Cancer remains the leading cause of death worldwide with approved oncology drugs continuing to have heterogenous patient responses and accompanied adverse effects (AEs) that limits effectiveness. Here, we examined >100 FDA-approved oncology drugs in the context of stemness using a surrogate model of transformed human pluripotent cancer stem cells (CSCs) vs. healthy stem cells (hSCs) capable of distinguishing abnormal self-renewal and differentiation. Although a proportion of these drugs had no effects (inactive), a larger portion affected CSCs (active), and a unique subset preferentially affected CSCs over hSCs (selective). Single cell gene expression and protein profiling of each drug\'s FDA recognized target provided a molecular correlation of responses in CSCs vs. hSCs. Uniquely, drugs selective for CSCs demonstrated clinical efficacy, measured by overall survival, and reduced AEs. Our findings reveal that while unintentional, half of anticancer drugs are active against CSCs and associated with improved clinical outcomes. Based on these findings, we suggest ability to target CSC targeting should be included as a property of early onco-therapeutic development.

Therapeutic advances in oncology in the 21st century have contributed to significant declines in cancer mortality. Notably, targeted therapies comprised the largest proportion of oncology drugs approved by the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the past 25 years and have become the standard of care for the treatment of many cancers. However, despite the metamorphosis of the therapeutic landscape, some aspects of cancer drug development have remained essentially unchanged. In particular, the dose-finding methodology originally developed for cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs continues to be implemented, even though this approach no longer represents the most appropriate strategy for modern cancer therapies. In recognition of the need to reconsider assumptions, adapt the dose selection process for newer drugs, and design alternative strategies, the FDA has undertaken several initiatives in recent years to address these concerns. These actions include the launch of Project Optimus in 2021 and the issuance of draft guidance for industry on dose optimization of oncology drugs in 2023. Amid this evolving regulatory environment, the present manuscript reviews case studies for six different targeted cancer therapies, highlighting how dose-finding challenges have been managed to date by oncologists, sponsors, and regulators.

UNASSIGNED: To evaluate whether time targets for Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) reimbursement reviews and pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance (pCPA) price negotiations are being achieved for oncology drugs.
UNASSIGNED: Recommendations, dates of submission and publication, and indications for oncology medicines issued between January 2014 and December 2023 were recorded from CADTH\'s reimbursement reports webpage. The date any negotiation began and the date it was completed (successfully or not), or when a decision was made not to pursue negotiation was extracted from the pCPA\'s webpage. The duration of each CADTH review and pCPA negotiation was calculated, together with time between CADTH\'s recommendation and start of the pCPA negotiation or a decision not to negotiate. Percentages of reviews completed within CADTH\'s target and of times taken by the pCPA to decide whether to negotiate and by its price negotiations completed within the relevant targets were calculated.
UNASSIGNED: CADTH achieved its 270-days target in 88.2% to 100% of reviews issued between 2015 and 2019 but only in 65.9% to 73.1% of reviews issued in the last three years of the decade. CADTH\'s \"typical timeline\" of 180 days was achieved in under 40% of reviews issued in 2015 and not attained in any review in 2021, 2022 or 2023. The pCPA\'s target of 60 days for deciding whether to negotiate was achieved for all recommendations issued in 2014 but dropped below 40% for the last seven years of the decade; its target of 130 days for negotiations was achieved for over 85% of the recommendations in 2014 but decreased to only 14.3% in 2016 and then gradually increased to 61.5% in 2023.
UNASSIGNED: CADTH\'s \"typical timeline\" and the pCPA\'s targets were not met sufficiently to be meaningful. Their processes take too long for cancer drugs.
Canadian patients and providers are often frustrated and concerned about the timeliness of the country’s health technology assessment (HTA) and price negotiation processes, especially for cancer drugs. HTAs are carried out to evaluate the benefit of a medicine in comparison with its cost to see whether the drug is of sufficient value to add it to the benefit lists of government drug plans. HTAs are performed by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) for all of Canada, except the province of Quebec, and price negotiations with drug developers are carried out by the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance (pCPA) on behalf of all government drug plans. We used data from the websites of CADTH and the pCPA on HTA reviews of cancer drugs issued between January 2014 and December 2023 and price negotiations for these drugs to assess whether CADTH and the pCPA complied with their stated target times for completing their processes. We found that CADTH’s reviews and the pCPA’s price negotiations failed to meet their targets for cancer drugs in the past 10 years and that the timeliness of their performance has, in most cases, deteriorated. HTA and price negotiation processes for cancer drugs take too long in Canada.

Patient access to new oncology drugs in Canada is only possible after navigating multiple sequential systemic checkpoints for national regulatory approval, health technology assessment (HTA) and collective government price negotiation. These steps delay access and prevent health care providers from being able to prescribe optimal therapy. Eighteen Canadian oncology clinicians from the medicine, nursing and pharmacy professions met to develop consensus recommendations for defining reasonable government performance standards around process and timeliness to improve Canadian cancer patients\' access to best care. A modified Delphi methodology was used to identify consensus on 30 questions involving five themes: accountability, disparities, endpoints, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness. It was agreed that greater transparency is required across regulatory and HTA processes. Health professionals in oncology are frustrated for their patients because they are unable to deliver the modern guideline-supported therapies they want to provide due to delays in approval or funding. Canadian health care providers request improvements in timely access to life-saving therapeutics in line with other comparator countries. Clinicians expect urgent improvements in Canadian health systems to give our patients their best chance of survival.

UNASSIGNED: This study examined multiple aspects about the approval of new drugs: the characteristics of the drugs, the quality and quantity of information that Health Canada discloses about the demographics of patients enrolled in clinical trials, the characteristics of the trial, and the type of review that it uses. It examines whether there have been changes in these measures between 1 September 2012 and 31 March 2022.
UNASSIGNED: A list of all new drugs approved, type of review used, and drug characteristics was generated from Health Canada annual reports. Therapeutic categories were identified from the World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Drugs Statistics Methodology. The Summary Basis of Decision documents of Health Canada were used to identify patient demographics in clinical trials and clinical trial characteristics.
UNASSIGNED: Health Canada approved 326 new drugs for 407 indications. The percent of orphan drugs approved increased from 35.6 to 51.3%. The number of indications per drug decreased (p = 0.0817) as did the number of pivotal trials per drug (p = 0.0091). The percent of Phase 3 trials dropped from 76.3% in 2012-2015 to 64.8% in 2019-2022 (p = 0.005). There was also a statistically significant decrease in the percent of trials that were randomized, controlled, and blinded. The clinical trial characteristics of orphan drugs and the type of review used were both significantly different compared with non-orphan drugs. The percent of trials which had information about the number of patients enrolled, the percent of trials that provided the age of the patients, and the sex breakdown all significantly increased.
UNASSIGNED: The results show that there has been a change in regulatory standards that may be due to them becoming less rigorous, because of an adaptation to the number of orphan drugs being submitted or a combination of both reasons. At the same time, there has been some improvement in the transparency of data. Health Canada has recently embarked on a series of reforms in drug regulation and clinical trial management. These changes need to be closely evaluated to be sure that they enhance the efficacy and safety of new drugs.

UNASSIGNED: Evidentiary requirements for relative effectiveness assessment vary among European health technology assessment (HTA) bodies, affecting the time to HTA decision-making and potentially delaying time to patient access. Improved alignment may reduce this time; therefore, we aim to analyze the differences in evidentiary requirements for oncology drug assessments among European HTA bodies and provide recommendations toward an increased alignment.
UNASSIGNED: Interviews were conducted with stakeholders in drug assessments of Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, England and Wales, and Sweden about evidentiary requirements for several subdomains to identify differences and obtain recommendations for addressing differences. The interview results were analyzed on degrees of evidence acceptability per HTA body and alignment on evidentiary requirements among HTA bodies.
UNASSIGNED: Subdomains demonstrating noteworthy differences concerned the acceptability of extrapolation to other populations, class effects, progression-free survival and (other) surrogate endpoints as outcomes, the absence of quality-of-life data, single-arm trials, cross-over trial designs, short trial duration, and the clinical relevance of effect size.
UNASSIGNED: Alignment can be enhanced to reduce time to decision-making and to improve equity in patient access. Proposed recommendations to achieve this included joint early dialogues, intensified collaboration and exchange between countries, joint relative effectiveness assessments, and the use of access agreements.

New oncology drugs undergo detailed review prior to public funding in a single-payer healthcare system. The aim of this study was to assess how cancer drug review times impact funding recommendations. Drugs reviewed by the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) between the years 2012 and 2020 were included. Data were collected including Health Canada approval dates, initial and final funding recommendations, treatment intent, drug class, clinical indications, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to determine the association between funding recommendations and review times. Of the 164 applications submitted, 130 received a positive final recommendation. Median time from Health Canada (HC) approval to final recommendation was longer for drugs indicated for the treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) and lung cancer compared to breast, genitourinary (GU), and other tumours (205 vs. 198 vs. 111 vs. 129 vs. 181 days, respectively; Kruskal-Wallis p = 0.0312). Drugs with longer review times were more likely to receive a negative pCODR recommendation, even when adjusting for tumour type, drug class, and intent of therapy (157 vs. 298 days; Wilcoxon p = 0.0003, OR 1.002 95% CI [1.000-1.004].). There was no association between funding recommendation and tumour type or class of drug. The exploration of factors associated with variance in review times will be important in ensuring timely patient access to cancer drugs.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and FDA have policy goals of strengthening benefit-risk (B-R) capabilities; but how this has been translating into regulatory practice is unclear. A systematic review of oncology drug approvals between 2015 and 2020 was conducted with approvals identified through review of FDA and EMA annual reports, with extraction of information on submission, clinical program and B-R assessment from publicly available review documents. Data were extracted from 236 reviews (EMA: 66 new submissions, 100 label extensions; FDA: 70 new submissions). The standard of evidence for B-R assessments seems to have diversified over time; yet, despite policy targets to extend their use, these assessments rarely include patient experience or real-world data.

OBJECTIVE: The lack of anticancer drugs for curative and supportive purposes is the critical reason for the low survival rate in low-and-middle-income countries. This study aims to analyze whether the National Essential Medicines List (NEML) and Registered Essential Medicines List (REML) are in concordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) Essential Medicines List (EML) and whether the formularies prevalent in the country are parallel to each other and to the NEML.
METHODS: An observational study design was used in which antineoplastic drugs from the 2021 NEML and REML were compared with 2021 WHO EML to evaluate their availability in Pakistan. Market access was determined. Moreover, the formularies of six different hospital types were compared with each other and with the NEML, and REML to estimate the availability within hospitals.
RESULTS: There were 66 anticancer drugs in 2021 WHO EML and all were found in Pakistan\'s 2021 NEML but only 48 drugs (73%) were found in the REML. Hydroxycarbamide and dasatinib were two registered drugs absent in all hospitals\' formularies. The market access for anticancer medicines was 73% (48 of 66). Semigovernment hospital (86%) has the highest availability, followed by the government hospital (80%). All the hospitals have unregistered drugs including bortezomib, lenalidomide, and mesna.
CONCLUSIONS: Pakistan\'s NEML adopts WHO EML abruptly but all medicines are not registered. The hospitals are trying their best to increase availability but optimum drug regulations to revise NEML based on the country\'s requirements and emphasizing registration of anticancer medicines are needed to improve the country\'s availability of antineoplastic agents.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the reporting quality of published economic evaluations of the negotiated oncology drugs listed for China\'s 2020 National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL).
METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted to identify economic evaluation studies of negotiated oncology drugs listed in China\'s 2020 NRDL using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, SinoMed, and WanFang Database up to March 31, 2021. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist scored the reporting quality between 0 and 100. A linear regression analysis was employed to examine the influence of various characteristics on the reporting quality scores.
RESULTS: Eighty papers were included in the study, with the majority published during the past decade. Furthermore, more than half of the articles (57.5%, or 46 out of 80) were written in English. The average CHEERS score was 74.63 ± 12.75 and ranged from 43.48 to 93.75. The most inadequately reported items included choice of model, characterization of heterogeneity, and discussion, as well as currency, price date and conversion. Higher scores were associated with articles published from 2019 to 2021 and English publications.
CONCLUSIONS: The economic evaluation studies of negotiated oncology drugs listed in 2020 NRDL had moderate reporting quality. The Chinese economic evaluation publications could improve the reporting quality if the CHEERS checklist is consistently implemented. Also, the Chinese journals maybe explore introducing a reporting standard for economic evaluations.