Dataset Information

Drugs Targeting p53 Mutations with FDA Approval and in Clinical Trials.

ABSTRACT: Mutations in the tumor suppressor p53 (p53) promote cancer progression. This is mainly due to loss of function (LOS) as a tumor suppressor, dominant-negative (DN) activities of missense mutant p53 (mutp53) over wild-type p53 (wtp53), and wtp53-independent oncogenic activities of missense mutp53 by interacting with other tumor suppressors or oncogenes (gain of function: GOF). Since p53 mutations occur in ~50% of human cancers and rarely occur in normal tissues, p53 mutations are cancer-specific and ideal therapeutic targets. Approaches to target p53 mutations include (1) restoration or stabilization of wtp53 conformation from missense mutp53, (2) rescue of p53 nonsense mutations, (3) depletion or degradation of mutp53 proteins, and (4) induction of p53 synthetic lethality or targeting of vulnerabilities imposed by p53 mutations (enhanced YAP/TAZ activities) or deletions (hyperactivated retrotransposons). This review article focuses on clinically available FDA-approved drugs and drugs in clinical trials that target p53 mutations and summarizes their mechanisms of action and activities to suppress cancer progression.

SUBMITTER: Nishikawa S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9856662 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Drugs Targeting p53 Mutations with FDA Approval and in Clinical Trials.

Nishikawa Shigeto S Iwakuma Tomoo T

Cancers 20230109 2

Mutations in the tumor suppressor p53 (p53) promote cancer progression. This is mainly due to loss of function (LOS) as a tumor suppressor, dominant-negative (DN) activities of missense mutant p53 (mutp53) over wild-type p53 (wtp53), and wtp53-independent oncogenic activities of missense mutp53 by interacting with other tumor suppressors or oncogenes (gain of function: GOF). Since p53 mutations occur in ~50% of human cancers and rarely occur in normal tissues, p53 mutations are cancer-specific a ...[more]

PMID: 36672377

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInsufficient patient enrollment per month (=accrual) is the leading cause of cancer trial termination.ObjectiveTo identify and quantify factors associated with patient accrual in trials leading to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of new cancer drugs.DataAll anti-cancer drugs with FDA approval were identified in the Drugs@FDA database (2000-2022). Data on drug indication's background-, treatment-, disease-, and trial-related factors were collected from FDA labels, clinicaltrials.gov, and the Global Burden of Disease study. The association between patient accrual and collected variables was assessed in Poisson regression models reporting adjusted rate ratios (aRR).ResultsWe identified 170 drugs with approval in 455 cancer indications on the basis of 292 randomized and 163 single-arm trials. Among randomized trials, median enrollment per month was 38 patients (interquartile range [IQR]: 26-54) for non-orphan, 21 (IQR: 15-38, aRR 0.88, p = 0.361) for common orphan, 20 (IQR: 10-35, aRR 0.73, p <0.001) for rare orphan, and 8 (IQR 6-12, aRR 0.30, p < 0.001) for ultra-rare orphan indications. Patient enrollment was positively associated with disease burden [aRR: 1.0003 per disability-adjusted life year (DALY), p < 0.001), trial sites (aRR: 1.001 per site, p < 0.001), participating countries (aRR: 1.02 per country, p < 0.001), and phase 3 vs. 1/2 trials (aRR: 1.64, p = 0.037). Enrollment was negatively associated with advanced-line vs. first-line treatments (aRR: 0.81, p = 0.010) and monotherapy vs. combination treatments (aRR: 0.80, p = 0.007). Patient enrollment per month was similar between indications with and without a biomarker (median: 27 vs. 32, aRR 0.80, p = 0.117). Patient enrollment per month was substantially lower in government-sponsored than industry-sponsored trials (median: 14 vs. 32, aRR 0.80, p = 0.209). Enrollment was not associated with randomization ratios, crossover, and study blinding.ConclusionsDisease incidence and disease burden alongside the number of study sites and participating countries are the main drivers of patient enrollment in clinical trials. For rare disease trials, greater financial incentives could help expedite patient enrollment. Novel trial design features, including skewed randomization, crossover, or open-label masking, did not entice patient enrollment.

