It's day three of ASCO and the meeting is at a fever pitch, as the National Cancer Institute's Antonio Tito Fojo wryly observed during a panel on designing randomized controlled trials to achieve meaningful benefits. Not that it's an unusual state for the world's largest meeting on the largest field of drug development.
There is the typical fervor surrounding promising early data, a few major advances to report (for instance, the melanoma data from Roche and BMS covered by among others, the NYT, WSJ, Reuters, and, of course, "The Pink Sheet" Daily), and the meeting halls are packed with clinicians, investors, and journos. (Saturday's clinical science symposium on ovarian cancer had such throngs waiting for it to start that McCormick Place called in bouncers, from "Armageddon Security," nonetheless. And if you weren't in the initial crush, you probably got diverted to an overflow room. Or the second overflow room.)
Still, compared to other years, analysts aren't finding much to write home about. And, increasingly, the importance of the data being presented before packed meeting halls is being questioned. "We need to get away from things that add cost but not value," UnitedHealthcare's Lee Newcomer noted during a panel on health care reform.
Defining what value means, however, is a trickier subject.
Most clinical trials don't mean much for clinical practice, Ralph Meyer of Queen's University asserted at the plenary on randomized clinical trials. With all the controls and standardization, they represent the ideal – not real world practice. And registration studies are intended for that purpose.
In a talk called "Raising the Bar for Efficacy In Cancer Therapeutics," Alberto Sobrero, Head of the Medical Oncology Unit at Italy's Ospedale San Martino, took on whether or not those trials produce clinically meaningful data, or just go after statistical significance. Looking at the 15 pivotal Phase III trials for 9 biologics covering 8 different cancers approved over a 5-year period, he found that the hazard ratios (a statistical metric for calculating risk reduction) for progression-free survival and overall survival looked good at (respectively) 0.57 and 0.73. But when you considered the absolute gains of 2.7 and 2 months, the data were far less clear. Or as Sobrero put it, "Hmmm."
It's a complicated situation, he acknowledged. In an aggressive cancer like metastatic melanoma, a 0.8 HR would mean a 1.5 month gain – not really meaningful. But in breast cancer, that same 0.8 HR becomes worthwhile with a 6 month gain. So, both hazard ratios and absolute gain need to be considered --as well as the context of the specific tumor type-- when making a value judgement about a clinical benefit.
NCI's Fojo also questioned the significance of statistical significance. Paraphrasing an earlier researcher, he noted that if you torture data long enough, you can get it to confess to significance. Fojo found much of the clinical benefit shown in studies has marginal value. By definition, clinical benefit rate (CBR) is what you get when you add stable disease to partial and complete responses. Or, as Fojo put it, it's what you report when you have a drug that underperforms. It's "the corruption of an endpoint," he said.
Shrinking a tumor is good, he agreed, but unless it correlates with survival, stable disease does not mean anything. In prostate cancer, for instance, where some novel drugs have been reporting CBR, objective response rate (PR+CR) correlates highly with overall survival. But when you include patients that met stable disease criteria, the average benefit drops by more than half. "Because you're adding a parameter that has no value at all," Fojo said.
Of course, part of the concern is that these absolute gains aren't coming without costs. It's one thing for a drug to provide 2 months of life, quite another if it costs thousands of dollars and comes with toxicities. And given the proliferation of oncology drugs, there's more room for payers to actively manage the disease, benchmarking more expensive newer agents against cheaper, older ones, and using the ultimate metric --survival -- as the measuring stick. That's playing out at ASCO too, as Newcomer's comments indicate.
Unlike in the past, the skepticism of therapeutic value outlined in posters and abstracts isn't limited to the back corridors or the marginal sessions on clinical trial design and practice issues -- it's coming from the podium at scientific sessions. For instance, a review of recent Phase III trials in upper GI malignancies was organized around the theme of whether the findings were clinically meaningful or just statistically significant, and included a talk about the health care economics of treatment. (Hint: It wasn't pretty.)
It's all part of a larger trend toward more concentration on value, cost and payer issues as IN VIVO covered recently in the May 2011 issue.
It's great to see researchers and industry execs coming out of the convention with excitement about promising new pathways and the potential for combinations. But they should also start thinking harder about raising the bar. Otherwise climate change (of a reimbursement and/or regulatory nature) could spark a cool down in one of the hottest therapeutic areas of the industry.
