Efficacy, safety, tolerability and price of newly approved drugs in solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: New anti-cancer drugs utilize diverse mechanisms of action. Here we evaluate their differential efficacy, safety, tolerability and price. METHODS: Drugs approved for solid tumor treatment between 2000 and 2015 were identified and analyzed in subgroups: agents targeting oncogenes (group 1), anti-angiogenics (group 2), immunotherapy (group 3), and chemotherapy (group 4). Hazard ratios (HRs) were extracted from the registration trials and pooled in a meta-analysis. Odds ratios for toxic death, treatment discontinuation and grade 3-4 toxicity were compared to control groups. The Micromedex Red Book was used to calculate the monthly price. RESULTS: Analysis included 74 studies comprising 48,527 patients. Progression-free survival (PFS) was improved to a greater degree with groups 1 and 2 than with groups 3 and 4, (pooled HR: 0.54, 0.56, 0.63, and 0.76 for groups 1-4 respectively, p for difference <0.001). Compared to PFS, there was a lower magnitude of improvement overall survival in all groups and the degree of benefit was less for group 4 than for other groups (pooled HR: 0.77, 0.78, 0.68, and 0.83 for groups 1-4 respectively, p for difference=0.007). Compared to control groups in individual trials, immunotherapy was associated with better safety and tolerability than other groups. Drug prices have increased over time with no significant difference between groups. There was no meaningful correlation between pricing and efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to control groups, immunotherapeutics and drugs targeting oncogenes or angiogenesis improve efficacy to a greater degree than chemotherapy. Immunotherapy appears to have better safety and tolerability profile compared to other cancer therapies. Market price of drugs is not related to efficacy.

Rethinking end-points for bone-targeted therapy in advanced cancer.

The principal objective for any medical therapy is to improve either the duration of life and/or its quality. Metastases in bone can lead to clinically defined events termed skeletal-related events (SREs) which are a quantifiable measure of skeletal morbidity. Avoidance and/or delay of SREs have become the principal objective in trials exploring the efficacy of bone-targeted therapy in patients with skeletal metastases. Despite reductions in the frequency or rate of SRE occurrence, trials of bone-targeted therapy have failed to show any effect on either progression-free or overall survival when compared with placebo or other bone-targeting agents. Similarly, trials of bone-targeted therapy have not shown consistent effects on quality of life. The validity of SRE-based primary outcome measures in cancer clinical trials is therefore, questionable. More novel end-point selection for trials of bone-targeted therapy seems warranted. Composite measures comprising occurrence of symptomatic skeletal events and patient reported outcomes may be an effective solution and warrants further investigation.