US Food and Drug Administration Approval Summary: Elacestrant for Estrogen Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative, ESR1-Mutated Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved elacestrant for the treatment of postmenopausal women or adult men with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-), estrogen receptor 1 (ESR1)-mutated advanced or metastatic breast cancer with disease progression after at least one line of endocrine therapy (ET). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Approval was based on EMERALD (Study RAD1901-308), a randomized, open-label, active-controlled, multicenter trial in 478 patients with ER+, HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer, including 228 patients with ESR1 mutations. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either elacestrant 345 mg orally once daily (n = 239) or investigator's choice of ET (n = 239). RESULTS: In the ESR1-mut subgroup, EMERALD demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review assessment (n = 228; hazard ratio [HR], 0.55 [95% CI, 0.39 to 0.77]; P value = .0005). Although the overall survival (OS) end point was not met, there was no trend toward a potential OS detriment (HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.63 to 1.30]) in the ESR1-mut subgroup. PFS also reached statistical significance in the intention-to-treat population (ITT, N = 478; HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.55 to 0.88]; P value = .0018). However, improvement in PFS in the ITT population was primarily attributed to results from patients in the ESR1-mut subgroup. More patients who received elacestrant experienced nausea, vomiting, and dyslipidemia. CONCLUSION: The approval of elacestrant in ER+, HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer was restricted to patients with ESR1 mutations. Benefit-risk assessment in the ESR1-mut subgroup was favorable on the basis of a statistically significant improvement in PFS in the context of an acceptable safety profile including no evidence of a potential detriment in OS. By contrast, the benefit-risk assessment in patients without ESR1 mutations was not favorable. Elacestrant is the first oral estrogen receptor antagonist to receive FDA approval for patients with ESR1 mutations.

Integrating 4 methods to evaluate physical function in patients with cancer (In4M): protocol for a prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Accurate, patient-centred evaluation of physical function in patients with cancer can provide important information on the functional impacts experienced by patients both from the disease and its treatment. Increasingly, digital health technology is facilitating and providing new ways to measure symptoms and function. There is a need to characterise the longitudinal measurement characteristics of physical function assessments, including clinician-reported outcome, patient-reported ported outcome (PRO), performance outcome tests and wearable data, to inform regulatory and clinical decision-making in cancer clinical trials and oncology practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this prospective study, we are enrolling 200 English-speaking and/or Spanish-speaking patients with breast cancer or lymphoma seen at Mayo Clinic or Yale University who will receive intravenous cytotoxic chemotherapy. Physical function assessments will be obtained longitudinally using multiple assessment modalities. Participants will be followed for 9 months using a patient-centred health data aggregating platform that consolidates study questionnaires, electronic health record data, and activity and sleep data from a wearable sensor. Data analysis will focus on understanding variability, sensitivity and meaningful changes across the included physical function assessments and evaluating their relationship to key clinical outcomes. Additionally, the feasibility of multimodal physical function data collection in real-world patients with breast cancer or lymphoma will be assessed, as will patient impressions of the usability and acceptability of the wearable sensor, data aggregation platform and PROs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received approval from IRBs at Mayo Clinic, Yale University and the US Food and Drug Administration. Results will be made available to participants, funders, the research community and the public. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05214144; Pre-results.

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.

Single-arm studies involving patient-reported outcome data in oncology: a literature review on current practice.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in single-arm cancer studies. We reviewed 60 papers published between 2018 and 2021 of single-arm studies of cancer treatment with PRO data for current practice on design, analysis, reporting, and interpretation. We further examined the studies' handling of potential bias and how they informed decision making. Most studies (58; 97%) analysed PROs without stating a predefined research hypothesis. 13 (22%) of the 60 studies used a PRO as a primary or co-primary endpoint. Definitions of PRO objectives, study population, endpoints, and missing data strategies varied widely. 23 studies (38%) compared the PRO data with external information, most often by using a clinically important difference value; one study used a historical control group. Appropriateness of methods to handle missing data and intercurrent events (including death) were seldom discussed. Most studies (51; 85%) concluded that PRO results supported treatment. Conducting and reporting of PROs in cancer single-arm studies need standards and a critical discussion of statistical methods and possible biases. These findings will guide the Setting International Standards in Analysing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Data in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI) in developing recommendations for the use of PRO-measures in single-arm studies.

FDA Approval Summary: Mirvetuximab Soravtansine-Gynx for FRα-Positive, Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer.

