Improvement of assessment in surrogate endpoint and safety outcome of single-arm trials for anticancer drugs

References

• Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, et al. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA: A Cancer J Clin. 2022;72(1):7–33. doi: 10.3322/caac.21708
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis C, Naci H, Gurpinar E, et al. Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European medicines agency: retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009-13. BMJ. 2017;359:j4530. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4530
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson JR, Williams G, Pazdur R. End points and United States food and drug administration approval of oncology drugs. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(7):1404–1411. doi: 10.1200/jco.2003.08.072
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agrawal S, Arora S, Amiri-Kordestani L, et al. Use of single-arm trials for US food and drug administration drug approval in oncology, 2002-2021. JAMA Oncol. 2023;9(2):266–272. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.5985
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribeiro TB, Colunga-Lozano LE, Araujo APV, et al. Single-arm clinical trials that supported FDA accelerated approvals have modest effect sizes and were at high risk of bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;148:193–195. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.01.018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and drug administration, center for drug evaluation and research (CDER), center for biologics evaluation and research (CBER) & oncology center of excellence (OCE). Clinical trial considerations to support accelerated approval of oncology therapeutics: guidance for industry. fda.gov. 2023 [cited 2023 Oct 30]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/166431/download
   Google Scholar
• Chen EY, Raghunathan V, Prasad V. An overview of cancer drugs approved by the US food and drug administration based on the surrogate end point of response rate. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(7):915–921. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0583
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaver JA, Pazdur R. “Dangling” accelerated approvals in oncology. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(18):e68. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2104846
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fashoyin-Aje LA, Mehta GU, Beaver JA, et al. The on- and off-ramps of oncology accelerated approval. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(16):1439–1442. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2208954
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benjamin DJ, Lythgoe MP. The FDA’s latest draft guidance on accelerated approvals — one step forward, two steps back?. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2023;20(9):577–578. doi: 10.1038/s41571-023-00788-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gyawali B, Hey SP, Kesselheim AS. Assessment of the clinical benefit of cancer drugs receiving accelerated approval. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(7):906–913. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0462
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shahzad M, Naci H, Wagner AK. Estimated medicare spending on cancer drug indications with a confirmed lack of clinical benefit after US food and drug administration accelerated approval. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(12):1673–1675. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.5989
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naci H, Smalley KR, Kesselheim AS. Characteristics of preapproval and postapproval studies for drugs granted accelerated approval by the US food and drug administration. JAMA. 2017;318(7):626–636. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.9415
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaver JA, Howie LJ, Pelosof L, et al. A 25-year experience of US Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of malignant hematology and oncology drugs and biologics: a review. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(6):849–856. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.5618
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jung SH. Sources of bias for single-arm phase II cancer clinical trials. Ann Transl Med. 2022;10(18):1037. doi: 10.21037/atm-21-6808
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murad MH, Asi N, Alsawas M, et al. New evidence pyramid. Evid Based Med. 2016;21(4):125–127. doi: 10.1136/ebmed-2016-110401
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Darrow JJ, Avorn J, Kesselheim AS. FDA approval and regulation of pharmaceuticals, 1983-2018. JAMA. 2020;323(2):164–176. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.20288
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jänne PA, Yang JC, Kim DW, et al. AZD9291 in EGFR Inhibitor–Resistant Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(18):1689–1699. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1411817
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robert C, Ribas A, Wolchok JD, et al. Anti-programmed-death-receptor-1 treatment with pembrolizumab in ipilimumab-refractory advanced melanoma: a randomised dose-comparison cohort of a phase 1 trial. Lancet. 2014;384(9948):1109–1117. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(14)60958-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang Y, Xiong W, Zhao J, et al. Early phase clinical trial played a critical role in the Food and Drug Administration-approved indications for targeted anticancer drugs: a cross-sectional study from 2012 to 2021. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023;157:74–82. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.03.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glassman RH, Kim G, Kahn MJ. When are results of single-arm studies dramatic? Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2020;17(11):651–652. doi: 10.1038/s41571-020-00429-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raskin S, Klang E, Kharizman T, et al. Target versus non-target lesions in determining disease progression: analysis of 581 patients. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(15_suppl):e18053–e. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.e18053
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and drug administration, center for drug evaluation and research (CDER), Center for biologics evaluation and research (CBER) & Oncology center of excellence (OCE). Clinical trial endpoints for the approval of cancer drugs and biologics: guidance for industry. fda.gov. 2018 [cited 2023 Oct 30]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/71195/download
   Google Scholar
• Kahan BC, Feagan B, Jairath V. A comparison of approaches for adjudicating outcomes in clinical trials. Trials. 2017;18(1):266. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-1995-3