Project description:BackgroundPharmaceutical companies and other trial sponsors must submit certain trial results to ClinicalTrials.gov. The validity of these results is unclear.PurposeTo validate results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov against publicly available U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews on Drugs@FDA.Data sourcesClinicalTrials.gov (registry and results database) and Drugs@FDA (medical and statistical reviews).Study selection100 parallel-group, randomized trials for new drug approvals (January 2013 to July 2014) with results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov (15 March 2015).Data extraction2 assessors extracted, and another verified, the trial design, primary and secondary outcomes, adverse events, and deaths.ResultsMost trials were phase 3 (90%), double-blind (92%), and placebo-controlled (73%) and involved 32 drugs from 24 companies. Of 137 primary outcomes identified from ClinicalTrials.gov, 134 (98%) had corresponding data at Drugs@FDA, 130 (95%) had concordant definitions, and 107 (78%) had concordant results. Most differences were nominal (that is, relative difference <10%). Primary outcome results in 14 trials could not be validated. Of 1927 secondary outcomes from ClinicalTrials.gov, Drugs@FDA mentioned 1061 (55%) and included results data for 367 (19%). Of 96 trials with 1 or more serious adverse events in either source, 14 could be compared and 7 had discordant numbers of persons experiencing the adverse events. Of 62 trials with 1 or more deaths in either source, 25 could be compared and 17 were discordant.LimitationUnknown generalizability to uncontrolled or crossover trial results.ConclusionPrimary outcome definitions and results were largely concordant between ClinicalTrials.gov and Drugs@FDA. Half the secondary outcomes, as well as serious events and deaths, could not be validated because Drugs@FDA includes only "key outcomes" for regulatory decision making and frequently includes only adverse event results aggregated across multiple trials.Primary funding sourceNational Library of Medicine.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study analyzes the development, benefits, trial evidence, and price of new breast cancer drugs with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval.MethodsWe identified 26 drugs with 42 FDA-approved indications for early and metastatic breast cancer (2000-2023). Data were collected from FDA labels, clinicaltrials.gov, and Medicare and Medicaid. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) hazard ratios (HRs) and tumor response's relative risk (RR) alongside objective response rate (ORR) were meta-analyzed.ResultsThe median development time for breast cancer drugs was 7.8 years (95% CI 6.2-10.8). 26% of treatments were considered innovative ("first-in-indication") with 88% acting via a targeted mechanism. 64% were small molecules, 19% antibodies, and 18% antibody-drug conjugates. 38% were approved for HR + and 31% for HER2 + breast cancer. 6 indications were for early and 36 for metastatic breast cancer. Indications utilized FDA's special programs: orphan (2%), fast track (24%), accelerated approval (19%), priority review (74%), breakthrough therapy (44%). Approval was predominantly supported by phase 3 trials (88%) of randomized controlled design (66%), enrolling a median of 585 patients (IQR 417-752) at 181 centers (IQR 142-223) across 19 countries (IQR 17-20). New drugs' HR were 0.78 for OS (95% CI 0.74-0.82) and 0.59 for PFS (95% CI 0.54-0.64) with a RR for tumor response of 1.61 (95% CI 1.46-1.76). Median improvements of OS were 2.8 months (IQR 1.8-5.8) and PFS were 4.4 months (IQR 2.2-7.1). In single-arm trials, the average ORR was 31% (95% CI 10-53). In meta-regressions, the correlation between OS/PFS was 0.34 (p = 0.031) and OS/response was 0.01 (p = 0.435). 60% of treatments had a 'high-value' ESMO-MCBS score with 14% demonstrating improvements in quality of life. The median price was $16,013 per month (95% CI 13,097-17,617). There was no association between prices and patient benefit. The median value per life year gained was $62,419 (IQR 25,840-86,062).ConclusionsOver the past two decades, the development of innovative and effective drugs transformed the treatment landscape for breast cancer patients. Yet, investigators and regulators must safeguard that highly-priced new drugs demonstrate improvements in patient-centered clinical endpoints: overall survival and quality of life.

