Are Quality of Randomized Clinical Trials and ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale Two Sides of the Same Coin, to Grade Recommendations for Drug Approval?

Adela Rodriguez, Francis Esposito, Helena Oliveres, Ferran Torres, Joan Maurel

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

The approval of a new drug for cancer treatment by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) is based on positive, well-designed randomized phase III clinical trials (RCTs). However, not all of them are analyzed to support the recommendations. For this reason, there are different scales to quantify and evaluate the quality of RCTs and the magnitude of the clinical benefits of new drugs for treating solid tumors. In this review, we discuss the value of the progression-free survival (PFS) as an endpoint in RCTs and the concordance between it and the overall survival (OS) as a measure of the quality of clinical trial designs. We summarize and analyze the different scales to evaluate the clinical benefits of new drugs such as the The American Society of Clinical Oncology value framework (ASCO-VF-NHB16) and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) and the concordance between them, focusing on metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We propose several definitions that would help to evaluate the quality of RCT, the magnitude of clinical benefit and the appropriate approval of new drugs in oncology.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of clinical medicine
Volume10
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 13 Feb 2021

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Are Quality of Randomized Clinical Trials and ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale Two Sides of the Same Coin, to Grade Recommendations for Drug Approval?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this