Limitations in Clinical Trials Leading to Anticancer Drug Approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration
Authors:
- 1 August 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Medical Association (AMA) in JAMA Internal Medicine
- Vol. 180 (8) , 1108-1115
Abstract
Importance While there have been multiple assessments of clinical trials leading to anticancer drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the cumulative percentage of approvals based on trials with a limitation remains uncertain. Objective To assess the percentage of clinical trials with limitations in 4 domains—lack of randomization, lack of significant overall survival advantage, inappropriate use of crossover, and use of suboptimal control arms—that led to FDA approvals from June 30, 2014, to July 31, 2019. Design, Setting, and Participants This observational analysis included all anticancer drug indications approved by the FDA from June 30, 2014, through July 31, 2019. All indications were investigated, and each clinical trial was evaluated for design, enrollment period, primary end points, and presence of a limitation in the domains of interest. The standard-of-care therapy was determined by evaluating the literature and published guidelines 1 year prior to the start of clinical trial enrollment. Crossover was examined and evaluated for optimal use. The percentage of approvals based on clinical trials with any or all limitations of interest was then calculated. Main Outcomes and Measures Estimated percentage of clinical trials with limitations of interest that led to an anticancer drug marketing authorization by the FDA. Results A total of 187 trials leading to 176 approvals for 75 distinct novel anticancer drugs by the FDA were evaluated. Sixty-four (34%) were single-arm clinical trials, and 123 (63%) were randomized clinical trials. A total of 125 (67%) had at least 1 limitation in the domains of interest; 60 of the 125 trials (48%) were randomized clinical trials. Of all 123 randomized clinical trials, 37 (30%) lacked overall survival benefit, 31 (25%) had a suboptimal control, and 17 (14%) used crossover inappropriately. Conclusions and Relevance Two-thirds of cancer drugs are approved based on clinical trials with limitations in at least 1 of 4 essential domains. Efforts to minimize these limitations at the time of clinical trial design are essential to ensure that new anticancer drugs truly improve patient outcomes over current standards.Keywords
This publication has 23 references indexed in Scilit:
- Safety and tolerability of pembrolizumab in patients with relapsed/refractory primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphomaBlood, 2017
- Clinical benefit, price and approval characteristics of FDA-approved new drugs for treating advanced solid cancer, 2000–2015Annals of Oncology, 2017
- Cancer Drugs Approved on the Basis of a Surrogate End Point and Subsequent Overall SurvivalJAMA Internal Medicine, 2015
- Hard-Wired BiasMayo Clinic Proceedings, 2015
- Clinical activity of afatinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring uncommon EGFR mutations: a combined post-hoc analysis of LUX-Lung 2, LUX-Lung 3, and LUX-Lung 6The Lancet Oncology, 2015
- Adjusting overall survival for treatment switches: commonly used methods and practical applicationPharmaceutical Statistics, 2013
- OCEANS: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Trial of Chemotherapy With or Without Bevacizumab in Patients With Platinum-Sensitive Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian, Primary Peritoneal, or Fallopian Tube CancerJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2012
- Poor correlation between progression-free and overall survival in modern clinical trials: Are composite endpoints the answer?European Journal of Cancer, 2012
- Comparison of Outcomes of Phase II Studies and Subsequent Randomized Control Studies Using Identical Chemotherapeutic RegimensJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2005
- Effect of Crossover on the Statistical Power of Randomized StudiesThe Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 1989