ESMO Open

ESMO Open. 5(1): e000611

EHA evaluation of the ESMO—Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for haematological malignancies

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5490-2371Barbara Kiesewetter¹, Nathan I Cherny², Nicolas Boissel³⁴, Francesco Cerisoli⁵, Urania Dafni⁶⁷, Elisabeth G E de Vries⁸, Paolo Ghia⁹¹⁰, Nicola Gökbuget¹¹, Verónica González-Calle¹², Brian Huntly¹³, Ulrich Jäger¹⁴, Nicola Jane Latino¹⁵, Jean-Yves Douillard¹⁵, Luca Malcovati¹⁶¹⁷, María-Victoria Mateos¹², Gert J Ossenkoppele¹⁸, Kimmo Porkka¹⁹, Markus Raderer¹, Josep-Maria Ribera²⁰, Lydia Scarfò⁹¹⁰, Ruth Wester²¹, Panagiota Zygoura⁷, Pieter Sonneveld²¹²²

1. Department of Medicine I, Clinical Division of Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

2. Cancer Pain and Palliative Medicine Service, Department of Medical Oncology, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel

3. Department of Hematology, Hospital Saint-Louis, Paris, Île-de-France, France

4. Adolescent and Young Adult Hematology Unit, Diderot University Paris Faculty of Medicine, Paris, Île-de-France, France

5. European Hematology Association, Den Haag, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands

6. Laboratory of Biostatistics, School of Health Sciences, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

7. Frontier Science Foundation-Hellas, Frontier Science Foundation-Hellas, Athens, Greece

8. Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

9. Strategic Research Program on CLL, Division of Experimental Oncology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milano, Lombardia, Italy

10. Universita Vita e Salute San Raffaele, Milano, Lombardia, Italy

11. Department of Hematology/Oncology, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Hessen, Germany

12. Department of Hematology and Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Salamanca-IBSAL, University Hospital of Salamanca, Salamanca, Castilla y León, Spain

13. Cambridge Stem Cell Institute, Department of Haematology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK

14. Department of Medicine I, Clinical Division of Hematology and Hemostaseology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

15. Head Office, European Society for Medical Oncology, Lugano, Switzerland

16. Department of Molecular Medicine, University of Pavia, Pavia, Lombardia, Italy

17. Department of Hematology Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Lombardia, Italy

18. Department of Hematology, VU University Medical Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands

19. Department of Hematology, Helsinki University Hospital Comprehensive Cancer Center, Helsinki, Finland

20. Clinical Hematology Department, ICO-Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, Josep Carreras Research Institute, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Catalunya, Spain

21. Department of Hematology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands

22. Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands

Correspondence to. Dr Barbara Kiesewetter; barbara.kiesewetter@meduniwien.ac.at

© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

DOI: 10.1136/esmoopen-2019-000611

Published online: 20 January 2020

Abstract

Objective

Value frameworks in oncology have not been validated for the assessment of treatments in haematological malignancies, but to avoid overlaps and duplications it appears reasonable to build up experience on existing value frameworks, such as the European Society for Medical Oncology—Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).

Methods

Here we present the results of the first feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for haematological malignancies based on the grading of 80 contemporary studies for acute leukaemia, chronic leukaemia, lymphoma, myeloma and myelodysplastic syndromes. The aims were (1) to evaluate the scorability of data, (2) to evaluate the reasonableness of the generated grades for clinical benefit using the current version and (3) to identify shortcomings in the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 that require amendments to improve the efficacy and validity of the scale in grading new treatments in the management of haematological malignancies.

Results

In general, the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 was found to be widely applicable to studies in haematological malignancies, generating scores that were judged as reasonable by European Hematology Association (EHA) experts. A small number of studies could either not be graded or were not appropriately graded. The reasons, related to the differences between haematological and solid tumour malignancies, are identified and described.

Conclusions

Based on the findings of this study, ESMO and EHA are committed to develop a version of the ESMO-MCBS that is validated for haematological malignancies. This development process will incorporate all of the usual stringencies for accountability of reasonableness that have characterised the development of the ESMO-MCBS including field testing, statistical modelling, evaluation for reasonableness and openness to appeal and revision. Applying such a scale will support future public policy decision-making regarding the value of new treatments for haematological malignancies and will provide insights that could be helpful in the design of future clinical trials.

Key questions

What is already known about this subject?

The European Society for Medical Oncology—Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) v1.1 is a validated value scale for solid tumour oncology, but it has not yet been evaluated for the use in haematological malignancies.

What does this study add?

Here, we present the results of the first feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for haematological malignancies based on grading of 80 contemporary studies for leukaemia, lymphoma, myeloma and myelodysplastic syndromes.

The ESMO-MCBS v1.1 was found to be widely applicable to studies in haematological malignancies, generating scores that were judged as reasonable by European Hematology Association (EHA) experts; however, a small number of studies could either not be graded or were not appropriately graded because of shortcomings related to the differences between haematological and solid tumour malignancies.

How might this impact on clinical practice?

Based on the findings of this study, ESMO and EHA are committed to develop a version of the score that is robustly validated to grade studies in malignant haematology.

Introduction

In recent years, rapid developments in haematology research resulted in a considerable expansion of treatment options. The development of instruments to measure clinical benefit is essential in the current scenario where increasing numbers of treatments for haematological malignancies (HMs) are becoming available, often targeting a small and defined subpopulation of patients. For this, several value frameworks have been published by different organisations and institutions taking into account or emphasising different aspects contributing to such an evaluation.¹ These frameworks vary in terms of their definition of value, target audience and methodology, and each of them has specific limitations, which should be taken into consideration when interpreting their outputs.² Until now, value frameworks developed in oncology have not been validated in the setting of HMs.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has developed such a value framework called the ESMO—Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).³ Initially published in 2015, the scale is a validated and reproducible tool in solid tumour oncology with a particular focus on the clinical benefit. The ESMO-MCBS was developed to generate clear, valid and unbiased grading of the magnitude of clinical benefit demonstrated in therapeutic studies that could be used for a number of purposes including public health policy and health technology assessment (HTA), clinical decision-making, medical publication and journalism. The ESMO-MCBS grading highlights those treatments which substantially improve the duration of survival and/or the quality of life (QOL) of patients with cancer and aims to distinguish them from trials demonstrating more limited and sometimes even marginal benefits. The ESMO-MCBS was revised (version 1.1) in 2017, based on feedback and queries from clinicians, patients, researchers and representatives of the pharmaceutical industry, and a dynamic process of internal peer review.⁴ Version 1.1 incorporates 10 revisions and most importantly allows also for scoring of single-arm studies. The ESMO-MCBS assigns categorical benefit scores to European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved drugs, based on results from ‘positive’ randomised clinical trials: (1) superiority trials that have demonstrated a statistically significant result for the primary endpoint of the study, or secondary in case of overall survival (OS) and (2) non-inferiority trials, reaching a conclusion of non-inferiority. Primary or secondary endpoints included in the scoring system are OS, progression-free survival (PFS), QOL, treatment toxicity or response rates. In developing the ESMO-MCBS scale, ESMO aspired to meet standards for ‘accountability for reasonableness’,5 6 incorporating extensive field testing, statistical modelling⁷ and peer review of the ‘reasonableness’ of the generated results into the development process. The ESMO-MCBS is currently incorporated in ESMO’s clinical practice guidelines and is being used as part of HTA processes.8 9

The European Hematology Association (EHA) and ESMO have developed a joint initiative to develop a version of the ESMO-MCBS that is validated for HMs. As a first step in this process, we have field tested the current version of the ESMO-MCBS (version 1.1) across a wide spectrum of HMs. The aims of this evaluation were (1) to evaluate the scorability of data derived from contemporary clinical trials in HMs, (2) to evaluate the reasonableness of the generated grades for clinical benefit using the current version and (3) to identify shortcomings in the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 that require amendments to improve the efficacy and validity of the scale in grading new treatments in the management of HMs.

Methods

Study selection

The corresponding disease-oriented EHA scientific working groups identified experts who selected representative treatments currently used in clinical practice with a focus on recently approved drugs and novel strategies, to be evaluated for each of the common haematological malignancies: acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL), chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML), Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas, multiple myeloma (MM) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). The treatments selected underwent a literature search to identify corresponding clinical trials and data.

ESMO-MCBS grading

Identified studies were graded by members of the EHA scientific working groups according to the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 forms⁴ in accordance with the instructions provided by ESMO. Magnitude of clinical benefit scores range from A to C for treatment strategies with curative intent and 5-1 for treatments with non-curative intent, with scores of A–B and 5-4 relating to a substantial level of clinical benefit. Initial grading by the expert groups were reviewed by the ESMO-MCBS working group for applicability and correctness.

Evaluations

For each disease entity, we evaluated the scorability of the evaluated studies and the reasonableness of the derived scores. Based on these findings, we identified shortcomings in the current version of the ESMO-MCBS that either precluded scoring or which generated grading which was considered not to be a reasonable estimation of benefit when such studies were identified.

Results

The extensive research concluded in 80 studies, 5 of which had either more than two arms or different publications for the same trial presenting results after longer follow-up times (87 studies and/or comparisons in total). In detail, we have scored 7 studies for AML, 5 studies for ALL, 8 studies for CLL, 4 studies for CML, 23 studies for non-Hodgkin and Hodgkin lymphoma, 23 studies for MM and 10 studies for MDS. The ESMO-MCBS v1.1 tool was applied in all the 87 distinct studies and/or subgroups.

Acute myeloid leukaemia

Studies evaluated: Seven studies were evaluated,10–16 three in a curative setting and four in a non-curative setting (table 1).

See full tableTable 1. Feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for acute myeloid leukaemia (n=7)

Scorability: All studies were published with endpoints and data applicable to the ESMO-MCBS v1.1.

Reasonableness: The separation of studies with curative/non-curative intent corresponds closely to the distinction between intensive versus non-intensive chemotherapy regimens which are the terms usually applied in the treatment of AML. Grading effectively distinguished between high benefit treatment strategies in a curative setting and stratified between higher and lower benefit treatments in a non-curative setting.

Shortcomings: None identified.

Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia

Studies evaluated: Five studies were evaluated,17–23 and these included studies relating to three agents recently approved by EMA for relapsed and refractory ALL (table 2).17–20 22

See full tableTable 2. Feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (n=5)

Scorability: Four of the five studies were published with endpoints and data applicable to the ESMO-MCBS v1.1. The only not scoreable study was the single-arm study of ponatinib as add-on to standard of care upfront treatment with curative intent.²¹

Reasonableness: Both the first-in class bispecific antibody blinatumomab (TOWER trial)17 18 and the antibody-drug conjugate inotuzumab ozogamicin (INO-VATE trial)19 20 reached high scores based on positive OS data and favourable QOL data for blinatumomab (ESMO-MCBS v1.1 scores 5 and 4, respectively). The chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell treatment in children/young adults with relapsed or refractory B-cell ALL was graded with maximal credit of 3 for a single-arm study in a non-curative setting.²² The ponatinib treatment (single-arm PACE trial)²³ was assigned grade 2 based on the major molecular response (MMR) in the non-curative setting.

Reasonableness: Grading effectively distinguished between high benefit treatment strategies in a curative stetting and stratified between higher and lower benefit treatments in a non-curative setting.

Shortcomings: One shortcoming was identified:

The ESMO-MCBS v1.1 does not have a form to grade single-arm treatments with curative intent. This shortcoming precluded scoring in one study²¹ and may also have been relevant to the grading of CAR T-cell salvage therapy which could also be considered as curative.²²

Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia

Studies evaluated: Eight studies were evaluated (table 3).24–35

See full tableTable 3. Feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (n=8)

Scorability: CLL is generally a relatively indolent disease with a very long survival—often decades long—and many patients do not need intervention for many years and when treatment is initiated it commonly generates very long periods of remission. For these reasons, PFS is generally the most relevant and measurable primary endpoint. Since CLL is generally not considered to be a curable disease, all scoring was performed using scales for non-curative disease. One study²⁷ could not be scored because the primary objective of non-inferiority with regard to PFS was not met. Moreover, the published results limited to a subcohort of patients older than 65 years, which are relevant for clinical practice (particularly in view of presented toxicity data) did not show non-inferiority and they were derived from a post hoc exploratory analysis.

Reasonableness: Overall scoring was considered reasonable with the highest grades being achieved by studies demonstrating either mature OS data24–26 or PFS gains with long-term plateauing of PFS,³³ or compelling PFS gains.28 29 Grading of the phase III study of ibrutinib versus ofatumumab (RESONATE trial)31 32 was considered to be low; it was credited for PFS advantage including gain in the tail of the curve but was penalised for toxicity associated with the more prolonged drug exposure in continuous treatment (ESMO-MCBS v1.1 score 3). However, the 9% improvement in OS at 12 months was not credited as these results are deemed immature by the ESMO-MCBS criteria. The benefit of novel agents in populations with high unmet need, like relapsed and refractory patients with CLL carrying deletion in chromosome 17 p, was graded reasonably using form 3 for single-arm studies in a non-curative setting.34 35

Shortcomings: One shortcoming was identified:

The EHA scientific working group members felt that compelling immature survival benefit ought to be credited even when the median survival of the control arm has not been reached.

Chronic myeloid leukaemia

Studies evaluated: Four landmark trials addressing the use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors imatinib, nilotinib, dasatinib and bosutinib upfront for chronic phase CML were graded.36–43 Only one of these had mature OS data (table 4).³⁸

See full tableTable 4. Feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for chronic myeloid leukaemia (n=4)

Scorability: CML is generally considered an incurable disease, but in a small proportion of cases with deep molecular responses the disease may be eradicated. Thus, when mature survival data were available, CML was scored for both curative and non-curative intent.36–38 Contemporary studies in CML treatments are conventionally evaluated using molecular response evaluations.44 45 This differs from the concepts of ‘pathological complete response’ or ‘response rate’ which are terms used in the ESMO-MCBS v1.1. Scoring of these studies was only possible by interpreting deep molecular responses (MMR 4–5) as pathological complete responses (form 1) or major responses (form 2 c).39–43 In one study,36–38 PFS/event-free survival (EFS) gains could not be credited because the PFS of the control arm was very long and had not reached median PFS after 11 years of follow-up.

Reasonableness: In the IRIS study of imatinib versus former standard interferon plus cytarabine, initial scoring at 18 months was credited on the basis of complete cytogenic response for curative intent with a grade of C and improvement in molecular response rate with grade 2.36–38 At 10-year follow-up, the imatinib scores B for curative intent based on survival improvement. While the grades for curative intent were considered reasonable, the EHA working group considered the ESMO-MCBS grade of 2 for non-curable intent to be too low for the benefits observed.

The remaining studies of nilotinib, dasatinib and bosutinib show minor improvements in complete molecular response rates when compared with imatinib (grade 2) in a non-curative setting.39–43 None of these agents had mature data beyond 5 years and consequently they were not graded for curative intent.

Shortcomings: These relatively low scores for imatinib in the non-curative grading appear to indicate two shortcomings in the ESMO-MCBS v1.1:

When PFS (or EFS) is very long, there is no mechanism to credit strong interim gains when the median PFS of the control arm has not yet been reached.

The surrogacy of complete cytogenic response and level 4–5 MMR, defined as 4 to 5-log reduction in BCR–ABL1 transcript levels from a standardised baseline, are much stronger surrogates for survival than pathological complete response and response rate in solid tumours.44 45 Consequently, form 2 c needs to be amended to incorporate evaluation of deep molecular responses.

Indolent non-Hodgkin’s, relapsed/refractory setting of non-diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (non-DLBCL) and Hodgkin’s lymphoma

Studies evaluated: Twelve studies of recently approved drugs for indolent non-Hodgkin’s, relapsed/refractory setting of non-DLBCL and Hodgkin’s lymphoma were evaluated (table 5).46–62

See full tableTable 5. Feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for indolent non-Hodgkin and relapsed/refractory setting of non-DLBCL and Hodgkin’s lymphoma (n=12)

Scorability: In one of the studies,⁴⁶ PFS/EFS gains could not be graded because the PFS of the control arm was very long, the median PFS was not reached and only interim gains were reported. The BRIGHT study could not be scored because form 2 c makes no provision for scoring of non-inferiority studies based on response rates.49 50 The remaining 10 studies were published with endpoints and data applicable to the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 and were all evaluable.

Reasonableness: The grading was applicable and was judged by the EHA working group to be reasonable in the evaluated trials, endorsing relatively high benefit grades, that is, ESMO-MCBS v1.1. scores of 4–5 for 7 of the 10 evaluable studies.

Shortcomings: Two shortcomings were observed:

The ESMO-MCBS v1.1 has no mechanism for scoring non-inferiority studies based on response rate.

When PFS (or EFS) is very long, there is no mechanism to credit strong interim gains when the median PFS of the control arm has not yet been reached.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Studies evaluated: Eleven studies were evaluated63–75; two in the first-line setting with curative intent,63–66 two intensified therapies for first-line and salvage setting, respectively, with both curative and non-curative intent,67 68 two single-arm studies of CAR T-cell salvage therapy70 71 and five in a non-curative setting for relapsed and refractory disease (table 6).69 72–75

See full tableTable 6. Feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for DLBCL (n=11)

Scorability: All studies incorporated required data for evaluation using the ESMO-MCBS v1.1. Single-arm studies of CAR T-cell therapy for refractory or resistant disease70 71 could not be evaluated for curative intent. The NCIC-CTG LY12 trial could not be graded in the non-curative setting because non inferiority was evaluated on the basis of overall response rate.⁶⁸

Reasonableness: The grading was applicable and was judged by the EHA working group to be reasonable in the evaluated trials, endorsing high benefit grades for first-line therapies with curative intent.63–67 Lower benefit scores for trials in the relapsed and refractory therapies were considered reasonable.

Shortcomings: One shortcoming was identified:

The ESMO-MCBS v1.1 does not have a form to grade single-arm treatments with curative intent and this shortcoming does not allow for the representation of the full potential benefit of CAR T-cell salvage therapy.70 71

Multiple myeloma

Studies evaluated: Table 7 describes results from eight studies in the first-line setting.76–84 Of these, three were conducted for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) eligible76–78 patients and five are for ASCT ineligible patients.79–84 Table 8 describes the results of a further 15 studies with relapsed or refractory myeloma.85–104

See full tableTable 7. Feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for first-line multiple myeloma (n=8)

See full tableTable 8. Feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (n=15)

Scorability: Most studies incorporated required data for evaluation using the ESMO-MCBS v1.1. The PETHEMA/GEM study comparing VTD (bortezomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone) to TD (thalidomide and dexamethasone) or VBMCP/VBAD/B (vincristine, BCNU, melphalan, cyclophosphamide, prednisone/vincristine, BCNU, doxorubicin, dexamethasone/bortezomib) as induction therapies did not report HRs for the PFS, resulting in precluded scoring with non-curative intent using form 2b.⁷⁶ The GIMEMA 2005 study could not be scored for non-curative intent because the median PFS of the control arm had not yet been reached.⁷⁷ The MM5 non- inferiority study⁷⁸ could not be scored for non-curative intent because non-inferiority was based on response rate.

Reasonableness: First-line treatments for patients who are ASCT eligible are graded both for curative and non-curative intent. The relatively low grades of C for curative intent achieved in two of the ASCT eligible studies76 77 reflect the prevailing consensus that MM is rarely cured. In most studies evaluated, the scale was feasible and the results were consistent with clinical practice.

Shortcomings: Three previously described shortcomings influenced scoring for a small number of these studies.

The ESMO-MCBS v1.1 has no mechanism for scoring non-inferiority studies in a non-curative setting based on response rate.

When PFS (or EFS) is very long, the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 has no mechanism to credit strong interim gains when the median PFS of the control arm has not yet been reached.

The EHA working group members felt that the capitation of PFS at a maximal preliminary grade of 3, with provision for an upgrade based on tail of the curve only if there is a plateau in the study medication PFS with gain of >10% at 12 months, may have undervalued some MM treatments.96 97 The plateau requirement for this adjustment precludes credit for substantial prolonged gains in PFS in this disease entity.

