Search

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 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., Trials in solid tumors supporting accelerated approval are more fragile compared to regular approvals. This finding supports the need for post‐marketing trials or real‐world analyses to ensure the benefit observed in clinical trials is robust and reproducible.

Contains fulltext : 241226.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: Olaparib, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, has previously been shown to extend progression-free survival versus placebo when given to patients with relapsed high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer who were platinum sensitive and who had a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation, as part of the SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21 trial. The aim of this final analysis is to investigate the effect of olaparib on overall survival. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial was done across 123 medical centres in 16 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at baseline of 0-1, had histologically confirmed, relapsed, high-grade serous or high-grade endometrioid ovarian cancer, including primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer, and had received two or more previous platinum regimens. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg in two 150 mg tablets twice daily) or matching placebo tablets using an interactive web or voice-response system. Stratification was by response to previous chemotherapy and length of platinum-free interval. Treatment assignment was masked to patients, treatment providers, and data assessors. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival has been reported previously. Overall survival was a key secondary endpoint and was analysed in all patients as randomly allocated. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one treatment dose. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01874353, and is no longer recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between Sept 3, 2013 and Nov 21, 2014, 295 patients were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either olaparib (n=196 [66%]) or placebo (n=99 [34%]). One patient, randomised in error, did not receive olaparib. Median follow-up was 65·7 months (IQR 63·6-69·3) with olaparib and 64·5 months (63·4-68·7) with placebo. Median overall survival was 51·7 months (95% CI 41·5-59·1) with olaparib and 38·8 months (31·4-48·6) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·74 [95% CI 0·54-1·00]; p=0·054), unadjusted for the 38% of patients in the placebo group who received subsequent PARP inhibitor therapy. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse event was anaemia (which occurred in 41 [21%] of 195 patients in the olaparib group and two [2%] of 99 patients in the placebo group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 50 (26%) of 195 patients receiving olaparib and eight (8%) of 99 patients receiving placebo. Treatment-emergent adverse events with a fatal outcome occurred in eight (4%) of the 195 patients receiving olaparib, six of which were judged to be treatment-related (attributed to myelodysplastic syndrome [n=3] and acute myeloid leukaemia [n=3]). INTERPRETATION: Olaparib provided a median overall survival benefit of 12·9 months compared with placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation. Although statistical significance was not reached, these findings are arguably clinically meaningful and support the use of maintenance olaparib in these patients. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Merck.

Summary 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).

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.

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 OncologyMagnitude 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.

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, PP = 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.

Objective To investigate whether US Food and Drug Administration approval of new drugs without randomization or an active drug comparator is associated with more postmarketing safety-related label modifications. Methods We searched Drugs@FDA for new drugs approved from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2014. Drugs approved without supporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were matched to between 1 and 2 controls from similar therapeutic categories approved with supporting RCTs within 3 years of the reference drug. Study characteristics, regulatory pathways, and label modifications up to December 2017 were collected from drug labels. Differences in postmarketing safety modifications between cases and controls were assessed using conditional logistic regression. Results The study cohort included 52 drugs approved without supporting RCTs and 91 matched controls. Drug approvals not supported by RCTs were associated with lower sample size (odds ratio [OR] per 100 patients, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.68-0.87) and were more likely to receive orphan drug designation (OR, 5.10; 95% CI, 2.23-11.69), fast-track designation (OR, 4.80; 95% CI, 2.25-10.23), and accelerated approval (OR, 7.00; 95% CI, 3.14-15.60). Drugs approved without supporting RCTs were associated with more modifications in black box warnings (28.8% vs 13.2%; OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.13-6.27), warnings and precautions (73.1% vs 52.7%; OR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.16-5.09), and common adverse reactions (48.1% vs 23.1%; OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.49-6.41). Conclusion Food and Drug Administration approval of new drugs without supporting RCTs is associated with more postmarketing safety-related label modifications than drugs approved with supporting RCTs. Robust postmarketing studies are required for drugs approved without supporting RCTs. Health care professionals should be vigilant for unrecognized adverse effects when prescribing these drugs.

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.

