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.

Clinical Relevance of Tumour-Infiltrating Immune Cells in HER2-Negative Breast Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Therapy.

Currently, therapy response cannot be accurately predicted in HER2-negative breast cancer (BC). Measuring stromal tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) and mediators of the tumour microenvironment and characterizing tumour-infiltrating immune cells (TIICs) may improve treatment response in the neoadjuvant setting. Tumour tissue and peripheral blood samples were retrospectively collected from 118 patients, and sTILs were evaluated. Circulating exosomes and myeloid-derived suppressor cells were determined by flow cytometry. TIICs markers (CD4, CD8, CD20, CD1a, and CD68) were assessed immunohistochemically. High sTILs were significantly associated with pathological complete response (pCR; p = 0.048) and event-free survival (EFS; p = 0.027). High-CD68 cells were significantly associated with pCR in triple-negative (TN, p = 0.027) and high-CD1a cells with EFS in luminal-B (p = 0.012) BC. Cluster analyses of TIICs revealed two groups of tumours (C1 and C2) that had different immune patterns and clinical outcomes. An immunoscore based on clinicopathological variables was developed to identify high risk (C1) or low-risk (C2) patients. Additionally, cluster analyses revealed two groups of tumours for both luminal-B and TNBC. Our findings support the association of sTILs with pCR and show an immunological component in a subset of patients with HER2-negative BC. Our immunoscore may be useful for future escalation or de-escalation treatments.

Reporting of post-protocol therapies in metastatic breast cancer registration clinical trials: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: As the treatment for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) often includes sequential lines of therapy, data on post-protocol treatment in clinical trials are valuable in the assessment of long-term outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess the reported data on post-protocol therapy in clinical trials supporting US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of drugs for MBC. METHODS: All initial and subsequent publications related to FDA approved indications for MBC between January 2000 and February 2023 were identified. Collected data included study design, patients' characteristics and whether reporting on post-protocol therapy was available. Differences in study design and population between studies with and without data on post-protocol therapy were evaluated. FINDINGS: Forty-one indications for MBC were identified. Data were evaluated from 249 publications or abstracts, comprising 20,152 patients. Reporting of post-protocol therapy was available for 22 (53.7 %) indications. Reported data were often incomplete. Reporting has not improved over time with reported data in 50 % and 55.2 % studies between 2000 and 2010 and 2011-2023 (p value for the difference = 1.0), respectively. Studies with OS as their primary endpoints were associated with significantly higher reporting of post-protocol therapy, (p = 0.02). Other characteristics of study design and population were comparable between studies with and without data on post-protocol therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Data on post-protocol therapy in trials supporting FDA approval of drugs for MBC are available for only half of the indications. As subsequent lines of therapy may have a crucial role in patients' outcome, post-protocol reporting should be included in the regulatory submission and be made available publicly.

Secreted Protein Acidic and Rich in Cysteine (SPARC) Polymorphisms in Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in HER2-Negative Breast Cancer Patients.

Secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteine (SPARC) expression has been proposed as a prognostic and predictive biomarker for some cancer types, but knowledge about the predictive value of SPARC polymorphisms in the context of neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer (BC) is lacking. In 132 HER2-negative BC patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, we determined polymorphisms in the SPARC gene and analyzed their association with outcome. We also determined SPARC protein expression in tumor tissue. SPARC rs19789707 was significantly associated with response to treatment according to the Miller and Payne system in the breast (multivariate: odds ratio (OR), 3.81; p = 0.028). This association was significant in the subgroup of patients with luminal tumors (univariate: p = 0.047). Regarding survival, two SPARC variants showed significant associations with event-free survival: the rs19789707 variant in the subgroup of luminal A tumors (univariate: p = 0.006), and the rs4958487 variant in the subgroup of luminal B tumors (univariate: p = 0.022). In addition, SPARC rs4958487, rs10065756, and rs12153644 were significantly correlated with SPARC protein expression. Our findings suggest that SPARC polymorphisms could be good predictors of treatment response and survival in BC patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, especially those with luminal tumors.

