Emerson Y Chen1, Vikram Raghunathan1, Vinay Prasad1,2. 1. Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. 2. Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Abstract
Importance: Approximately one-third of cancer drugs are approved based on response rate (RR)-the percentage of patients whose tumors shrink beyond an arbitrary threshold-typically assessed in a single-arm study. Objective: To characterize RR end points used by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for cancer drug approval. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective review of FDA-approved drug indications in oncology from 2006 to 2018. Exposures: Data related to cancer type, line of therapy (first-line, second-line, or third-or-later-line treatment for advanced/metastatic disease), type of FDA approval pathway, trial design, sample size, and level of innovation were extracted. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the RR used as the basis for FDA approval. The secondary outcome was rate of complete response. Results: Eighty-five indications for 59 cancer drugs were identified, 32 (38%) received regular approval, and 53 (62%) were granted accelerated approval. Twenty-nine (55%) accelerated approvals were later converted to regular approval. Of these, 6 (21%) approvals showed overall survival benefit, 16 (55%) later established progression-free survival benefit, and 7 (24%) continued to use RR but gained regular approval. The median RR among the 85 indications was 41% (interquartile range [IQR], 27%-58%). Among them, 14 of 85 (16%) had an RR less than 20%, 28 of 85 (33%) had an RR less than 30%, and 40 of 85 (47%) had an RR less than 40%. The median complete RR for 81 participants was 6% (IQR, 2%-22%). The median sample size among studies leading to approval was 117 (IQR, 76-182; range, 18-1052 participants). Drugs with accelerated approval pending confirmatory data had lower RR compared with drugs that have completed most postmarketing efficacy requirements (median, 28%; IQR, 15%-50% vs median, 42%; IQR, 31%-58%; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: Many cancer drugs approved on the basis of response rate offer numerically low or modest response rates. Most premarket studies accrue more than 100 patients. Some of these drugs could potentially be tested in premarket randomized clinical trials measuring directly end points that demonstrate clinical benefit.
Importance: Approximately one-third of cancer drugs are approved based on response rate (RR)-the percentage of patients whose tumors shrink beyond an arbitrary threshold-typically assessed in a single-arm study. Objective: To characterize RR end points used by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for cancer drug approval. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective review of FDA-approved drug indications in oncology from 2006 to 2018. Exposures: Data related to cancer type, line of therapy (first-line, second-line, or third-or-later-line treatment for advanced/metastatic disease), type of FDA approval pathway, trial design, sample size, and level of innovation were extracted. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the RR used as the basis for FDA approval. The secondary outcome was rate of complete response. Results: Eighty-five indications for 59 cancer drugs were identified, 32 (38%) received regular approval, and 53 (62%) were granted accelerated approval. Twenty-nine (55%) accelerated approvals were later converted to regular approval. Of these, 6 (21%) approvals showed overall survival benefit, 16 (55%) later established progression-free survival benefit, and 7 (24%) continued to use RR but gained regular approval. The median RR among the 85 indications was 41% (interquartile range [IQR], 27%-58%). Among them, 14 of 85 (16%) had an RR less than 20%, 28 of 85 (33%) had an RR less than 30%, and 40 of 85 (47%) had an RR less than 40%. The median complete RR for 81 participants was 6% (IQR, 2%-22%). The median sample size among studies leading to approval was 117 (IQR, 76-182; range, 18-1052 participants). Drugs with accelerated approval pending confirmatory data had lower RR compared with drugs that have completed most postmarketing efficacy requirements (median, 28%; IQR, 15%-50% vs median, 42%; IQR, 31%-58%; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: Many cancer drugs approved on the basis of response rate offer numerically low or modest response rates. Most premarket studies accrue more than 100 patients. Some of these drugs could potentially be tested in premarket randomized clinical trials measuring directly end points that demonstrate clinical benefit.
Authors: Julia A Beaver; Lynn J Howie; Lorraine Pelosof; Tamy Kim; Jinzhong Liu; Kirsten B Goldberg; Rajeshwari Sridhara; Gideon M Blumenthal; Ann T Farrell; Patricia Keegan; Richard Pazdur; Paul G Kluetz Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Mark A Socinski; Igor Bondarenko; Nina A Karaseva; Anatoly M Makhson; Igor Vynnychenko; Isamu Okamoto; Jeremy K Hon; Vera Hirsh; Paul Bhar; Hui Zhang; Jose L Iglesias; Markus F Renschler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-04-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ciani Oriana; Hoyle Martin; Pavey Toby; Cooper Chris; Garside Ruth; Rudin Claudius; Taylor Rod Journal: Value Health Date: 2013 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Henry S Friedman; Michael D Prados; Patrick Y Wen; Tom Mikkelsen; David Schiff; Lauren E Abrey; W K Alfred Yung; Nina Paleologos; Martin K Nicholas; Randy Jensen; James Vredenburgh; Jane Huang; Maoxia Zheng; Timothy Cloughesy Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-08-31 Impact factor: 44.544
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
Authors: Osman Moneer; Beatrice L Brown; Jerry Avorn; Jonathan J Darrow; Mayookha Mitra-Majumdar; Krysten W Joyce; Murray Ross; Catherine Pham; Aaron S Kesselheim Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2022-02-19 Impact factor: 5.228
Authors: Donna R Rivera; Andrew Grothen; Bradley Ohm; Timothy S McNeel; Sean Brennan; Clara J K Lam; Lynne Penberthy; Lindsey Enewold; Valentina I Petkov Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2020-05-01
Authors: Clark DuMontier; Kah Poh Loh; Paul A Bain; Rebecca A Silliman; Tammy Hshieh; Gregory A Abel; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Jane A Driver; William Dale Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Blythe J S Adamson; Xinran Ma; Sandra D Griffith; Elizabeth M Sweeney; Somnath Sarkar; Ariel B Bourla Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2021-07-21 Impact factor: 2.732