Comment in 2024

Despite recent FDA approval, the clinical utility of vorasidenib in the treatment of IDH-mutant low-grade gliomas remains unclear. Herein, we critique the pivotal trial of vorasidenib, and highlight the questionable choice of control intervention and end points, ethical concerns, as well as the uncertain efficacy observed, and argue that the approval might be premature given the high cost of this drug and lack of clear benefit over standard treatments.

Precision oncology has reached a milestone as data from two trials in which molecular profiling guided both site-specific and tumour-agnostic therapies indicate improved survival outcomes in patients with cancer of unknown primary. These findings can also be extrapolated and support the use of tissue-agnostic approaches in general, and also suggest that the tissue of origin might have a role in the agnostic classification of cancers and their response to treatment.

My close experience with cancer and interactions with other patients, caregivers and health-care providers have shaped my belief that patients must be at the centre of research and care. In this Comment, I advocate for a redirection of research efforts in order to measure patient-centred outcomes and address health disparities.

The question of whether chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapies should be used in earlier lines (after 1–2 prior lines of therapy) in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma remains unanswered. Herein, I argue that the use of surrogate end points that lack a robust correlation with overall survival, as well as suboptimal control arms and use of post-progression therapies, limit the ability to make definitive conclusions on the basis of the available data.

Certain subsets of patients with multiple myeloma or its precursor conditions are overtreated with current approaches to therapy. Herein, we highlight several key areas where we believe de-escalation of treatment is needed. Dedicated trials to assess these de-escalation approaches and urgent changes to current clinical practices are needed.

In 2023, the US FDA approved several new cancer drugs and biologic agents, including seven small-molecule inhibitors, four bispecific T cell engagers, two anti-PD-1 antibodies and one cell therapy product. Regulatory focus areas included analyses of biomarker-positive subgroups that drive efficacy, equipoise in randomized controlled trials and a new authority to require confirmatory trials be underway before accelerated approval.

The US FDA Accelerated Approval of sotorasib required the sponsor to conduct a randomized trial that compared the safety and efficacy of the approved dose with a lower dose. These results, recently disclosed, have important implications for patients, payers, oncologists and the pharmaceutical industry.

The FDA approval of perioperative pembrolizumab, an approach that combines neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy with this agent, for patients with early stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) contradicts its own stated standard for combination therapies. Given the large population of patients with early stage NSCLC and the high costs of pembrolizumab, whether the adjuvant component provides incremental benefit is an important question.