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ndounga Diakou LA, Trinquart L, Hróbjartsson A, et al. Comparison of central adjudication of outcomes and onsite outcome assessment on treatment effect estimates. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(3):Mr000043. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000043.pub2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaumont H, Evans TL, Klifa C, et al. Discrepancies of assessments in a RECIST 1.1 phase II clinical trial – association between adjudication rate and variability in images and tumors selection. Cancer Imaging. 2018;18(1):50. doi: 10.1186/s40644-018-0186-0
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Davi R, Mahendraratnam N, Chatterjee A, et al. Informing single-arm clinical trials with external controls. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2020;19(12):821–822. doi: 10.1038/d41573-020-00146-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iannessi A, Beaumont H, Liu Y, et al. RECIST 1.1 and lesion selection: how to deal with ambiguity at baseline? Insights Imaging. 2021;12(1):36. doi: 10.1186/s13244-021-00976-w
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper K, Tappenden P, Cantrell A, et al. A systematic review of meta-analyses assessing the validity of tumour response endpoints as surrogates for progression-free or overall survival in cancer. Br J Cancer. 2020;123(11):1686–96. 10.1038/s41416–020–01050–w. doi: 10.1038/s41416-020-01050-w
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) & Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Sponsor responsibilities - safety reporting requirements and safety assessment for IND and bioavailability/bioequivalence studies: guidance for industry, draft guidance. fda.gov. 2021 [cited 2023 Oct 30]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/150356/download
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) & Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Placebos and blinding in randomized controlled cancer clinical trials for drug and biological products: guidance for industry. fda.gov. 2019 [cited 2023 Oct 30]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/130326/download
   Google Scholar
• Martínez-Jiménez F, Muiños F, Sentís I, et al. A compendium of mutational cancer driver genes. Nat Rev Cancer. 2020;20(10):555–572. doi: 10.1038/s41568-020-0290-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gautschi O, Milia J, Filleron T, et al. Targeting RET in patients with RET-rearranged lung cancers: results from the global, multicenter RET registry. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(13):1403–1410. doi: 10.1200/jco.2016.70.9352
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novello S, Califano R, Reinmuth N, et al. RET fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer: the evolving treatment landscape. Oncology. 2023;28(5):402–413. doi: 10.1093/oncolo/oyac264
   Google Scholar
• Gainor JF, Curigliano G, Kim DW, et al. Pralsetinib for RET fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (ARROW): a multi-cohort, open-label, phase 1/2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(7):959–969. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(21)00247-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Subbiah V, Hu MI, Wirth LJ, et al. Pralsetinib for patients with advanced or metastatic RET-altered thyroid cancer (ARROW): a multi-cohort, open-label, registrational, phase 1/2 study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2021;9(8):491–501. doi: 10.1016/s2213-8587(21)00120-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drilon A, Oxnard GR, Tan DSW, et al. Efficacy of Selpercatinib in RET Fusion–Positive Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(9):813–824. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2005653
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wirth LJ, Sherman E, Robinson B, et al. Efficacy of selpercatinib in RET-Altered thyroid cancers. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(9):825–835. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2005651
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Subbiah V, Wolf J, Konda B, et al. Tumour-agnostic efficacy and safety of selpercatinib in patients with RET fusion-positive solid tumours other than lung or thyroid tumours (LIBRETTO-001): a phase 1/2, open-label, basket trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(10):1261–1273. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(22)00541-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seiwert TY, Burtness B, Mehra R, et al. Safety and clinical activity of pembrolizumab for treatment of recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (KEYNOTE-012): an open-label, multicentre, phase 1b trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(7):956–965. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30066-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen R, Zinzani PL, Fanale MA, et al. Phase II study of the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab for relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(19):2125–2132. doi: 10.1200/jco.2016.72.1316
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balar AV, Castellano D, O’Donnell PH, et al. First-line pembrolizumab in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial cancer (KEYNOTE-052): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(11):1483–1492. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30616-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le DT, Kim TW, Van Cutsem E, et al. Phase II Open-Label Study of Pembrolizumab in Treatment-Refractory, Microsatellite Instability–High/Mismatch Repair–Deficient Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: KEYNOTE-164. JCO. 2020;38(1):11–19. doi: 10.1200/jco.19.02107
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuchs CS, Doi T, Jang RW, et al. Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer: phase 2 clinical KEYNOTE-059 trial. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(5):e180013. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.0013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ott PA, Elez E, Hiret S, et al. Pembrolizumab in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: results from the phase ib KEYNOTE-028 study. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(34):3823–3829. doi: 10.1200/jco.2017.72.5069
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grob JJ, Gonzalez R, Basset-Seguin N, et al. Pembrolizumab monotherapy for recurrent or metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: a single-arm phase II trial (KEYNOTE-629). J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(25):2916–2925. doi: 10.1200/jco.19.03054
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee CH, Shah AY, Rasco D, et al. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with either treatment-naive or previously treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (study 111/KEYNOTE-146): a phase 1b/2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(7):946–958. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(21)00241-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). ICH harmonized tripartite guideline: choice of control group and related Issues in Clinical Trials E10. 2000 [cited 2023 Oct 30]. Available from: https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/E10_Guideline.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Chen EY, Joshi SK, Tran A, et al. Estimation of study time reduction using surrogate end points rather than overall survival in oncology clinical trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(5):642–647. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8351