On November 14, 2022, the FDA granted accelerated approval to mirvetuximab soravtansine-gynx for treatment of adult patients with folate receptor-α (FRα)-positive, platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who have received one to three prior systemic therapies. The VENTANA FOLR1 (FOLR-2.1) RxDx Assay was approved as a companion diagnostic device to select patients for this indication. Approval was based on Study 0417 (SORAYA, NCT04296890), a single-arm, multicenter trial. In 104 patients with measurable disease who received mirvetuximab soravtansine-gynx, the overall response rate was 31.7% [95% confidence interval (CI), 22.9-41.6] with a median duration of response of 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.6-9.7). Ocular toxicity was included as a Boxed Warning in the U.S. Prescribing Information (USPI) to alert providers of the risks of developing severe ocular toxicity including vision impairment and corneal disorders. Pneumonitis and peripheral neuropathy were additional important safety risks included as Warnings and Precautions in the USPI. This is the first approval of a targeted therapy for FRα-positive, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer and the first antibody-drug conjugate approved for ovarian cancer. This article summarizes the favorable benefit-risk assessment leading to FDA's approval of mirvetuximab soravtansine-gynx.

Integrating 4 Measures to Evaluate Physical Function in Patients with Cancer (In4M): Protocol for a prospective study.

Introduction: Accurate, patient-centered evaluation of physical function in patients with cancer can provide important information on the functional impacts experienced by patients both from the disease and its treatment. Increasingly, digital health technology is facilitating and providing new ways to measure symptoms and function. There is a need to characterize the longitudinal measurement characteristics of physical function assessments, including clinician-reported physical function (ClinRo), patient-reported physical function (PRO), performance outcome tests (PerfO) and wearable data, to inform regulatory and clinical decision-making in cancer clinical trials and oncology practice. Methods and analysis: In this prospective study, we are enrolling 200 English- and/or Spanish-speaking patients with breast cancer or lymphoma seen at Mayo Clinic or Yale University who will receive standard of care intravenous cytotoxic chemotherapy. Physical function assessments will be obtained longitudinally using multiple assessment modalities. Participants will be followed for 9 months using a patient-centered health data aggregating platform that consolidates study questionnaires, electronic health record data, and activity and sleep data from a wearable sensor. Data analysis will focus on understanding variability, sensitivity, and meaningful changes across the included physical function assessments and evaluating their relationship to key clinical outcomes. Additionally, the feasibility of multi-modal physical function data collection in real-world patients with cancer will be assessed, as will patient impressions of the usability and acceptability of the wearable sensor, data aggregation platform, and PROs. Ethics and dissemination: This study has received approval from IRBs at Mayo Clinic, Yale University, and the U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Results will be made available to participants, funders, the research community, and the public. Registration Details: The trial registration number for this study is NCT05214144. Strengths & Limitations: This study addresses an important unmet need by characterizing the performance characteristics of multiple patient-centered physical function measures in patients with cancerPhysical function is an important and undermeasured clinical outcome. Scientifically rigorous capture and measurement of physical function constitutes a key component of cancer treatment tolerability assessment both from a regulatory and clinical perspective.This study will include patients with lymphoma or breast cancer receiving a broad range of cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens. While recruitment will occur at two academic sites, patients who ultimately receive treatment at local community sites will be included.A patient-centered health data aggregating platform facilitates the delivery of patient-reported outcome measures and collection of wearable data to researchers, while reducing patient burden compared to traditional patient-generated data collection and aggregation methodsHeterogeneity in patient willingness or comfort engaging with mobile products including smartphones and wearables, enrollment primarily at large academic centers, and the modest sample size are potential limitations to the external validity of the study.

FDA Approval Summary: Lutetium Lu 177 Vipivotide Tetraxetan for Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

On March 23, 2022, the FDA approved Pluvicto (lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan, also known as 177Lu-PSMA-617) for the treatment of adult patients with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who have been treated with androgen receptor pathway inhibition and taxane-based chemotherapy. The recommended 177Lu-PSMA-617 dose is 7.4 gigabecquerels (GBq; 200 mCi) intravenously every 6 weeks for up to six doses, or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The FDA granted traditional approval based on VISION (NCT03511664), which was a randomized (2:1), multicenter, open-label trial that assessed the efficacy and safety of 177Lu-PSMA-617 plus best standard of care (BSoC; n = 551) or BSoC alone (n = 280) in men with progressive, PSMA-positive mCRPC. Patients were required to have received ≥1 androgen receptor pathway inhibitor, and one or two prior taxane-based chemotherapy regimens. There was a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival (OS), with a median OS of 15.3 months in the 177Lu-PSMA-617 plus BSoC arm and 11.3 months in the BSoC arm, respectively (HR: 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.52-0.74; P < 0.001). The most common adverse reactions (≥20%) occurring at a higher incidence in patients receiving 177Lu-PSMA-617 were fatigue, dry mouth, nausea, anemia, decreased appetite, and constipation. The most common laboratory abnormalities that worsened from baseline in ≥30% of patients receiving 177Lu-PSMA-617 were decreased lymphocytes, decreased hemoglobin, decreased leukocytes, decreased platelets, decreased calcium, and decreased sodium. This article summarizes the FDA review of data supporting traditional approval of 177Lu-PSMA-617 for this indication.

