The Development of the Oncology Center of Excellence Patient-Friendly Language Glossary of Oncology Clinical Trial Terms.

Oncology clinical trials terms and definitions have become increasingly complex, which has led to shortcomings among research staff and healthcare providers in informing clinical trial participants with the study results and consenting procedures in simple language. Understanding oncology clinical trial terms is of critical importance to assist patients and caregivers in making cancer treatment decisions, including enrollment into clinical trials. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE) organized a physician and patient advocate-led focus group, with the primary goal of publishing a patient-centric public glossary of select cancer clinical trial terms for healthcare providers, patients, and caregivers. This commentary reports the results of the focus group sessions that gave FDA OCE valuable insights into how patients perceive clinical trial terms and how oncology clinical trial definitions can be improved to effectively communicate information to the patients to make better informed decisions about their treatment options.

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.

Exploration of baseline patient-reported side effect bother from cancer therapy.

BACKGROUND: Patient reports of expected treatment side effects are increasingly collected as part of the assessment of patient experience in clinical trials. A global side effect item that is patient-reported has the potential to inform overall tolerability. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the completion and distribution of such a global single-item measure of side effect burden in five cancer clinical trials. METHODS: Data from five trials from internal Food and Drug Administration databases that included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General single-item measure of overall side effect burden (i.e. impact on degree of bother) were analyzed. Completion rates for the side effect bother item, items adjacent to this item, and two non-adjacent items on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General that are related to health-related quality of life were calculated at the baseline assessment and at the 3-month assessment. To evaluate the distribution, the percentage of patients reporting high levels (quite a bit or very much bother) of side effect bother at baseline and 3 months was assessed. RESULTS: Completion rates for all items were at least 80% regardless of time point or trial population. However, in three of the five trials, completion rates for the side effect bother item were lower at baseline compared to adjacent and non-adjacent items. This difference was not observed at 3 months. Up to 9.4% of patients reported high levels of side effect bother at baseline. CONCLUSION: Patients may enter trials already reporting some bother from side effects. This can make interpretation of results with respect to the investigational agent under study challenging. Patients may skip an item evaluating side effect bother at baseline, suggesting some difficulty with interpretation of what is being asked. Further study of the wording and utility of a baseline side effect bother assessment is warranted.

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.

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.

Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone in a patient with leptomeningeal carcinomatosis.

BACKGROUND: Leptomeningeal carcinomatosis is a condition in which metastatic cancer cells infiltrate the meninges of the brain and spinal cord, progressing to also involve the cerebrospinal fluid. Incidence of leptomeningeal carcinomatosis arising from an esophageal cancer is particularly rare. CASE PRESENTATION: Here, we present a case report of a 76-year-old Caucasian man with a history of esophageal adenocarcinoma status-post chemoradiation followed by resection. He was admitted to our unit for intractable headache, nausea without emesis, anorexia, weakness, gait instability, delirium, syncope, and near syncope. Our diagnostic workup revealed leptomeningeal carcinomatosis and syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone. Our patient was treated with lumbar puncture for the headache, methotrexate for the leptomeningeal carcinomatosis, and table salt for the syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone. Despite our best efforts, our patient died 6 weeks posttreatment. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the molecular pathogenesis of the development of syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone associated with leptomeningeal carcinomatosis from metastatic esophageal adenocarcinoma would help us to identify patients at risk and treat them accordingly.