Benefit and harms of new anti-cancer drugs

Current Oncology Reports

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 270-275

  Vera Badillo, Francisco E ^a   Al Mubarak, Mustafa ^a   Templeton, Arnoud J ^a   Amir, Eitan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Benefit; Cancer; Effectiveness; Efficacy; Harm; Toxicity; Treatment

Indexed keywords

ANASTROZOLE; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; ERLOTINIB; FLUOROURACIL; GEMCITABINE; NEW DRUG; TAMOXIFEN;

ANEMIA; ARTICLE; ASTHENIA; BREAST CANCER; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIARRHEA; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG LABELING; DRUG MARKETING; DYSPNEA; FATIGUE; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEART DISEASE; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; MONOTHERAPY; NEUROPATHY; NEUTROPENIA; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PANCREAS CANCER; PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REGISTER; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SKIN MANIFESTATION; STOMATITIS; SURVIVAL RATE; THROMBOCYTOPENIA; TOXICITY; VOMITING;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG ERUPTIONS; DRUG LABELING; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; NEOPLASMS; NEUROTOXICITY SYNDROMES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 84877922502     PISSN: 15233790     EISSN: 15346269     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11912-013-0303-y     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Sargent D. What constitutes reasonable evidence of efficacy and effectiveness to guide oncology treatment decisions? Oncologist. 2010;15 Suppl 1:19-23. Epub 2010/03/30.
2. Ocana A, Tannock IF. When are «positive» clinical trials in oncology truly positive? J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(1):16-20. Epub 2010/12/07. This commentary questions what defines a positive clinical trial in oncology and assessed whether recent publications meet the suggested criteria.
3. Niraula S, Seruga B, Ocana A, Shao T, Goldstein R, Tannock IF, et al. The price we pay for progress: a meta-analysis of harms of newly approved anticancer drugs. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(24):3012-9. Epub 2012/07/18. This meta-analysis showed that newly approved cancer drugs have significantly higher toxicity than control treatments in randomized trials.
4. Sobrero A, Bruzzi P. Incremental advance or seismic shift? The need to raise the bar of efficacy for drug approval. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(35):5868-73. Epub 2009/10/15.
5. Sargent DJ, Wieand HS, Haller DG, Gray R, Benedetti JK, Buyse M, et al. Disease-free survival versus overall survival as a primary end point for adjuvant colon cancer studies: individual patient data from 20,898 patients on 18 randomized trials. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(34):8664-70. Epub 2005/11/02.
6. Broglio KR, Berry DA. Detecting an overall survival benefit that is derived from progression-free survival. J Natl Canc Inst. 2009;101(23):1642-9. Epub 2009/11/12. This paper presents statistical modeling about the correlation between progression-free and overall survival, and how survival post-progression can influence this correlation.
7. Piedbois P, Buyse M. Endpoints and surrogate endpoints in colorectal cancer: a review of recent developments. Curr Opin Oncol. 2008;20(4):466-71. Epub 2008/06/06.
8. Burris 3rd HA, Moore MJ, Andersen J, Green MR, Rothenberg ML, Modiano MR, et al. Improvements in survival and clinical benefit with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for patients with advanced pancreas cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15(6):2403-13. Epub 1997/06/01.
9. Hudes G, Carducci M, Tomczak P, Dutcher J, Figlin R, Kapoor A, et al. Temsirolimus, interferon alfa, or both for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. New Engl J Med. 2007;356(22):2271-81. Epub 2007/06/01.
10. Ohorodnyk P, Eisenhauer EA, Booth CM. Clinical benefit in oncology trials: is this a patient-centred or tumour-centred end-point? Eur J Canc. 2009;45(13):2249-52. Epub 2009/06/24. Thoughful commentary about the clinical differences between patient-centred and tumor-centred endpoints in clinical trials.
11. Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Intern Med. 1996;125(7):605-13. Epub 1996/10/01.
12. Schilsky RL. End points in cancer clinical trials and the drug approval process. Clin Cancer Res. 2002;8(4):935-8. Epub 2002/04/12.
13. Johnson JR, Ning YM, Farrell A, Justice R, Keegan P, Pazdur R. Accelerated approval of oncology products: the food and drug administration experience. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(8):636-44. Epub 2011/03/23.
14. Richey EA, Lyons EA, Nebeker JR, Shankaran V, McKoy JM, Luu TH, et al. Accelerated approval of cancer drugs: improved access to therapeutic breakthroughs or early release of unsafe and ineffective drugs? J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(26):4398-405. Epub 2009/07/29.
