Development of Treatments for Localized Prostate Cancer in Patients Eligible for Active Surveillance: U.S. Food and Drug Administration Oncology Center of Excellence Public Workshop.

PURPOSE: The following is a summary of discussion at a United States FDA (Food and Drug Administration) public workshop reviewing potential trial designs and end points to develop therapies to treat localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The workshop focused on the challenge that drug and device development to treat localized prostate cancer has been limited by the large trial sizes and lengthy timelines required to demonstrate an improvement in overall or metastasis-free survival and by the lack of agreed on alternative end points. Additionally, evolving treatment paradigms in the management of localized prostate cancer include the widespread use of active surveillance of patients with low and some intermediate risk prostate cancer, and the availability of advances in imaging and genomics. RESULTS: The workshop addressed issues related to trial design in this setting. Attendees discussed several potential novel end points such as a delay of morbidity due to radiation or prostatectomy and pathological end points such as Gleason Grade Group upgrade. CONCLUSIONS: The workshop provided an open forum for multiple stakeholder engagement to advance the development of effective treatment options for men with localized prostate cancer.

Personalized reproductive medicine: regulatory considerations.

Personalized medicine has many definitions. This term is often used synonymously with precision medicine, which is defined as the classifying patients with a disease or condition based on their phenotypic findings, such as biomarkers or genomics, into subpopulations that differ in their response to a specific treatment. Personalized medicine, however, can also mean the treatment of individual patients based on many contextual factors, such as response to therapy and patient preferences, in addition to predefined phenotypic findings. Regulatory approval for the marketing of a new drug or a new indication for a marketed drug requires a positive benefit risk profile and substantial evidence of effectiveness. The indication is based on the eligibility criteria and outcomes of the clinical trial(s) underpinning the regulatory approval. For precision medicine, drugs are often developed with companion diagnostics that are necessary for selection of the subgroup of patients, in contrast to personalized medicine which may be directed at a single patient. Most drugs are approved with a fixed dosage regimen for the approved population, but some drugs and biologics are approved with instructions to tailor therapy for individual patients, whether it be dosing, combination with other therapies, or selection among a class of medications. Hence, more often than not, personalized medicine directed at individual patients is achieved through the practice of medicine rather than regulatory action.

Regional Approaches to Expedited Drug Development and Review: Can Regulatory Harmonization Improve Outcomes?

Drug regulatory agencies around the world have implemented programs to expedite drug development and review for promising new products for serious diseases. These programs are all intended to minimize delays in patient access to innovative medicines, and have used broadly similar strategies to shorten drug development and review timelines. However, they differ in many key respects, and some stakeholders have suggested that these differences create unnecessary barriers in the development and approval process, possibly leading to delays in access. In collaboration with FDA, the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy convened an expert workshop to elicit feedback from a broad range of stakeholders as to whether a lack of harmonization across expedited programs is interfering with the efficient development of new products and, if so, to explore strategies for addressing these challenges. This report provides a summary of key themes and major findings from that discussion.

Considerations for Developing Targeted Therapies in Low-Frequency Molecular Subsets of a Disease.

Advances in our understanding of the molecular underpinnings of disease have spurred the development of targeted therapies and the use of precision medicine approaches in patient care. While targeted therapies have improved our capability to provide effective treatments to patients, they also present additional challenges to drug development and benefit-risk assessment such as identifying the subset(s) of patients likely to respond to the drug, assessing heterogeneity in response across molecular subsets of a disease, and developing diagnostic tests to identify patients for treatment. These challenges are particularly difficult to address when targeted therapies are developed to treat diseases with multiple molecular subtypes that occur at low frequencies. To help address these challenges, the US Food and Drug Administration recently published a draft guidance entitled "Developing Targeted Therapies in Low-Frequency Molecular Subsets of a Disease." Here we provide additional information on specific aspects of targeted therapy development in diseases with low-frequency molecular subsets.

Overview of FDA's Expanded Access Program for Investigational Drugs.

Expanded access, also called "compassionate use," provides a pathway for patients to gain access to investigational drugs, biologics, and medical devices used to diagnose, monitor, or treat patients with serious diseases or conditions for which there are no comparable or satisfactory therapy options available outside of clinical trials. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) facilitates the expanded access process; however, access to investigational treatments requires not only FDA's review and authorization but also the active involvement and cooperation of other parties, including drug companies and health care providers, in order to be successful.

