Ariadna Tibau1, Consolación Molto1, Alberto Ocana2, Arnoud J Templeton3, Luis P Del Carpio1, Joseph C Del Paggio4, Agustí Barnadas1, Christopher M Booth5,6, Eitan Amir4. 1. Oncology Department, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau and Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 2. Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red Cáncer, Madrid, Spain. 3. Department of Medical Oncology, St Claraspital and Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 4. Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Department of Medicine, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen's University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Canada. 6. Departments of Oncology and Public Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.
Abstract
Background: It is uncertain whether drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have clinically meaningful benefit as determined by validated scales such as the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Methods: We searched the Drugs@FDA website for applications of anticancer drugs from January 2006 to December 2016. Study characteristics, outcomes, and regulatory pathways were collected from drug labels and reports of registration trials. For randomized controlled trials (RCTs), ESMO-MCBS grades were applied. Meaningful benefit was defined as a grade of A or B for (neo)adjuvant intent and 4 or 5 for palliative intent. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: We identified 63 individual drugs for 118 indications. These were supported by 135 studies, among which were 105 RCTs for which ESMO-MCBS could be applied. Only 46 (43.8%) met the ESMO-MCBS meaningful benefit threshold (100% of (neo)adjuvant trials and 38.8% of palliative trials). In palliative therapy trials, meaningful ESMO-MCBS grades were associated with phase III trials (compared with phase II; odds ratio [OR] = 38.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.27 to 452.00, P = .004), those with overall survival as their primary end point (compared with intermediate end points; OR = 8.28, 95% CI = 2.49 to 27.50, P = .001) and trials of targeted drugs with companion diagnostics (OR = 11.62, 95% CI = 2.95 to 45.78, P < .001). Over time, there has been an increase in the number of trials meeting the ESMO-MCBS threshold (Ptrend = .04). There were insufficient (neo)adjuvant studies to perform statistical analysis. Conclusions: The number of trials meeting the ESMO-MCBS threshold for clinical benefit has improved over time. However, fewer than half of RCTs supporting FDA approval meet the threshold for clinically meaningful benefit.
Background: It is uncertain whether drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have clinically meaningful benefit as determined by validated scales such as the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Methods: We searched the Drugs@FDA website for applications of anticancer drugs from January 2006 to December 2016. Study characteristics, outcomes, and regulatory pathways were collected from drug labels and reports of registration trials. For randomized controlled trials (RCTs), ESMO-MCBS grades were applied. Meaningful benefit was defined as a grade of A or B for (neo)adjuvant intent and 4 or 5 for palliative intent. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: We identified 63 individual drugs for 118 indications. These were supported by 135 studies, among which were 105 RCTs for which ESMO-MCBS could be applied. Only 46 (43.8%) met the ESMO-MCBS meaningful benefit threshold (100% of (neo)adjuvant trials and 38.8% of palliative trials). In palliative therapy trials, meaningful ESMO-MCBS grades were associated with phase III trials (compared with phase II; odds ratio [OR] = 38.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.27 to 452.00, P = .004), those with overall survival as their primary end point (compared with intermediate end points; OR = 8.28, 95% CI = 2.49 to 27.50, P = .001) and trials of targeted drugs with companion diagnostics (OR = 11.62, 95% CI = 2.95 to 45.78, P < .001). Over time, there has been an increase in the number of trials meeting the ESMO-MCBS threshold (Ptrend = .04). There were insufficient (neo)adjuvant studies to perform statistical analysis. Conclusions: The number of trials meeting the ESMO-MCBS threshold for clinical benefit has improved over time. However, fewer than half of RCTs supporting FDA approval meet the threshold for clinically meaningful benefit.
Authors: Ariadna Tibau; Consolación Molto; Maria Borrell; Joseph C Del Paggio; Agustí Barnadas; Christopher M Booth; Eitan Amir Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Otto Kauko; Caitlin M O'Connor; Evgeny Kulesskiy; Jaya Sangodkar; Anna Aakula; Sudeh Izadmehr; Laxman Yetukuri; Bhagwan Yadav; Artur Padzik; Teemu Daniel Laajala; Pekka Haapaniemi; Majid Momeny; Taru Varila; Michael Ohlmeyer; Tero Aittokallio; Krister Wennerberg; Goutham Narla; Jukka Westermarck Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Lin Wang; Channing Paller; Hwanhee Hong; Lori Rosman; Anthony De Felice; Otis Brawley; G Caleb Alexander Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Nora Hutchinson; Benjamin Carlisle; Adelaide Doussau; Rafia Bosan; Eli Gumnit; Amanda MacPherson; Dean A Fergusson; Jonathan Kimmelman Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-05-03
Authors: Aviv Ladanie; Benjamin Speich; Florian Naudet; Arnav Agarwal; Tiago V Pereira; Francesco Sclafani; Juan Martin-Liberal; Thomas Schmid; Hannah Ewald; John P A Ioannidis; Heiner C Bucher; Benjamin Kasenda; Lars G Hemkens Journal: Trials Date: 2018-09-19 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Di Maria Jiang; Kelvin K W Chan; Raymond W Jang; Christopher Booth; Geoffrey Liu; Eitan Amir; Robert Mason; Louis Everest; Elena Elimova Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2019-03-07 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Aviv Ladanie; Andreas M Schmitt; Benjamin Speich; Florian Naudet; Arnav Agarwal; Tiago V Pereira; Francesco Sclafani; Amanda K Herbrand; Matthias Briel; Juan Martin-Liberal; Thomas Schmid; Hannah Ewald; John P A Ioannidis; Heiner C Bucher; Benjamin Kasenda; Lars G Hemkens Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-11-02