Treatment with anticancer drugs for advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer have a poor prognosis and high burden of cancer-related symptoms. It is necessary to assess the trade-off of clinical benefits and possible harms of treatments with anticancer drugs (TAD). This systematic review aims to compare the effectiveness of TAD versus supportive care or no treatment, considering all patient-important outcomes. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Epistemonikos. Two reviewers performed selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We assessed certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We included 14 randomised controlled trials. Chemotherapy may result in a slight increase in overall survival (MD: 2.97 months (95%CI 1.23, 4.70)) and fewer hospital days (MD: -6.7 (-8.3, -5.1)), however, the evidence is very uncertain about its effect on symptoms, quality of life, functional status, and adverse events. Targeted/biological therapy may result in little to no difference in overall survival and a slight increment in progression-free survival (HR: 0.83 (95%CI 0.63, 1.10)), but probably results in more adverse events (RR: 5.54 (95%CI 1.24, 23.97)). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of immunotherapy in overall survival and functional status. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is very uncertain about whether the benefits of using treatment with anticancer drugs outweigh their risks for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. This uncertainty is further highlighted when considering immunotherapy or a second line of chemotherapy and thus, best supportive care would be an appropriate alternative. Future studies should assess their impact on all patient-important outcomes to inform patients in setting their goals of care.

Quality of life with palbociclib plus fulvestrant versus placebo plus fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with endocrine-sensitive hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: patient-reported outcomes from the FLIPPER trial.

Background: In the FLIPPER trial, palbociclib/fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo/fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC). Objective: We assessed health-related quality of life (QoL) using patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Design and methods: In this phase II double-blinded study, PROs were assessed at baseline after every three cycles and at the end of the treatment using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23. Time to deterioration (TTD) in global health status (GHS)/QoL was defined as a decrease of ⩾10 points. Changes from baseline (CFB) and TTD were analysed using linear mixed-effect and Cox regression models, respectively. Results: Of the 189 randomised (1:1) patients, 178 (94%) completed ⩾1 post-baseline assessment; 50% received ⩾22 cycles of study treatment, with a questionnaire compliance >90%. Mean baseline scores were comparable between arms. GHS/QoL scores were maintained throughout the palbociclib/fulvestrant treatment. CFB showed significant differences for GHS/QoL, appetite loss, constipation and systemic therapy side effect scores favouring placebo/fulvestrant. TTD in GHS/QoL was delayed in placebo/fulvestrant versus palbociclib/fulvestrant [30.3 versus 11.1 months; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 1.57, 95% CI: 1.03-2.39, p = 0.036]; this difference was not significant in patients with progressive disease (aHR: 1.2, 95% CI: 0.6-2.2, p = 0.658). No statistically significant differences in TTD were found for the other QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 scales. Conclusions: Although TTD in GHS/QoL was prolonged with placebo/fulvestrant, no differences were observed on other functional or symptom scales. This finding and the improvement in PFS support the combination of palbociclib/fulvestrant as a beneficial therapeutic option for HR+/HER2- ABC. Trial registration number: Sponsor Study Code: GEICAM/2014-12EudraCT Number: 2015-002437-21ClinTrials.gov reference: NCT02690480.

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.