Historically, patient experience, including symptomatic toxicities, physical function, and disease-related symptoms during treatment or their perspectives on clinical trials, has played a secondary role in cancer drug development. Regulatory criteria for drug approval require that drugs are safe and effective, and almost all drug approvals have been based only on efficacy endpoints rather than on quality-of-life (QoL) assessments. In contrast to Europe, information regarding the impact of drugs on patients’ QoL is rarely included in oncology drug labeling in the United States. Until recently, patient input and preferences have not been incorporated into the design and conduct of clinical trials. In recent years, a more in-depth understanding of cancer biology, as well as regulatory changes focused on expediting cancer drug development and approval, has allowed earlier access to novel therapeutic agents. Understanding the implications of these expedited programs is important for oncologists and patients, given the rapid expansion of these programs. In this article, we provide an overview of the role of QoL in the regulatory drug–approval process, key issues regarding trial participation from the patient perspective, and the implications of key expedited approval programs that are increasingly being used by regulatory bodies for cancer care.

Background Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are crucial to the practice of evidence-based medicine. Declared author financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) are common in CPGs and have been associated with endorsement of treatment. Less is known about undeclared FCOIs. Methods The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) website was searched to identify all CPGs for systemic therapy published between August 2013 and June 2018. Data on self-reported author FCOIs and funding sources were extracted. The Open Payments database was then searched to identify compensation to CPG authors. Concordance between declared and undeclared but verified FCOIs was assessed with Cohen's kappa. Results For 26 CPGs, 314 nonduplicate authors were identified; 184 of these authors (59%) disclosed FCOIs. Among the remaining 130 authors, data in Open Payments were unavailable for 71 authors (non-US residents or authors affiliated with a nonprofit organization). Among the 59 authors who declared no FCOIs and for whom Open Payments data were available, 55 (93%) had received payment from industry. The kappa value for agreement between disclosed and verified FCOIs was 0.092. Among the 243 authors with FCOIs verifiable via Open Payments, 239 (98%) received payment from industry. Thirty-four authors (62%) received more than $1000 in nonresearch funding, and 19 (35%) received more than $5000. Among the 52 first and last authors, 44 (85%) received payment from industry; 14 of these payments (32%) were not declared. Conclusions FCOIs among authors of ASCO CPGs are common and are not disclosed by a substantial proportion of authors with Open Payments data. Improved transparency of FCOIs should become standard practice among CPG authors. Professional societies and journal editors need to create a mechanism to verify self-reported FCOIs.

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.

1086 Background: The impact of the interval of radiological assessment on the magnitude of benefit observed in randomized trials (RCTs) in metastatic breast cancer is undefined. Methods: All RCTs investigating anti-neoplastic drugs for metastatic breast cancer published between 2006 and 2019 were identified. Intervals for restaging were categorized as short ( < 9 weeks) or long (≥9 weeks). Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall-survival (OS) were pooled in a meta-analysis and compared between trials employing short and long restaging intervals assessed as subgroup analyses. Analyses were repeated for pre-specified subgroups according to disease subtype, drug type, whether experimental therapy was added to or replaced standard treatment and whether HR for PFS was < 1 or ≥1. Results: Eighty-nine studies comprising 95 comparisons and 44,901 patients were included. The magnitude of PFS benefit was non-significantly larger in trials which employed short compared to long restaging intervals (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 studies (HR 0.78 vs. 0.92, p = 0.04), studies with drugs replacing standard treatment (HR 0.86 vs. 1.04, p = 0.02) and studies performed exclusively in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive disease (HR 0.72 vs. 0.90, p = 0.02). Restaging interval was not associated with OS for all included studies (HR 0.92 vs. 0.93, p = 0.66) or for any of the pre-specified subgroups. Conclusions: Shorter restaging intervals are associated with a higher magnitude of effect of PFS, but not OS. Awareness of the impact of the restaging interval on quantification of intermediate endpoints such as PFS is important for the design and interpretation of RCTs.

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.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.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).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.

Purpose Modifications in cancer drug indications, dosing, and related toxicities after Food and Drug Administration approval are common. It is unclear whether drug approval without a supporting randomized controlled trial (RCT) influences the probability of such modifications. Methods We searched the Drugs@FDA Web site for new drug indications for solid tumors approved between January 2006 and December 2016. Study characteristics, regulatory pathways, and label modifications from approval to October 2017 were collected from drug labels. Label modifications were considered to be major if defined as such in the drug label. Indications approved with and without supporting RCTs were compared using logistic regression. The Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate method was used to adjust for multiplicity. Results We identified 59 individual drugs for 109 solid tumor indications. Of these, 17 indications (15.6%) were not supported by an RCT, with no change over time. Indications not supported by RCTs were more likely to require companion diagnostic tests (odds ratio [OR], 3.90; P = .02), to include surrogate end points as primary outcomes (OR, 7.88; P < .001), and to receive breakthrough therapy designation (OR, 7.62; P = .006) or accelerated approval (OR, 17.67; P < .001). Indications not supported by RCTs were associated with significantly higher odds of postapproval modifications in common adverse events (71% v 29%; OR, 5.78; P = .002). A nonsignificantly higher odds of postapproval major modifications in warnings and precautions was also observed (88% v 62%; OR, 4.61; P = .051). Postapproval major modifications in indication and usage, dosing and administration, boxed warnings, and contraindications were comparable in the two groups. Conclusion Cancer drug indications not supported initially by RCTs are associated with more postmarketing safety-related label modifications. Health care professionals should be vigilant for unrecognized adverse effects when prescribing drugs approved without a supporting RCT.

