Samantha A. Roberts

Although randomized trials provide the most reliable evidence of a drug's safety and efficacy, there are situations where randomized trials are not possible or ethical. In this article we discuss when and how single‐arm trials can be used to support full approval of oncology drugs. These include situations in which an unprecedented effect on tumor response is observed in a setting of high unmet medical need, clinical trial patients have been well characterized, enabling a target population to be clearly defined, experience exists in a sufficient number of patients to allow adequate assessment of the risk:benefit relationship, and a proper historical context can be provided for analysis. We also discuss how response rates might be considered predictive of long‐term outcomes or clinically meaningful in and of themselves in certain contexts.

In July 2012, Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA). The Advancing Breakthrough Therapies for Patients Act was incorporated into a Title of FDASIA to expedite clinical development of new, potential “breakthrough” drugs or treatments that show dramatic responses in early-phase studies. Using this regulatory pathway, once a promising new drug candidate is designated as a “Breakthrough Therapy”, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and sponsor would collaborate to determine the best path forward to abbreviate the traditional three-phase approach to drug development. The breakthrough legislation requires that an FDA guidance be drafted that details specific requirements of the bill to aid FDA in implementing requirements of the Act. In this article, we have proposed criteria to define a product as a Breakthrough Therapy, and discussed critical components of the development process that would require flexibility in order to enable expedited development of a Breakthrough Therapy. Clin Cancer Res; 19(16); 4297–304. ©2013 AACR.

The US Food and Drug Administration is often criticized as inefficient compared to its European counterpart, the European Medicines Agency. This criticism is especially common in the field of oncology, where severely ill patients have few therapeutic options. We conducted a direct drug-to-drug comparison of the two regulatory agencies’ approvals of new oncology drugs. We found that contrary to public assertions, the median time for approval for new cancer medicines in the United States was just six months—and that these new anticancer medicines are typically available in the United States before they are in Europe. Our findings reinforce the need for strong financial and public support of the Food and Drug Administration, so that such medicines can continue to be made available speedily to patients in need.