Bishal Gyawali1,2, Spencer Phillips Hey1, Aaron S Kesselheim1. 1. Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Oncology, Department of Public Health Sciences, and Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) accelerated approval pathway allows investigational cancer drugs to be approved by demonstrating a beneficial effect on a surrogate measure (eg, progression-free survival) that is expected to predict a real clinical benefit (eg, overall survival). However, these drugs must undergo postapproval confirmatory studies to evaluate their actual clinical benefits. In an assessment of the accelerated approval pathway published in 2018, the FDA concluded that this pathway was successful because only 5 (5%) of 93 accelerated drug approvals had been withdrawn or revoked over the last 25 years. Objective: To compare the end points used in preapproval trials leading to accelerated approval with the end points used in the required confirmatory trials that verified clinical benefit and to update the outcomes of accelerated approvals with confirmatory trials that were ongoing at the time of FDA's review. Design, Setting, and Participants: A review of the literature on end points used in preapproval and confirmatory trials of cancer drugs that received accelerated approval and a review of the FDA's database of postmarketing requirements and commitments focused on the outcomes of confirmatory trials that were ongoing at the time of FDA's review of cancer drug approvals published in 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: End points used as confirmation of clinical benefit in cancer drugs that received accelerated approval, updated status of the confirmatory trials, and regulatory outcomes for cancer drugs that did not meet expectations in the confirmatory trials. Results: The FDA published a review of 93 cancer drug indications for which accelerated approval was granted from December 11, 1992, through May 31, 2017. Of these approvals, the FDA reported that clinical benefit was adequately confirmed in 51 and confirmatory trials for 15 of these indications (16% of the main sample) accelerated approvals reported improvement in overall survival. For 19 approvals (37%), the confirmatory trials used surrogate measures that were the same as those used in the preapproval trials. In this updated review, confirmatory trials for 19 of 93 (20%) cancer drug approvals reported an improvement in overall survival, 19 (20%) reported improvement in the same surrogate used in the preapproval trial, and 20 (21%) reported improvement in a different surrogate. Five confirmatory trials were delayed, 10 were pending, and 9 were ongoing. For 3 recent approvals, the primary end points were not met in the confirmatory trials; however, 1 cancer drug indication still received full approval. Conclusions and Relevance: Confirmatory trials for one-fifth (n = 19 of 93) of cancer drug indications approved via the FDA's accelerated approval pathway demonstrated improvements in overall patient survival. Reassessment of the requirements for confirmatory trials may be necessary to obtain more clinically meaningful information.
Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) accelerated approval pathway allows investigational cancer drugs to be approved by demonstrating a beneficial effect on a surrogate measure (eg, progression-free survival) that is expected to predict a real clinical benefit (eg, overall survival). However, these drugs must undergo postapproval confirmatory studies to evaluate their actual clinical benefits. In an assessment of the accelerated approval pathway published in 2018, the FDA concluded that this pathway was successful because only 5 (5%) of 93 accelerated drug approvals had been withdrawn or revoked over the last 25 years. Objective: To compare the end points used in preapproval trials leading to accelerated approval with the end points used in the required confirmatory trials that verified clinical benefit and to update the outcomes of accelerated approvals with confirmatory trials that were ongoing at the time of FDA's review. Design, Setting, and Participants: A review of the literature on end points used in preapproval and confirmatory trials of cancer drugs that received accelerated approval and a review of the FDA's database of postmarketing requirements and commitments focused on the outcomes of confirmatory trials that were ongoing at the time of FDA's review of cancer drug approvals published in 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: End points used as confirmation of clinical benefit in cancer drugs that received accelerated approval, updated status of the confirmatory trials, and regulatory outcomes for cancer drugs that did not meet expectations in the confirmatory trials. Results: The FDA published a review of 93 cancer drug indications for which accelerated approval was granted from December 11, 1992, through May 31, 2017. Of these approvals, the FDA reported that clinical benefit was adequately confirmed in 51 and confirmatory trials for 15 of these indications (16% of the main sample) accelerated approvals reported improvement in overall survival. For 19 approvals (37%), the confirmatory trials used surrogate measures that were the same as those used in the preapproval trials. In this updated review, confirmatory trials for 19 of 93 (20%) cancer drug approvals reported an improvement in overall survival, 19 (20%) reported improvement in the same surrogate used in the preapproval trial, and 20 (21%) reported improvement in a different surrogate. Five confirmatory trials were delayed, 10 were pending, and 9 were ongoing. For 3 recent approvals, the primary end points were not met in the confirmatory trials; however, 1 cancer drug indication still received full approval. Conclusions and Relevance: Confirmatory trials for one-fifth (n = 19 of 93) of cancer drug indications approved via the FDA's accelerated approval pathway demonstrated improvements in overall patient survival. Reassessment of the requirements for confirmatory trials may be necessary to obtain more clinically meaningful information.
