Search

Simple Summary: Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) Exon 20 insertion mutations (Exon20ins) used to have poor outcomes after the failure of platinum-based therapies. Amivantamab, a drug that targets two proteins involved in NSCLC (EGFR/MET), was developed and studied in the CHRYSALIS clinical trial. This paper summarizes an analysis comparing outcomes for amivantamab from CHRYSALIS to the outcomes for a mix of treatments that were used in real-world clinical practice (real-world physician's choice [RWPC]). RWPC data were collected from hospitals across Europe in the CATERPILLAR real-world evidence (RWE) study. The outcomes of 114 patients from CHRYSALIS were compared to 55 lines of treatment (LOTs) from CATERPILLAR-RWE, accounting for differences in patient characteristics between the two populations. Overall, the results show that amivantamab was at least twice as good as RWPC for platinum pre-treated patients in terms of tumor response and survival rates. Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) Exon 20 insertions (Exon20ins) at the second line and beyond (2L+) have an unmet need for new treatment. Amivantamab, a bispecific EGFR- and MET-targeted antibody, demonstrated efficacy in this setting in the phase 1b, open-label CHRYSALIS trial (NCT02609776). The primary objective was to compare the efficacy of amivantamab to the choices made by real-world physicians (RWPC) using an external control cohort from the real-world evidence (RWE) chart review study, CATERPILLAR-RWE. Adjustment was conducted to address differences in prognostic variables between cohorts using inverse probability weighting (IPW) and covariate adjustments based on multivariable regression. In total, 114 patients from CHRYSALIS were compared for 55 lines of therapy from CATERPILLAR-RWE. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the amivantamab and IPW-weighted RWPC cohorts. For amivantamab versus RWPC using IPW adjustment, the response rate ratio for the overall response was 2.14 (p = 0.0181), and the progression-free survival (PFS), time-to-next-treatment (TTNT) and overall survival (OS) hazard ratios (HRs) were 0.42 (p < 0.0001), 0.47 (p = 0.0063) and 0.48 (p = 0.0207), respectively. These analyses provide evidence of clinical and statistical benefits across multiple outcomes and adjustment methods, of amivantamab in platinum pre-treated patients with advanced NSCLC harboring EGFR Exon20ins. These results confirm earlier comparisons versus pooled national registry data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: This opinion paper describes the regulatory hurdles for a clinical oncologist and physician scientist to activate an Investigator-Initiated Trial (IIT) before and after 2004 with German regulation as an example. Changes in legal framework with impacts on time and costs to activate a clinical trial are described. Evidence needed to reach the objective of higher patient safety and trial quality by European Union (EU) Clinical Trial Directive (CTD) 2001/20 is discussed. Shortly after the beginning of the year 2000, multiple legal changes with impacts on the regulatory framework of clinical trials became effective almost simultaneously. They included the European Union (EU) Clinical Trial Directive (CTD) 2001/20 followed by major changes in national drug laws, the change in the legal status of German University Hospitals (1998), and a new disease-related groups (DRG)-based reimbursement system for hospitals in Germany (2000). Together, these changes created enormous bureaucratic and financial inhibition of activation and conduct of academic investigator-initiated clinical trials (IIT). Examples for activating clinical trials in oncology before and after 2004 are outlined and discussed, focussing on extended time frames, the establishment of centralized responsibility structures and the exploding financial consequences. In addition, the evolution of trial numbers and the distribution of trial initiators between "commercial" and "academic" over time are discussed together with the occurrence of clinical registries. At the same time, progress in molecular biology led to a plethora of new targets for effective pharmacological therapy of life-threatening diseases such as cancer, and the overall number of clinical trials has not decreased. Yet, judging the regulatory and administrative hurdles between scientific study design and first-patient on trial before and after 2004 and weighing these against the lack of evidence that this regulation has achieved its goal to enhance patient safety and trial quality, the necessity to completely overhaul this CTD becomes obvious. A main goal of such an initiative should be to minimize bureaucracy. For the specific situation in Germany, relocation of responsibility and freedom to operate in University Hospitals and Medical Faculties back to the physician–scientists and reduction in interference by legal divisions should be a goal as well as increasing the public financial support for IITs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]