New York City, United States
New York City, United States

Time filter

Source Type

Brave M.,Office of Oncology Drug Products | Brave M.,U.S. Food and Drug Administration | Farrell A.,Office of Oncology Drug Products | Ching Lin S.,Office of New Drug Quality Assessment | And 11 more authors.
Oncology | Year: 2010

Purpose: On December 15, 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration approved plerixafor (Mozobil®; Genzyme Corp.), a new small-molecule inhibitor of the CXCR4 chemokine receptor, for use in combination with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to mobilize hematopoietic stem cells (HSC) to the peripheral blood for collection and subsequent autologous transplantation in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and multiple myeloma (MM). This summary reviews the database supporting this approval. Experimental Design: The safety and efficacy of plerixafor were demonstrated by 2 multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled studies in patients with NHL and MM who were eligible for autologous HSC transplantation. The primary efficacy end points were the collection of ≥5 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg from the peripheral blood in 4 or fewer apheresis sessions in patients with NHL or ≥6 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg from the peripheral blood in 2 or fewer apheresis sessions in patients with MM. Results: The 2 randomized studies combined enrolled 600 patients (298 with NHL and 302 with MM). Fifty-nine percent of patients with NHL who were mobilized with G-CSF and plerixafor had peripheral blood HSC collections of ≥5 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg in 4 or fewer apheresis sessions, compared with 20% of patients with NHL who were mobilized with G-CSF and placebo (p < 0.001). Seventy-two percent of patients with MM who were mobilized with Mozobil and G-CSF had peripheral blood HSC collections of ≥6 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg in 2 or fewer apheresis sessions, compared with 34% of patients with MM who were mobilized with placebo and G-CSF (p < 0.001). Common adverse reactions included diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, flatulence, injection site reactions, fatigue, arthralgia, headache, dizziness, and insomnia. Conclusions: This report describes the Food and Drug Administration review supporting the approval of plerixafor. © 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel.


Herndon T.M.,Office of Oncology Drug Products | Demko S.G.,Office of Oncology Drug Products | Jiang X.,U.S. Food and Drug Administration | He K.,U.S. Food and Drug Administration | And 4 more authors.
Oncologist | Year: 2012

On March 29, 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved peginterferon alfa-2b (PEG-IFN) (Sylatron™; Schering Corporation, Kenilworth, NJ) for the adjuvant treatment of melanoma patients with microscopic or gross nodal involvement following definitive surgical resection including complete lymphadenectomy. The approval was based on a single, open-label, multicenter trial enrolling 1,256 patients. After surgical resection, patients were randomized (1:1) to either PEG-IFN or observation for 5 years. PEG-IFN, 6 μg/kg per week, was administered s.c. for eight doses, followed by 3 μg/kg per week for up to 252 weeks. Stratification factors included microscopic or gross nodal involvement, number of positive nodes, Breslow thickness, ulceration, sex, and study center. Patients were assessed for recurrence by the investigators based on physical examination every 3 months for 2 years and every 6 months thereafter. The relapse-free survival (RFS) interval, the primary efficacy endpoint, was significantly longer in PEG-IFN- treated patients. The median RFS times were 34.8 months and 25.5 months, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall survival time. The most common (>60%) grade 1- 4 adverse reactions were fatigue, increased alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST), pyrexia, headache, anorexia, myalgia, nausea, chills, and injection site reactions. The most common serious adverse reactions were fatigue, increased ALT and AST, and pyrexia. Thirty-three percent of patients receiving PEGIFN discontinued treatment as a result of adverse reactions. Five deaths were reported within 30 days of the last treatment dose, two resulting from cardiovascular disease considered as possibly related to treatment. © AlphaMed Press.


