Feasibility of Randomized Controlled Trials for Cancer Drugs Approved by the Food and Drug Administration Based on Single-Arm Studies.
Antineoplastic Agents
/ therapeutic use
Drug Approval
/ methods
Feasibility Studies
Humans
Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
Patient Selection
Progression-Free Survival
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
/ methods
Research Design
Sample Size
Treatment Outcome
United States
United States Food and Drug Administration
Journal
JNCI cancer spectrum
ISSN: 2515-5091
Titre abrégé: JNCI Cancer Spectr
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101721827
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2021
08 2021
Historique:
received:
17
02
2021
revised:
04
05
2021
accepted:
28
06
2021
entrez:
19
8
2021
pubmed:
20
8
2021
medline:
20
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) introduced an Accelerated Approval (AA) pathway to expedite patient access to new drugs. AA accepts less rigorous trial designs, including single-arm studies (SAS), owing to perceived lack of feasibility of timely randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We designed hypothetical RCTs with endpoints of overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) for FDA approvals based on SAS for solid tumors during 2010-2019. Existing standards of care served as controls. RCTs were designed to detect a difference with power of 0.80, α-error of 5% (2-sided), and 1:1 randomization. Accrual duration was estimated based on participation by less than 5% of eligible patients derived from cancer-specific incidence and mortality rates in the United States. Of 172 (18.0%) approvals during the study period, 31 (18.0%) were based on SAS. Median sample size was 104 (range = 23-411), and 77.4% were AA. All studies reported ORR, 55% reported duration of response, 19.4% reported PFS, and 22.5% reported OS. Median sample sizes needed to conduct RCTs with endpoints of ORR, PFS, and OS were 206, 130, and 396, respectively. It would have been theoretically possible to conduct RCTs within duration comparable with that required by SAS for 84.6%, 94.1%, and 80.0% of approvals with endpoints of ORR, PFS, and OS, respectively. An overwhelming majority of FDA approvals based on SAS should be feasible as RCTs within a reasonable time frame. Given the collateral harms to patients and to scientific rigor, drug approval based on SAS should only be permitted under exceptional circumstances.
Sections du résumé
Background
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) introduced an Accelerated Approval (AA) pathway to expedite patient access to new drugs. AA accepts less rigorous trial designs, including single-arm studies (SAS), owing to perceived lack of feasibility of timely randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Methods
We designed hypothetical RCTs with endpoints of overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) for FDA approvals based on SAS for solid tumors during 2010-2019. Existing standards of care served as controls. RCTs were designed to detect a difference with power of 0.80, α-error of 5% (2-sided), and 1:1 randomization. Accrual duration was estimated based on participation by less than 5% of eligible patients derived from cancer-specific incidence and mortality rates in the United States.
Results
Of 172 (18.0%) approvals during the study period, 31 (18.0%) were based on SAS. Median sample size was 104 (range = 23-411), and 77.4% were AA. All studies reported ORR, 55% reported duration of response, 19.4% reported PFS, and 22.5% reported OS. Median sample sizes needed to conduct RCTs with endpoints of ORR, PFS, and OS were 206, 130, and 396, respectively. It would have been theoretically possible to conduct RCTs within duration comparable with that required by SAS for 84.6%, 94.1%, and 80.0% of approvals with endpoints of ORR, PFS, and OS, respectively.
Conclusion
An overwhelming majority of FDA approvals based on SAS should be feasible as RCTs within a reasonable time frame. Given the collateral harms to patients and to scientific rigor, drug approval based on SAS should only be permitted under exceptional circumstances.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34409254
doi: 10.1093/jncics/pkab061
pii: pkab061
pmc: PMC8364671
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antineoplastic Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2013 Nov 14;369(20):1877-80
pubmed: 24224621
Eur J Cancer. 2019 Jan;106:196-211
pubmed: 30528804
J Health Econ. 2016 May;47:20-33
pubmed: 26928437
CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 Jan;70(1):7-30
pubmed: 31912902
PLoS One. 2020 Jul 24;15(7):e0236345
pubmed: 32706800
JAMA Oncol. 2020 Nov 1;6(11):e204564
pubmed: 33001135
JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Feb;16(2):e124-e131
pubmed: 31790330
J Biopharm Stat. 2020 Nov 1;30(6):1050-1059
pubmed: 32926648
Stat Methods Med Res. 2016 Jun;25(3):1057-73
pubmed: 26092476
Trials. 2018 Sep 17;19(1):499
pubmed: 30223881
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36(1):20-28
pubmed: 31775939
Lancet Oncol. 2020 Jan;21(1):44-59
pubmed: 31786121
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Jun;98:24-32
pubmed: 29432860
J Oncol Pract. 2013 Nov;9(6):267-76
pubmed: 24130252
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Jun 1;4(6):849-856
pubmed: 29494733
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jan 20;38(3):193-202
pubmed: 31790344
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Nov;18(11):1483-1492
pubmed: 28967485
Oncotarget. 2016 Aug 16;7(33):53037-53046
pubmed: 27419632
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020 Jan;18(1):36-43
pubmed: 31910385
N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 22;378(8):731-739
pubmed: 29466156
JAMA Intern Med. 2019 May 1;179(5):642-647
pubmed: 30933235
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Sep 4;2(9):e1911111
pubmed: 31509209
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Apr 1;4(4):522-528
pubmed: 29470579
Lancet. 2017 Jan 7;389(10064):67-76
pubmed: 27939400
J Thorac Oncol. 2016 May;11(5):613-638
pubmed: 27013409
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019 Mar 1;111(3):245-255
pubmed: 30856272