No clear evidence that most new cancer drugs extend or improve life

October 4, 2017, British Medical Journal
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Even where drugs did show survival gains over existing treatments, these were often marginal, the results show.

Many of the drugs were approved on the basis of indirect ('surrogate') measures that do not always reliably predict whether a patient will live longer or feel better, raising serious questions about the current standards of regulation.

The researchers, based at King's College London and the London School of Economics say: "When expensive drugs that lack clinically meaningful benefits are approved and paid for within publicly funded healthcare systems, individual can be harmed, important societal resources wasted, and the delivery of equitable and affordable care undermined."

The research team analysed reports on cancer approvals by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) from 2009 to 2013.

Of 68 cancer indications approved during this period, 57% (39) came onto the market on the basis of a surrogate endpoint and without evidence that they extended survival or improved the quality of patients' lives.

After a median of 5 years on the market, only an additional 8 drug indications had shown survival or quality of life gains.

Thus, out of 68 cancer indications approved by the EMA, and with a median 5 years follow-up, only 35 (51%) had shown a survival or quality of life gain over existing treatments or placebo. For the remaining 33 (49%), uncertainty remains over whether the drugs extend survival or improve quality of life.

The researchers outline some study limitations which could have affected their results, but say their findings raise the possibility that regulatory evidence standards "are failing to incentivise drug development that best meets the needs of patients, clinicians, and healthcare systems."

Taken together, these facts paint a sobering picture, says Vinay Prasad, Assistant Professor at Oregon Health & Science University in a linked editorial.

He calls for "rigorous testing against the best standard of care in randomized trials powered to rule in or rule out a clinically meaningful difference in patient centered outcomes in a representative population" and says "the use of uncontrolled study designs or surrogate endpoints should be the exception not the rule."

He adds: "The expense and toxicity of cancer drugs means we have an obligation to expose patients to treatment only when they can reasonably expect an improvement in survival or quality of life." These findings suggest "we may be falling far short of this important benchmark."

This study comes at a time when European governments are starting to seriously challenge the high cost of drugs, says Dr Deborah Cohen, Associate Editor at The BMJ, in an accompanying feature.

She points to examples of methodological problems with trials that EMA has either failed to identify or overlooked, including trial design, conduct, analysis and reporting.

"The fact that so many of the new drugs on the market lack good evidence that they improve patient outcomes puts governments in a difficult position when it comes to deciding which treatments to fund," she writes. "But regulatory sanctioning of a comparator that lacks robust evidence of efficacy, means the cycle of weak evidence and uncertainty continues."

In a patient commentary, Emma Robertson says: "It's clear to me and thousands of other patients like me that our current research and development model has failed."

Emma is leader of Just Treatment, a patient led campaign with no ties to the pharmaceutical industry, which is calling for a new system that rewards and promotes innovation, so that more effective and accessible cancer medicines are brought within reach.

Explore further: Study examines quality of evidence for drugs granted accelerated FDA approval

More information: Availability of evidence on overall survival and quality of life benefits of cancer drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency: A retrospective cohort study of drug approvals from 2009-2013, DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j4530 , www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j4530

Editorial: Do cancer drugs improve survival or quality of life? www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j4528

Patient commentary: the current model has failed, www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j4568

Feature: Cancer drugs: high price, uncertain value, www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j4543

Related Stories

Study examines quality of evidence for drugs granted accelerated FDA approval

August 15, 2017
Among drugs granted accelerated approval by the FDA in 2009-2013, efficacy was often confirmed in subsequent trials a minimum of 3 years after approval, and the use of nonrandomized studies and surrogate measures, instead ...

Expensive new cancer drugs have little effect on survival of many cancers

November 9, 2016
Despite considerable investment and innovation, new cancer drugs approved in the past 10 years may have little effect on survival in adults with cancer, raising a number of concerns, argues an expert in The BMJ today.

England's Cancer Drugs Fund 'failed to deliver meaningful value to patients and society'

April 27, 2017
Analysis of the drugs that were approved for use by the NHS Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) in England has shown that the fund was not good value for patients and society and may have resulted in patients suffering unnecessarily ...

Surrogate endpoints poor proxy for survival in cancer drug approval process

May 26, 2016
Surrogate endpoints used to support the majority of new cancer drugs approved in the U.S. often lack formal study, according to the authors of a study published in the June issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings. This analysis ...

Quick cancer drug approvals don't benefit patients, researcher says

May 7, 2015
Highly priced cancer drugs get rushed approvals despite poor trial methodology and little effect on the longevity of patients, cautions York University Professor Dr. Joel Lexchin in the School of Health Policy and Management.

Study compares cancer drug cost, benefit

June 6, 2017
Queen's University researcher Christopher Booth reveals the price of new cancer therapies is not associated with treatment effectiveness.

Recommended for you

Scientists sharpen the edges of cancer chemotherapy with CRISPR

July 13, 2018
Tackling unsolved problems is a cornerstone of scientific research, propelled by the power and promise of new technologies. Indeed, one of the shiniest tools in the biomedical toolkit these days is the genome editing system ...

Looking at the urine and blood may be best in diagnosing myeloma

July 13, 2018
When it comes to diagnosing a condition in which the plasma cells that normally make antibodies to protect us instead become cancerous, it may be better to look at the urine as well as the serum of our blood for answers, ...

Massive genome havoc in breast cancer is revealed

July 12, 2018
In cancer cells, genetic errors wreak havoc. Misspelled genes, as well as structural variations—larger-scale rearrangements of DNA that can encompass large chunks of chromosomes—disturb carefully balanced mechanisms that ...

Study shows biomarker panel boosts lung cancer risk assessment for smokers

July 12, 2018
A four-protein biomarker blood test improves lung cancer risk assessment over existing guidelines that rely solely upon smoking history, capturing risk for people who have ever smoked, not only for heavy smokers, an international ...

Discovering the mechanisms that underlie prostate cancer

July 12, 2018
New research has uncovered insights into the mechanisms that underlie prostate cancer, providing potential targets for new cancer therapies.

New method reveals how well cancer drugs hit their targets

July 12, 2018
Scientists have developed a technique that allows them to measure how well cancer drugs reach their targets inside the body. It shows individual cancer cells in a tumour in real time, revealing which cells interact with the ...

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Oct 05, 2017
"only 35 (51%) had shown a survival or quality of life gain over existing treatments or placebo. For the remaining 33 (49%), uncertainty remains over whether the drugs extend survival or improve quality of life."

-Or the cup is half-full. A full 51% showed improvement.

Traditional testing is not fast enough. These drugs are being tested on sick people with significant results.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.