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prasad V, Mailankody S. Research and development spending to bring a single cancer drug to market and revenues after approval. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(11):1569–1575. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.3601
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim C, Prasad V. Cancer drugs approved on the basis of a surrogate end point and subsequent overall survival: an analysis of 5 years of US food and drug administration approvals. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(12):1992–1994. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5868
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madhusoodanan J. Fast-track troubles: how US drug policy could be harming people with cancer around the world. Nature. 2023;620(7973):264–267. doi: 10.1038/d41586-023-02492-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) & Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Clinical trial imaging endpoint process standards: guidance for industry. fda.gov. 2018 [cited 2023 Oct 30]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/81172/download
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) & Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). Guidance for clinical trial sponsors: establishment and operation of clinical trial data monitoring committees. fda.gov. 2006 [cited 2023 Oct 30]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/75398/download
   Google Scholar
• Meah MN, Denvir MA, Mills NL, et al. Clinical endpoint adjudication. Lancet. 2020;395(10240):1878–1882. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30635-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renshaw AA, Gould EW. Measuring errors in surgical pathology in real-life practice: defining what does and does not matter. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007;127(1):144–152. doi: 10.1309/5kf89p63f4f6euhb
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raab SS, Grzybicki DM, Mahood LK, et al. Effectiveness of random and focused review in detecting surgical pathology error. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008;130(6):905–912. doi: 10.1309/ajcppia5d7mykdwf
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaumont H, Bertrand AS, Klifa C, et al. Radiology workflow for RECIST assessment in clinical trials: Can we reconcile time-efficiency and quality?. Eur J Radiol. 2019;118:257–263. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.07.030
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raunig DL, Schmid AM, Miller CG, et al. Radiologists and clinical trials: part 2: practical statistical methods for understanding and monitoring independent reader performance. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2021;55(6):1122–1138. doi: 10.1007/s43441-021-00317-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford R, Schwartz L, Dancey J, et al. Lessons learned from independent central review. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):268–274. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.031
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erasmus JJ, Gladish GW, Broemeling L, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non–small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response. JCO. 2003;21(13):2574–2582. doi: 10.1200/jco.2003.01.144
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) & Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE). Expansion cohorts: use in first-in-human clinical trials to expedite development of oncology drugs and biologics: guidance for industry. fda.gov. 2023 [cited 2023 Oct 30]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/115172/download
   Google Scholar
• Kradjian S, Gutheil J, Baratelle AM, et al. Development of a charter for an endpoint assessment and adjudication committee. Drug Inf J. 2005;39(1):53–61. doi: 10.1177/009286150503900107
   Google Scholar
• Sartor O, Halabi S. Independent data monitoring committees: an update and overview. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(3):143–148. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.12.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang PA, Pond GR, Chen EX. Influence of an independent review committee on assessment of response rate and progression-free survival in phase III clinical trials. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(1):19–26. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdp478
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone AM, Bushnell W, Denne J, et al. Research outcomes and recommendations for the assessment of progression in cancer clinical trials from a PhRMA working group. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(12):1763–1771. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.02.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schöffski P. Importance and role of independent data monitoring committees (IDMCs) in oncology clinical trials. BMJ Open. 2021;11(10):e047294. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047294
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DAMOCLES Study Group. NHS Health technology assessment programme. A proposed charter for clinical trial data monitoring committees: helping them to do their job well. Lancet. 2005;365(9460):711–722. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(05)17965-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) & Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Safety assessment for IND safety reporting: guidance for industry, draft guidance. fda.gov. 2015 [cited 2023 Oct 30]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/95848/download
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) & Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Safety reporting requirements for INDs and BA/BE studies: small entity compliance guide. fda.gov. 2012 [cited 2023 Oct 30]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/85124/download
   Google Scholar
• Thomas JSJ, Provenzano E, Hiller L, et al. Central pathology review with two-stage quality assurance for pathological response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the ARTemis trial. Mod Pathol. 2017;30(8):1069–1077. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2017.30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Compton C. The cancer and leukemia group B pathology committee at 50. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12(11):3617s–3621s. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-06-9009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodd LE, Korn EL, Freidlin B, et al. Blinded independent central review of progression-free survival in phase III clinical trials: important design element or unnecessary expense? J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(22):3791–3796. doi: 10.1200/jco.2008.16.1711