Clinical benefit of cancer drugs approved in Switzerland 2010-2019.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown to what extent cancer drugs approved in Switzerland by the Swissmedic fulfil criteria of clinical benefit according to the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS), the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework version 2 (ASCO-VF) and the Swiss OLUtool v2 (OLUtool). PATIENTS AND METHODS: An electronic search identified studies that led to marketing authorisations in Switzerland 2010-2019. Studies were evaluated according to ESMO-MCBS, ASCO-VF and OLUtool. Substantial benefit for ESMO-MCBS, was defined as a grade A or B for (neo)adjuvant intent and 4 or 5 for palliative intent. For ASCO-VF and OLUtool clinical benefit was defined as score ≥45 and A or B, respectively. Concordance between the frameworks was calculated with Cohen's Kappa (κ). Factors associated with clinical benefit were evaluated by logistic regression. RESULTS: In the study period, 48 drugs were approved for 92 evaluable indications, based on 100 studies. Ratings for ESMO-MCBS, ASCO-VF and OLUtool could be performed for 100, 86, and 97 studies, respectively. Overall, 39 (39%), 44 (51%), 45 (46%) of the studies showed substantial clinical benefit according to ESMO-MCBS v1.1, ASCO-VF, OLUtool criteria, respectively. There was fair concordance between ESMO-MCBS and ASCO-VF in the palliative setting (κ = 0.31, P = 0.004) and moderate concordance between ESMO-MCBS and OLUtool (κ = 0.41, P<0.001). There was no significant concordance between ASCO-VF and OLUtool (κ = 0.18, P = 0.12). Factors associated with substantial clinical benefit in multivariable analysis were HRQoL benefit reported as secondary outcome for ESMO-MCBS and the ASCO-VF and blinded studies for OLUtool. CONCLUSIONS: At the time of approval, only around half of the trials supporting marketing authorisation of recently approved cancer drugs in Switzerland meet the criteria for substantial clinical benefit when evaluated with ESMO-MCBS, ASCO-VF or OLUtool. There was at best only moderate concordance between the grading systems.

Clinical Benefit and Expedited Approval of Cancer Drugs in the United States, European Union, Switzerland, Japan, Canada, and Australia.

PURPOSE: Regulatory agencies have sought to speed up the review of new cancer medicines and reduce delays in approval between countries. We examined trends in regulatory review times and association with clinical benefit for new cancer medicines in six jurisdictions: United States (Food and Drug Administration [FDA]), European Union (European Medicines Agency [EMA]), Switzerland (Swissmedic), Japan (Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency [PMDA]), Canada (Health Canada), and Australia (Therapeutic Goods Administration). METHODS: We studied all new cancer drugs approved in the six aforementioned jurisdictions from 2007 to 2020. We extracted all applicable expedited programs, total regulatory review times, and, for drugs first approved by the FDA, times to subsequent regulatory approval. Clinical benefit was assessed using the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale value framework and ASCO-Cancer Research Committee's targets. Nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare total review times for high versus low clinical benefit drugs. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty eight drugs received initial approval in at least one of the six included jurisdictions. Most drugs approved by the FDA (91%) and Health Canada (59%) qualified for at least one expedited program within those jurisdictions, compared with 46% of EMA approvals and 18% of PMDA approvals. The FDA was the first regulator to approve 102 (80%) drugs. Delays in submission accounted for a median of 20.2% (EMA) to 83.8% (PMDA) of the time to subsequent approval. There was no association between high clinical benefit and shorter total review times. CONCLUSION: Most new cancer therapies were approved first by the FDA, and delays in submission of regulatory applications accounted for substantial delays in approving cancer drugs in other countries. Regulators should prioritize faster review for drugs with high clinical benefit.

A Randomized Phase II Study of Anti-CSF1 Monoclonal Antibody Lacnotuzumab (MCS110) Combined with Gemcitabine and Carboplatin in Advanced Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: This phase II study determined the efficacy of lacnotuzumab added to gemcitabine plus carboplatin (gem-carbo) in patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Female patients with advanced TNBC, with high levels of tumor-associated macrophages not amenable to curative treatment by surgery or radiotherapy were enrolled. Lacnotuzumab was dosed at 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks, ± a dose on cycle 1, day 8. Gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2) and carboplatin (dose in mg calculated by area under the curve [mg/mL/min] × (glomerular filtration rate [mL/min] + 25 [mL/min]) were dosed every 3 weeks. Treatment continued until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or discontinuation by physician/patient. RESULTS: Patients received lacnotuzumab + gem-carbo (n = 34) or gem-carbo (n = 15). Enrollment was halted due to recruitment challenges owing to rapid evolution of the therapeutic landscape; formal hypothesis testing of the primary endpoint was therefore not performed. Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months [90% confidence interval (CI), 4.47-8.64] in the lacnotuzumab + gem-carbo arm and 5.5 months (90% CI, 3.45-7.46) in the gem-carbo arm. Hematologic adverse events were common in both treatment arms; however, patients treated with lacnotuzumab experienced more frequent aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and creatine kinase elevations. Pharmacokinetic results showed that free lacnotuzumab at 10 mg/kg exhibited a typical IgG pharmacokinetic profile and target engagement of circulating colony-stimulating factor 1 ligand. CONCLUSIONS: Despite successful target engagement and anticipated pharmacokinetic profile, lacnotuzumab + gem-carbo showed comparable antitumor activity to gem-carbo alone, with slightly poorer tolerability. However, the data presented in this article would be informative for future studies testing agents targeting the CSF1-CSF1 receptor pathway in TNBC.

