The US Food and Drug Administration's use of pathologic complete response as regulatory endpoint: Did it pay off?

Jia Luo, Vinay Prasad

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In 2013, the US FDA granted pertuzumab (Perjeta, Genentech/Roche) accelerated approval (AA) for the neo-adjuvant treatment of HER2 positive breast cancer. Approval was later extrapolated to the adjuvant setting by the NCCN and many providers. Pertuzumab remains the first and only drug to utilize an improvement in the rate of pathologic complete response (pCR), as the endpoint for regulatory approval. At the time the FDA utilized pCR as the basis for approval, their own analysis had suggested no correlation at the trial level between improvements in pCR and the more important clinical endpoints of recurrence and death. The phase III trial APHINITY served as the post-market commitment confirmatory trial for pertuzumuab, and recently led to conversion to regular approval in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting. In that trial, pertuzumab drug showed a statistically significant 0.9% (93.2 → 94.1%) improvement in disease free survival (HR 0.81, 95% CI, 0.66–1.0, p = 0.045) without any improvement in overall survival (HR 0.89, 95% CI, 0.66–1.21, p = 0.47). Cardiac safety was prioritized in APHINITY as HER2 directed therapies are known for cardiac side effects. A primary cardiac event, defined as NYHA class III or IV heart failure and a drop of 10% in LVEF to below 50% or cardiac death, occurred in 17 patients (0.7%) in the pertuzumab group and 8 patients (0.3%) in the placebo group. Cardiotoxicity of pertuzumab will likely be higher in real world practice, as the drug becomes used is patients with greater comorbidity, which has been shown in real world data for traztuzumab. Therefore, because of the small benefit and potential harms of the drug, and the lack of survival benefit, pertuzumab may have a risk-benefit balance that will ultimately tip towards greater harm in practice. We believe that an impartial consideration of the evidence should give us pause before granting future AA based on improvements in pCR.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)49-51
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of Cancer Policy
Volume16
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2018

Fingerprint

United States Food and Drug Administration
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Survival
pertuzumab
Disease-Free Survival
Comorbidity
Heart Failure
Placebos
Breast Neoplasms
Safety
Recurrence
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Accelerated approval
  • Pathologic complete response
  • Surrogate endpoints

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Health Policy

Cite this

@article{90ac690aea124cf6a82830ba1c9d53b6,
title = "The US Food and Drug Administration's use of pathologic complete response as regulatory endpoint: Did it pay off?",
abstract = "In 2013, the US FDA granted pertuzumab (Perjeta, Genentech/Roche) accelerated approval (AA) for the neo-adjuvant treatment of HER2 positive breast cancer. Approval was later extrapolated to the adjuvant setting by the NCCN and many providers. Pertuzumab remains the first and only drug to utilize an improvement in the rate of pathologic complete response (pCR), as the endpoint for regulatory approval. At the time the FDA utilized pCR as the basis for approval, their own analysis had suggested no correlation at the trial level between improvements in pCR and the more important clinical endpoints of recurrence and death. The phase III trial APHINITY served as the post-market commitment confirmatory trial for pertuzumuab, and recently led to conversion to regular approval in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting. In that trial, pertuzumab drug showed a statistically significant 0.9{\%} (93.2 → 94.1{\%}) improvement in disease free survival (HR 0.81, 95{\%} CI, 0.66–1.0, p = 0.045) without any improvement in overall survival (HR 0.89, 95{\%} CI, 0.66–1.21, p = 0.47). Cardiac safety was prioritized in APHINITY as HER2 directed therapies are known for cardiac side effects. A primary cardiac event, defined as NYHA class III or IV heart failure and a drop of 10{\%} in LVEF to below 50{\%} or cardiac death, occurred in 17 patients (0.7{\%}) in the pertuzumab group and 8 patients (0.3{\%}) in the placebo group. Cardiotoxicity of pertuzumab will likely be higher in real world practice, as the drug becomes used is patients with greater comorbidity, which has been shown in real world data for traztuzumab. Therefore, because of the small benefit and potential harms of the drug, and the lack of survival benefit, pertuzumab may have a risk-benefit balance that will ultimately tip towards greater harm in practice. We believe that an impartial consideration of the evidence should give us pause before granting future AA based on improvements in pCR.",
keywords = "Accelerated approval, Pathologic complete response, Surrogate endpoints",
author = "Jia Luo and Vinay Prasad",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jcpo.2018.04.001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
pages = "49--51",
journal = "Journal of Cancer Policy",
issn = "2213-5383",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The US Food and Drug Administration's use of pathologic complete response as regulatory endpoint

T2 - Did it pay off?

