FDA Approval Summary: Enfortumab Vedotin Plus Pembrolizumab for Cisplatin-Ineligible Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

On April 3, 2023, the FDA granted accelerated approval to enfortumab vedotin-ejfv (EV) plus pembrolizumab for treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are ineligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy. Substantial evidence of effectiveness was obtained from EV-103/KEYNOTE-869 (NCT03288545), a multi-cohort study. Across cohorts, a total of 121 patients received EV 1.25 mg/kg (maximum of 125 mg) intravenously on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously on day 1 of each 21-day cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The major efficacy outcome measures were objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DoR) determined by blinded independent central review using RECIST v1.1. The confirmed ORR in 121 patients was 68% (95% CI: 59, 76), including 12% with complete responses. The median DoR for the 82 responders was 22 months (range: 1+ to 46+). The safety profile of the combination comprised adverse reactions expected to occur with the corresponding monotherapies, but with overall increased frequency of adverse reactions, including skin toxicity, pneumonitis, and peripheral neuropathy. The article summarizes the data and the FDA thought process supporting accelerated approval of EV + pembrolizumab, as well as additional exploratory analyses conducted by the FDA.

US Food and Drug Administration Approval Summary: Talazoparib in Combination With Enzalutamide for Treatment of Patients With Homologous Recombination Repair Gene-Mutated Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved talazoparib with enzalutamide for first-line treatment of patients with homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The approval was based on the HRR gene-mutated (HRRm) population of TALAPRO-2, a randomized, double-blind trial that randomly assigned 1,035 patients with mCRPC to receive enzalutamide with either talazoparib or placebo. Two cohorts enrolled sequentially: an all-comer population (Cohort 1), followed by an HRRm-only population (Cohort 2). The independent primary end points were radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) per blinded independent central review (BICR) in Cohort 1 (all-comers) and in the combined HRRm population (all HRRm patients from Cohorts 1 and 2). Overall survival (OS) was a key secondary end point. RESULTS: A statistically significant improvement in rPFS by BICR was demonstrated in both the all-comers cohort and the combined HRRm population, with hazard ratio (HR) of 0.63 (95% CI, 0.51 to 0.78; P < .0001) and 0.45 (95% CI, 0.33 to 0.61; P < .0001), respectively. In an exploratory analysis of the 155 patients with BRCA-mutated (BRCAm) mCRPC, rPFS HR was 0.20 (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.36). In the non-HRRm/unknown stratum of Cohort 1 (n = 636), the rPFS HR was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.89). OS was immature. CONCLUSION: Despite a statistically significant rPFS improvement in the all-comer cohort, FDA did not consider the magnitude of rPFS clinically meaningful in the context of the broad indication, combination treatment, and safety profile. Approval was therefore limited to patients with HRRm mCRPC, for whom there was a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in rPFS and favorable OS results. This represents the first approval for the first-line treatment of patients with HRRm mCRPC.

FDA Approval Summary: Olaparib in Combination With Abiraterone for Treatment of Patients With BRCA-Mutated Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: This article summarizes the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review of the data leading to approval of olaparib plus abiraterone for the treatment of patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious BRCA-mutated (BRCAm) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), as determined by an FDA-approved companion diagnostic test. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Approval was based on the results from PROpel, a double-blind trial that randomly assigned 796 patients with mCRPC to abiraterone plus prednisone or prednisolone with either olaparib or placebo. The primary end point was radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) per investigator assessment. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant improvement in rPFS for olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone, with a median rPFS of 25 versus 17 months and a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.81) in the intention-to-treat population. In an exploratory analysis of the subgroup of 85 patients with BRCAm mCRPC, the HR for rPFS was 0.24 (95% CI, 0.12 to 0.45) and the HR for overall survival (OS) was 0.30 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.59). In an exploratory analysis of the subgroup of 711 patients without an identified BRCA mutation, the HR for rPFS was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.96) and the HR for OS was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.74 to 1.14). Adding olaparib to abiraterone resulted in increased toxicity, including anemia requiring transfusion in 18% of patients. CONCLUSION: In patients with mCRPC, efficacy of the combination of olaparib plus abiraterone was primarily attributed to the treatment effect in the BRCAm subgroup, the indicated population for the approval. For patients without BRCAm, the FDA determined that the modest rPFS improvement, combined with clinically significant toxicities, did not demonstrate a favorable risk/benefit assessment.

FDA Approval Summary: Ribociclib Indicated for Male Patients with Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer.

On December 10, 2021, the FDA expanded the indications for ribociclib to include male patients for the treatment of hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Ribociclib is now indicated in combination with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) as initial endocrine-based therapy in adult patients, or with fulvestrant as initial endocrine-based therapy or following disease progression on endocrine therapy (ET), in postmenopausal women or in men. The efficacy of ribociclib + AI for male patients was primarily based on previous favorable benefit-risk assessments of ribociclib from MONALEESA-2 and MONALEESA-7 trials, and supported by COMPLEEMENT-1, an open-label, single-arm, multicenter clinical trial, in which 39 male patients (n = 3,246 total patients) received ribociclib + letrozole + goserelin/leuprolide. The overall response rate (ORR) based on confirmed responses in male patients with measurable disease at baseline was 46.9% [95% confidence interval (CI), 29.1-65.3], consistent with an ORR of 43.6% (95% CI, 41.5-45.8) in the overall population. Overall, adverse reactions occurring in male patients were similar to those occurring in female patients treated with ribociclib + ET. The efficacy of ribociclib + fulvestrant for male patients was primarily based on the previous findings of a favorable benefit-risk assessment from the MONALEESA-3 trial, supported by FDA review of clinical data of a limited number of male patients treated in clinical practice receiving ribociclib + fulvestrant. The known mechanism of action, biologic rationale, and clinical information available adequately demonstrate that the efficacy and safety of ribociclib + AI/fulvestrant are similar in male and female patients. This article summarizes the FDA's decision-making and data supporting the approval of ribociclib in male patients with breast cancer, and discusses regulatory insights.

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration-pooled Analysis of Frontline Combination Treatment Survival Benefits by Risk Groups in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: While frontline immuno-oncology/tyrosine kinase inhibitor (IO/TKI) combination therapy has established a benefit in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), this may differ by International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk grouping. Looking at individual trials, we noted an apparently smaller magnitude of benefit for favorable-risk disease. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess treatment benefit by risk groupings, especially in favorable-risk, augmenting patient numbers via a pooled analysis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We pooled four frontline mRCC trials of IO/TKI combinations including 3,098 patients (839 favorable-risk) with approvals from 2019 to 2021. INTERVENTION: All trials used IO/TKI combinations as the treatment option and sunitinib as the control. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We analyzed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) by IMDC groupings. To specifically address the favorable-risk group, we combined all others into an intermediate/poor-risk group. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In this exploratory analysis adjusted for baseline covariates, IO/TKI combinations have yet to demonstrate an OS benefit in favorable-risk (hazard ratio [HR] 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.86, 1.78) despite demonstrating an OS benefit in the intermediate/poor-risk group (HR 0.64; 95% CI: 0.55, 0.75). In contrast, IO/TKI demonstrated a PFS benefit for both the favorable-risk (HR 0.63; 95% CI: 0.50, 0.79) and the intermediate/poor-risk (HR 0.52; 95% CI: 0.45, 0.60) group. For objective response rate, a smaller difference was observed between the combination and sunitinib arms in favorable-risk (68.2% vs 49.9%) versus intermediate/poor-risk (59.9% vs 36.5%) groups, while the difference in complete response rate was larger for favorable-risk (15.3% vs 6.0%) versus intermediate/poor-risk (9.1% vs 3.4%) groups. CONCLUSIONS: The frontline IO/TKI combination therapy benefit was shown to be greater in the intermediate/poor-risk group than in the favorable-risk group. The OS benefit observed with IO/TKI for mRCC has yet to be demonstrated for favorable-risk patients; longer follow-up is needed. PATIENT SUMMARY: Patients with intermediate/poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma derive an overall survival benefit from immuno-oncology/tyrosine kinase inhibitor combinations, while data for favorable-risk remain immature.

Regulatory implications of ctDNA in immuno-oncology for solid tumors.

