In 2016, the then US President Barack Obama announced the Cancer Moonshot with a view to making 10 years’ worth of progress in cancer prevention, diagnosis and treatment in only 5 years. This Perspective evaluates the FDA approvals of therapeutic agents for use in solid tumour oncology for the period 2017–2021 against the aspirations of the Cancer Moonshot. In the past 5 years, the FDA issued an unprecedented 161 new approvals of therapeutic agents for various indications in adult patients with solid tumours. However, less than a third (27%) of the newly approved medicines are supported by unequivocal evidence of an overall survival benefit; most are supported by positive signals from surrogate end points. Herein, the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 was used to evaluate the clinical value of the therapies granted FDA approval during the period 2017–2021. The results of this appraisal indicate a low level of clinical benefit for a substantial proportion (~20%) of the new indications, with most (~44%) providing intermediate benefit. The data suggest that, beyond increases in the sheer quantity of approvals, considerable improvement in the quality of the approved treatments is required to more confidently ensure that the clinical benefits are real and substantial enough to clearly justify the risks to patients.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Subscribe to Nature+
Get immediate online access to Nature and 55 other Nature journal
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $6.58 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Cancer Moonshot Task Force. Cancer Moonshot: Report of the Cancer Moonshot Task Force (The White House, 2016).
Cherny, N. I. et al. A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Ann. Oncol. 26, 1547–1573 (2015).
Cherny, N. I. et al. ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1. Ann. Oncol. 28, 2340–2366 (2017).
Cherny, N. I. et al. Comparative assessment of clinical benefit using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 and the ASCO Value Framework Net Health Benefit Score. J. Clin. Oncol. 37, 336–349 (2018).
Dafni, U. et al. Detailed statistical assessment of the characteristics of the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) threshold rules. ESMO Open 2, e000216 (2017).
Fojo, T., Mailankody, S. & Lo, A. Unintended consequences of expensive cancer therapeutics–the pursuit of marginal indications and a me-too mentality that stifles innovation and creativity: the John Conley Lecture. JAMA Otolaryngol. Head. Neck Surg. 140, 1225–1236 (2014).
US Food and Drug Administration. FDA grants accelerated approval to pembrolizumab for first tissue/site agnostic indication. fda.gov, https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-pembrolizumab-first-tissuesite-agnostic-indication (2017).
Ravaud, A. et al. Adjuvant sunitinib in high-risk renal-cell carcinoma after nephrectomy. N. Engl. J. Med. 375, 2246–2254 (2016).
Mamtani, R. et al. Association between age and sex and mortality after adjuvant therapy for renal cancer. Cancer 125, 1637–1644 (2019).
Haas, N. B. et al. Adjuvant sunitinib or sorafenib for high-risk, non-metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (ECOG-ACRIN E2805): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet 387, 2008–2016 (2016).
Moore, K. et al. Maintenance olaparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 379, 2495–2505 (2018).
González-Martín, A. et al. Niraparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 381, 2391–2402 (2019).
Ray-Coquard, I. et al. Olaparib plus bevacizumab as first-line maintenance in ovarian cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 381, 2416–2428 (2019).
Gray, J. E. et al. Three-year overall survival with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III NSCLC–update from PACIFIC. J. Thorac. Oncol. 15, 288–293 (2020).
Hui, R. et al. Patient-reported outcomes with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III, unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer (PACIFIC): a randomised, controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 20, 1670–1680 (2019).
Antonia, S. J. et al. Overall survival with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III NSCLC. N. Engl. J. Med. 379, 2342–2350 (2018).
Antonia, S. J. et al. Durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 377, 1919–1929 (2017).
Wolchok, J. D. et al. Long-term outcomes with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 40, 127–137 (2022).
Reck, M. et al. Five-year outcomes with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumor proportion score ≥50%. J. Clin. Oncol. 39, 2339–2349 (2021).
Cortes, J. et al. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy for previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (KEYNOTE-355): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial. Lancet 396, 1817–1828 (2020).
Cortés, J. et al. KEYNOTE-355: Final results from a randomized, double-blind phase III study of first-line pembrolizumab + chemotherapy vs placebo + chemotherapy for metastatic TNBC [abstract LBA16]. Ann. Oncol. 32 (Suppl. 5), 1289–1290 (2021).
Gyawali, B. et al. Biases in study design, implementation, and data analysis that distort the appraisal of clinical benefit and ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scoring. ESMO Open 6, 100117 (2021).
Chi, K. N. et al. Patient-reported outcomes following abiraterone acetate plus prednisone added to androgen deprivation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic castration-naive prostate cancer (LATITUDE): an international, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 19, 194–206 (2018).
Fizazi, K. et al. Abiraterone plus prednisone in metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 377, 352–360 (2017).
Fizazi, K. et al. Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in patients with newly diagnosed high-risk metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (LATITUDE): final overall survival analysis of a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 20, 686–700 (2019).
Armstrong, A. J. et al. ARCHES: a randomized, phase III study of androgen deprivation therapy with enzalutamide or placebo in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 37, 2974–2986 (2019).
Motzer, R. J. et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up of efficacy and safety results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 20, 1370–1385 (2019).
Powles, T. et al. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-426): extended follow-up from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 21, 1563–1573 (2020).
Choueiri, T. K. et al. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 384, 829–841 (2021).