Project description:BackgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) has become an increasingly common limitation to effective anticancer therapy. Yet, whether CVD events were consistently reported in pivotal trials supporting contemporary anticancer drugs is unknown.ObjectivesThe authors sought to evaluate the incidence, consistency, and nature of CVD event reporting in cancer drug trials.MethodsFrom the Drugs@FDA, clinicaltrials.gov, MEDLINE, and publicly available U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug reviews, all reported CVD events across latter-phase (II and III) trials supporting FDA approval of anticancer drugs from 1998 to 2018 were evaluated. The primary outcome was the report of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as incident myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, coronary revascularization, atrial fibrillation, or CVD death, irrespective of treatment arm. The secondary outcome was report of any CVD event. Pooled reported annualized incidence rates of MACE in those without baseline CVD were compared with reported large contemporary population rates using relative risks. Population risk differences for MACE were estimated. Differences in drug efficacy using pooled binary endpoint hazard ratios on the basis of the presence or absence of reported CVD were also assessed.ResultsOverall, there were 189 trials, evaluating 123 drugs, enrolling 97,365 participants (58.5 ± 5 years, 46.0% female, 72.5% on biologic, targeted, or immune-based therapies) with 148,138 person-years of follow-up. Over a median follow-up of 30 months, 1,148 incidents of MACE (375 heart failure, 253 myocardial infarction, 180 strokes, 65 atrial fibrillation, 29 revascularizations, and 246 CVD deaths; 792 in the intervention vs. 356 in the control arm; p < 0.01) were reported from the 62.4% of trials noting any CVD. The overall weighted-average incidence was 542 events per 100,000 person-years (716 per 100,000 in the intervention arm), compared with 1,408 among similar-aged non-cancer trial subjects (relative risk: 0.38; p < 0.01), translating into a risk difference of 866. There was no association between reporting CVD events and drug efficacy (hazard ratio: 0.68 vs. 0.67; p = 0.22).ConclusionsAmong pivotal clinical trials linked to contemporary FDA-approved cancer drugs, reported CVD event rates trail expected population rates.

Project description:BackgroundMandatory trial registration, and later results reporting, were proposed to mitigate selective clinical trial publication and outcome reporting. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendments Act (FDAAA) was enacted by Congress on September 27, 2007, requiring the registration of all non-phase I clinical trials involving FDA-regulated medical interventions and results reporting for approved drugs. The association between FDAAA enactment and the registration, results reporting, and publication bias of neuropsychiatric trials has not been studied.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of all efficacy trials supporting FDA new drug approvals between 2005 to 2014 for neuropsychiatric indications. Trials were categorized as pre- or post-FDAAA based on initiation and/or completion dates. The main outcomes were the proportions of trials registered and reporting results in ClinicalTrials.gov, and the degree of publication bias, estimated using the relative risks pre- and post-FDAAA of both the publication of positive vs non-positive trials, as well as of publication of positive vs non-positive trials without misleading interpretations. Registration and results reporting proportions were compared pre- and post-FDAAA using the two-tailed Fisher exact test, and the degrees of publication bias were compared by calculating the ratio of relative risks (RRR) for each period.ResultsThe FDA approved 37 new drugs for neuropsychiatric indications between 2005 and 2014 on the basis of 142 efficacy trials, of which 101 were pre-FDAAA and 41 post-FDAAA. Post-FDAAA trials were significantly more likely to be registered (100% vs 64%; p < 0.001) and report results (100% vs 10%; p < 0.001) than pre-FDAAA trials. Pre-FDAAA, positive trials were more likely to be published (relative risk [RR] = 1.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.17-1.99; p = 0.002) and published without misleading interpretations (RR = 2.47; CI = 1.57-3.73; p < 0.001) than those with non-positive results. In contrast, post-FDAAA positive trials were equally likely to have been published (RR = 1; CI = 1-1, p = NA) and published without misleading interpretations (RR = 1.20; CI = 0.84-1.72; p = 0.30). The likelihood of publication bias pre-FDAAA vs post-FDAAA was greater for positive vs non-positive trials (RRR = 1.52; CI = 1.16-1.99; p = 0.002) and for publication without misleading interpretations (RRR = 2.06, CI = 1.17-3.61, p = 0.01).ConclusionsThe enactment of FDAAA was followed by significantly higher proportions of trials that were registered and reporting results on ClinicalTrials.gov and significantly lower degrees of publication bias among trials supporting recent FDA approval of drugs for neuropsychiatric indications.

Dataset Information

Drugs Targeting p53 Mutations with FDA Approval and in Clinical Trials.

Publications

Drugs Targeting p53 Mutations with FDA Approval and in Clinical Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets