regression comprising linear regression weighted by sample size (mixed-effects) was performed to explore associations between 3-year DFS and year of accrual and trial-level patient, disease, and treatment factors. Data were reported quantitatively irrespective of statistical significance. RESULTS: Eleven studies (N = 3581) were included in the primary analysis. The mean 3-year DFS for patients with RD was 79.7% (95% CI 77.4-80.9). This was higher for trials completing accrual after 2010 [83% (95% CI 79.3-86.3)] and for those receiving dual HER2 targeted therapy [83.4% (95% CI 79.2-87.7]. Better outcomes for ER positivity, later accrual and dual Her-2 targeted therapy were confirmed in meta-regression. Negative quantitative significance was observed for larger clinical tumor size and nodal involvement. CONCLUSIONS: The 3-year DFS for patients with RD has improved over time possibly due to dual HER2 targeted therapy. This will reduce the absolute benefit of adjuvant T-DM1 in this group of patients.

Association between control group therapy and magnitude of clinical benefit of cancer drugs.

Little is known about the impact of control group therapy on clinical benefit scales such as American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF), European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Evidence Blocks and ASCO Cancer Research Committee (ASCO-CRC). We searched Drugs@FDA to identify cancer drugs approved between January 2012 and December 2021 based on randomized trials (RCTs). Definition of substantial clinical benefit was based on recommendations for each scale. Associations between characteristics of control group therapy and clinical benefit were explored using logistic regression. RCTs with a control group of active treatment plus placebo were associated with significantly lower odds of substantial benefit with ESMO-MCBS (OR 0.27, P = 0.003) and ASCO-VF (OR 0.30, P = 0.008) but not with NCCN Evidence Blocks or ASCO-CRC. This effect was attenuated and lost statistical significance without adjustment for quality of life (QoL) and/or toxicity (ESMO-MCBS OR 0.50, P = 0.17; ASCO-VF OR 0.49, P = 0.11). Clinical benefit scales can be sensitive to control group therapy. RCTs with substantial overlap between experimental and control therapy showed lower magnitude of clinical benefit using ESMO-MCBS and ASCO-VF scales; possibly due to differences in the weighting of QoL and toxicity between different frameworks.

Associations With Definitive Outcomes and Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs at the Time of Marketing Approval and in the Postmarketing Period.

BACKGROUND: Most anticancer drugs are approved by regulatory agencies based on surrogate measures. This article explores the variables associated with overall survival (OS), quality of life (QoL), and substantial clinical benefit among anticancer drugs at the time of approval and in the postmarketing period. METHODS: Anticancer drugs approved by the FDA between January 2006 and December 2015 and with postmarketing follow-up until April 2019 were identified. We evaluated trial-level data supporting approval and any updated OS and/or QoL data. We applied the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) and the ASCO Value Framework (ASCO-VF) to initial and follow-up studies. RESULTS: We found that 58 drugs were approved for 96 indications based on 96 trials. At registration, approval was based on improved OS in 39 trials (41%) and improved QoL in 16 of 45 indications (36%). Postmarketing data showed an improvement in OS for 28 of 59 trials (47%) and in QoL for 22 of 48 indications (46%). At the time of approval, 25 of 94 (27%) and 26 of 80 scorable trials (33%) met substantial benefit thresholds using the ESMO-MCBS and ASCO-VF, respectively. In the postmarketing period, 37 of 69 (54%) and 35 of 65 (54%) trials met the substantial benefit thresholds. Drugs with companion diagnostics and immune checkpoint inhibitors were associated significantly with substantial clinical benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the time of approval, more anticancer drugs showed improved OS and QoL and met the ESMO-MCBS or ASCO-VF thresholds for substantial benefit over the course of postmarketing time. However, only approximately half of the trials met the threshold for substantial benefit. Companion diagnostic drugs and immunotherapy seemed to be associated with greater clinical benefit.

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

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

Postmarketing Modifications of Drug Labels for Cancer Drugs Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration Between 2006 and 2016 With and Without Supporting Randomized Controlled Trials.

Purpose Modifications in cancer drug indications, dosing, and related toxicities after Food and Drug Administration approval are common. It is unclear whether drug approval without a supporting randomized controlled trial (RCT) influences the probability of such modifications. Methods We searched the Drugs@FDA Web site for new drug indications for solid tumors approved between January 2006 and December 2016. Study characteristics, regulatory pathways, and label modifications from approval to October 2017 were collected from drug labels. Label modifications were considered to be major if defined as such in the drug label. Indications approved with and without supporting RCTs were compared using logistic regression. The Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate method was used to adjust for multiplicity. Results We identified 59 individual drugs for 109 solid tumor indications. Of these, 17 indications (15.6%) were not supported by an RCT, with no change over time. Indications not supported by RCTs were more likely to require companion diagnostic tests (odds ratio [OR], 3.90; P = .02), to include surrogate end points as primary outcomes (OR, 7.88; P < .001), and to receive breakthrough therapy designation (OR, 7.62; P = .006) or accelerated approval (OR, 17.67; P < .001). Indications not supported by RCTs were associated with significantly higher odds of postapproval modifications in common adverse events (71% v 29%; OR, 5.78; P = .002). A nonsignificantly higher odds of postapproval major modifications in warnings and precautions was also observed (88% v 62%; OR, 4.61; P = .051). Postapproval major modifications in indication and usage, dosing and administration, boxed warnings, and contraindications were comparable in the two groups. Conclusion Cancer drug indications not supported initially by RCTs are associated with more postmarketing safety-related label modifications. Health care professionals should be vigilant for unrecognized adverse effects when prescribing drugs approved without a supporting RCT.

Magnitude of Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.

Background: It is uncertain whether drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have clinically meaningful benefit as determined by validated scales such as the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Methods: We searched the Drugs@FDA website for applications of anticancer drugs from January 2006 to December 2016. Study characteristics, outcomes, and regulatory pathways were collected from drug labels and reports of registration trials. For randomized controlled trials (RCTs), ESMO-MCBS grades were applied. Meaningful benefit was defined as a grade of A or B for (neo)adjuvant intent and 4 or 5 for palliative intent. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: We identified 63 individual drugs for 118 indications. These were supported by 135 studies, among which were 105 RCTs for which ESMO-MCBS could be applied. Only 46 (43.8%) met the ESMO-MCBS meaningful benefit threshold (100% of (neo)adjuvant trials and 38.8% of palliative trials). In palliative therapy trials, meaningful ESMO-MCBS grades were associated with phase III trials (compared with phase II; odds ratio [OR] = 38.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.27 to 452.00, P = .004), those with overall survival as their primary end point (compared with intermediate end points; OR = 8.28, 95% CI = 2.49 to 27.50, P = .001) and trials of targeted drugs with companion diagnostics (OR = 11.62, 95% CI = 2.95 to 45.78, P < .001). Over time, there has been an increase in the number of trials meeting the ESMO-MCBS threshold (Ptrend = .04). There were insufficient (neo)adjuvant studies to perform statistical analysis. Conclusions: The number of trials meeting the ESMO-MCBS threshold for clinical benefit has improved over time. However, fewer than half of RCTs supporting FDA approval meet the threshold for clinically meaningful benefit.