AU - Luo, Jia

AU - Prasad, Vinay

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - In 2013, the US FDA granted pertuzumab (Perjeta, Genentech/Roche) accelerated approval (AA) for the neo-adjuvant treatment of HER2 positive breast cancer. Approval was later extrapolated to the adjuvant setting by the NCCN and many providers. Pertuzumab remains the first and only drug to utilize an improvement in the rate of pathologic complete response (pCR), as the endpoint for regulatory approval. At the time the FDA utilized pCR as the basis for approval, their own analysis had suggested no correlation at the trial level between improvements in pCR and the more important clinical endpoints of recurrence and death. The phase III trial APHINITY served as the post-market commitment confirmatory trial for pertuzumuab, and recently led to conversion to regular approval in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting. In that trial, pertuzumab drug showed a statistically significant 0.9% (93.2 → 94.1%) improvement in disease free survival (HR 0.81, 95% CI, 0.66–1.0, p = 0.045) without any improvement in overall survival (HR 0.89, 95% CI, 0.66–1.21, p = 0.47). Cardiac safety was prioritized in APHINITY as HER2 directed therapies are known for cardiac side effects. A primary cardiac event, defined as NYHA class III or IV heart failure and a drop of 10% in LVEF to below 50% or cardiac death, occurred in 17 patients (0.7%) in the pertuzumab group and 8 patients (0.3%) in the placebo group. Cardiotoxicity of pertuzumab will likely be higher in real world practice, as the drug becomes used is patients with greater comorbidity, which has been shown in real world data for traztuzumab. Therefore, because of the small benefit and potential harms of the drug, and the lack of survival benefit, pertuzumab may have a risk-benefit balance that will ultimately tip towards greater harm in practice. We believe that an impartial consideration of the evidence should give us pause before granting future AA based on improvements in pCR.

AB - In 2013, the US FDA granted pertuzumab (Perjeta, Genentech/Roche) accelerated approval (AA) for the neo-adjuvant treatment of HER2 positive breast cancer. Approval was later extrapolated to the adjuvant setting by the NCCN and many providers. Pertuzumab remains the first and only drug to utilize an improvement in the rate of pathologic complete response (pCR), as the endpoint for regulatory approval. At the time the FDA utilized pCR as the basis for approval, their own analysis had suggested no correlation at the trial level between improvements in pCR and the more important clinical endpoints of recurrence and death. The phase III trial APHINITY served as the post-market commitment confirmatory trial for pertuzumuab, and recently led to conversion to regular approval in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting. In that trial, pertuzumab drug showed a statistically significant 0.9% (93.2 → 94.1%) improvement in disease free survival (HR 0.81, 95% CI, 0.66–1.0, p = 0.045) without any improvement in overall survival (HR 0.89, 95% CI, 0.66–1.21, p = 0.47). Cardiac safety was prioritized in APHINITY as HER2 directed therapies are known for cardiac side effects. A primary cardiac event, defined as NYHA class III or IV heart failure and a drop of 10% in LVEF to below 50% or cardiac death, occurred in 17 patients (0.7%) in the pertuzumab group and 8 patients (0.3%) in the placebo group. Cardiotoxicity of pertuzumab will likely be higher in real world practice, as the drug becomes used is patients with greater comorbidity, which has been shown in real world data for traztuzumab. Therefore, because of the small benefit and potential harms of the drug, and the lack of survival benefit, pertuzumab may have a risk-benefit balance that will ultimately tip towards greater harm in practice. We believe that an impartial consideration of the evidence should give us pause before granting future AA based on improvements in pCR.

KW - Accelerated approval

KW - Pathologic complete response

KW - Surrogate endpoints

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85046334437&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85046334437&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jcpo.2018.04.001

DO - 10.1016/j.jcpo.2018.04.001

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85046334437

VL - 16

SP - 49

EP - 51

JO - Journal of Cancer Policy

JF - Journal of Cancer Policy

SN - 2213-5383

ER -