The impact of radiological assessment schedules on progression-free survival in metastatic breast cancer: A systemic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The impact of interval of restaging on the observed magnitude of benefit of progression-free survival (PFS) is undefined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating anti-neoplastic drugs for metastatic breast cancer which reported the restaging interval and hazard ratio (HR) for PFS were included. Data on study design and study population were collected. HRs and 95% confidence intervals for PFS and OS (overall survival) were pooled in a meta-analysis. Studies were categorized according to short (<9 weeks) or long (≥9 weeks) restaging interval. The differences in PFS and OS effect between trials employing short and long restaging intervals were assessed as subgroup analyses. Analyses were repeated for pre-specified subgroups. RESULTS: Eighty-nine studies comprising 95 comparisons and 44,901 patients were included. The magnitude of PFS benefit was larger in trials which employed short compared to long restaging intervals, but this difference did not reach the pre-defined threshold for statistical significance (HR = 0.79 vs. 0.86, P = 0.15). Short restaging interval was associated with significantly higher magnitude of effect on PFS in pre-specified subgroups including non-first line trials (HR = 0.78 vs. 0.92, P = 0.04), trials with drugs replacing standard treatment (HR = 0.86 vs. 1.04, P = 0.02) and studies performed in exclusively human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive disease (HR = 0.72 vs. 0.90, P = 0.02). The magnitude of OS benefit was similar with short and long restaging intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Shorter restaging intervals are associated with a higher magnitude of effect on PFS, but not OS. Awareness of the impact of the restaging interval on quantification of PFS is important for the design and interpretation of RCTs.

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.

Fragility of randomized trials supporting cancer drug approvals stratified by approval pathway and review designations.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that the results from fragile trials are less likely to translate into benefit in routine clinical practice. METHODS: We searched the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) archives to identify drug approvals for solid organ malignancies between 2010 and 2019. We calculated the Fragility Index (FI) supporting each approval, using methods to account for time-to-event. We compared FI and trial and approval characteristics using Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis test. Using logistic regression, we examined study characteristics associated with withdrawal of consent or lost to follow-up (WCLFU) exceeding the calculated FI. RESULTS: The median FI among 125 included studies was 23 (range 1-322). The FI was ≤10 in 35 studies (28%), 11-20 in 21 (17%), and >20 in 69 (55%). The median FI/Nexp was 7.7% (range 0.1-51.7%). The median FI was significantly lower among approvals processed through the accelerated vs regular pathway (5.5 vs 25, p = 0.001), but there was no difference in median FI/Nexp. The WCLFU exceeded FI in 42% of studies. Overall survival endpoints were more likely to have a WCLFU exceeding FI (OR 3.16, p = 0.003). WCLFU exceeding FI was also associated with a lesser magnitude of effect (median HR 0.69 vs 0.55, p < 0.001). In a sensitivity analysis including only studies with 1:1 randomization, 51% of studies had WCLFU >FI. CONCLUSION: The median FI among all trials was 23, and WCLFU exceeded FI in 42%. Comparative trials in solid tumors supporting approval through the accelerated pathway are more fragile compared to trials approved through the regular pathway, an observation likely explained by a lower sample size in the experimental arm.

Analysis of Launch and Postapproval Cancer Drug Pricing, Clinical Benefit, and Policy Implications in the US and Europe.