Johnson J.R.,Office of Oncology Drug Products | Ning Y.-M.,Office of Oncology Drug Products | Justice R.,Office of Oncology Drug Products | Pazdur R.,Office of Oncology Drug Products
Journal of the National Cancer Institute | Year: 2011

We reviewed the regulatory history of the accelerated approval process and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) experience with accelerated approval of oncology products from its initiation in December 11, 1992, to July 1, 2010. The accelerated approval regulations allowed accelerated approval of products to treat serious or life-threatening diseases based on surrogate endpoints that are reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. Failure to complete postapproval trials to confirm clinical benefit with due diligence could result in removal of the accelerated approval indication from the market. From December 11, 1992, to July 1, 2010, the FDA granted accelerated approval to 35 oncology products for 47 new indications. Clinical benefit was confirmed in postapproval trials for 26 of the 47 new indications, resulting in conversion to regular approval. The median time between accelerated approval and regular approval of oncology products was 3.9 years (range = 0.8-12.6 years) and the mean time was 4.7 years, representing a substantial time savings in terms of earlier availability of drugs to cancer patients. Three new indications did not show clinical benefit when confirmatory postapproval trials were completed and were subsequently removed from the market or had restricted distribution plans implemented. Confirmatory trials were not completed for 14 new indications. The five longest intervals from receipt of accelerated approval to July 1, 2010, without completion of trials to confirm clinical benefit were 10.5, 6.4, 5.5, 5.5, and 4.7 years. The five longest intervals between accelerated approval and successful conversion to regular approval were 12.6, 9.7, 8.1, 7.5, and 7.4 years. Trials to confirm clinical benefit should be part of the drug development plan and should be in progress at the time of an application seeking accelerated approval to prevent an ineffective drug from remaining on the market for an unacceptable time. © 2011 The Author.


PubMed | FDA., Office of Oncology Drug Products, National Cancer Institute, U.S. Food and Drug Administration and 3 more.
Type: | Journal: Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research | Year: 2017

On December 22, 2014, the U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to nivolumab (OPDIVO, Bristol-Myers Squibb) for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma and disease progression following ipilimumab and, if BRAF V600 mutation-positive, a BRAF inhibitor. Approval was based on a clinically meaningful, durable objective response rate (ORR) in a non-comparative analysis of 120 patients who received nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks with at least 6 months follow-up in an ongoing, randomized, open-label, active-controlled clinical trial. The ORR as assessed by a blinded independent review committee per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1 was 31.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 23.5, 40.8]. Ongoing responses were observed in 87% of responding patients, ranging from 2.6+ to 10+ months. In 13 patients the response duration was 6 months or longer. The risks of nivolumab, including clinically significant immune-mediated adverse reactions (imARs), were assessed in 268 patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab. FDA review considered whether the ORR and durations of responses were reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, the adequacy of the safety database, and systematic approaches to the identification, description and patient management for imARs in product labeling.


PubMed | Office of Oncology Drug Products
Type: Journal Article | Journal: Journal of the National Cancer Institute | Year: 2011

We reviewed the regulatory history of the accelerated approval process and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) experience with accelerated approval of oncology products from its initiation in December 11, 1992, to July 1, 2010. The accelerated approval regulations allowed accelerated approval of products to treat serious or life-threatening diseases based on surrogate endpoints that are reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. Failure to complete postapproval trials to confirm clinical benefit with due diligence could result in removal of the accelerated approval indication from the market. From December 11, 1992, to July 1, 2010, the FDA granted accelerated approval to 35 oncology products for 47 new indications. Clinical benefit was confirmed in postapproval trials for 26 of the 47 new indications, resulting in conversion to regular approval. The median time between accelerated approval and regular approval of oncology products was 3.9 years (range = 0.8-12.6 years) and the mean time was 4.7 years, representing a substantial time savings in terms of earlier availability of drugs to cancer patients. Three new indications did not show clinical benefit when confirmatory postapproval trials were completed and were subsequently removed from the market or had restricted distribution plans implemented. Confirmatory trials were not completed for 14 new indications. The five longest intervals from receipt of accelerated approval to July 1, 2010, without completion of trials to confirm clinical benefit were 10.5, 6.4, 5.5, 5.5, and 4.7 years. The five longest intervals between accelerated approval and successful conversion to regular approval were 12.6, 9.7, 8.1, 7.5, and 7.4 years. Trials to confirm clinical benefit should be part of the drug development plan and should be in progress at the time of an application seeking accelerated approval to prevent an ineffective drug from remaining on the market for an unacceptable time.

Loading Office of Oncology Drug Products collaborators
Loading Office of Oncology Drug Products collaborators