FDA Approval Summary: Pembrolizumab for Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Treatment of Patients with High-Risk Early-Stage Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

On July 26, 2021, the FDA granted approval to pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy for neoadjuvant treatment and then continued as a single agent for adjuvant treatment following surgery for patients with high-risk, early-stage triple-negative breast cancer. Approval was based on results from KEYNOTE-522, an ongoing randomized (2:1) trial evaluating pembrolizumab or placebo in combination with chemotherapy for neoadjuvant treatment and then as a single agent for adjuvant treatment. The co-primary endpoints were pathological complete response (pCR) rate and event-free survival (EFS). The trial demonstrated an improvement in pCR and EFS in the pembrolizumab arm compared with the control arm. The number of patients who experienced an EFS event was 123 (16%) and 93 (24%), respectively [HR: 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.48-0.82, P = 0.00031]. Patients on the pembrolizumab arm experienced EFS benefit regardless of tumor PD-L1 status. The absolute pCR rate improvement with the addition of pembrolizumab was 7.5% (95% CI, 1.6-13.4). Among patients receiving pembrolizumab, 44% experienced an immune-related adverse reaction. This article summarizes FDA's review of pembrolizumab and the data supporting the favorable benefit-risk assessment.

Time to deterioration of symptoms or function using patient-reported outcomes in cancer trials.

Time-to-event endpoints for patient-reported outcomes, such as time to deterioration of symptoms or function, are frequently used in cancer clinical trials. Although time-to-deterioration endpoints might seem familiar to cancer researchers for being similar to survival or disease-progression endpoints, there are unique considerations associated with their use. The complexity of time-to-deterioration endpoints should be weighed against the information that they add to the tumour, survival, and safety data used to inform the risks and benefits of an investigational drug. Here we use the estimand framework to show how analytical decisions answer different clinical questions of interest, some of which might be uninformative. Challenges including the consideration of intercurrent events, the difficulty in maintaining adequate completion rates, and considerable patient and trial burden from long-term, serial, patient-reported outcome measurements render time to deterioration a problematic approach for widespread use. For trials in which a comparative benefit in symptoms or function is an objective, an analysis at pre-specified relevant timepoints could be a better approach.

US Food and Drug Administration Analysis of Patient-Reported Diarrhea and Its Impact on Function and Quality of Life in Patients Receiving Treatment for Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Many trials conclude "no clinically meaningful detriment" to health-related quality of life (HRQL) or function between arms, even when notable differential toxicity is observed. Mean change from baseline analyses of function or HRQL can possibly obscure important change in subgroups experiencing symptomatic toxicity. We evaluate the impact of diarrhea, a key treatment arm toxicity, on patient-reported HRQL and functioning in clinical trials submitted to US Food and Drug Administration. METHODS: This study used 4 randomized, breast cancer trials (adjuvant to late-line metastatic) as case examples. Diarrhea, physical functioning (PF), and global health status and quality of life (GHS/QoL) from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 were analyzed at baseline and approximately 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: Generally, patients reporting very much diarrhea at months 3 and 6 had worse PF (9-19 points lower) and GHS/QoL (16-19 points lower) than patients reporting no diarrhea regardless of treatment arm. In the change from baseline analysis, patients reporting very much diarrhea also experienced a greater decrease in PF (6-13 points) and GHS/QoL (6-16 points) versus patients reporting no diarrhea in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: In trials with moderate to large differences in symptomatic toxicity by arm, reporting "no meaningful difference in functioning and HRQL between arms" based on mean change from baseline analysis is insufficient and may obscure important impacts on subgroups experiencing symptomatic adverse events. Additional exploratory analyses with simple data visualizations evaluating functioning or HRQL in patient subgroups experiencing expected symptomatic toxicities can further inform the safety and tolerability of an investigational agent.

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

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

Association of Radiation Therapy With Risk of Adverse Events in Patients Receiving Immunotherapy: A Pooled Analysis of Trials in the US Food and Drug Administration Database.