Ten-Year Experience for the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Part 2: FDA's Role in Ensuring Patient Safety.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to describe the role of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in ensuring the safety of patients receiving investigational drugs under expanded access. METHODS: To better define FDA's role in the review of requests for expanded access, multiple queries of FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) document tracking system were performed. The queries identified reasons for, and outcomes of, expanded access requests for investigational drugs that were either not allowed to proceed or denied over a 10-year time period. An in-depth review of a random sample of single-patient, non-emergency investigational new drug (IND) applications that were allowed to proceed was also conducted. RESULTS: Overall, 99.3% of the applications for almost 9000 expanded access of an investigational drug were allowed to proceed. There were 62 requests that were either denied (38 emergency INDs) or not allowed to proceed (24 non-emergency INDs). The most common reasons for denying emergency INDs was that the patient was stable on current therapy and that it was not deemed an emergency. The most common reasons for not allowing non-emergency expanded access INDs to proceed were incomplete application, unsafe dosing, demonstrated lack of efficacy for intended use, availability of adequate alternative therapies, and inadequate information provided in the application on which to base a decision. A review of a random sample of 150 single-patient, non-emergency INDs revealed that FDA recommended changes to dosing, safety monitoring, or informed consent in 11%. CONCLUSIONS: FDA plays a significant role in the protection of patients who receive investigational drugs under expanded access. An extremely small percentage of applications received are not allowed to proceed; however, FDA provides significant input based on information that may not be available to treating physicians in order to ensure patient safety under the applications that do proceed.

Sponsors' and investigative staffs' perceptions of the current investigational new drug safety reporting process in oncology trials.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The Food and Drug Administration's final rule on investigational new drug application safety reporting, effective from 28 March 2011, clarified the reporting requirements for serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions occurring in clinical trials. The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative released recommendations in 2013 to assist implementation of the final rule; however, anecdotal reports and data from a Food and Drug Administration audit indicated that a majority of reports being submitted were still uninformative and did not result in actionable changes. Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative investigated remaining barriers and potential solutions to full implementation of the final rule by polling and interviewing investigators, clinical research staff, and sponsors. METHODS: In an opinion-gathering effort, two discrete online surveys designed to assess challenges and motivations related to management of expedited (7- to 15-day) investigational new drug safety reporting processes in oncology trials were developed and distributed to two populations: investigators/clinical research staff and sponsors. Data were collected for approximately 1 year. Twenty-hour-long interviews were also conducted with Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative-nominated interview participants who were considered as having extensive knowledge of and experience with the topic. Interviewees included 13 principal investigators/study managers/research team members and 7 directors/vice presidents of pharmacovigilance operations from 5 large global pharmaceutical companies. RESULTS: The investigative site's responses indicate that too many individual reports are still being submitted, which are time-consuming to process and provide little value for patient safety assessments or for informing actionable changes. Fewer but higher quality reports would be more useful, and the investigator and staff would benefit from sponsors'"filtering" of reports and increased sponsor communication. Sponsors replied that their greatest challenges include (1) lack of global harmonization in reporting rules, (2) determining causality, and (3) fear of regulatory repercussions. Interaction with the Food and Drug Administration has helped improve sponsors' adherence to the final rule, and sponsors would benefit from increased communication with the Food and Drug Administration and educational materials. CONCLUSION: The goal of the final rule is to minimize uninformative safety reports so that important safety signals can be captured and communicated early enough in a clinical program to make changes that help ensure patient safety. Investigative staff and sponsors acknowledge that the rule has not been fully implemented although they agree with the intention. Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative will use the results from the surveys and interviews to develop new recommendations and educational materials that will be available to sponsors to increase compliance with the final rule and facilitate discussion between sponsors, investigators, and Food and Drug Administration representatives.

Impact of Expanded Access on FDA Regulatory Action and Product Labeling.