Authors: Maitreyee Hazarika; Meredith K Chuk; Marc R Theoret; Sirisha Mushti; Kun He; Shawna L Weis; Alexander H Putman; Whitney S Helms; Xianhua Cao; Hongshan Li; Hong Zhao; Liang Zhao; Joel Welch; Laurie Graham; Meredith Libeg; Rajeshwari Sridhara; Patricia Keegan; Richard Pazdur Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-01-13 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Ezra E W Cohen; Denis Soulières; Christophe Le Tourneau; José Dinis; Lisa Licitra; Myung-Ju Ahn; Ainara Soria; Jean-Pascal Machiels; Nicolas Mach; Ranee Mehra; Barbara Burtness; Pingye Zhang; Jonathan Cheng; Ramona F Swaby; Kevin J Harrington Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-11-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Edwin P Rock; Vicki Goodman; Janet X Jiang; Kooros Mahjoob; S Leigh Verbois; David Morse; Ramzi Dagher; Robert Justice; Richard Pazdur Journal: Oncologist Date: 2007-01
Authors: Wolfgang Wick; Thierry Gorlia; Martin Bendszus; Martin Taphoorn; Felix Sahm; Inga Harting; Alba A Brandes; Walter Taal; Julien Domont; Ahmed Idbaih; Mario Campone; Paul M Clement; Roger Stupp; Michel Fabbro; Emilie Le Rhun; Francois Dubois; Michael Weller; Andreas von Deimling; Vassilis Golfinopoulos; Jacoline C Bromberg; Michael Platten; Martin Klein; Martin J van den Bent Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jedd D Wolchok; Vanna Chiarion-Sileni; Rene Gonzalez; Piotr Rutkowski; Jean-Jacques Grob; C Lance Cowey; Christopher D Lao; John Wagstaff; Dirk Schadendorf; Pier F Ferrucci; Michael Smylie; Reinhard Dummer; Andrew Hill; David Hogg; John Haanen; Matteo S Carlino; Oliver Bechter; Michele Maio; Ivan Marquez-Rodas; Massimo Guidoboni; Grant McArthur; Celeste Lebbé; Paolo A Ascierto; Georgina V Long; Jonathan Cebon; Jeffrey Sosman; Michael A Postow; Margaret K Callahan; Dana Walker; Linda Rollin; Rafia Bhore; F Stephen Hodi; James Larkin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-09-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ulrik Ringborg; Anton Berns; Julio E Celis; Manuel Heitor; Josep Tabernero; Joachim Schüz; Michael Baumann; Rui Henrique; Matti Aapro; Partha Basu; Regina Beets-Tan; Benjamin Besse; Fátima Cardoso; Fátima Carneiro; Guy van den Eede; Alexander Eggermont; Stefan Fröhling; Susan Galbraith; Elena Garralda; Douglas Hanahan; Thomas Hofmarcher; Bengt Jönsson; Olli Kallioniemi; Miklós Kásler; Eva Kondorosi; Jan Korbel; Denis Lacombe; José Carlos Machado; José M Martin-Moreno; Francoise Meunier; Péter Nagy; Paolo Nuciforo; Simon Oberst; Júlio Oliveiera; Maria Papatriantafyllou; Walter Ricciardi; Alexander Roediger; Bettina Ryll; Richard Schilsky; Grazia Scocca; Raquel Seruca; Marta Soares; Karen Steindorf; Vincenzo Valentini; Emile Voest; Elisabete Weiderpass; Nils Wilking; Amanda Wren; Laurence Zitvogel Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2021-09-13 Impact factor: 6.603