This study uses the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale to evaluate the clinical benefit of anticancer drugs that gained approval by the US Food and Drug Administration based on single-arm rather than randomized clinical trials.

[Background]: Companion diagnostics permit the selection of patients likely to respond to targeted anticancer drugs; however, it is unclear if the drug development process differs between drugs developed with or without companion diagnostics. Identification of differences in study design could help future clinical development. [Patients and Methods]: Anticancer drugs approved for use in solid tumors between 28 September 2000 and 4 January 2014 were identified using a search of the US FDA website. Phase III trials supporting registration were extracted from the drug label. Each published study was reviewed to obtain information about the phase I and II trials used for the development of the respective drug. [Results]: We identified 35 drugs and 59 phase III randomized trials supporting regulatory approval. Fifty-three phase I trials and 47 phase II trials were cited in the studies and were used to support the design of these phase III trials. The approval of drugs using a companion diagnostic has increased over time (p for trend 0.01). Expansion cohorts were more frequently observed with drugs developed with a companion diagnostic (62 vs. 20%; p = 0.005). No differences between drugs developed with or without a companion diagnostic were observed for the design of phase I and II studies. [Conclusions]: The approval of drugs developed with a companion diagnostic has increased over time. The availability of a companion diagnostic was associated with more frequent use of phase I expansion cohorts comprising patients selected by the companion diagnostic., Instituto de Salud Carlos III (PI16/01121), ACEPAIN; Diputación de Albacete and CRIS Cancer Foundation (to AO); Beca Ampliación de Estudios (BAE) to AO for his stay at Yale University; Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of Spain (BFU2012–39151 and BFU2015-71371-R), the Instituto de Salud Carlos III through the Spanish Cancer Centers Network Program (RD12/0036/0003) and the CIBERONC, the scientific foundation of the Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer (AECC) and the CRIS Foundation (to AP). The work carried out in the Spanish laboratories receives support from the European Community through the regional development funding program (FEDER).

Background Olaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, has previously shown efficacy in a phase 2 study when given in capsule formulation to all-comer patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed high-grade serous ovarian cancer. We aimed to confirm these findings in patients with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation using a tablet formulation of olaparib. Methods This international, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial evaluated olaparib tablet maintenance treatment in platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation who had received at least two lines of previous chemotherapy. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at baseline of 0–1 and histologically confirmed, relapsed, high-grade serous ovarian cancer or high-grade endometrioid cancer, including primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to olaparib (300 mg in two 150 mg tablets, twice daily) or matching placebo tablets using an interactive voice and web response system. Randomisation was stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy (complete vs partial) and length of platinum-free interval (6–12 months vs ≥12 months) and treatment assignment was masked for patients, those giving the interventions, data collectors, and data analysers. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival and we report the primary analysis from this ongoing study. The efficacy analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population; safety analyses included patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01874353, and is ongoing and no longer recruiting patients. Findings Between Sept 3, 2013, and Nov 21, 2014, we enrolled 295 eligible patients who were randomly assigned to receive olaparib (n=196) or placebo (n=99). One patient in the olaparib group was randomised in error and did not receive study treatment. Investigator-assessed median progression-free survival was significantly longer with olaparib (19·1 months [95% CI 16·3–25·7]) than with placebo (5·5 months [5·2–5·8]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·30 [95% CI 0·22–0·41], p

This study matches entries in ClinicalTrials.gov for cancer drug trials at initiation of the trial with later entries and with journal reports of the trials to assess modifications in trial design, external factors associated with such modifications, and transparency in reporting them.