In the era of precision oncology, use of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is emerging as a minimally invasive approach for the diagnosis and management of patients with cancer and as an enrichment tool in clinical trials. In recent years, the US Food and Drug Administration has approved multiple ctDNA-based companion diagnostic assays for the safe and effective use of targeted therapies and ctDNA-based assays are also being developed for use with immuno-oncology-based therapies. For early-stage solid tumor cancers, ctDNA may be particularly important to detect molecular residual disease (MRD) to support early implementation of adjuvant or escalated therapy to prevent development of metastatic disease. Clinical trials are also increasingly using ctDNA MRD for patient selection and stratification, with an ultimate goal of improving trial efficiency through use of an enriched patient population. Standardization and harmonization of ctDNA assays and methodologies, along with further clinical validation of ctDNA as a prognostic and predictive biomarker, are necessary before ctDNA may be considered as an efficacy-response biomarker to support regulatory decision making.

US Food and Drug Administration Approval Summary: Fam-Trastuzumab Deruxtecan-nxki for Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Low Unresectable or Metastatic Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: The US Food and Drug Administration approved fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki (DS-8201a, T-DXd) for the treatment of adult patients with unresectable or metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-low (immunohistochemistry 1 + or immunohistochemistry 2+/in situ hybridization-) breast cancer who have received a prior chemotherapy in the metastatic setting or developed disease recurrence during or within 6 months of completing adjuvant chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Approval was based on DESTINY-Breast04, a phase III, randomized, open-label, multicenter trial in patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-low breast cancer, determined at a central laboratory. A total of 557 patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either T-DXd 5.4 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks (n = 373) or physicians' choice of chemotherapy (n = 184). RESULTS: The study met its primary efficacy end point of progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review assessment in the hormone receptor-positive (HR+) cohort (N = 494) with an estimated hazard ratio (HR) of 0.51(95% CI, 0.40 to 0.64; P < .0001). Key secondary end points were also met, including PFS in the intent-to-treat population with an HR of 0.50 (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.63; P < .0001), overall survival (OS) in the HR+ cohort with an HR of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.48 to 0.86; P = .0028) and OS in the intent-to-treat with an HR of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.49 to 0.84; P = .0010). The safety profile of T-DXd was consistent with previously approved indications, and no new safety signals were observed in this study population. CONCLUSION: The approval of T-DXd in HER2-low metastatic breast cancer was based on statistically significant and clinically meaningful PFS and OS improvements observed in the DESTINY-Breast04 trial and represents the first approved therapy specifically for the treatment of HER2-low metastatic breast cancer.

FDA Approval Summary: Belzutifan for von Hippel-Lindau Disease-Associated Tumors.

On August 13, 2021, the FDA approved belzutifan (WELIREG, Merck), a first-in-class hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) inhibitor for adult patients with von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) disease who require therapy for associated renal cell carcinoma (RCC), central nervous system (CNS) hemangioblastomas, or pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNET), not requiring immediate surgery. The FDA granted approval based on the clinically meaningful effects on overall response rate (ORR) observed in patients enrolled in Study MK-6482-004. All 61 patients had VHL-associated RCC; some also had CNS hemangioblastomas and/or pNET. For VHL disease-associated RCC, ORR was 49% [95% confidence interval (CI), 36-62], median duration of response (DoR) was not reached, 56% of responders had DoR ≥12 months, and median time to response was 8 months. Twenty-four patients had measurable CNS hemangioblastomas with an ORR of 63% (95% CI, 41-81), and 12 patients had measurable pNET with an ORR of 83% (95% CI, 52-98). For these tumors, median DoR was not reached, with 73% and 50% of patients having response durations ≥12 months for CNS hemangioblastomas and pNET, respectively. The most common adverse reactions, including laboratory abnormalities, reported in ≥20% were anemia, fatigue, increased creatinine, headache, dizziness, increased glucose, and nausea. Belzutifan can render some hormonal contraceptives ineffective and can cause embryo-fetal harm during pregnancy. This article summarizes the data and the FDA thought process supporting traditional approval of belzutifan for this indication.

