Importance To date, an empirical evaluation of the quality of control arms in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) leading to anticancer drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not been undertaken. Objective We sought to estimate the percentage of RCTs that used a control arm deemed suboptimal and led to FDA approval of anticancer drugs from January 1, 2013, to July 31, 2018. Design, Setting, and Participants This quality improvement study included 143 anticancer drug approvals granted by the FDA from January 1, 2013, to July 31, 2018. All approvals based on single-arm studies (47 approvals) were excluded. Approvals based on RCTs were further investigated and each trial was analyzed for design, time of patient accrual, control arm, and primary end point. Standard-of-care therapy was determined by evaluating the literature and published guidelines 1 year prior to the start of trial enrollment. The percentage of approvals based on RCTs that used suboptimal control arms was then calculated. The quality of the control arm was deemed suboptimal if the choice of control agent was restricted to exclude a recommended agent, the control arm was specified but the recommended agent was unspecified, and if prior RCT data had demonstrated that the control agent was inferior to an available alternative. Main Outcomes and Measures Estimated percentage of RCTs that used suboptimal control arms that led to FDA approval of anticancer agents between January 1, 2013, to July 31, 2018. Results A total of 145 studies that led to 143 drug approvals between January 1, 2013, and July 31, 2018, were included. Of these studies, 47 single-arm studies were excluded. The remaining 98 studies led to 96 drug approvals. Of these 96 approvals, 16 (17%) were based on RCTs with suboptimal control arms; 15 were international trials, and 1 was conducted in the United States. The type of approval was regular in 14 trials and accelerated in 2 trials. When categorized by the nature of suboptimal control, 4 (25%) trials omitted active treatment in control arm by limiting investigator’s choice, 10 (63%) trials omitted active treatment in the control arm by using a control agent known to be inferior to other available agents or not allowing combinations, and 2 (13%) trials used a previously used treatment in the control arm with a known lack of benefit associated with reexposure. Conclusions and Relevance Although anticancer drug approvals are increasing, a proportion of these drugs are reaching the market without proven superiority to what is considered the standard of care at the time of patient enrollment in pivotal trials. The choice of control arm should be optimized to ensure that new anticancer agents being marketed are truly superior to what most clinicians would prescribe outside a clinical trial setting.

Importance While there have been multiple assessments of clinical trials leading to anticancer drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the cumulative percentage of approvals based on trials with a limitation remains uncertain. Objective To assess the percentage of clinical trials with limitations in 4 domains—lack of randomization, lack of significant overall survival advantage, inappropriate use of crossover, and use of suboptimal control arms—that led to FDA approvals from June 30, 2014, to July 31, 2019. Design, Setting, and Participants This observational analysis included all anticancer drug indications approved by the FDA from June 30, 2014, through July 31, 2019. All indications were investigated, and each clinical trial was evaluated for design, enrollment period, primary end points, and presence of a limitation in the domains of interest. The standard-of-care therapy was determined by evaluating the literature and published guidelines 1 year prior to the start of clinical trial enrollment. Crossover was examined and evaluated for optimal use. The percentage of approvals based on clinical trials with any or all limitations of interest was then calculated. Main Outcomes and Measures Estimated percentage of clinical trials with limitations of interest that led to an anticancer drug marketing authorization by the FDA. Results A total of 187 trials leading to 176 approvals for 75 distinct novel anticancer drugs by the FDA were evaluated. Sixty-four (34%) were single-arm clinical trials, and 123 (63%) were randomized clinical trials. A total of 125 (67%) had at least 1 limitation in the domains of interest; 60 of the 125 trials (48%) were randomized clinical trials. Of all 123 randomized clinical trials, 37 (30%) lacked overall survival benefit, 31 (25%) had a suboptimal control, and 17 (14%) used crossover inappropriately. Conclusions and Relevance Two-thirds of cancer drugs are approved based on clinical trials with limitations in at least 1 of 4 essential domains. Efforts to minimize these limitations at the time of clinical trial design are essential to ensure that new anticancer drugs truly improve patient outcomes over current standards.

Introduction Multiple studies have questioned the benefit of neutropenic diets in decreasing infections in patients with cancer, but recent surveys showed that such diets are still prescribed. In this study, we sought to evaluate the effectiveness of neutropenic diet in decreasing infection and mortality in neutropenic patients with cancer with neutropenia. This review is an update of a previously published systematic review. Materials and methods We searched different databases to identify comparative studies that investigated the effect of neutropenic diet compared with regular diet in neutropenic adults and children with cancer. We conducted random‐effects meta‐analyses using the Der‐Simonian and Laird method to pool treatment effects from included studies. Outcomes of interest were mortality, bacteremia/fungemia, major infections, quality of life, and the composite outcome for neutropenic fever and/or infection. Results We included six studies (five randomised) with 1116 patients, with 772 (69.1%) having underwent haematopoietic cell transplant. There was no statistically significant difference between neutropenic diet and regular diet in the rates of major infections (relative risk [RR] 1.16; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.42) or bacteremia/fungemia (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.53). In haematopoietic cell transplant patients, neutropenic diet was associated with a slightly higher risk of infections (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.54). No difference in mortality was seen between neutropenic diet and regular diet (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.50). Conclusion There is currently no evidence to support the use of neutropenic diet or other food restrictions in neutropenic patients with cancer. Patients and clinicians should continue to follow the safe food-handling guidelines as recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

PURPOSE: On the basis of the results of the ZUMA-3 trial, brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel), a CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, gained US Food and Drug Administration approval in October 2021 for adults with relapsed/refractory (R/R) B-cell ALL (B-ALL). We report outcomes of patients treated with brexu-cel as a standard therapy. METHODS: We developed a collaboration across 31 US centers to study adults with B-ALL who received brexu-cel outside the context of a clinical trial. Data were collected retrospectively from October 2021 to October 2023. Toxicities were graded per American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy guidelines for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS). RESULTS: At the time of data lock, 204 patients had undergone apheresis and 189 were infused. Median follow-up time was 11.4 months. Forty-two percent of patients received brexu-cel in morphologic remission and would have been ineligible for participation in ZUMA-3. After brexu-cel, 151 achieved complete remission (CR), of which 79% were measurable residual disease (MRD) negative remissions. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.5 months and median overall survival was not reached. Grade 3-4 CRS or ICANS occurred in 11% and 31%, respectively. In multivariable analysis, patients receiving consolidative hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT; hazard ratio, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.14 to 0.85]) after brexu-cel had superior PFS compared with those who did not receive any consolidation or maintenance therapy. CONCLUSION: Similar to ZUMA-3, high rates of MRD-negative CR were observed after brexu-cel treatment for R/R B-ALL. The use of HCT as consolidation after brexu-cel resulted in improved PFS.