IMPORTANCE: The high cost of cancer medicines is a public health challenge. Policy makers in the US and Europe are debating reforms to drug pricing that would cover both the prices of new medicines when entering the market and price increases after they are launched. OBJECTIVE: To assess launch prices, postlaunch price changes, and clinical benefit of cancer drugs in the US compared with 3 European countries (England, Germany, and Switzerland). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This economic evaluation identified all new drugs that were approved for use in the US, England, Germany, and Switzerland with initial indications for treatment of adult solid tumor and hematologic cancers. Analysis included drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2019, and by the European Medicines Agency and Swissmedic until December 31, 2019. Prices were adjusted for currency and inflation. Clinical benefit of drugs indicated for solid tumors was assessed using the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale. Using Spearman rank correlation coefficients, correlations between clinical benefit and launch prices and postlaunch price changes for each country were evaluated. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Launch prices, postlaunch price changes, and clinical benefit of cancer drugs. RESULTS: The cohort included 65 drugs: 47 (72%) approved for solid tumors and 18 (28%) for hematologic cancers. In all countries, the lowest median monthly treatment costs at launch were greater in 2018-2019 vs 2009-2010: $14 580 vs $5790 in the US, $5888 vs $4289 in Germany, $6593 vs $5784 in Switzerland, and $6867 vs $3939 in England. Between 2009 and 2019, 48 of 65 (74%) cancer drugs had price increases in the US that were greater than inflation. Only 1 of 62 (2%) drugs in England, 0 of 60 drugs in Germany, and 7 of 56 drugs (13%) in Switzerland had a median price increase greater than inflation. There were no associations between launch prices or postlaunch price changes and clinical benefit in any assessed country. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: During this economic evaluation study period, launch prices of cancer drugs were substantially higher in the US than in the assessed similar high-income European countries, a gap that increased in the years after approval. Cancer drug prices frequently increased faster than inflation in the US but decreased on inflation-adjusted terms in Europe. Price changes were not associated with clinical benefit in any country.

National comprehensive cancer network recommendations for drugs without US food and drug administration approval in metastatic breast cancer: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines can include recommendations for off-label use of anti-cancer drugs. Here, we evaluate NCCN recommendations not supported by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and explore associations with such recommendations. METHODS: All NCCN recommendations for MBC and their supporting data were identified. Drug labels were reviewed to determine whether recommendations are FDA approved. Logistic regression was used to compare FDA approved and off-label recommendations for pre-specified categories, including drug type, tumor subtype, level of recommendation and line of therapy. RESULTS: Of 124 recommendations identified, 68 (55%) were off-label. Chemotherapy and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) targeted drugs were associated with lower odds of FDA approval (OR = 0.28, p = 0.001 and OR = 0.29, 95% p = 0.005, respectively). Recommendations for endocrine therapy (OR = 3.44, p = 0.009) and non-HER2 targeted treatment (OR = 10.0, p < 0.001) were more commonly FDA approved indications. Compared to combination therapies, monotherapies were more likely to be FDA approved (OR = 3.45, p = 0.001) as were category 1 (OR = 7.63, p = 0.001) and preferred NCCN recommendations (OR = 4.07, p < 0.001). Compared to off-label recommendations, NCCN recommendations of approved drugs were based on significantly higher sample size (mean 477 vs. 342 patients, p = 0.02) and were non-significantly associated with availability of randomized data (OR = 2.0, 95% CI 0.89-4.49, p = 0.09). CONCLUSION: More than half of all NCCN recommendations for MBC are off-label, mostly involving chemotherapy containing regimes for HER2 negative disease and combinations which include HER2-targeted drugs. Improved transparency of NCCN guidelines may result from reporting of the strength of the evidence supporting recommendations for MBC.

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.

Prices and clinical benefit of cancer drugs in the USA and Europe: a cost-benefit analysis.