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaumont H, Iannessi A, Wang Y, et al. Blinded independent central review (BICR) in new therapeutic lung cancer trials. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(18):4533. doi: 10.3390/cancers13184533
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiteni F, Westeel V, Pivot X, et al. Endpoints in cancer clinical trials. J Visc Surg. 2014;151(1):17–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2013.10.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang JJ, Chen H, He K, et al. Evaluation of blinded independent central review of tumor progression in oncology clinical trials: A meta-analysis. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2013;47(2):167–174. doi: 10.1177/0092861512459733
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amit O, Bushnell W, Dodd L, et al. Blinded independent central review of the progression-free survival endpoint. Oncology. 2010;15(5):492–495. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2009-0261
   Google Scholar
• Lancet Oncology T. The Lancet Oncology. Cancer drug safety: time to re-focus on tackling adverse effects. The Lancet Oncology. 2016;17(11):1463. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30519-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Postow MA, Sidlow R, Hellmann MD, et al. Immune-related adverse events associated with immune checkpoint blockade. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(2):158–168. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1703481
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) & Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Warnings and precautions, contraindications, and boxed warning sections of labeling for human prescription drug and biological products-content and format: guidance for industry. fda.gov. 2011 [cited 2023 Oct 30]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/71866/download
   Google Scholar
• Sherman RB, Woodcock J, Norden J, et al. New FDA regulation to improve safety reporting in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(1):3–5. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1103464
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Safety assessment for investigational new drug safety reporting; public workshop. fda.gov. 2017 [cited 2023 Oct 30]. Available from: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-11-27/pdf/2017-25454.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Mato AR, Shah NN, Jurczak W, et al. Pirtobrutinib in relapsed or refractory B-cell malignancies (BRUIN): a phase 1/2 study. The Lancet. 2021;397(10277):892–901. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00224-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Office of Good Clinical Practice (OGCP) & Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA). Oversight of clinical investigations-a risk-based approach to monitoring :guidance for industry. fda.gov. 2013 [cited 2023 Oct 30]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/116754/download
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Office of Clinical Policy (OCLiP) & Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA). A risk-based approach to monitoring of clinical investigations: questions and answers, guidance for industry. fda.gov. 2023 [cited 2023 Oct 30]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/121479/download
   Google Scholar
• Zhao S, Wang D, Zhao H, et al. Time to raise the bar: Transition rate of phase 1 programs on anticancer drugs. Cancer Cell. 2022;40(3):233–235. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2022.01.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prasad V, Kim C, Burotto M, et al. The strength of association between surrogate end points and survival in oncology: a systematic review of trial-level meta-analyses. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(8):1389–1398. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.2829
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) & Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE). Considerations for design and conduct of externally controlled trials for drug and biological products: guidance for industry, draft guidance. fda.gov 2023 [cited 2024 Apr 11]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/164960/download
   Google Scholar
• Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–247. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma M, Singareddy A, O’Connor M, et al. Reader disagreement index (RDI) as an indicator of reader performance. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:e18592–e. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2018.36.15_suppl.e18592
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santoro A, Rimassa L, Borbath I, et al. Tivantinib for second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:55–63. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70490-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rimassa L, Assenat E, Peck-Radosavljevic M, et al. Tivantinib for second-line treatment of MET-high, advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (METIV-HCC): a final analysis of a phase 3, randomised, placebo-controlled study. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:682–693. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30146-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tap WD, Wagner AJ, Schöffski P, et al. Effect of doxorubicin plus olaratumab vs doxorubicin plus placebo on survival in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas. JAMA. 2020;323(13):1266–1276. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.1707
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tap WD, Jones RL, Van Tine BA, et al. Olaratumab and doxorubicin versus doxorubicin alone for treatment of soft-tissue sarcoma: an open-label phase 1b and randomised phase 2 trial. The Lancet. 2016;388(10043):488–497. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30587-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US Food and Drug Administration. Drugs@FDA: FDA approved drug products. [cited 2023 Mar 31]. Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/
   Google Scholar
• Venkatakrishnan K, van der Graaf PH. Toward project Optimus for oncology precision medicine: multi-dimensional dose optimization enabled by quantitative clinical pharmacology. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2022;112:927–932. doi: 10.1002/cpt.2742
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xie W, Ravi P, Buyse M, et al. Validation of metastasis-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival in localized prostate cancer in the era of docetaxel for castration-resistant prostate cancer. Ann Oncol. 2024;35:285–292. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2023.11.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mullard A. Accelerated approval draft guidance paves way for ‘one-trial’ programmes, warns against single-armed trials. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2023;22(5):343. doi: 10.1038/d41573-023-00062-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar