Objective To quantify the association of cancer treatment delay and mortality for each four week increase in delay to inform cancer treatment pathways. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Published studies in Medline from 1 January 2000 to 10 April 2020. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Curative, neoadjuvant, and adjuvant indications for surgery, systemic treatment, or radiotherapy for cancers of the bladder, breast, colon, rectum, lung, cervix, and head and neck were included. The main outcome measure was the hazard ratio for overall survival for each four week delay for each indication. Delay was measured from diagnosis to first treatment, or from the completion of one treatment to the start of the next. The primary analysis only included high validity studies controlling for major prognostic factors. Hazard ratios were assumed to be log linear in relation to overall survival and were converted to an effect for each four week delay. Pooled effects were estimated using DerSimonian and Laird random effect models. Results The review included 34 studies for 17 indications (n=1 272 681 patients). No high validity data were found for five of the radiotherapy indications or for cervical cancer surgery. The association between delay and increased mortality was significant (P Conclusions Cancer treatment delay is a problem in health systems worldwide. The impact of delay on mortality can now be quantified for prioritisation and modelling. Even a four week delay of cancer treatment is associated with increased mortality across surgical, systemic treatment, and radiotherapy indications for seven cancers. Policies focused on minimising system level delays to cancer treatment initiation could improve population level survival outcomes.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/371/bmj.m4087.full.pdf

Mortality due to cancer treatment delay: systematic review and meta-analysis

Surgery is a mainstay treatment for patients with solid tumours. However, despite surgical resection with a curative intent and numerous advances in the effectiveness of (neo)adjuvant therapies, metastatic disease remains common and carries a high risk of mortality. The biological perturbations that accompany the surgical stress response and the pharmacological effects of anaesthetic drugs, paradoxically, might also promote disease recurrence or the progression of metastatic disease. When cancer cells persist after surgery, either locally or at undiagnosed distant sites, neuroendocrine, immune, and metabolic pathways activated in response to surgery and/or anaesthesia might promote their survival and proliferation. A consequence of this effect is that minimal residual disease might then escape equilibrium and progress to metastatic disease. Herein, we discuss the most promising proposals for the refinement of perioperative care that might address these challenges. We outline the rationale and early evidence for the adaptation of anaesthetic techniques and the strategic use of anti-adrenergic, anti-inflammatory, and/or antithrombotic therapies. Many of these strategies are currently under evaluation in large-cohort trials and hold promise as affordable, readily available interventions that will improve the postoperative recurrence-free survival of patients with cancer.

Perioperative events influence cancer recurrence risk after surgery.

Today, clinical evaluation of tumor heterogeneity is an emergent issue to improve clinical oncology. In particular, intra-tumor heterogeneity (ITH) is closely related to cancer progression, resistance to therapy, and recurrences. It is interconnected with complex molecular mechanisms including spatial and temporal phenomena, which are often peculiar for every single patient. This review tries to describe all the types of ITH including morphohistological ITH, and at the molecular level clonal ITH derived from genomic instability and nonclonal ITH derived from microenvironment interaction. It is important to consider the different types of ITH as a whole for any patient to investigate on cancer progression, prognosis, and treatment opportunities. From a practical point of view, analytical methods that are widely accessible today, or will be in the near future, are evaluated to investigate the complex pattern of ITH in a reproducible way for a clinical application.

/pdf/overview-on-clinical-relevance-of-intra-tumor-heterogeneity-4qesqf9e9j.pdf

Overview on Clinical Relevance of Intra-Tumor Heterogeneity.

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.

Assessment of the Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval.

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel drugs that exploit the specificity of a monoclonal antibody (mAb) to reach target antigens expressed on cancer cells for the delivery of a potent cytotoxic payload. ADCs provide a unique opportunity to deliver drugs to tumor cells while minimizing toxicity to normal tissue, achieving wider therapeutic windows and enhanced pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties. To date, nine ADCs have been approved by the FDA and more than 80 ADCs are under clinical development worldwide. In this paper, we provide an overview of the biology and chemistry of each component of ADC design. We briefly discuss the clinical experience with approved ADCs and the various pathways involved in ADC resistance. We conclude with perspectives about the future development of the next generations of ADCs, including the role of molecular imaging in drug development.

/pdf/antibody-drug-conjugates-for-cancer-therapy-1drwjbi14x.pdf

Antibody–Drug Conjugates for Cancer Therapy

Objective To determine the availability of data on overall survival and quality of life benefits of cancer drugs approved in Europe. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Publicly accessible regulatory and scientific reports on cancer approvals by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) from 2009 to 2013. Main outcome measures Pivotal and postmarketing trials of cancer drugs according to their design features (randomisation, crossover, blinding), comparators, and endpoints. Availability and magnitude of benefit on overall survival or quality of life determined at time of approval and after market entry. Validated European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) used to assess the clinical value of the reported gains in published studies of cancer drugs. Results From 2009 to 2013, the EMA approved the use of 48 cancer drugs for 68 indications. Of these, eight indications (12%) were approved on the basis of a single arm study. At the time of market approval, there was significant prolongation of survival in 24 of the 68 (35%). The magnitude of the benefit on overall survival ranged from 1.0 to 5.8 months (median 2.7 months). At the time of market approval, there was an improvement in quality of life in seven of 68 indications (10%). Out of 44 indications for which there was no evidence of a survival gain at the time of market authorisation, in the subsequent postmarketing period there was evidence for extension of life in three (7%) and reported benefit on quality of life in five (11%). Of the 68 cancer indications with EMA approval, and with a median of 5.4 years’ follow-up (minimum 3.3 years, maximum 8.1 years), only 35 (51%) had shown a significant improvement in survival or quality of life, while 33 (49%) remained uncertain. Of 23 indications associated with a survival benefit that could be scored with the ESMO-MCBS tool, the benefit was judged to be clinically meaningful in less than half (11/23, 48%). Conclusions This systematic evaluation of oncology approvals by the EMA in 2009-13 shows that most drugs entered the market without evidence of benefit on survival or quality of life. At a minimum of 3.3 years after market entry, there was still no conclusive evidence that these drugs either extended or improved life for most cancer indications. When there were survival gains over existing treatment options or placebo, they were often marginal.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/359/bmj.j4530.full.pdf

Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European Medicines Agency: retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009-13

Evrim Gurpinar

Papers

Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European Medicines Agency: retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009-13