FDA Approval Summary: Abemaciclib With Endocrine Therapy for High-Risk Early Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: The US Food and Drug Administration approved abemaciclib in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, node-positive, early breast cancer (EBC) at high risk of recurrence and a Ki-67 score ≥ 20%. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The approval was based on monarchE, a phase III, open-label, 2-cohort, multicenter trial of patients with EBC randomly assigned to receive abemaciclib plus ET (n = 2,808) or ET alone (n = 2,829). Abemaciclib was given at 150 mg orally twice daily for 2 years. RESULTS: Invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) in the intent-to-treat population was statistically significant at the second IDFS interim analysis (IA; March 2020; hazard ratio [HR; 95% CI], 0.747 [0.598 to 0.932]; P = .0096); however, only 12.5% of patients had completed adjuvant therapy, and the HR for overall survival (OS) was > 1. A prespecified, controlled analysis of IDFS in patients with Ki-67 ≥ 20% in cohort 1 was statistically significant at the final IDFS analysis (July 2020; HR [95% CI], 0.643 [0.475 to 0.872]; P = .0042). At the first OS IA (April 2021), the majority of patients had completed adjuvant therapy, IDFS remained consistent, and potential detriment in OS was not observed for this subgroup (HR [95% CI], 0.767 [0.511 to 1.152]). The HR for OS in the intent-to-treat population at OS IA remained > 1 (HR [95% CI], 1.091 [0.818 to 1.455]). More patients in the abemaciclib plus ET arm experienced treatment emergent adverse events (all grades 98.4% v 88.8%, grade 3 ≥ 49.7% v 16.3%). CONCLUSION: The approval of abemaciclib in adjuvant EBC was limited to patients with high risk of recurrence and Ki-67 ≥ 20%, given their favorable benefit:risk with a statistically significant IDFS advantage and no observed detriment on survival.

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

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

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

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

Overall survival in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced or metastatic breast cancer treated with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor plus fulvestrant: a US Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDKIs) are oral targeted agents approved for use in combination with endocrine therapy as first-line or second-line treatment of patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced or metastatic breast cancer. We previously reported the pooled analyses of progression-free survival in patients in specific clinicopathological subgroups, all of whom received consistent benefit from the addition of a CDKI to hormonal therapy. Here, we report the pooled overall survival results in patients treated with a CDKI and fulvestrant. METHODS: In this exploratory analysis, we pooled individual patient data from three phase 3 randomised trials of CDKI or placebo in combination with fulvestrant in patients with breast cancer submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration and approved before Aug 1, 2020, in support of marketing applications. All analysed patients were aged at least 18 years, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, had hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer, and received at least one dose of CDKI or placebo in combination with fulvestrant. The median overall survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and hazard ratios (HRs) with corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using Cox regression models. Patients were analysed collectively, by number of previous lines of systemic endocrine therapy in any disease setting (first-line or endocrine naive vs second-line and later), and in various clinicopathological subgroups of interest. The estimated median overall survival was not reported by group when the pooled population included patients treated across lines of therapy because of potential patient heterogeneity. All results presented are considered exploratory and hypothesis generating. FINDINGS: Across the three pooled trials, 1960 patients were randomly assigned between Oct 7, 2013, and June 10, 2016 (12 patients were not treated and 1296 [66%] patients were randomly assigned to CDKI and 652 [33%] to placebo). In all treated patients (n=1948), the estimated HR for overall survival was 0·77 (95% CI 0·68-0·88), with a median follow-up of 43·7 months (IQR 37·8-47·7) and deaths in 935 (48%) of the 1948 patients. The difference in estimated median overall survival was 7·1 months, favouring CDKIs. In patients who received CDKIs or placebo in combination with fulvestrant as first-line systemic endocrine therapy (two trials; n=396), the estimated HR for overall survival was 0·74 (95% CI 0·52-1·07), with a median follow-up of 39·4 months (IQR 37·0-42·2). 123 (31%) of these patients died. The difference in estimated median overall survival could not be calculated because median overall survival was not estimable (95% CI 50·9-not estimable) in the CDKI group and was 45·7 months (95% CI 41·7-not estimable) in the placebo group. In patients who received CDKIs or placebo in combination with fulvestrant as second-line or later systemic endocrine therapy (three trials; n=1552), the estimated HR for overall survival was 0·77 (95% CI 0·67-0·89), with a median follow-up of 45·1 months (95% CI 39·2-48·5). 812 (52%) of these patients died. The difference in estimated median overall survival was 7·0 months, favouring CDKIs. INTERPRETATION: The addition of CDKIs to fulvestrant resulted in a consistent overall survival benefit in all pooled patients and within most clinicopathological subgroups of interest. These findings support the existing standard of care of CDKIs plus fulvestrant for the treatment of patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer. FUNDING: None.

Subgroup Analyses in Oncology Trials: Regulatory Considerations and Case Examples.