Low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 1, a member of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol receptor family, has been implicated in the progression of certain tumors; but it remains unclear whether it plays a role in infiltrating ductal breast carcinomas. We studied a series of 81 ductal breast tumors to determine the correlation of low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein I overexpression with clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical characteristics associated with prognosis. Low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein I overexpression was identified in 14% (11/81) of tumors and was correlated with a high nuclear grade (P = .043), high mitotic index (P = .006), and Ki-67 greater than 20% (P = .047). Furthermore, low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 1 expression was associated with aggressive carcinomas (triple-negative tumors [21%, 7/33] and Her-2/neu tumors [17%, 4/24]) but not with hormone-dependent carcinomas (0%, 0/24)(P = .040). There was no correlation between low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 1 expression and survival, but a trend was found between low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 1 overexpression and tumor recurrence. Low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 1 overexpression was related to proliferation and invasiveness in Her-2/neu and triple-negative breast carcinoma. Moreover, patients with low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 1-positive tumors had higher cholesterol levels (62.5%, 5/8) than those with low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 1-negative tumors (40%, 19/47). Nevertheless, the correlation between low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 1 and hypercholesterolemia was not statistically significant; but cholesterol levels were higher in patients with triple-negative breast carcinoma (60%, 15/25) and Her-2/neu carcinomas (40%, 6/15) than in luminal-A carcinomas (20%, 3/15) (P = .046). These findings suggest a relationship between hypercholesterolemia and aggressiveness of ductal breast carcinomas. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Purpose Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are used to apply evidence-based medicine or expert recommendations to clinical practice. Here we explore author financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs), sources of guideline funding, and their relationship with endorsement of specific drugs. Methods An electronic search of MEDLINE was conducted to identify CPGs and CSs for common solid cancers published between January 2003 and October 2013. The search was restricted to articles evaluating systemic therapy. We extracted data on self-reported author FCOIs, funding sources, use of manuscript writers, and endorsement of specific drugs in the abstract of the article. Results Of 142 articles evaluated, 64% were CPGs, and 36% were CSs. The proportion of articles reporting FCOIs improved from 11% in 2003 to 93% in 2013 (P for trend < .001). Only 45% of articles explicitly reported funding sources. Of these, 65% disclosed partial or full industry sponsorship. Use of manuscript writers was declared in 13%, but many articles did not explicitly report the role of authors in the writing of the manuscript. Endorsement of specific drugs was significantly associated with author FCOIs (odds ratio [OR], 7.29; P = .001), but not with industry funding (OR, 0.95; P = .37). Conclusion Reporting of FCOIs in CPGs and CSs has improved over time. Despite prevalent funding of guideline development by industry, such funding is not associated with endorsement of specific drugs. Author FCOIs are prevalent, and endorsement of a specific drug seems to be more common when authors have FCOIs with the pharmaceutical company marketing that drug.

Background: Src is a non-receptor tyrosine kinase involved in signalling and crosstalk between growth-promoting pathways. We aim to investigate the relationship of active Src in response to trastuzumab of HER2-positive breast carcinomas. Methods: We selected 278 HER2-positive breast cancer patients with (n = 154) and without (n = 124) trastuzumab treatment. We performed immunohistochemistry on paraffin-embedded tissue microarrays of active Src and several proteins involved in the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway, PIK3CA mutational analysis and in vitro studies (SKBR3 and BT474 cancer cells). The results were correlated with clinicopathological factors and patients' outcome. Results: Increased pSrc-Y416 was demonstrated in trastuzumab-resistant cells and in 37.8% of tumours that correlated positively with tumour size, necrosis, mitosis, metastasis to the central nervous system, p53 overexpression and MAPK activation but inversely with EGFR and p27. Univariate analyses showed an association of increased active Src with shorter survival in patients at early stage with HER2/hormone receptor-negative tumours treated with trastuzumab. Conclusions: Src activation participates in trastuzumab mechanisms of resistance and indicates poor prognosis, mainly in HER2/hormone receptor-negative breast cancer. Therefore, blocking this axis may be beneficial in those patients.

Background Hormone receptor positive breast cancer is characterized by the potential for disease recurrence many years after initial diagnosis. Endocrine therapy has been shown to reduce the risk of such recurrence, but the optimal duration of endocrine therapy remains unclear. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the benefits and harms of extended adjuvant tamoxifen (>5 years of therapy) compared with adjuvant tamoxifen (5 years of therapy). Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed for disease recurrence, death and adverse events. Subgroup analyses by timing of recurrence and baseline lymph node and menopause status were carried. Results Five trials comprising 21,554 patients were included. Extended adjuvant tamoxifen was not associated with a significant reduction in the risk of recurrence (OR:0.89, 95% CI 0.76–1.05, p = 0.17). There was no association between extended adjuvant tamoxifen and all-cause death (OR:0.99, 95% CI 0.84–1.16, p = 0.88). There was an apparent reduction in risk of recurrence occurring after completion of extended adjuvant tamoxifen with little evidence of effect during therapy, however, this difference was not significant (p for difference 0.10). Subgroup analysis suggested that a greater effect size among lymph node positive patients compared with those who are lymph node negative (NNT: 25 vs. 49). There was no apparent difference in the effect between pre- and post-menopausal patients. Endometrial carcinoma was substantially more frequent with extended adjuvant tamoxifen (OR:2.06, 95% CI 1.65–2.58, p