Motzer, R. et al. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab or everolimus for advanced renal cell carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 384, 1289–1300 (2021).
Tripathy, D. et al. Ribociclib plus endocrine therapy for premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive, advanced breast cancer (MONALEESA-7): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 19, 904–915 (2018).
US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Expedited Programs for Serious Conditions — Drugs and Biologics (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), 2014).
Beaver, J. A., Kluetz, P. G. & Pazdur, R. Metastasis-free survival–a new end point in prostate cancer trials. N. Engl. J. Med. 378, 2458–2460 (2018).
International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. ICH E9 statistical principles for clinical trials. ema.europa.eu, https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/ich-e9-statistical-principles-clinical-trials (1998).
Powles, T. et al. Durvalumab alone and durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (DANUBE): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 21, 1574–1588 (2020).
Yau, T. et al. CheckMate 459: A randomized, multi-center phase III study of nivolumab (NIVO) vs sorafenib (SOR) as first-line (1L) treatment in patients (pts) with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) [abstract LBA38_PR]. Ann. Oncol. 30 (Suppl. 5), v874–v875 (2019).
Spigel, D. et al. Second-line nivolumab in relapsed small-cell lung cancer: CheckMate 331☆. Ann. Oncol. 32, 631–641 (2021).
Rudin, C. M. et al. Pembrolizumab or placebo plus etoposide and platinum as first-line therapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: randomized, double-blind, phase III KEYNOTE-604 study. J. Clin. Oncol. 38, 2369–2379 (2020).
Bardia, A. et al. Sacituzumab govitecan-hziy in refractory metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 380, 741–751 (2019).
Garassino, M. C. et al. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in the KEYNOTE-189 study of pembrolizumab (pembro) or placebo (pbo) + pemetrexed (pem) + platinum (plt) for metastatic NSCLC [abstract]. J. Clin. Oncol. 36 (Suppl. 15), 9021 (2018).
Powles, T. et al. Enfortumab vedotin in previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 384, 1125–1135 (2021).
Powles, T. et al. Avelumab maintenance therapy for advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 383, 1218–1230 (2020).
Colombo, N. et al. Outcomes by histology and prior therapy with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab vs treatment of physician’s choice in patients with advanced endometrial cancer (Study 309/KEYNOTE-775) [abstract 726MO]. Ann. Oncol. 32 (Suppl. 5), S729–S730 (2021).
Camidge, D. R. et al. Brigatinib versus crizotinib in ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 379, 2027–2039 (2018).
Colombo, N. et al. Pembrolizumab for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 385, 1856–1867 (2021).
Vuky, J. et al. Long-term outcomes in KEYNOTE-052: Phase II study investigating first-line pembrolizumab in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 38, 2658–2666 (2020).
Schmid, P. et al. Atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel as first-line treatment for unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (IMpassion130): updated efficacy results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 21, 44–59 (2020).
Schmid, P. et al. Atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel in advanced triple-negative breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 379, 2108–2121 (2018).
Golan, T. et al. Maintenance olaparib for germline BRCA-mutated metastatic pancreatic cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 381, 317–327 (2019).
Golan, T. et al. Overall survival from the phase 3 POLO trial: Maintenance olaparib for germline BRCA-mutated metastatic pancreatic cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 39 (Suppl. 3), 378 (2021).
Gyawali, B., Hey, S. P. & Kesselheim, A. S. Evaluating the evidence behind the surrogate measures included in the FDA’s table of surrogate endpoints as supporting approval of cancer drugs. EClinicalMedicine https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100332 (2020).
Fundytus, A. et al. Access to cancer medicines deemed essential by oncologists in 82 countries: an international, cross-sectional survey. Lancet Oncol. 22, 1367–1377 (2021).
Kantarjian, H. & Patel, Y. High cancer drug prices 4 years later–progress and prospects. Cancer 123, 1292–1297 (2017).
Howard, D. H., Bach, P. B., Berndt, E. R. & Conti, R. M. Pricing in the market for anticancer drugs. J. Economic Perspect. 29, 139–162 (2015).
Vokinger, K. N. et al. Prices and clinical value of cancer drugs in the US and Europe–a cost-benefit analysis. Lancet Oncol. 21, 664–670 (2020).
Saluja, R. et al. Examining trends in cost and clinical benefit of novel anticancer drugs over time. J. Oncol. Pract. 14, e280–e294 (2018).
I thank the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) administrative coordinators N. Latino and M. Galotti for general support and for drafting the figures, and B. Gyawali, E. de Vries, H. Dressler, H. Goldwasser and A. Gabizon for providing feedback on early drafts of this manuscript. I am also grateful for general support from the Shaare Zedek Medical Center, ESMO, and my tolerant and supportive family. I am solely responsible for any errors in the information presented herein.
N.I.C. is Chair of ESMO-MCBS working group. The author declares no financial competing interests.
Peer review information
Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology thanks C. Booth, C. A. Uyl-de Groot and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
ESMO-MCBS Scorecards: https://www.esmo.org/guidelines/esmo-mcbs/esmo-mcbs-scorecards
About this article
Cite this article
Cherny, N.I. An appraisal of FDA approvals for adult solid tumours in 2017–2021: has the eagle landed?. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 19, 486–492 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-022-00636-y
This article is cited by
Nature Reviews Drug Discovery (2022)