Importance: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and radiation therapy (RT) are widely used to treat various cancers, but little data are available to guide clinicians on ICI use sequentially with RT. Objective: To assess whether there is an increased risk of serious adverse events (AEs) associated with RT given within 90 days prior to an ICI. Design, Setting, and Participants: Individual patient data were pooled from 68 prospective trials of ICIs submitted in initial or supplemental licensing applications in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) databases through December 2019. Two cohorts were generated: (1) patients who received RT within the 90 days prior to beginning ICI therapy and (2) those who did not receive RT within the 90 days prior to beginning ICI therapy, and AE frequencies were determined. A 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis was performed. Interventions: All patients received an ICI (atezolizumab, avelumab, cemiplimab, durvalumab, ipilimumab, nivolumab, or pembrolizumab); 1733 received RT within the 90 days prior to starting ICI therapy, and 13 956 did not. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was frequency and severity of AEs. Incidence of AEs was compared descriptively between participants who did vs did not receive RT in the propensity score-matched set. Because all analyses are exploratory (ie, not preplanned and no alpha allocated), assessment for statistical significance of the differences between groups was not considered appropriate. Results: A total of 25 469 patients were identified; 8634 were excluded because they lacked comparators who had received RT (n = 976), did not receive an ICI (n = 4949), received RT outside of the target window (n = 2338), or had missing data in 1 or more variables used in the propensity analysis (n = 371), leaving 16 835 patients included in the analysis. The majority were younger than 65 years (9447 [56.1%]), male (10 459 [62.1%]), and White (13 422 [79.7%]). Patients receiving RT had generally similar rates of AEs overall to those patients who did not receive RT. The average absolute difference in rates across the AEs was 1.2%, and the difference ranged from 0% for neurologic AEs to 8% for fatigue. No difference in grade 3 to 4 AEs was observed between the 2 groups (absolute difference ranged from 0.01% to 2%). These findings persisted after propensity score matching. Conclusions and Relevance: In this pooled analysis, administration of an ICI within 90 days following RT did not appear to be associated with an increased risk of serious AEs. Thus, it would appear to be safe to administer an ICI within 90 days of receiving RT. These findings should be confirmed in future prospective trials.

FDA Approval Summary: Margetuximab plus Chemotherapy for Advanced or Metastatic HER2-Positive Breast Cancer.

On December 16, 2020, the FDA granted regular approval to margetuximab-cmkb (MARGENZA), in combination with chemotherapy, for the treatment of adult patients with HER2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer who have received two or more prior anti-HER2 regimens, at least one of which was for metastatic disease. Approval was based on data from SOPHIA, a multicenter, randomized, open-label, active controlled study comparing margetuximab with trastuzumab, in combination with chemotherapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review. SOPHIA demonstrated a 0.9-month difference in median PFS between the two treatment arms [5.8 vs. 4.9 months, respectively; stratified HR, 0.76 (95% confidence interval: 0.59-0.98; P = 0.0334)]. Overall survival (OS) was immature at the data cut-off date of September 10, 2019. Infusion-related reactions (IRR) are an important safety signal associated with margetuximab plus chemotherapy. In SOPHIA, 13% of patients treated with margetuximab plus chemotherapy reported IRRs, of which 1.5% were grade 3. The most commonly reported adverse drug reactions (>10%) with margetuximab in combination with chemotherapy were fatigue/asthenia, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, constipation, headache, pyrexia, alopecia, abdominal pain, peripheral neuropathy, arthralgia/myalgia, cough, decreased appetite, dyspnea, IRR, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, and extremity pain. Overall, the favorable risk-benefit profile for margetuximab when added to chemotherapy supported its approval for the intended indication.

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.

FDA Approval Summary: Tivozanib for Relapsed or Refractory Renal Cell Carcinoma.

On March 10, 2021, the FDA granted regular approval to tivozanib for treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) following two or more prior systemic therapies. Approval was based on the TIVO-3 study, a randomized trial of tivozanib versus sorafenib in patients with R/R advanced RCC. In TIVO-3, patients were randomized to receive either tivozanib 1.34 mg orally once daily for 21 consecutive days of every 28-day cycle or sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily continuously. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1. Tivozanib demonstrated efficacy compared with sorafenib with an improvement in PFS [HR, 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.56-0.95; P = 0.016]. The estimated median PFS was 5.6 months and 3.9 months in the tivozanib and sorafenib arms, respectively. There was no evidence of a detrimental effect on overall survival: HR, 0.97 (95% CI, 0.75-1.24). The most common grade 3 to 4 adverse reaction on the tivozanib arm was hypertension (24%). Compared with sorafenib, tivozanib was associated with lower rates of grade 3 to 4 diarrhea, rash, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia. Patients receiving tivozanib in TIVO-3 had lower rates of dose reduction, interruption, or permanent discontinuation than those receiving sorafenib.