15. Prowell TM, Pazdur R. Pathological complete response and accelerated drug approval in early breast cancer. New Engl J Med. 2012;366(26):2438-41. Epub 2012/06/01.
16. Esserman LJ, Berry DA, DeMichele A, Carey L, Davis SE, Buxton M, et al. Pathologic complete response predicts recurrence-free survival more effectively by cancer subset: results from the I-SPY 1 TRIAL - CALGB 150007/150012, ACRIN 6657. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(26):3242-9. Epub 2012/06/01.
17. Amir E, Seruga B, Martinez-Lopez J, Kwong R, Pandiella A, Tannock IF, et al. Oncogenic targets, magnitude of benefit, and market pricing of antineoplastic drugs. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(18):2543-9. Epub 2011/05/25. Meta-analysis assessing the benefit of new anticancer drugs based on mechanism of action. The paper also looked at the correlation between magnitude of benefit and market price.
18. Van Spall HG, Toren A, Kiss A, Fowler RA. Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals: a systematic sampling review. JAMA. 2007;297(11):1233-40. Epub 2007/03/22.
19. Ocana A, Amir E, Seruga B. Clinical research: show us the data. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(9):1099-100. Epub 2011/02/16. Commentary describing how absence of information about clinical trials can lead to difficulties in translating data from clinical trials in to clinical practice.
20. Sullivan R, Peppercorn J, Sikora K, Zalcberg J, Meropol NJ, Amir E, et al. Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(10):933-80. Epub 2011/10/01. An extended commentary assessing measurement of benefit and cost-effectiveness of cancer services in wealthy nations.
21. Moore MJ, Goldstein D, Hamm J, Figer A, Hecht JR, Gallinger S, et al. Erlotinib plus gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase III trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(15):1960-6. Epub 2007/04/25.
22. Vera-Badillo FE, Shapiro R, Ocana A, Amir E, Tannock IF. Bias in reporting of end points of efficacy and toxicity in randomized, clinical trials for women with breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2013. Epub 2013/01/11. Review of clinical trials in breast cancer assessing the bias in reporting of endpoints of efficacy and toxicity.
23. Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, Altman DG. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA. 2010;303(20):2058-64. Epub 2010/05/27. Review of trials published in 2006 showing that among studies with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes, there was frequent spin thereby leading to the reporting and interpretation of findings being inconsistent with the results.
24. Ma BB, Hui EP, Mok TS. Population-based differences in treatment outcome following anticancer drug therapies. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(1):75-84. Epub 2010/02/05.
25. Seruga B, Sterling L, Wang L, Tannock IF. Reporting of serious adverse drug reactions of targeted anticancer agents in pivotal phase III clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(2):174-85. Epub 2010/12/08. A provocative review of differences in the description of serious toxicity between reports in journals and the drug label.
26. Ioannidis JP. Adverse events in randomized trials: neglected, restricted, distorted, and silenced. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(19):1737-9. Epub 2009/10/28.
27. Pitrou I, Boutron I, Ahmad N, Ravaud P. Reporting of safety results in published reports of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(19):1756-61. Epub 2009/10/28.
28. Tsang R, Colley L, Lynd LD. Inadequate statistical power to detect clinically significant differences in adverse event rates in randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(6):609-16. Epub 2008/11/18.
29. Baum M, Budzar AU, Cuzick J, Forbes J, Houghton JH, Klijn JG, et al. Anastrozole alone or in combination with tamoxifen versus tamoxifen alone for adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with early breast cancer: first results of the ATAC randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;359(9324):2131-9. Epub 2002/07/02.
30. Administration. FaD. Anastrozole: Full Prescribing Information. [cited 2012 January 20th]; Available at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda-docs/ label/2009/020541s024s025lbl.pdf.
31. Kesselheim AS, Myers JA, Avorn J. Characteristics of clinical trials to support approval of orphan vs nonorphan drugs for cancer. JAMA. 2011;305(22):2320-6. Epub 2011/06/07.
32. Berlin JA, Glasser SC, Ellenberg SS. Adverse event detection in drug development: recommendations and obligations beyond phase 3. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(8):1366-71. Epub 2008/06/17.
33. Sherman RB, Woodcock J, Norden J, Grandinetti C, Temple RJ. New FDA regulation to improve safety reporting in clinical trials. New Engl J Med. 2011;365(1):3-5. Epub 2011/06/10.
34. Luce BR, Manning WG, Siegel JE, Lipscomb J. Estimating costs in cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Gold M, Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell L, editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.