BACKGROUND: Increasing cancer drug prices are a challenge for patients and health systems in the USA and Europe. By contrast with the USA, national authorities in European countries often directly negotiate drug prices with manufacturers. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) developed frameworks to evaluate the clinical value of cancer therapies: the ASCO-Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). We aimed to assess the association between the clinical benefit of approved cancer drugs based on these frameworks and their drug prices in the USA and four European countries (England, Switzerland, Germany, and France). METHODS: For this cost-benefit analysis, we identified all new drugs with initial indications for adult cancers that were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between Jan 1, 2009, and Dec 31, 2017, and by the European Medicines Agency up until Sept 1, 2019. For drugs indicated for solid tumours, we assessed clinical benefit using ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS. We compared monthly drug treatment costs between benefit levels using hierarchical linear regression models, and calculated Spearman's correlation coefficients between costs and benefit levels for individual countries. FINDINGS: Our cohort included 65 drugs: 47 (72%) drugs were approved for solid tumours and 18 (28%) were approved for haematological malignancies. The monthly drug treatment costs in the USA were a median of 2·31 times (IQR 1·79-3·17) as high as in the assessed European countries. There were no significant associations between monthly treatment costs for solid tumours and clinical benefit in all assessed countries, using the ESMO-MCBS (p=0·16 for the USA, p=0·98 for England, p=0·54 for Switzerland, p=0·52 for Germany, and p=0·40 for France), and for all assessed countries except France using ASCO-VF (p=0·56 for the USA, p=0·47 for England, p=0·26 for Switzerland, p=0·23 for Germany, and p=0·037 for France). INTERPRETATION: Cancer drugs with low or uncertain clinical benefit might be prioritised for price negotiations. Value frameworks could help identify therapies providing high clinical benefit that should be made rapidly available across countries. FUNDING: Swiss Cancer Research Foundation (Krebsforschung Schweiz).

Safety-Related Postmarketing Modifications of Drugs for Hematological Malignancies.

The prevalence of safety-related postmarketing label modifications of medications for hematological malignancies is unknown. We identified 35 new drugs indicated for hematological malignancies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between January 1999 and December 2014. Characteristics of supporting trials and safety-related label modifications from approval to December 2017 were collected from drug labels. Regulatory review and approval pathways were also collected. New drug approvals were supported by trials with a median of 167 patients (interquartile range 115-316). All drugs were approved based on surrogate endpoints. Twenty-seven drug approvals (77%) were not supported by randomized controlled trials. All drugs received orphan drug designation, and most were granted fast track designation, priority review, and accelerated approval (83, 74, and 60%, respectively). A total of 28 drugs (80%) had postmarketing safety-related label modifications. Additions to black box warnings, contraindications, warnings and precautions, and common adverse reactions were identified in 31, 11, 77, and 46% of drugs, respectively. Five drugs (14%) were permanently or temporarily withdrawn from the US market. Drugs for hematological malignancies are often approved based on limited evidence through expedited regulatory pathways with incomplete safety profiles. Hematologists should be vigilant for unrecognized side effects when prescribing newly approved drugs.

Assessment of frequency and reporting of design changes among clinical drug trials published in influential medical journals.

BACKGROUND: Modifications of primary outcome measures after trial initiation can undermine their scientific validity. We aimed to quantify these changes and to characterize potential predictors in clinical drug trials published in high impact factor general medicine journals. METHODS: The study cohort included all prospective, adult drug clinical trials published in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA and Lancet between June 2017 and May 2018. The matching ClinicalTrials.gov entries effective at trial initiation were compared with those effective on July 2018, thereby identifying amendments to primary outcome definitions and assessment timeframes and the planned sample size (defined as >10% change). The primary publications were reviewed for reporting of these amendments. Associations between identified changes and trial characteristics were explored using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 147 included trials, modifications to primary outcome measures were identified in 80 (54%). Primary outcome definitions, outcome assessment timeframes and the planned sample size were modified in 28 (19%), 12 (8%) and 65 (45%) of registry entries, respectively; of which 21 (75%), 11 (92%), and 33 (51%), respectively, were not reported in the related publications. There were no significant associations between modifications in registry entries and study characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of trials published in influential medical journals present changes to the design while patient accrual is ongoing, and two thirds of them are unreported. Justification for such modifications should be reported more clearly. Reviewers, editors and readers should consult ClinicalTrials.gov for a more comprehensive report of the evolution of key study methods.