Subgroup analyses are assessments of treatment effects based on certain patient characteristics out of the total study population and are important for interpretation of pivotal oncology trials. However, appropriate use of subgroup analyses results for regulatory decision-making and product labeling is challenging. Typically, drugs approved by the FDA are indicated for use in the total patient population studied; however, there are examples of restriction to a subgroup of patients despite positive study results in the entire study population and also extension of an indication to the entire study population despite positive results appearing primarily in one or more subgroups. In this article, we summarize key issues related to subgroup analyses in the benefit-risk assessment of cancer drugs and provide case examples to illustrate approaches that the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence has taken when considering the appropriate patient population for cancer drug approval. In general, if a subgroup is of interest, the subgroup analysis should be hypothesis-driven and have adequate sample size to demonstrate evidence of a treatment effect. In addition to statistical efficacy considerations, the decision on what subgroups to include in labeling relies on the pathophysiology of the disease, mechanistic justification, safety data, and external information available. The oncology drug review takes the totality of the data into consideration during the decision-making process to ensure the indication granted and product labeling appropriately reflect the scientific evidence to support patient population for whom the drug is safe and effective.

Report of National Brain Tumor Society roundtable workshop on innovating brain tumor clinical trials: building on lessons learned from COVID-19 experience.

On July 24, 2020, a workshop sponsored by the National Brain Tumor Society was held on innovating brain tumor clinical trials based on lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience. Various stakeholders from the brain tumor community participated including the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), academic and community clinicians, researchers, industry, clinical research organizations, patients and patient advocates, and representatives from the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the National Cancer Institute. This report summarizes the workshop and proposes ways to incorporate lessons learned from COVID-19 to brain tumor clinical trials including the increased use of telemedicine and decentralized trial models as opportunities for practical innovation with potential long-term impact on clinical trial design and implementation.

FDA Approval Summary: Olaparib Monotherapy or in Combination with Bevacizumab for the Maintenance Treatment of Patients with Advanced Ovarian Cancer.

On December 19, 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted approval to olaparib monotherapy for first-line maintenance treatment of BRCA-mutated (BRCAm) advanced ovarian cancer and, on May 8, 2020, expanded the indication of olaparib to include its use in combination with bevacizumab for first-line maintenance treatment of homologous recombination deficient (HRD)-positive advanced ovarian cancer. Both these approvals were based on randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Approval for olaparib monotherapy was based on the SOLO-1 trial, comparing the efficacy of olaparib versus placebo in patients with BRCAm advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer after surgical cytoreduction and first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Two companion diagnostic (CDx) tests were approved with this indication: BRACAnalysis CDx, for germline BRCA1/2 alterations, and FoundationOne CDx, for BRCA1/2 alterations in tissue specimens. Approval for olaparib in combination with bevacizumab was based on the results of the PAOLA-1 trial that compared olaparib with bevacizumab versus placebo plus bevacizumab in patients with advanced high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab. Myriad myChoice CDx was designated as a companion diagnostic device for use of olaparib plus bevacizumab combination for ovarian cancer associated with HRD-positive status. Both trials demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in progression-free survival and favorable benefit-risk profiles for the indicated populations. This article summarizes the FDA thought process and data supporting the approval of olaparib as monotherapy and in combination with bevacizumab for maintenance therapy in this setting. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: These approvals represent the first poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, alone or in combination with bevacizumab, approved in first-line maintenance treatment of women with advanced ovarian cancer after cytoreductive surgery and chemotherapy. In patients with BRCA-mutated tumors, olaparib monotherapy demonstrated a 70% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death compared with placebo, and olaparib in combination with bevacizumab demonstrated a 67% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death compared with bevacizumab alone in homologous recombination deficient-positive tumors. These approvals represent a major advance for the treatment of women with advanced ovarian cancer who are in complete or partial response after their initial platinum-based chemotherapy.

FDA Approval Summary: Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab, and Hyaluronidase-zzxf Injection for Subcutaneous Use in Patients with HER2-positive Breast Cancer.