Background: The purpose of this study is to address concerns that expanded access may negatively impact the ultimate regulatory action and product labeling for new drugs. Methods: We performed queries of FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) document tracking system to determine the effect of expanded access on FDA's regulatory decision making from 2010 through 2016. We also examined product labeling to determine whether safety events occurring under expanded access had an adverse effect on the approved product labeling. Results: There were 321 regulatory decisions made by FDA, with 28% of the drugs having prior expanded access. The approval rate for drugs with expanded access (84%) was higher than those that did not (76%). None of the negative regulatory marketing decisions were based on the adverse experiences reported under expanded access. The vast majority of deaths and serious adverse events that occurred under expanded access were not interpreted by FDA to be due to the investigational drug and did not affect product labeling. There was only 1 instance, a drug-drug interaction, for which safety events occurring during expanded access alone lead to potentially adverse product labeling. Conclusions: There was no instance in which expanded access lead to a negative regulatory decision regarding a drug application, and there was only 1 instance that safety events under expanded access had a potentially negative effect on product labeling. Concern that expanded access will have a negative impact on drug development and review is not based on the evidence and is unwarranted.

Expanded Access of Investigational Drugs: The Experience of the Center of Drug Evaluation and Research Over a 10-Year Period.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to describe the experience of the Center of Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) with expanded access of investigational drugs. METHODS: Multiple searches of CDER's document tracking system were performed to identify the number, type, and indication for all expanded access requests over the 10-year time period of January 2005 through December 2014. An additional search was performed to identify all active commercial investigational drug development programs during that time period and whether or not the clinical program was placed on hold. The two searches were then cross-referenced to identify those commercial investigational drug development programs placed on clinical hold due to serious adverse events occurring within expanded access programs. RESULTS: CDER receives over 1000 applications for expanded access each year. The majority are for single patients, roughly evenly split between emergency and nonemergency use. The vast majority, 99.7%, are allowed to proceed. The incidence of clinical holds for all commercial investigational drug development programs is 7.9%, as compared to only 0.2% related to adverse events observed in patients receiving drug treatments under expanded access. CONCLUSIONS: The expanded access program is viewed as a success from FDA's perspective based on the large number of applications processed and allowed to proceed each year. However, the actual number of patients and their health care providers that desire drug treatments available under expanded access is not known. It is exceedingly rare for a serious adverse event under expanded access to affect the development program for that drug.

Precision medicine and the changing role of regulatory agencies.

The growth of precision medicine presents challenges for the regulators of medicines, related to aspects that include the basis of evidence generation, patient involvement in the regulatory process, cost of new medicines and the need for new regulatory models. It also raises questions about the tolerance of risk, especially with early interventions for life-threatening diseases.

Summary and Recommendations from the National Cancer Institute's Clinical Trials Planning Meeting on Novel Therapeutics for Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer.

The NCI Bladder Cancer Task Force convened a Clinical Trials Planning Meeting (CTPM) Workshop focused on Novel Therapeutics for Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer (NMIBC). Meeting attendees included a broad and multi-disciplinary group of clinical and research stakeholders and included leaders from NCI, FDA, National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN), advocacy and the pharmaceutical and biotech industry. The meeting goals and objectives were to: 1) create a collaborative environment in which the greater bladder research community can pursue future optimally designed novel clinical trials focused on the theme of molecular targeted and immune-based therapies in NMIBC; 2) frame the clinical and translational questions that are of highest priority; and 3) develop two clinical trial designs focusing on immunotherapy and molecular targeted therapy. Despite successful development and implementation of large Phase II and Phase III trials in bladder and upper urinary tract cancers, there are no active and accruing trials in the NMIBC space within the NCTN. Disappointingly, there has been only one new FDA approved drug (Valrubicin) in any bladder cancer disease state since 1998. Although genomic-based data for bladder cancer are increasingly available, translating these discoveries into practice changing treatment is still to come. Recently, major efforts in defining the genomic characteristics of NMIBC have been achieved. Aligned with these data is the growing number of targeted therapy agents approved and/or in development in other organ site cancers and the multiple similarities of bladder cancer with molecular subtypes in these other cancers. Additionally, although bladder cancer is one of the more immunogenic tumors, some tumors have the ability to attenuate or eliminate host immune responses. Two trial concepts emerged from the meeting including a window of opportunity trial (Phase 0) testing an FGFR3 inhibitor and a second multi-arm multi-stage trial testing combinations of BCG or radiotherapy and immunomodulatory agents in patients who recur after induction BCG (BCG failure).

The Majority of Expedited Investigational New Drug Safety Reports Are Uninformative.