Image courtesy of flickrer Joe Seggiola through a creative commons license.
There is the typical fervor surrounding promising early data, a few major advances to report (for instance, the melanoma data from Roche and BMS covered by among others, the NYT, WSJ, Reuters, and, of course, "The Pink Sheet" Daily), and the meeting halls are packed with clinicians, investors, and journos. (Saturday's clinical science symposium on ovarian cancer had such throngs waiting for it to start that McCormick Place called in bouncers, from "Armageddon Security," nonetheless. And if you weren't in the initial crush, you probably got diverted to an overflow room. Or the second overflow room.)
Still, compared to other years, analysts aren't finding much to write home about. And, increasingly, the importance of the data being presented before packed meeting halls is being questioned. "We need to get away from things that add cost but not value," UnitedHealthcare's Lee Newcomer noted during a panel on health care reform.
Defining what value means, however, is a trickier subject.
Most clinical trials don't mean much for clinical practice, Ralph Meyer of Queen's University asserted at the plenary on randomized clinical trials. With all the controls and standardization, they represent the ideal – not real world practice. And registration studies are intended for that purpose.
In a talk called "Raising the Bar for Efficacy In Cancer Therapeutics," Alberto Sobrero, Head of the Medical Oncology Unit at Italy's Ospedale San Martino, took on whether or not those trials produce clinically meaningful data, or just go after statistical significance. Looking at the 15 pivotal Phase III trials for 9 biologics covering 8 different cancers approved over a 5-year period, he found that the hazard ratios (a statistical metric for calculating risk reduction) for progression-free survival and overall survival looked good at (respectively) 0.57 and 0.73. But when you considered the absolute gains of 2.7 and 2 months, the data were far less clear. Or as Sobrero put it, "Hmmm."
It's a complicated situation, he acknowledged. In an aggressive cancer like metastatic melanoma, a 0.8 HR would mean a 1.5 month gain – not really meaningful. But in breast cancer, that same 0.8 HR becomes worthwhile with a 6 month gain. So, both hazard ratios and absolute gain need to be considered --as well as the context of the specific tumor type-- when making a value judgement about a clinical benefit.
NCI's Fojo also questioned the significance of statistical significance. Paraphrasing an earlier researcher, he noted that if you torture data long enough, you can get it to confess to significance. Fojo found much of the clinical benefit shown in studies has marginal value. By definition, clinical benefit rate (CBR) is what you get when you add stable disease to partial and complete responses. Or, as Fojo put it, it's what you report when you have a drug that underperforms. It's "the corruption of an endpoint," he said.
Shrinking a tumor is good, he agreed, but unless it correlates with survival, stable disease does not mean anything. In prostate cancer, for instance, where some novel drugs have been reporting CBR, objective response rate (PR+CR) correlates highly with overall survival. But when you include patients that met stable disease criteria, the average benefit drops by more than half. "Because you're adding a parameter that has no value at all," Fojo said.
Of course, part of the concern is that these absolute gains aren't coming without costs. It's one thing for a drug to provide 2 months of life, quite another if it costs thousands of dollars and comes with toxicities. And given the proliferation of oncology drugs, there's more room for payers to actively manage the disease, benchmarking more expensive newer agents against cheaper, older ones, and using the ultimate metric --survival -- as the measuring stick. That's playing out at ASCO too, as Newcomer's comments indicate.
Unlike in the past, the skepticism of therapeutic value outlined in posters and abstracts isn't limited to the back corridors or the marginal sessions on clinical trial design and practice issues -- it's coming from the podium at scientific sessions. For instance, a review of recent Phase III trials in upper GI malignancies was organized around the theme of whether the findings were clinically meaningful or just statistically significant, and included a talk about the health care economics of treatment. (Hint: It wasn't pretty.)
It's all part of a larger trend toward more concentration on value, cost and payer issues as IN VIVO covered recently in the May 2011 issue.
It's great to see researchers and industry execs coming out of the convention with excitement about promising new pathways and the potential for combinations. But they should also start thinking harder about raising the bar. Otherwise climate change (of a reimbursement and/or regulatory nature) could spark a cool down in one of the hottest therapeutic areas of the industry.
Image courtesy of flickrer Joe Seggiola through a creative commons license.
Sanofi-Aventis/ Nichi-Iko: Sanofi’s deal team has been on a role, especially when it comes to inking very early stage collaborations (see below) or tie-ups with players in the consumer and generics spaces. (