On June 29, 2020, the FDA approved pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and hyaluronidase-zzxf subcutaneous injection (Phesgo) for the treatment of patients with HER2-positive early-stage and metastatic breast cancer. Patients should be selected for therapy based on an FDA-approved companion diagnostic test. Approval was primarily based on the FeDeriCa trial, a randomized, open-label, multicenter comparability study of pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and hyaluronidase-zzxf subcutaneous injection compared with intravenous pertuzumab and intravenous trastuzumab administered in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings with chemotherapy for the treatment of patients with early breast cancer. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were, first, to demonstrate that the exposure of subcutaneous pertuzumab was not inferior to that of intravenous pertuzumab, and then to demonstrate that the exposure of subcutaneous trastuzumab was not inferior to that of intravenous trastuzumab. The primary endpoints were met with the observed lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence intervals above the prespecified noninferiority margins. The most common adverse reactions were alopecia, nausea, diarrhea, anemia, and asthenia. The totality of the evidence demonstrated comparability of the subcutaneous product to intravenous, allowing for extrapolation and approval of all breast cancer indications for which intravenous trastuzumab and pertuzumab are approved.

FDA Approval Summary: Rucaparib for the Treatment of Patients with Deleterious BRCA-Mutated Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to rucaparib in May 2020 for the treatment of adult patients with deleterious BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic)-associated metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who have been treated with androgen receptor-directed therapy and a taxane. This approval was based on data from the ongoing multicenter, open-label single-arm trial TRITON2. The primary endpoint, confirmed objective response rate, in the 62 patients who met the above criteria, was 44% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 31%-57%). The median duration of response was not estimable (95% CI: 6.4 to not estimable). Fifty-six percent of patients had a response duration of >6 months and 15% >12 months. The safety profile of rucaparib was generally consistent with that of the class of poly-(ADP-ribose) polymerase enzyme inhibitors and other trials of rucaparib in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Deaths due to adverse events (AEs) occurred in 1.7% of patients, and 8% discontinued rucaparib because of an AE. Grade 3-4 AEs occurred in 59% of patients. No patients with prostate cancer developed myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia. The trial TRITON3 in patients with mCRPC is ongoing and is planned to verify the clinical benefit of rucaparib in mCRPC. This article summarizes the FDA thought process and data supporting this accelerated approval. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The accelerated approval of rucaparib for the treatment of adult patients with deleterious BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic)-associated metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer who have been treated with androgen receptor-directed therapy and a taxane represents the first approved therapy for this selected patient population. This approval was based on a single-arm trial demonstrating a confirmed objective response rate greater than that of available therapy with a favorable duration of response and an acceptable toxicity profile. The ongoing trial TRITON3 is verifying the clinical benefit of this drug.

Regulatory Considerations for Contribution of Effect of Drugs Used in Combination Regimens: Renal Cell Cancer Case Studies.

The development and review of combination drug regimens in oncology may present unique challenges to investigators and regulators. For regulatory approval of combination regimens, it is necessary to demonstrate the contribution of effect of each monotherapy to the overall combination. Alternative approaches to traditional designs may be needed to accelerate oncology drug development, for example, when combinations are substantially superior to available therapy, to reduce exposure to less effective therapies, and for drugs that are inactive as single agents and that in combination potentiate activity of another drug. These approaches include demonstration of activity in smaller randomized trials and/or monotherapy trials conducted in a similar disease setting. This article will discuss alternative approaches used in the development of approved drugs in combination, based on examples of recent approvals of combination regimens in renal cell carcinoma.

An Empirical Investigation of Bayesian Clinical Trial Design in Metastatic Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Over the past 20 years, there has been increasing interest in the use of Bayesian statistical methods for the analysis of clinical trials used to support regulatory decisions. Bayesian methods for the analysis of clinical trials are an attractive option when good prior information is available. Yet, in many cases, prior information is scarce and only tentative or proprietary prior information exists. In these situations, it is necessary to use noninformative type or skeptical-type priors. METHODS: We undertook a systematic study of Bayesian methods and applied them to 13 randomized clinical trials in metastatic breast cancer submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for registrational purposes. Across all 13 studies, there were a total of 10,521 patients using 10 experimental agents. RESULTS: Our results demonstrated that Bayesian analyses with noninformative priors provided similar results to more traditional analyses. We also found that early interim looks at the study results can vary widely based upon the type of prior used. Finally, we found that pre-defined threshold stopping rules need to be relatively strong to prevent trials from stopping very early. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that, when prior information is limited and a noninformative prior is used, there is little numerical difference between Bayesian methods and more traditional analysis methods. Bayesian methods, however, may provide additional summaries of the data that are more easily interpretable than means and confidence intervals.