FDA Approval Summary: Capmatinib and Tepotinib for the Treatment of Metastatic NSCLC Harboring MET Exon 14 Skipping Mutations or Alterations.

The FDA approved capmatinib and tepotinib on May 6, 2020, and February 3, 2021, respectively. Capmatinib is indicated for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) whose tumors have a mutation leading to mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) exon 14 skipping as detected by an FDA-approved test. Tepotinib is indicated for mNSCLC harboring MET exon 14 skipping alterations. The approvals were based on trials GEOMETRY mono-1 (capmatinib) and VISION (tepotinib). In GEOMETRY mono-1, overall response rate (ORR) per Blinded Independent Review Committee (BIRC) was 68% [95% confidence interval (CI), 48-84] with median duration of response (DoR) 12.6 months (95% CI, 5.5-25.3) in 28 treatment-naïve patients and 41% (95% CI: 29, 53) with median DoR 9.7 months (95% CI, 5.5-13) in 69 previously treated patients with NSCLC with mutations leading to MET exon 14 skipping. In VISION, ORR per BIRC was 43% (95% CI: 32, 56) with median DoR 10.8 months (95% CI, 6.9-not estimable) in 69 treatment-naïve patients and 43% (95% CI, 33-55) with median DoR 11.1 months (95% CI, 9.5-18.5) in 83 previously-treated patients with NSCLC harboring MET exon 14 alterations. These are the first two therapies to be FDA approved specifically for patients with metastatic NSCLC with MET exon 14 skipping.

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.

FDA Approval Summary: Accelerated Approval of Sacituzumab Govitecan-hziy for Third-line Treatment of Metastatic Triple-negative Breast Cancer.

On April 22, 2020, the FDA granted accelerated approval to sacituzumab govitecan-hziy (TRODELVY; Immunomedics, Inc.) for the treatment of patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) who have received at least two prior therapies for metastatic disease. Approval was based on data from the IMMU-132-01 trial, a single-arm, multicohort, multicenter, phase I/II trial of sacituzumab govitecan. The assessment of efficacy was based on 108 patients with mTNBC who had previously received at least two prior lines of therapy in the metastatic setting and who received sacituzumab govitecan 10 mg/kg i.v. The assessment of safety was based on 408 patients with advanced solid tumors who had received sacituzumab govitecan at doses up to 10 mg/kg i.v. The primary efficacy endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DoR) was a key secondary endpoint. The ORR was 33.3% [36/108; 95% confidence interval (CI), 24.6-43.1], and median DoR among responders was 7.7 months (95% CI, 4.9-10.8). The most common adverse reactions occurring in ≥25% of patients were nausea, neutropenia, diarrhea, fatigue, anemia, vomiting, alopecia, constipation, rash, decreased appetite, and abdominal pain. This article summarizes the FDA review process and data supporting the approval of sacituzumab govitecan.

FDA Approval Summary: Tucatinib for the Treatment of Patients with Advanced or Metastatic HER2-positive Breast Cancer.

On April 17, 2020, the FDA approved tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for the treatment of patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer, including patients with brain metastases, who have received one or more prior anti-HER2-based regimens in the metastatic setting. This was the first new molecular entity evaluated under Project Orbis, an FDA Oncology Center of Excellence initiative, which supports concurrent review of oncology drugs by multiple global health authorities. Approval was based on the HER2CLIMB trial, which randomized patients to receive tucatinib or placebo with trastuzumab and capecitabine. Tucatinib demonstrated efficacy compared with placebo in progression-free survival [PFS; HR: 0.54; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.42-0.71; P < 0.00001] and overall survival (OS; HR: 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50-0.87; P = 0.00480). Patients with either treated and stable or active brain metastases made up 48% of the study population. PFS in patients with brain metastases confirmed benefit (HR: 0.48; 95% CI, 0.34-0.69; P < 0.00001). The benefit in patients with brain metastases allowed for inclusion of this specific population in the indication. Important safety signals included diarrhea and hepatotoxicity which are listed under Warnings and Precautions. This article summarizes the FDA thought process and data supporting the favorable benefit-risk profile and approval of tucatinib.