Myelodysplastic syndrome

Studies evaluated: Ten studies were evaluated in this setting.105–114 Of these, two studies were evaluated based on OS or PFS and the remaining eight studies were evaluated based on response rate (table 9).

See full tableTable 9. Feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for myelodysplastic syndrome (n=10)

Scorability: All studies incorporated required data for evaluation using the ESMO-MCBS v1.1. Clinical benefit measure was, however, partly confounded by the heterogeneity of the available definitions of haematological response and their clinical meaningfulness.

Reasonableness: In the two studies evaluating hypomethylating agents in intermediate-risk/high-risk patients,105 106 the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 graded them with substantial benefit based on either PFS gain or OS gain with improved QOL. In lower risk patients, the remaining eight studies included randomised trials investigating erythropoietin-stimulating agents, lenalidomide in MDS with del(5q) or non-del(5q) and immunosuppressive therapy with antithymocyte globulin plus cyclosporine, compared with best supportive care.107–114 All studies were evaluated based on response rates, but they used a range of different and inconstant criteria, some using International Working Group, or modifications thereof, and other study-specific criteria such as transfusion requirements. All these studies resulted in a final ESMO-MCSB v1.1 score of 2. In one of these studies¹⁰⁸ QOL was evaluated and demonstrated to have improved but this was not reflected in grading since there is no QOL bonus for studies in which response rate is the primary outcome.

Shortcomings: The EHA working group identified one shortcoming derived from these evaluations:

In studies evaluating response rate as a primary endpoint, there is no provision of QOL bonus if improved QOL is demonstrated as a secondary outcome.

Discussion

The EHA with currently more than 5000 members is the largest European-based haematology association. In addition to its educational mission, it has a public policy and advocacy role that engages stakeholders, including patient representatives, to improve patient care and to raise awareness for haematology as a distinct medical discipline with specific needs.¹¹⁵ Reflecting these goals, EHA has observed the development of the ESMO-MCBS and its broad utility in solid tumour oncology with great interest, and in the absence of a value tool validated for malignant haematology, we sought to investigate the applicability of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 as a first step to the development of a version validated for HMs.

There are several major differences in the behaviour of HMs as compared with solid tumour cancers. These differences arise largely from the more variable natural history of HMs which can range from fulminant (acute leukaemia and high-grade lymphomas) to almost benign (low-grade MDS). Furthermore, many of these malignant haematological diseases, even when they are not cured, they are characterised by very long PFS and OS that are rarely seen among incurable solid tumour malignancies. Finally, the endpoints used in the studies of treatments for HMs are sometimes different to those used in solid tumours and in some instances, such as CML, they are even disease-specific. Consequently, at the outset of this project we did not know if ESMO-MCBS v1.1 could be applied to studies in HMs, and if the grading of studies would generate grades considered reasonable by experts in the relevant diseases.

This evaluation of the behaviour of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 in the grading of 80 studies across the full spectrum of HMs has demonstrated that the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 is widely applicable for the overwhelming majority of analysed studies (90% scoreable studies) and that the generated scores were generally adjudicated by clinical experts to reasonably accord with their evaluation of the magnitude of clinical benefit. In 5 of the 80 studies (6%), the ESMO-MCBS could not be applied at all21 27 46 49 50 78 and in 3 more studies (4%), it could not be applied to one of the evaluable parameters.68 76 77 In the evaluation of imatinib in CML,36–38 it generated scores that were considered to under-represent the true value of the intervention in the opinion of experts in the evaluated diseases.

Based on the analysis of the scorability of studies and the reasonableness of the generated results, this field testing identified six shortcomings in the current version of the ESMO-MCBS that will require redress to improve the applicability and reasonableness of ESMO-MCBS scoring for malignant haematological conditions.

Regarding single-arm studies with curative intent, such as CAR T-cell salvage therapies, the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 does not have a form to grade single-arm treatments with curative intent.

Regarding relatively indolent conditions with a very long PFS (or EFS) or OS such as CLL, CML, indolent lymphoma and MM, there is no mechanism to credit strong interim gains when the median of the control arm has not yet been reached.

The capitation of PFS at a maximal preliminary grade of 3, with provision for an upgrade based on tail of the curve only when there is a plateau in the arm with the study medication, may undervalue treatments with substantial late PFS gain but with no plateauing of the curves.

Regarding the standard molecular surrogate endpoints used for CML, the surrogacy of complete cytogenic response and level 4–5 MMR must be acknowledged and incorporated.

The scale does not make provision for the grading of non-inferiority studies based on response rate criteria.

In studies evaluating response rate as a primary endpoint, there is no provision of QOL bonus if improved QOL is demonstrated as a secondary outcome.

Finally, it must be acknowledged that the results of the scale may not be reasonable for some of the least malignant of the HMs such as low-risk MDS. Most of the studies for MDS were evaluated based on response rates, but there was heterogeneity of the available definitions of haematological response and their clinical meaningfulness. This underlines the need for a stand-alone form regarding studies with such heterogeneity in their response rates.

ESMO and the EHA are committed to the development of a version of the ESMO-MCBS that is validated for HMs. Based on the findings of this study, a revised version of the ESMO-MCBS will be developed to address the identified shortcomings in the current version of the scale regarding the assessment of HMs. This development process will incorporate all the usual stringencies for accountability of reasonableness that have characterised the development of the ESMO-MCBS. This, thus far, included field testing, statistical modelling, evaluation for reasonableness and openness to appeal and revision. Applying such a scale will support future decision-making and will provide insights that could be helpful in the design of future clinical trials.

Footnotes

BK and NIC contributed equally.

Contributors: Design of the study: BK, NIC, FC, EGEdV, NJL, J-YD, PS. Collection of trials/data: BK, NB, PG, NG, VG-C, BH, UJ, LM, M-VM, GJO, KP, MR, J-MR, LS, RW, PS. Scoring, analysis and interpretation of data: BK, NIC, NB, UD, EGEdV, PG, NG, VG-C, BH, UJ, LM, M-VM, GJO, KP, MR, J-MR, LS, RW, PZ, PS. Statistical analysis: UD, PZ. Manuscript design and writing: BK, NIC, FC, EGEdV. Manuscript editing and final approval: all authors.

Competing interests: BK has received honoraria for lectures from Celgene and Novartis; NB has received honoraria for consulting and advisory role from Ariad, Amgen, Novartis and Pfizer; EGEdV declares advisory role for Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, NSABP, Pfizer, Sanofi and Synthon, and institutional financial support for clinical trials or contracted research for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Chugai, CytomX Therapeutics, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Nordic Nanovector, Radius Health, Roche and Synthon; PG has received honoraria for lectures/advisory boards and research funding from AbbVie/Pharmacyclics, Acerta/AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen, Gilead, Novartis, Sunesis and Verastem; NG has received honoraria for lectures, advisory boards and research support from Amgen, Pfizer and Incyte; VG-C has received honoraria for lectures from Janssen and for participation in advisory boards from Prothena; BH has received honoraria for lectures from Novartis, Pfizer and BMS, and for participation in advisory boards from Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbvie, Pfizer, BMS and Incyte; UJ has declared honoraria from Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Amgen, Roche, Novartis, Gilead, Bioverativ, Janssen, MSD, Sandoz, Takeda and Pfizer; M-VM has received honoraria for lectures from Janssen, Celgene, Takeda and Amgen, and for participation in advisory boards from Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline and PharmaMar; MR has received honoraria for lectures from Novarits, Ipsen, Celgene and Eisai; LS has received honoraria for lectures from Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and for participation in advisory boards from Janssen; PS has received honoraria for lectures and advisory boards from Celgene, Janssen, Takeda and Amgen, and research support from Celgene, Janssen and Amgen.

Patient consent for publication: Not required.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Data availability statement: Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study.

Articles from ESMO Open are provided here courtesy of ESMO and BMJ

PMC Copyright Notice

The articles available from the PMC site are protected by copyright, even though access is free. Copyright is held by the respective authors or publishers who provide these articles to PMC. Users of PMC are responsible for complying with the terms and conditions defined by the copyright holder.

Users should assume that standard copyright protection applies to articles in PMC, unless an article contains an explicit license statement that gives a user additional reuse or redistribution rights. PMC does not allow automated/bulk downloading of articles that have standard copyright protection.

See the copyright notice on the PMC site, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/copyright/, for further details and specific exceptions.

References

M SlomianyP MadhavanM Kuehnet al Value frameworks in oncology: comparative analysis and implications to the pharmaceutical industry. Am Health Drug Benefits 2017;10:253–60.28975009

NI ChernyEGE de VriesU Dafniet 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. JCO 2019;37:336–49. 10.1200/JCO.18.00729

NI ChernyR SullivanU Dafniet 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 2015;26:1547–73. 10.1093/annonc/mdv249 26026162

NI ChernyU DafniJ Bogaertset al ESMO-Magnitude of clinical benefit scale version 1.1. Ann Oncol 2017;28:2340–66. 10.1093/annonc/mdx310 28945867

N Daniels Accountability for Reasonableness. BMJ 2000;321:1300–1. 10.1136/bmj.321.7272.1300 11090498

N Daniels Decisions about access to health care and accountability for Reasonableness. J Urban Health 1999;76:176–91. 10.1007/BF02344674 10924028

U DafniD KarlisX Pedeliet al Detailed statistical assessment of the characteristics of the ESMO magnitude of clinical benefit scale (ESMO-MCBS) threshold rules. ESMO Open 2017;2:e000216 10.1136/esmoopen-2017-000216 29067214

A HammermanS Greenberg-DotanI Feldhameret al The ESMO-Magnitude of clinical benefit scale for novel oncology drugs: correspondence with three years of reimbursement decisions in Israel. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2018;18:119–22. 10.1080/14737167.2017.1343146 28617621

C WildN GrössmannPV Bonannoet al Utilisation of the ESMO-MCBS in practice of HTa: table 1. Ann Oncol 2016;27:2134–6. 10.1093/annonc/mdw297 27502718

RM StoneSJ MandrekarBL Sanfordet al Midostaurin plus chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia with a FLT3 mutation. N Engl J Med 2017;377:454–64. 10.1056/NEJMoa1614359 28644114