Obesity, associated with inflammation, has been linked to poor prognosis in breast cancer. Research investigating the potential role of C-reactive protein (CRP), an obesity-associated systemic marker of inflammation, as a mediator of adverse prognostic effects of obesity has yielded inconsistent results. We examined the association of highly sensitive CRP (hsCRP) with obesity-related factors and breast cancer outcome. A cohort of 535 non-diabetic women diagnosed with T1-3, N0-1, M0 breast cancer, was assembled between 1989 and 1996 and followed prospectively. Circulating levels of hsCRP were analyzed on blood obtained postoperatively, prior to systemic therapy, in 501 women. Correlations and prognostic associations were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients (r) and Cox models. hsCRP was significantly correlated with body mass index (r = 0.60), insulin (r = 0.44), leptin (r = 0.54), and lipids, but not T or N stage, grade or estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor. At a median follow-up of 12 years, hsCRP was not associated with distant disease-free survival or overall survival in univariable [Q4 vs. Q1 hazard ratio (HR) 1.03, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.69–1.52, P = 0.9 and HR 1.27, 95 % CI 0.86–1.86, P = 0.24, respectively] or multivariable [Q4 vs Q1 HR 1.02, 95 % CI 0.66–1.59, P = 0.93 and HR 1.17, 95 % CI 0.76–1.81, P = 0.48 respectively] analyses. hsCRP was associated with age, comorbidities, and the insulin resistance syndrome but not with breast cancer outcome.

IMPORTANCE The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committees influence decisions relating to the regulatory approval of drugs in the United States. Outside of the field of oncology, prosponsor voting bias has been observed among members with financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs). OBJECTIVE To explore factors associated with Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) recommendations and the influence ODAC members' FCOIs on the drug approval process. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Retrospective analysis of 82 ODAC meeting transcripts between January 2000 and December 2014. Analysis was restricted to meetings at which votes were cast relating to oncologic drugs. The influence of methodology of trials supporting approval and frequency and type of self-reported FCOIs of voting members was explored using logistic regression. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES ODAC recommendation for drug approval and subsequent FDA approval. RESULTS Eighty-two transcripts of ODAC meetings between January 2000 and December 2014 were available for analysis. During the time period analyzed, ODAC members voted on 68 applications in 79 meetings (the remaining 3 meetings included voting questions regarding postmarketing safety or trial design). There was agreement between ODAC recommendations and final FDA approval; FDA approval was received for all 41 drugs that ODAC recommended approval. Additionally, the FDA approved 7 out of 41 agents that were not recommended for approval by ODAC (kappa = 0.83). In 51 of 79 meetings, more than 1 trial was available to support the indication of a particular drug, and favorable ODAC recommendations were more likely when this was the case (odds ratio [OR], 1.82; 95% CI, 1.19-2.78; P = .01). Availability of randomized data did not appear to be important with selected single-arm phase 2 trials leading to recommendations for approval, especially in rare diseases. There has been a significant reduction in FCOIs over time (31 of 77 voting members [40%] in 2000 vs 0 of 20 voting members in 2014 [0%]; P < .001). Recommendations for approval were made in 28 of 47 meetings with members reporting FCOIs while among meetings with no reported FCOIs, recommendations for approval were made in 13 of 35 meetings (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.97-1.46; P = .10). No significant association between ODAC recommendations and FDA approval was observed for members with FCOIs with the sponsor (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 0.97-1.46; P = .19 and OR, 3.48; 95% CI, 0.84-14.35; P = .09, respectively) compared with members with FCOIs with competitors (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.78-1.44; P = .72 and OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69-1.28; P = .69, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Availability of multiple trials is associated with higher odds of ODAC recommendation and drug approval. Availability of randomized data appears less important. Declaration of FCOIs among ODAC members was frequent during the time period of interest but has decreased significantly over time. There is no apparent association between FCOIs and ODAC recommendations and subsequent FDA approval.