Sponsors of human drug and biologic products subject to an investigational new drug (IND) application are required to distribute expedited safety reports of serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions to participating investigators and the FDA to assure the protection of human subjects participating in clinical trials. On September 29, 2010, the FDA issued a final rule amending its regulations governing expedited IND safety reporting requirements that revised the definitions used for reporting and clarified when to submit relevant and useful information to reduce the number of uninformative reports distributed by sponsors. From January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2014, the FDA's Office of Hematology and Oncology Products received an average of 17,686 expedited safety reports per year. An analysis of FDA submissions by commercial sponsors covering this time period suggested a slight increase in the number of expedited safety reports per IND per year after publication of the final rule. An audit of 160 randomly selected expedited safety reports submitted to the FDA's Office of Hematology and Oncology Products in 2015 revealed that only 22 (14%) were informative. The submission of uninformative expedited safety reports by commercial sponsors of INDs continues to be a significant problem that can compromise detection of valid safety signals. Clin Cancer Res; 22(9); 2111-3. ©2016 AACR.

Partial Gland Ablation for Prostate Cancer: Report of a Food and Drug Administration, American Urological Association, and Society of Urologic Oncology Public Workshop.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the discussion that took place at a public workshop, co-sponsored by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the American Urological Association, and Society of Urologic Oncology reviewing the current state of the art for partial gland ablation (PGA) for the management of patients with prostate cancer. The purpose of this workshop was to discuss potential indications, current available evidence, and designs for future trials to provide the evidence needed by patients and providers to decide how and when to use PGA. METHODS: A workshop evaluating PGA for prostate cancer was held in New Orleans, Louisiana, in May 2015. Invited experts representing all stakeholders and attendees discussed the regulatory development of medical products, technology available, potential indications, and designs of trials to evaluate this modality of therapy. RESULTS: The panel presented the current information on the technologies available to perform PGA, the potential indications, and results of prior consensus conferences. Use of magnetic resonance imaging for patient selection, guide therapy, and follow-up was discussed. Designs of trials to assess PGA outcomes were discussed. CONCLUSION: The general consensus was that currently available technologies are capable of selective ablation with reasonable accuracy, but that criteria for patient selection remain debatable, and long-term cancer control remains to be established in properly designed and well-performed prospective clinical trials. Concerns include the potential for excessive, unnecessary use in patients with low-risk cancer and, conversely, that current diagnostic techniques may underestimate the extent and aggressiveness of some cancers, leading to inadequate treatment.

Development of Systemic and Topical Drugs to Treat Non-muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer.

There are few approved drugs available for the treatment of patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and none have been approved in the twenty-first century. Four drugs; thiotepa in 1959, BCG Tice in 1989, BCG Connaught in 1990, and valrubicin in 1998, have been approved for the treatment of NMIBC. In addition to these four agents, mitomycin is commonly used off-label as an intravesical treatment for NMIBC. New drugs are needed for the management of NMIBC. This article outlines important aspects of the design and conduct of clinical trials to develop new therapies for these patients and to obtain marketing approval. It includes a discussion of the patient population, BCG-unresponsive disease, and the appropriate endpoints for drug approval. It is hoped that this article will spur drug development in NMIBC within the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration.

Medical devices: US medical device regulation.

Medical devices are regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) within the Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Center for Devices and Radiological Health is responsible for protecting and promoting the public health by ensuring the safety, effectiveness, and quality of medical devices, ensuring the safety of radiation-emitting products, fostering innovation, and providing the public with accurate, science-based information about the products we oversee, throughout the total product life cycle. The FDA was granted the authority to regulate the manufacturing and marketing of medical devices in 1976. It does not regulate the practice of medicine. Devices are classified based on complexity and level of risk, and "pre-1976" devices were allowed to remain on the market after being classified without FDA review. Post-1976 devices of lower complexity and risk that are substantially equivalent to a marketed "predicate" device may be cleared through the 510(k) premarket notification process. Clinical data are typically not needed for 510(k) clearance. In contrast, higher-risk devices typically require premarket approval. Premarket approval applications must contain data demonstrating reasonable assurance of safety and efficacy, and this information typically includes clinical data. For novel devices that are not high risk, the de novo process allows FDA to simultaneously review and classify new devices. Devices that are not legally marketed are permitted to be used for clinical investigation purposes in the United States under the Investigational Device Exemptions regulation.