S CastaigneC PautasC Terréet al Effect of gemtuzumab ozogamicin on survival of adult patients with de-novo acute myeloid leukaemia (ALFA-0701): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. The Lancet 2012;379:1508–16. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60485-1

C RölligH ServeA Hüttmannet al Addition of sorafenib versus placebo to standard therapy in patients aged 60 years or younger with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukaemia (SORAML): a multicentre, phase 2, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2015;16:1691–9. 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00362-9 26549589

P FenauxGJ MuftiE Hellström-Lindberget al Azacitidine prolongs overall survival compared with conventional care regimens in elderly patients with low bone marrow blast count acute myeloid leukemia. JCO 2010;28:562–9. 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.8329

HM KantarjianXG ThomasA Dmoszynskaet al Multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III trial of decitabine versus patient choice, with physician advice, of either supportive care or low-dose cytarabine for the treatment of older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia. JCO 2012;30:2670–7. 10.1200/JCO.2011.38.9429

H DöhnerM LübbertW Fiedleret al Randomized, phase 2 trial of low-dose cytarabine with or without volasertib in AML patients not suitable for induction therapy. Blood 2014;124:1426–33. 10.1182/blood-2014-03-560557 25006120

EM SteinCD DiNardoDA Pollyeaet al Enasidenib in mutant IDH2 relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Blood 2017;130:722–31. 10.1182/blood-2017-04-779405 28588020

H KantarjianA SteinN Gökbugetet al Blinatumomab versus chemotherapy for advanced acute lymphoblastic leukemia. N Engl J Med 2017;376:836–47. 10.1056/NEJMoa1609783 28249141

MS ToppZ ZimmermanP Cannellet al Health-Related quality of life in adults with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated with blinatumomab. Blood 2018;131:2906–14. 10.1182/blood-2017-09-804658 29739753

HM KantarjianDJ DeAngeloM Stelljeset al Inotuzumab Ozogamicin versus standard therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia. N Engl J Med 2016;375:740–53. 10.1056/NEJMoa1509277 27292104

HM KantarjianY SuEJ Jabbouret al Patient-Reported outcomes from a phase 3 randomized controlled trial of inotuzumab ozogamicin versus standard therapy for relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Cancer 2018;124:2151–60. 10.1002/cncr.31317 29508899

E JabbourH KantarjianF Ravandiet al Combination of hyper-CVAD with ponatinib as first-line therapy for patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: a single-centre, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 2015;16:1547–55. 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00207-7 26432046

SL MaudeTW LaetschJ Buechneret al Tisagenlecleucel in children and young adults with B-cell lymphoblastic leukemia. N Engl J Med 2018;378:439–48. 10.1056/NEJMoa1709866 29385370

JE CortesD-W KimJ Pinilla-Ibarzet al A phase 2 trial of ponatinib in Philadelphia Chromosome–Positive leukemias. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1783–96. 10.1056/NEJMoa1306494 24180494

M HallekK FischerG Fingerle-Rowsonet al Addition of rituximab to fludarabine and cyclophosphamide in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. The Lancet 2010;376:1164–74. 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61381-5

K FischerJ BahloAM Finket al Long-Term remissions after FcR chemoimmunotherapy in previously untreated patients with CLL: updated results of the CLL8 trial. Blood 2016;127:208–15. 10.1182/blood-2015-06-651125 26486789

N KutschR BuschJ Bahloet al Fcr front-line therapy and quality of life in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma 2017;58:399–407. 10.1080/10428194.2016.1190966 27357445

B EichhorstA-M FinkJ Bahloet al First-Line chemoimmunotherapy with bendamustine and rituximab versus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab in patients with advanced chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL10): an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:928–42. 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30051-1 27216274

JA BurgerA TedeschiPM Barret al Ibrutinib as initial therapy for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med 2015;373:2425–37. 10.1056/NEJMoa1509388 26639149

T KippsP GhiaA Tedeschiet al Analysis of quality of life and well-being from the randomized phase 3 study of ibrutinib versus chlorambucil in older patients with treatment-naïve CLL (RESONATE-2TM). Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia 2016;16 10.1016/j.clml.2016.07.066

V GoedeK FischerR Buschet al Obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil in patients with CLL and coexisting conditions. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1101–10. 10.1056/NEJMoa1313984 24401022

JC ByrdJR BrownS O'Brienet al Ibrutinib versus ofatumumab in previously treated chronic lymphoid leukemia. N Engl J Med 2014;371:213–23. 10.1056/NEJMoa1400376 24881631

JR BrownP HillmenS O’Brienet al Extended follow-up and impact of high-risk prognostic factors from the phase 3 RESONATE study in patients with previously treated CLL/SLL. Leukemia 2018;32:83–91. 10.1038/leu.2017.175 28592889

JF SeymourTJ KippsB Eichhorstet al Venetoclax–Rituximab in relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med 2018;378:1107–20. 10.1056/NEJMoa1713976 29562156

S O'BrienJA JonesSE Coutreet al Ibrutinib for patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia with 17p deletion (RESONATE-17): a phase 2, open-label, multicentre study. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:1409–18. 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30212-1 27637985

S StilgenbauerB EichhorstJ Scheteliget al Venetoclax in relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia with 17p deletion: a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:768–78. 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30019-5 27178240

SG O'BrienF GuilhotRA Larsonet al Imatinib compared with interferon and low-dose cytarabine for newly diagnosed chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med 2003;348:994–1004. 10.1056/NEJMoa022457 12637609

EA HahnGA GlendenningMV Sorensenet al Quality of life in patients with newly diagnosed chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia on imatinib versus interferon alfa plus low-dose cytarabine: results from the iris study. JCO 2003;21:2138–46. 10.1200/JCO.2003.12.154

A HochhausRA LarsonF Guilhotet al Long-Term outcomes of imatinib treatment for chronic myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med 2017;376:917–27. 10.1056/NEJMoa1609324 28273028

G SaglioD-W KimS Issaragrisilet al Nilotinib versus imatinib for newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med 2010;362:2251–9. 10.1056/NEJMoa0912614 20525993

A HochhausG SaglioTP Hugheset al Long-Term benefits and risks of frontline nilotinib vs imatinib for chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase: 5-year update of the randomized ENESTnd trial. Leukemia 2016;30:1044–54. 10.1038/leu.2016.5 26837842

H KantarjianNP ShahA Hochhauset al Dasatinib versus imatinib in newly diagnosed chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med 2010;362:2260–70. 10.1056/NEJMoa1002315 20525995

JE CortesG SaglioHM Kantarjianet al Final 5-year study results of DASISION: the dasatinib versus imatinib study in treatment-naïve chronic myeloid leukemia patients trial. JCO 2016;34:2333–40. 10.1200/JCO.2015.64.8899

JE CortesC Gambacorti-PasseriniMW Deiningeret al Bosutinib versus imatinib for newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia: results from the randomized BFORE trial. JCO 2018;36:231–7. 10.1200/JCO.2017.74.7162

J GuilhotC PreudhommeFX Mahonet al Analyzing molecular response in chronic myeloid leukemia clinical trials: pitfalls and golden rules. Cancer 2015;121:490–7. 10.1002/cncr.29053 25346428

NCP CrossHE WhiteMC Mülleret al Standardized definitions of molecular response in chronic myeloid leukemia. Leukemia 2012;26:2172–5. 10.1038/leu.2012.104 22504141

R MarcusA DaviesK Andoet al Obinutuzumab for the first-line treatment of follicular lymphoma. N Engl J Med 2017;377:1331–44. 10.1056/NEJMoa1614598 28976863

T RobakH HuangJ Jinet al Bortezomib-based therapy for newly diagnosed mantle-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med 2015;372:944–53. 10.1056/NEJMoa1412096 25738670

T RobakJ JinH Pylypenkoet al Frontline bortezomib, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (VR-CAP) versus rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) in transplantation-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma: final overall survival results of a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol 2018;19:1449–58. 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30685-530348538

IW FlinnR van der JagtBS Kahlet al Randomized trial of bendamustine-rituximab or R-CHOP/R-CVP in first-line treatment of indolent NHL or MCL: the bright study. Blood 2014;123:2944–52. 10.1182/blood-2013-11-531327 24591201

JM BurkeRHC van der JagtBS Kahlet al Differences in quality of life between Bendamustine-Rituximab and R-CHOP/R-CVP in patients with previously untreated advanced indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma or mantle cell lymphoma. Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia 2016;16:182–90. 10.1016/j.clml.2016.01.001

MJ RummelN NiederleG Maschmeyeret al Bendamustine plus rituximab versus CHOP plus rituximab as first-line treatment for patients with indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. The Lancet 2013;381:1203–10. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61763-2

LH SehnN ChuaJ Mayeret al Obinutuzumab plus bendamustine versus bendamustine monotherapy in patients with rituximab-refractory indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (GADOLIN): a randomised, controlled, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:1081–93. 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30097-327345636

BD ChesonPC TraskJG Gribbenet al Health-Related quality of life and symptoms in patients with rituximab-refractory indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma treated in the phase III GADOLIN study with obinutuzumab plus bendamustine versus bendamustine alone. Ann Hematol 2017;96:253–9. 10.1007/s00277-016-2878-5 27900446

BD ChesonN ChuaJ Mayeret al Overall survival benefit in patients with Rituximab-Refractory indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma who received Obinutuzumab plus bendamustine induction and Obinutuzumab maintenance in the GADOLIN study. JCO 2018;36:2259–66. 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.3656

M DreylingW JurczakM Jerkemanet al Ibrutinib versus temsirolimus in patients with relapsed or refractory mantle-cell lymphoma: an international, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. The Lancet 2016;387:770–8. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00667-4

M TrněnýT LamyJ Walewskiet al Lenalidomide versus investigator's choice in relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL-002; sprint): a phase 2, randomised, multicentre trial. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:319–31. 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00559-8 26899778

ML WangS RuleP Martinet al Targeting Btk with ibrutinib in relapsed or refractory mantle-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med 2013;369:507–16. 10.1056/NEJMoa1306220 23782157

