Babcook, Melissa A.

Abstract Contemporary anticancer therapies frequently have different efficacy and side effects in men and women. Yet, whether women are well‐represented in pivotal trials supporting contemporary anticancer drugs is unknown. Leveraging the Drugs@FDA database, clinicaltrials.gov , MEDLINE, and publicly available FDA‐drug‐reviews, we identified all pivotal (phase II and III) non‐sex specific trials supporting FDA‐approval of anticancer drugs (1998–2018). Observed‐enrollment‐rates were compared to expected‐population‐rates derived from concurrent US‐National‐Cancer‐Institute's Surveillance‐Epidemiology‐and‐End‐Results (SEER) reported rates and US‐Census databases. Primary outcome was the proportional representation of women across trials, evaluated by a participation‐to‐prevalence ratio (PPR), according to cancer type. Secondary outcome was the report of any sex‐specific analysis of efficacy and/or safety, irrespective of treatment‐arm. Overall, there were 148 trials, enrolling 60,216 participants (60.5 ± 4.0 years, 40.7% female, 79.1% biologic, targeted, or immune‐based therapies) evaluating 99 drugs. Sex was reported in 146 (98.6%) trials, wherein 40.7% (24,538) were women, compared to 59.3% (35,678) men ( p < .01). Altogether, women were under‐represented in 66.9% trials compared to the proportional incidence of cancers by respective disease type; weight‐average PPR of 0.91 (relative difference: ‐9.1%, p < .01). Women were most under‐represented in gastric (PPR = 0.63), liver (PPR = 0.71), and lung (PPR = .81) cancer trials. Sex‐based safety data was reported in 4.0% trials. There was no association between adequate female enrollment and drug efficacy (HR: 0.616 vs. 0.613, p = .96). Over time, there was no difference in the percentage of women recruited into clinical trials. Among pivotal clinical trials supporting contemporary FDA‐approved cancer drugs, women were frequently under‐represented and sex‐specific‐efficacy and safety‐outcomes were commonly not reported.

AbstractCheckpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy with anti–PD-1 antibodies has been associated with mixed outcomes in small cohorts of patients with relapsed aggressive B-cell lymphomas after CAR-T failure. To define CPI therapy efficacy more definitively in this population, we retrospectively evaluated clinical outcomes in a large cohort of 96 patients with aggressive B-cell lymphomas receiving CPI therapy after CAR-T failure across 15 US academic centers. Most patients (53%) had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, were treated with axicabtagene ciloleucel (53%), relapsed early (≤180 days) after CAR-T (83%), and received pembrolizumab (49%) or nivolumab (43%). CPI therapy was associated with an overall response rate of 19% and a complete response rate of 10%. Median duration of response was 221 days. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 54 and 159 days, respectively. Outcomes to CPI therapy were significantly improved in patients with primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma. PFS (128 vs 51 days) and OS (387 vs 131 days) were significantly longer in patients with late (&gt;180 days) vs early (≤180 days) relapse after CAR-T. Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 19% of patients treated with CPI. Most patients (83%) died, commonly because of progressive disease. Only 5% had durable responses to CPI therapy. In the largest cohort of patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma treated with CPI therapy after CAR-T relapse, our results reveal poor outcomes, particularly among those relapsing early after CAR-T. In conclusion, CPI therapy is not an effective salvage strategy for most patients after CAR-T, where alternative approaches are needed to improve post–CAR-T outcomes.