A NoyS de VosC Thieblemontet al Targeting Bruton tyrosine kinase with ibrutinib in relapsed/refractory marginal zone lymphoma. Blood 2017;129:2224–32. 10.1182/blood-2016-10-747345 28167659

AK GopalBS KahlS de Voset al Pi3Kδ inhibition by idelalisib in patients with relapsed indolent lymphoma. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1008–18. 10.1056/NEJMoa1314583 24450858

R ChenPL ZinzaniMA Fanaleet al Phase II study of the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab for relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma. JCO 2017;35:2125–32. 10.1200/JCO.2016.72.1316

A YounesA SantoroM Shippet al Nivolumab for classical Hodgkin's lymphoma after failure of both autologous stem-cell transplantation and brentuximab vedotin: a multicentre, multicohort, single-arm phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:1283–94. 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30167-X 27451390

P ArmandA EngertA Youneset al Nivolumab for relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma after failure of autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation: extended follow-up of the Multicohort single-arm phase II CheckMate 205 trial. JCO 2018;36:1428–39. 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.0793

M PfreundschuhL TrümperA Österborget al CHOP-like chemotherapy plus rituximab versus CHOP-like chemotherapy alone in young patients with good-prognosis diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma: a randomised controlled trial by the MabThera international trial (MINT) group. Lancet Oncol 2006;7:379–91. 10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70664-7 16648042

M PfreundschuhE KuhntL Trümperet al CHOP-like chemotherapy with or without rituximab in young patients with good-prognosis diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma: 6-year results of an open-label randomised study of the MabThera international trial (MINT) group. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:1013–22. 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70235-2 21940214

B CoiffierC ThieblemontE Van Den Nesteet al Long-Term outcome of patients in the LNH-98.5 trial, the first randomized study comparing rituximab-CHOP to standard CHOP chemotherapy in DLBCL patients: a study by the Groupe d'Etudes des Lymphomes de l'Adulte. Blood 2010;116:2040–5. 10.1182/blood-2010-03-276246 20548096

B CoiffierE LepageJ Brièreet al Chop chemotherapy plus rituximab compared with CHOP alone in elderly patients with diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med 2002;346:235–42. 10.1056/NEJMoa011795 11807147

C ThieblemontH TillyM Gomes da Silvaet al Lenalidomide maintenance compared with placebo in responding elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with first-line rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone. JCO 2017;35:2473–81. 10.1200/JCO.2017.72.6984

M CrumpJ KuruvillaS Coubanet al Randomized comparison of gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin versus dexamethasone, cytarabine, and cisplatin chemotherapy before autologous stem-cell transplantation for relapsed and refractory aggressive lymphomas: NCIC-CTG LY.12. JCO 2014;32:3490–6. 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.9593

R PettengellB CoiffierG Narayananet al Pixantrone dimaleate versus other chemotherapeutic agents as a single-agent salvage treatment in patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a phase 3, multicentre, open-label, randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 2012;13:696–706. 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70212-7 22652183

SS NeelapuFL LockeNL Bartlettet al Axicabtagene Ciloleucel CAR T-cell therapy in refractory large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med 2017;377:2531–44. 10.1056/NEJMoa1707447 29226797

SJ SchusterMR BishopCS Tamet al Tisagenlecleucel in adult relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med 2018.

MS CzuczmanM TrněnýA Davieset al A phase 2/3 multicenter, randomized, open-label study to compare the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide versus investigator's choice in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Clin Cancer Res 2017;23:4127–37. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-2818 28381416

SE AssoulineTH NielsenS Yuet al Phase 2 study of panobinostat with or without rituximab in relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood 2016;128:185–94. 10.1182/blood-2016-02-699520 27166360

ED JacobsenJP SharmanY Okiet al Brentuximab vedotin demonstrates objective responses in a phase 2 study of relapsed/refractory DLBCL with variable CD30 expression. Blood 2015;125:1394–402. 10.1182/blood-2014-09-598763 25573987

WH WilsonRM YoungR Schmitzet al Targeting B cell receptor signaling with ibrutinib in diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Nat Med 2015;21:922–6. 10.1038/nm.3884 26193343

L RosiñolA OriolAI Teruelet al Superiority of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTD) as induction pretransplantation therapy in multiple myeloma: a randomized phase 3 PETHEMA/GEM study. Blood 2012;120:1589–96. 10.1182/blood-2012-02-408922 22791289

M CavoP TacchettiF Patriarcaet al Bortezomib with thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared with thalidomide plus dexamethasone as induction therapy before, and consolidation therapy after, double autologous stem-cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a randomised phase 3 study. The Lancet 2010;376:2075–85. 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61424-9

EK MaiU BertschJ Düriget al Phase III trial of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (VCD) versus bortezomib, doxorubicin and dexamethasone (pad) in newly diagnosed myeloma. Leukemia 2015;29:1721–9. 10.1038/leu.2015.80 25787915

JF San MiguelR SchlagNK Khuagevaet al Persistent overall survival benefit and no increased risk of second malignancies with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone versus melphalan-prednisone in patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma. JCO 2013;31:448–55. 10.1200/JCO.2012.41.6180

JF San MiguelR SchlagNK Khuagevaet al Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2008;359:906–17. 10.1056/NEJMoa0801479 18753647

A PalumboS BringhenD Rossiet al Bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide followed by maintenance with bortezomib-thalidomide compared with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma: a randomized controlled trial. JCO 2010;28:5101–9. 10.1200/JCO.2010.29.8216

L BenboubkerMA DimopoulosA Dispenzieriet al Lenalidomide and dexamethasone in transplant-ineligible patients with myeloma. N Engl J Med 2014;371:906–17. 10.1056/NEJMoa1402551 25184863

M-V MateosMA DimopoulosM Cavoet al Daratumumab plus bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone for untreated myeloma. N Engl J Med 2018;378:518–28. 10.1056/NEJMoa1714678 29231133

BGM DurieA HoeringMH Abidiet al Bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma without intent for immediate autologous stem-cell transplant (SWOG S0777): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. The Lancet 2017;389:519–27. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31594-X

M DimopoulosA SpencerM Attalet al Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2123–32. 10.1056/NEJMoa070594 18032762

AK StewartSV RajkumarMA Dimopouloset al Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med Overseas Ed 2015;372:142–52. 10.1056/NEJMoa1411321

AK StewartMA DimopoulosT Massziet al Health-Related quality-of-life results from the open-label, randomized, phase III ASPIRE trial evaluating carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. JCO 2016;34:3921–30. 10.1200/JCO.2016.66.9648

P MoreauT MassziN Grzaskoet al Oral Ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2016;374:1621–34. 10.1056/NEJMoa1516282 27119237

MA DimopoulosA OriolH Nahiet al Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1319–31. 10.1056/NEJMoa1607751 27705267

MA DimopoulosS LonialKA Bettset al Elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: extended 4‐year follow‐up and analysis of relative progression‐free survival from the randomized ELOQUENT‐2 trial. Cancer 2018;124:4032–43. 10.1002/cncr.31680 30204239

S LonialM DimopoulosA Palumboet al Elotuzumab therapy for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2015;373:621–31. 10.1056/NEJMoa1505654 26035255

PG RichardsonP SonneveldM Schusteret al Extended follow-up of a phase 3 trial in relapsed multiple myeloma: final time-to-event results of the apex trial. Blood 2007;110:3557–60. 10.1182/blood-2006-08-036947 17690257

PG RichardsonP SonneveldMW Schusteret al Bortezomib or high-dose dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2005;352:2487–98. 10.1056/NEJMoa043445 15958804

MA DimopoulosH GoldschmidtR Niesvizkyet al Carfilzomib or bortezomib in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (endeavor): an interim overall survival analysis of an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:1327–37. 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30578-8 28843768

H LudwigP MoreauMA Dimopouloset al Health related quality of life results from the open-label, randomized, phase III endeavor trial evaluating carfilzomib and dexamethasone versus bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Blood 2016;128:3309 10.1182/blood.V128.22.3309.3309

A PalumboA Chanan-KhanK Weiselet al Daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2016;375:754–66. 10.1056/NEJMoa1606038 27557302

A SpencerS LentzschK Weiselet al Daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone versus bortezomib and dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: updated analysis of CASTOR. Haematologica 2018;103:2079–87. 10.3324/haematol.2018.194118 30237264

JF San-MiguelVTM HungriaS-S Yoonet al Panobinostat plus bortezomib and dexamethasone versus placebo plus bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:1195–206. 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70440-1 25242045

JS MiguelK WeiselP Moreauet al Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone versus high-dose dexamethasone alone for patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM-003): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2013;14:1055–66. 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70380-2 24007748

RC BazTG MartinH-Y Linet al Randomized multicenter phase 2 study of pomalidomide, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone in relapsed refractory myeloma. Blood 2016;127:2561–8. 10.1182/blood-2015-11-682518 26932802

S LonialBM WeissSZ Usmaniet al Daratumumab monotherapy in patients with treatment-refractory multiple myeloma (Sirius): an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial. The Lancet 2016;387:1551–60. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01120-4

HM LokhorstT PlesnerJP Laubachet al Targeting CD38 with Daratumumab monotherapy in multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2015;373:1207–19. 10.1056/NEJMoa1506348 26308596

A ChariA SuvannasankhaJW Fayet al Daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma. Blood 2017;130:974–81. 10.1182/blood-2017-05-785246 28637662

J PaludoJR MikhaelBR LaPlantet al Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma. Blood 2017;130:1198–204. 10.1182/blood-2017-05-782961 28684537

P FenauxGJ MuftiE Hellstrom-Lindberget al Efficacy of azacitidine compared with that of conventional care regimens in the treatment of higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes: a randomised, open-label, phase III study. Lancet Oncol 2009;10:223–32. 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70003-8 19230772

H KantarjianJ-PJ IssaCS Rosenfeldet al Decitabine improves patient outcomes in myelodysplastic syndromes: results of a phase III randomized study. Cancer 2006;106:1794–803. 10.1002/cncr.21792 16532500

P FenauxA GiagounidisD Selleslaget al A randomized phase 3 study of lenalidomide versus placebo in RBC transfusion-dependent patients with Low-/Intermediate-1-risk myelodysplastic syndromes with del5q. Blood 2011;118:3765–76. 10.1182/blood-2011-01-330126 21753188

V SantiniA AlmeidaA Giagounidiset al Randomized Phase III Study of Lenalidomide Versus Placebo in RBC Transfusion-Dependent Patients With Lower-Risk Non-del(5q) Myelodysplastic Syndromes and Ineligible for or Refractory to Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents. JCO 2016;34:2988–96. 10.1200/JCO.2015.66.0118

JR PasswegAAN GiagounidisM Simcocket al Immunosuppressive therapy for patients with myelodysplastic syndrome: a prospective randomized multicenter phase III trial comparing antithymocyte globulin plus cyclosporine with best supportive Care—SAKK 33/99. JCO 2011;29:303–9. 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.2686

PR FerriniA GrossiAM Vannucchiet al A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study with subcutaneous recombinant human erythropoietin in patients with low-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. Br J Haematol 1998;103:1070–4. 10.1046/j.1365-2141.1998.01085.x 9886322

E BalleariE RossiM Clavioet al Erythropoietin plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor is better than erythropoietin alone to treat anemia in low-risk myelodysplastic syndromes: results from a randomized single-centre study. Ann Hematol 2006;85:174–80. 10.1007/s00277-005-0044-6 16408206

PL GreenbergZ SunKB Milleret al Treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome patients with erythropoietin with or without granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: results of a prospective randomized phase 3 trial by the eastern cooperative Oncology Group (E1996). Blood 2009;114:2393–400. 10.1182/blood-2009-03-211797 19564636

N Casadevallet al Health, economic, and quality-of-life effects of erythropoietin and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes: a randomized, controlled trial. Blood 2004;104:321–7. 10.1182/blood-2003-07-2252 15054036

U PlatzbeckerA SymeonidisEN Olivaet al A phase 3 randomized placebo-controlled trial of darbepoetin alfa in patients with anemia and lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. Leukemia 2017;31:1944–50. 10.1038/leu.2017.192 28626220

European Hematology Association, author. . Available:. https://ehaweb.org/

[Back]

Table 1.

Feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for acute myeloid leukaemia (n=7)

Medication | Trial Name | Setting | Primary Outcome | PFS/EFS/ DFS Control | PFS/EFS/DFS Gain | PFS/EFS/DFS HR | OS Control | OS Gain | OS HR | RR (DOR) | QOL | Toxicity | ESMO-MCBS score | ESMO-MCBS form | Reference
SOC±midostaurin | RATIFY | Upfront, FLT3-mutated | OS | 15.5 months (DFS) | 11.2 months |  | 25.6 months | 49.1 months | 0.78 (0.63–0.96) |  |  |  | A | 1 | 10
SOC±gemtuzumab ozogamicin | ALFA-0701 | Upfront, 50–70 years | EFS | 17.1% 2 years | 23.7% | 0.58 (0.43–0.78) | 41.9% 2 years | 11.3% | 0.69 (0.49–0.98) Immature |  |  | Increased | A | 1 | 11
SOC±sorafenib (+maintenance) | SORAML | Upfront | EFS | 22% 3 years | 18% | 0.64 (0.45–0.91) | 56% 3 years | 7% | Immature |  |  | Slightly increased | A | 1 | 12
Azacitidine versus SOC | AZA-001 | Upfront elderly, low blast count | OS |  |  |  | 16 months | 8.5 months | 0.47 (0.28–0.79) |  |  | Benefit (+1 point) | 5 | 2a | 13
Decitabine versus SOC | DACO-016 | Upfront, elderly, intermediate/poor risk | OS |  |  |  | 5 months | 2.7 months | 0.82 (0.68–0.99) |  |  |  | 2 | 2a | 14
LDAC ±Volasertib |  | Upfront, unfit | ORR | 2.3 months EFS | 3.3 months | 0.57 (0.35–0.92) | 5.2 months | 2.8 months | 0.63 (0.40–1.00) | 31% vs 13%, gain 18% |  | Slightly increased | 3 | 2a | 15
Enasidenib |  | IDH2 mutated, relapsed/refractory | ORR |  |  |  | 3.3 months (historical) |  |  | 40.3% (5.8 months) |  |  | 2 | 3 | 16

Across all tables, in case there is reported information for multiple endpoints, the evaluated endpoint results are indicated with bold.

DFS, disease-free survival; DOR, duration of response; EFS, event-free survival;ESMO-MCBS v1.1, European Society for Medical Oncology—Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, version 1.1; FLT3, fms-like tyrosine kinase 3; IDH2, isocitrate dehydrogenase 2; LDAC, low-dose cytarabine; ORR, overall response rate; OS, overall survival;PFS, progression-free survival; QOL, quality of life; RR, response rate; SOC, standard of care.

[Back]

[Back]

Table 2.

Feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (n=5)

Medication
Trial name
Setting
Primary outcome
PFS/EFS control
PFS/EFS gain
PFS/EFS HR
OS control
OS gain
OS HR
RR (DOR)
QOL
Toxicity
ESMO-MCBS score
ESMO-MCBS form
Reference (s)

Blinatumomab versus SOC
TOWER
Relapsed/refractory
OS
12% EFS 6 months
19%
0.55 (0.43–0.71)
4 months
3.7 months
0.71 (0.55–0.93)
44% vs 25% CRR, gain 19%
Improved (+1 point)

5
2a
17 18

Inotuzumab ozogamicin versus SOC
INO-VATE
Relapsed/refractory
OS/CRR
1.8 months
3.2 months
0.45 (97.5% CI: 0.34 to 0.61)
6.7 months (10% gain in 2-year survival)
1 month (13% gain in 2-year survival)
0.77 (97.5% CI: 0.58 to 1.03) p=0.04
81% vs 29% CRR, gain 52%
Improved
Veno-occlusive disease 11% in experimental arm
4*
2a
19 20

Hyper-CVAD +ponatinib

Philadelphia chromosome-positive, upfront. Phase II single arm
EFS
81% 2 years EFS

80% 2 years

Not scoreable

21

CAR T-cell
tisagenlecleucel

Relapsed/refractory, age <21 years, single arm
ORR at 3 months

76% 1 year

81% ORR

>30% grade 3/4 cytokine release syndrome
3
3
22

Ponatinib
PACE
Philadelphia positive resistant to or side effects with dasatinib or nilotinib, or T315I mutation after TKI
Major haematological response within the first 6 months

7% at 12 months

40% at 12 months

Major haematological response: 41%
(3 months)

2
3
23

*Based on >10% increase in 2 years of OS improvement.

CAR T- cell, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy; CRR, complete remission rate; DOR, duration of response; EFS, event-free survival;ESMO-MCBS v1.1, European Society for Medical Oncology—Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, version 1.1; Hyper-CVAD, hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin and dexamethasone; ORR, overall response rate; OS, overall survival;PFS, progression-free survival; QOL, quality of life; RR, response rate; SOC, standard of care; TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

[Back]

[Back]

Table 3.

Feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (n=8)

Medication
Trial name
Setting
Primary outcome
PFS control
PFS gain
PFS HR
OS control
OS gain
OS HR
RR
QOL
Toxicity
ESMO-MCBS score
ESMO-MCBS form
Reference(s)

FC±R
CLL8
Upfront, chemofit
PFS
32.9 months
23.9 months
0.59 (0.50–0.69)
86 months (66.9% 5 years)
>10% gain at 5 years
0.68 (0.54–0.89)

No difference
Increased
4
2a
24–26

FC-R versus
R-bendamustine
CLL10
Upfront, focus elderly subgroup >65 years
Non- inferiority in PFS
55.2 months
−13.5 months
Non-inferiority not met neither overall, nor in the >65 years post hoc subgroup

Not significant

Less toxicity in experimental arm
Not significant, not eligible for scoring
2c
27

Ibrutinib versus
chlorambucil
RESONATE-2
Upfront elderly
PFS
18.9 months
8 months
0.16 (0.09–0.28)
85% at 24 months
13%
0.16 (0.05–0.56) Immature

Improved (abstract only)

3
2b
28 29

Obinutuzumab±
chlorambucil
CLL11
Upfront elderly not eligible for fludarabine
PFS
11.1 months
15.6 months
0.18 (0.13–0.24)
NR
NA
0.41 (0.23–0.74) Immature

Increased but not meeting criteria for downgrading
3
2b
30

Ibrutinib versus ofatumumab
RESONATE
Relapsed/refractory (cross-over allowed)
PFS
8.1 months
4+ months
0.11 (0.08–0.15)
81% at 12 months
9% at 12 months
0.43 (0.24–0.79) Immature

Pending
>10% SAE increase (−1 point)
3
2b
31 32

(>10% gain at 12 months with plateau)

R-Venetoclax versus R-bendamustine
MURANO
Relapsed/refractory
PFS
17 months
6+ months
0.17 (0.11–0.25)
87% at 24 months
5.30%
0.48 (0.25–0.90) Immature

4
2b
33

(>10% gain at 12 months with plateau)

Ibrutinib
RESONATE-17
Relapsed/refractory with del17p
ORR
63% at 24 months

75% at 24 months

64%

No new safety flags
3
3
34

Venetoclax
M13-982
Relapsed/refractory with del17p
ORR
72% at 12 months

87% at 12 months

79%

No new safety flags
3
3
35

del17p, 17 p deletion;ESMO-MCBS v1.1, European Society for Medical Oncology—Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, version 1.1; FC, fludarabine, cyclophosphamide; NA, not applicable; NR, not reached; ORR, overall response rate; OS, overall survival;PFS, progression-free survival; QOL, quality of life; R, rituximab; RR, response rate; SAE, serious adverse event.

[Back]

[Back]

Table 4.

Feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for chronic myeloid leukaemia (n=4)

Medication | Trial name | Setting | Primary outcome | EFS/PFS control | EFS/PFS gain | PFS/ EFS HR | OS control | OS gain | OS HR | Major CytRR/ MMR | Complete CytRR | MMR | MR4 | MR4.5 | QOL | Toxicity | ESMO-MCBS score | ESMO-MCBS form | Reference(s)
Imatinib versus interferon/cytarabine | IRIS | Newly diagnosed chronic phase (cross-over allowed) | Initial: PFS/EFS long term: OS |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Improved | Less toxicity |  |  | 36–38
18 months PFS | 73.5% | 18.6% |  |  |  |  | 87% vs 35%, gain 52% | 76% vs 15%, gain 62% |  |  |  | C/2 | 1/2 c
10 years EFS | 56.6% | 23% |  | 78.8% | 4.5% | 0.74 (0.56–0.99) |  |  |  |  |  | B/2 | 1/2 c
Nilotinib 600 or 800 mg versus imatinib | ENESTnd | Newly diagnosed chronic phase | Initial primary: MMR at 12 months, secondary: complete cytRR |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | More cardiovasc. events for nilotinib 800 mg |  |  | 39 40
12 months 600 mg |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 80% vs 65%, gain 15% | 44% vs 22%, gain 22% |  |  | 2 | 2c
12 months 800 mg |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 78% vs 65%, gain 13% | 43% vs 22%, gain 21% |  |  | 2 | 2c
5 years 600 mg | 92.6% | 2.4% | NS | 91.7% | 2.0% | NS |  |  | 77% vs 60%, gain 17% | 66% vs 42%, gain 24% | 54% vs 31%, gain 22% | 2 | 2c
5 years 800 mg | 4.3% | 0.37 (0.15–0.88) | 4.5% | 0.44 (0.21–0.93) |  |  | 63% vs 42%, gain 21% | 52% vs 31%, gain 21% | 2 | 2c
Dasatinib versus imatinib | DASISION | Newly diagnosed chronic phase | Complete cytRR |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 41 42
12 months |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 77% vs 66%, gain 11% | 46% vs 28%, gain 18% |  |  | 1 | 2c
5 years |  |  |  | 90% | 1% | NS |  |  | 76% vs 64%, gain 12% | 42% vs 33%, gain 9% |
Bosutinib versus imatinib | BFORE | Newly diagnosed chronic phase | MMR at 12 months |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 77% vs 66%, gain 11% | 47% vs 37%, gain 10% |  |  | 1 | 2c | 43

cardiovasc., cardiovascular; CytRR, cytogenetic response rate;EFS, event-free survival;ESMO-MCBS v1.1, European Society for Medical Oncology—Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, version 1.1; MMR, major molecular response; MR, molecular response; NS, not significant; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; QOL, quality of life.

[Back]

[Back]

Table 5.

Feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for indolent non-Hodgkin and relapsed/refractory setting of non-DLBCL and Hodgkin’s lymphoma (n=12)

Medication
Trial name
Setting
Primary outcome
PFS control
PFS gain
PFS HR
OS control
OS gain
OS HR
RR (DOR)
QOL
Toxicity
ESMO-MCBS score
ESMO-MCBS form
Reference(s)

Obinutuzumab-Chemo versus R-Chemo
GALLIUM
Follicular lymphoma, first line
PFS
73%
(3 years)
7%
0.66 (0.51–0.85)

Not scoreable
2b
46

VR-CAP versus R-CHOP
LYM-3002
Mantle cell lymphoma first line, not eligible for transplant
PFS
14.4 months
10.3 months
0.63 (0.5–0.79)
55.7 months
35 months
(7 year survival gain >5% with plateau)
0.66 (0.51–0.85)

Increased in experimental arm
A/4
1/2a
47 48

R-Bendamustine versus R-CHOP/R-CVP
BRIGHT study
Indolent and mantle cell lymphoma, first line
Non-inferiority in CRR (margin: 0.88)

Non-inferiority met
1.26 (0.93–1.73)
31% versus 25%, 6% gain
Improved

Not scoreable
2c
49 50

R-Bendamustine versus R-CHOP
STiL Trial NHL 1-2003
Indolent and mantle cell lymphoma, first line
Non-inferiority in PFS (margin: 1.32)
31.2 months
38.3 months
0.58 (0.44–0.74)
Non-inferiority met

Less adverse events in experimental arm
4
2c
51

Bendamustine±
Obinutuzumab
GADOLIN
Rituximab-refractory indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
PFS
14.9 months
NA
0.55 (0.40–0.74)
NR
>10% at 5 years
0.67 (0.47–0.96)

Delayed deterioration in QOL

5
2a
52–54

Ibrutinib versus Temsirolimus

Relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma
PFS
6.2 months
8.4 months
0.43 (0.32–0.58)

Improved (+1 point)

4
2b
55

Lenalidomide versus Investigator’s choice
MCL-002 SPRINT
Relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma
PFS
5.2 months
3.5 months
0.61 (0.44–0.84)

Improved (+1 point)

4
2b
56

Ibrutinib
PCYC-1104-CA
Relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma
ORR
13.9 months

68%

3
3
57

Ibrutinib

Relapsed/refractory marginal zone lymphoma
ORR
14.2 months

48%

Relevant toxicity but not meeting criteria for downgrading
3
3
58

Idealisib
DELTA (101-09)
Relapsed/refractory indolent lymphoma
ORR
11 months

57% (12.5 months)

3
3
59

Pembrolizumab
KEYNOTE-
087
Relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma
ORR

69%
Improved (+1 point)

4
3
60

Nivolumab
Check
Mate 205
Relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma
ORR
14.7 months

69%
Improved (+1 point)

4
3
61 62

chemo, chemotherapy; CRR, complete response rate;DLBCL, non-diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; DOR, duration of response;ESMO-MCBS v1.1, European Society for Medical Oncology—Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, version 1.1; NA, not applicable; NR, not reached; ORR, overall response rate; OS, overall survival;PFS, progression-free survival; QOL, quality of life; R, rituximab; R-CHOP, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone; R-CVP, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisone; RR, response rate; VR-CAP, bortezomib, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and prednisone.

[Back]

[Back]

Table 6.

Feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for DLBCL (n=11)

Medication
Trial name
Setting
Primary outcome
PFS/EFS/DFS control
PFS/EFS/DFS gain
PFS/EFS/DFS HR
OS control
OS gain
OS HR
RR (DOR)
QOL
Toxicity
ESMO-MCBS score
ESMO-MCBS form
Reference(s)

CHOP±R
MInT study
First-line DLBCL, stage II–IV or I with bulky disease, IPI 0–1
EFS
55.8% (6 years)
18.5%
p<0.0001
80% (6 years)
10.1%
p=0.0004

A
1
63 64

CHOP±R
LNH-98.5
First-line DLBCL, stage II–IV, age 60–80
PFS
20% at 10 years
16.5%
p<0.0001
27.6% (10 years)
15.9%
p<0.0001

A
1
65 66

EFS
38% at 2 years
19%
p<0.001

R-CHOP ±lenalidomide
maintenance
REMARC
First-line DLBCL, stage II–IV, age 60–80
PFS
58.9 months
4+ months
0.71 (0.54–0.93)

NS

A/3
1/2b
67

R-GDP+ASCT 
versus R-DHAP
+ASCT
NCIC-CTG LY12
Relapsed/refractory aggressive lymphoma
Non- inferiority (ORR) (margin: −10%)

No difference

No difference
ORR difference: −1.2 (-9, 6.7)
44% vs 45% (non- inferiority met)
Improved

B/not scoreable
1/2 c
68

Pixantrone versus investigators’ choice

Relapsed/refractory aggressive lymphoma
CRR
2.6 months
2.7 months
0.60 (0.42–0.86)

20% vs 6%, gain 14%

3
2b
69

>10% gain at 12 months, no plateau

CAR T-cell Axicabtagene ciloleucel
ZUMA-1
Relapsed/refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
ORR

82%

Toxicity but not meeting criteria for downgrading
3
3
70

CAR T-cell Tisagen-lecleucel
JULIET
Relapsed/refractory DLBCL
ORR

52% (not reached, >10 months)

Toxicity not meeting criteria for downgrading
3
3
71

Lenalidomide versus investigators’ choice
DLC-001
Relapsed/refractory DLBCL
ORR
 2 months
 1.4 months
0.64 (0.41–0.99)

28% vs 12%, gain 16%

More PFS-improvement in ABC subtype
2
2b
72

Panobinostat with or without R

Relapsed/refractory DLBCL
ORR

28% (15 months)

3
3
73

Brentuximab vedotin

Relapsed/refractory DLBCL
ORR
4 months

44%

2
3
74

Ibrutinib

Relapsed/refractory DLBCL, subgroup ABC subtype
ORR
2 months

37% (4.8 months)

1
3
75

ASCT, autologous stem cell transplantation; CART- cell, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy; CHOP, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone; CRR, complete response rate; DFS, disease-free survival; DLBCL, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; DOR, duration of response; EFS, event-free survival;ESMO-MCBS v1.1, European Society for Medical Oncology—Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, version 1.1; IPI, International Prognostic Index; NS, not significant; ORR, overall response rate; OS, overall survival;PFS, progression-free survival; QOL, quality of life;R-CHOP, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone; R-DHAP, rituximab, dexamethasone, cytarabine and cisplatin; R-GDP, rituximab, gemcitabine, dexamethasone and cisplatin; RR, response rate.

[Back]

[Back]

Table 7.

Feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for first-line multiple myeloma (n=8)

Medication
Trial name
Setting
Primary outcome
PFS/DFS control
PFS/DFS gain
PFS/DFS HR
OS control
OS gain
OS HR
RR
QOL
Toxicity
ESMO-MCBS score
ESMO-MCBS form
Reference(s)

VTD versus TD or VBMCP/VBAD/B
GEM2005-less65 PETHEMA/GEM
ASCT eligible
CR post ASCT (PFS)

More neuropathy but not meeting criteria for downgrading

1/2b
76

TD
28.2 months
28.0 months
p=0.01
65% at 4 years
9%
NS
CRR 46% vs 24%, gain 22%
C/not scoreable

VBMCP/VBAD/B
35.3 months
20.9 months
p=0.01
70% at 4 years
4%
NS
CRR 46% vs 38%, gain 8%
NEB/not scoreable

VTD versus TD
GIMEMA 2005
ASCT eligible
CR post induction (PFS)
56% at 3 years
12%
0.63 (0.45–0.88)
84% at 3 years
2%
NS
(near) CRR 31% vs 11%, gain 20%

More neuropathy but not meeting criteria for downgrading
C/not scoreable
1/2b
77

VCD versus PAD
MM5
ASCT eligible
Non-inferiority of ≥VGPR rates
(margin: −10%)

VGPR difference: 2.8%
(−6.8% to 12.3%) non-inferiority met

SAEs higher in the control arm
Not scoreable
1/2 c
78

VMP versus MP
VISTA
ASCT ineligible
TTP
16.6 months
7.4 months
0.48
(p<0.001)
43.1 months
13 months
0.70 (0.57–0.85)

4
2a
79 80

VMPT versus VMP
GIMEMA VMPT
ASCT ineligible
PFS
27 months 41% at 3 years
>13 months 15%
0.67 (0.50–0.90)
87% at 3 years
2%
NS

–
Vascular and cardiac events increased in experimental arm (−1 point)
2
2b
81

Lenalidomide-d continuous versus x18 or MPT x12
FIRST
ASCT ineligible
PFS

82

Len-d x18
20.7 months
4.8 months
0.70 (0.60–0.82)
56% at 4 years
3% gain at 4 years
NS
3
2b

MPT
21.2 months
4.3 months
0.72 (0.61–0.85)
47 months
51% at 4 years
7 months
8% gain at 4 years
0.78 (0.64–0.96)
4
2a

VMP ±daratumumab
ALCYONE
ASCT ineligible
PFS
18 months
50% at 18 months
9+ months
21% at 18 months
0.50 (0.38–0.65)

More infections but not meeting criteria for penalty
3
2b
83

Lenalidomide-d ±bortezomib
SWOG S07777
ASCT ineligible
PFS
30 months
13 months
0.71 (0.56–0.91)
64 months
11 months
0.71 (0.52–0.96)

Slightly increased
4
2a
84

ASCT, autologous stem cell transplantation; CR, complete remission; CRR, complete remission rate; d, dexamethasone; DFS, disease-free survival;ESMO-MCBS v1.1, European Society for Medical Oncology—Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, version 1.1; Len-d, lenalidomide-d; MP, melphalan and prednisone; MPT, melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide; NEB, no evaluable benefit; NS, not significant; OS, overall survival; PAD, bortezomib, doxorubicin, dexamethasone;PFS, progression-free survival; QOL, quality of life; RR, response rate; SAE, serious adverse event; TD, thalidomide and dexamethasone; TTP, time to progression; VBMCP/VBAD/B, vincristine, BCNU, melphalan, cyclophosphamide, prednisone/vincristine, BCNU, doxorubicin, dexamethasone/bortezomib; VCD, bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone; VGPR, very good partial response rate; VMP, bortezomib, melphalan and prednisone; VMPT, bortezomib, melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide; VTD, bortezomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone.

[Back]

[Back]

Table 8.

Feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (n=15)

Medication
Trial name
Setting
Primary outcome
PFS control
PFS gain
PFS HR
OS control
OS gain
OS HR
RR (DOR)
QOL
Toxicity
ESMO-MCBS score
ESMO-MCBS form
Reference(s)

Dexamethasone ±lenalidomide
CC-5013- MM-010
Relapsed/refractory
TTP
4.7 months
6.6 months
0.35 (0.27–0.46)
20.6 months
NA
0.66 (0.45–0.96)

3
2b
85

Lenalidomide-d ±carfilzomib
ASPIRE
Relapsed/refractory
PFS
17.6 months
8.7 months
0.69 (0.57–0.83)
40.4 months
7.9 months
0.79 (0.67–0.95)

Improved (+1 point)
Slightly increased
4
2a
86 87

Lenalidomide-d ±ixazomib
TOURMALINE-MM1
Relapsed/refractory
PFS (interim)
14.7 months
5.9 months
0.74 (0.59–0.94)

Immature

Not improved

3
2b
88

Lenalidomide-d ±daratumumab
POLLUX
Relapsed/refractory
PFS (interim)
18.4 months
16+months
0.37 (0.27–0.52)

Immature

Higher haematological toxicities
3
2b
89

Lenalidomide-d ±elotuzumab
ELOQUENT-2
Relapsed/refractory
Coprimary PFS and ORR (interim)
14.9 months 57% at 12 months
4.5 months 11% at 12 months
0.70 (0.57–0.85)
39.6 months
8.7 months
0.78 (0.63–0.96)

No difference
Slightly higher SAEs
3
2a
90 91

Dexamethasone ±bortezomib
APEX
Relapsed/refractory
TTP
3.5 months
2.7 months
0.55 (p=0.001)
23.7 months
6.1 months
0.77 (p=0.027)

3
2b
92 93

Carfilzomib-d versus bortezomib-d
ENDEAVOR
Relapsed/refractory
PFS
9.4 months
9.3 months
0.53 (0.44–0.65)
40 months
7.6 months
0.79 (0.65–0.96)

Improved (abstract only)
Slightly higher SAEs
3
2a
94 95

Bortezomib-d ±daratumumab
CASTOR
Relapsed/refractory
PFS
7.1 months 26.9% at 12 months
9.6 months 33.8% at 12 months
0.31 (0.24–0.39)

Immature

Higher haematological toxicity
3
2b
96 97

Bortezomib-d ±panobinostat
PANORAMA1
Relapsed/refractory
PFS
8.1 months
3.9 months
0.63 (0.52–0.76)
30.4 months
3.25 months
Immature

3% increase in PN grade ≥3
(−1 point)
2
2b
98

Dexamethasone ±pomalidomide
MM-003
Relapsed/refractory
PFS
1.9 months
2.1 months
0.48 (0.39–0.60)
8.1 months
4.6 months
0.74 (0.56–0.97)

4
2a
99

Pomalidomide-d ±cyclophosphamide
MMC-16705
Relapsed/refractory ≥2 prior lines of treatment
ORR
4.4 months
5.1 months
NS

64.7% vs 38.9%, gain 25.8%

2
2c
100

Daratumumab
SIRIUS
Relapsed/refractory
ORR
3.7 months

29% (7.4 months)

2
3
101

Daratumumab
GEN501
Relapsed/refractory (16 mg/kg)
Safety
5.6 months

36% (NR)

2
3
102

Daratumumab +pomalidomide + d
MMY1001
Relapsed/refractory ≥2 prior lines of treatment
Safety
8.8 months

17.5 months

60% (>13 months)

3
3
103

Pomalidomide +bortezomib + d
MC1082
Relapsed/refractory
ORR
13.7 months

86%

3
3
104

d, dexamethasone; DOR, duration of response;ESMO-MCBS v1.1, European Society for Medical Oncology—Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, version 1.1; NA, not applicable;NR, not reached; NS, not significant; ORR, overall response rate; OS, overall survival;PFS, progression-free survival; PN, polyneuropathy; QOL, quality of life; RR, response rate; SAEs, serious adverse events; TTP, time to progress.

[Back]

[Back]

Table 9.

Feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for myelodysplastic syndrome (n=10)

Medication | Trial name | Setting | Primary outcome | PFS control | PFS gain | PFS HR | OS control | OS gain | OS HR | RR (DOR) | QOL | Toxicity | ESMO-MCBS score | ESMO-MCBS form | Reference
Azacitidine versus SOC | AZA-MDS-001 | High-risk MDS | OS |  |  |  | 15 months | 9.5 months | 0.58 (0.43–0.77) |  |  |  | 4 | 2a | 105
Decitabine versus SOC |  | MDS FAB (IPSS ≥0.5) | Coprimary ORR and PFS | 7.8 months | 4.3 months | 0.58 (0.37–0.91) |  |  |  |  | Improved (+1 point) |  | 4 | 2b | 106
Lenalidomide (10 mg/5 mg) versus SOC | LEN-MDS-004 | Transfusion-dependent patients with low-risk/intermediate-risk MDS del5q (IPSS ≤1) | RR (RBC-TI) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 107
10 mg |  |  |  |  |  |  | 56% vs 6%, gain 50% |  |  | 2 | 2c
5 mg |  |  |  |  |  |  | 43% vs 6%, gain 37% |  |  | 2 | 2c
Lenalidomide versus SOC | LEN-MDS-005 | MDS-WHO (IPSS ≤1) | RR (RBC-TI at ≥8 weeks) |  |  |  |  |  |  | 26.9% vs 2.5%, gain 24.4% | Improved |  | 2 | 2c | 108
Antithymocyte globulin versus SOC | SAKK 33/99 | MDS <10% bone marrow blasts | RR at 6 months |  |  |  |  |  |  | 29% vs 9%, gain 20% |  |  | 2 | 2c | 109
rHuEPO versus SOC | ICSG | MDS <10% bone marrow blasts | RR (TI) |  |  |  |  |  |  | 37% vs 11%, gain 26% |  |  | 2 | 2c | 110
rHuEPO versus ±GCSF |  | MDS-FAB (IPSS ≤0.5) | RR (TI) |  |  |  |  |  |  | 73% vs 40%, gain 33% |  |  | 2 | 2c | 111
EPO versus SOC | E1996 | MDS <10% bone marrow blasts | RR (IWG 2000 modified) |  |  |  |  |  |  | 36% vs 10%, gain 26% |  |  | 2 | 2c | 112
rHuEPO +GCSF versus SOC | GFM | MDS <10% bone marrow blasts | RR (IWG 2006 stringently modified) |  |  |  |  |  |  | 42% vs 0%, gain 42% |  |  | 2 | 2c | 113
Darbepoetin versus SOC |  | MDS-WHO IPSS ≤1 | RBC transfusion incidence |  |  |  |  |  |  | 59% vs 36%, gain 23% |  |  | 2 | 2c | 114

del5q, 5 q deletion; DOR, duration of response;ESMO-MCBS v1.1, European Society for Medical Oncology—Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, version 1.1; FAB, French–American–British classification for MDS; GCS-F, granulocyte-stimulating factor; IPSS, International Prognostic Scoring System; IWG, International Working Group; MDS, myelodysplastic syndrome;ORR, overall response rate; OS, overall survival;PFS, progression-free survival; QOL, quality of life; RBC-TI, red blood cell transfusion independency; rHuEPO, recombinant human erythropoietin; RR, response rate; SOC, standard of care; TI, transfusion independency.

[Back]