As researchers and physicians make strides in the fight against cancer, biosimilars are increasingly playing an important role in the oncology space. Although new innovations in treatment, particularly biologics, have helped innumerable cancer patients, the price tag on these therapies is often high. Biosimilars, which are designed to closely emulate reference biologics with patents that have expired, offer a more affordable alternative for what is effectively the same treatment.
Oncology biosimilars also represent a significant opportunity for sponsors. Although biosimilars are typically priced lower than reference biologics, they also cost less to develop, with a preestablished mechanism of action and an abbreviated clinical trial process. Additionally, in some cases oncology biosimilars have earned a significant percentage of the market share and have overtaken the reference product — for example, in Q3 of 2024, biosimilars made up 90% of the market for the multi-cancer drug bevacizumab.1 For sponsors entering the oncology biosimilar space, there are several distinguishing considerations for clinical development, including the clinical pathway, study design and patient selection and recruitment.
Understanding a unique clinical pathway
In the European Union (EU) and the United States (US), biosimilars have different clinical development requirements than novel biologics. Because the reference biologic has already proven its benefit to patients and established safe and effective dosages, it would be redundant for a biosimilar sponsor to conduct clinical trials the same way. Instead, clinical evidence for a biosimilar must primarily establish its comparability with the reference product, illustrating effective biosimilar interchangeability.
The typical process includes the following components:
- Analytical studies, which assess factors such as structure and manufacturing process, and demonstrate that a biosimilar’s characterisation is highly similar to that of the reference product
- Preclinical studies, which focus on pharmacokinetic (PK), pharmacodynamic (PD) and toxicology data, primarily in vitro
- Pharmacokinetic sub-studies, which collect in-human PK/PD profiling and safety data
- Comparative clinical studies, which assess the biosimilar’s efficacy and immunogenicity
- Post-market safety monitoring, which gathers information about adverse events over long-term usage of a therapy
Notably, some regulatory bodies, including those in the US and EU, have begun reevaluating whether all of these components are necessary in all cases. In particular, the value of comparative clinical studies has been called into question. Specifically, regulators point out that the extensive analytical and PK/PD requirements can often demonstrate biosimilarity with high confidence, reducing the need — and ethical burden — of large patient trials2.
Creating an appropriate study design
Designing clinical studies for oncology biosimilars takes a distinct approach from novel biologics. This becomes evident in endpoint selection. Typically, oncology clinical trials select survival as an endpoint; however, confounding factors — such as tumour burden, disease status, or previous therapy — may make survival an inappropriate endpoint for biosimilars.3 Instead, oncology biosimilar studies should consider response rate endpoints, which measure the activity of the product, or even include novel endpoints that may contribute to establishing comparability with the reference biologic.
Additionally, for comparative clinical studies, parameters should be constructed specifically to demonstrate that there are no clinically meaningful differences between the biosimilar and its reference product. This means showing an equivalency of clinical effect within a margin of error, or similarity margin, which is based on an estimate of the treatment effect size of the reference product in terms of the comparative study’s primary endpoint.4 Isolating the effect of the reference product may be challenging for oncology drugs — which are often given in combination with other therapies — especially in cases in which a product has few publicly available historical randomised studies.
Anticipating patient selection and recruiting challenges
There are several unique challenges that oncology biosimilars face as they enter clinical trials. One of these is participant selection. For example, PK studies typically enrol healthy volunteers, and the relative homogeneity of this group is typically considered preferable for early in-human studies. However, in the case of oncology, healthy subjects may not reflect certain qualities that influence the results of PK/PD studies, such as the binding of a drug to its pharmacological target site (also referred to as target-mediated drug disposition). And, if the comparability is still in question after studying healthy volunteers, it may be necessary to conduct randomised trials with oncology patients to demonstrate tumour response.
Recruiting patients can also be difficult. In areas where the reference biologic has already been approved, there can be little incentive for cancer patients to participate in clinical trials for biosimilars. Furthermore, if patients are not familiar with the concept of biosimilars, such treatments might be viewed as risky — particularly in the case of a life-threatening illness such as cancer. As a result, it may be beneficial for clinical trial recruitment to focus on regions in which the reference biologic is difficult to access, for example due to a lack of reimbursement.
Preparing for biosimilar development
Oncology biosimilars present unique potential and distinct challenges to sponsors. The specific needs of oncology clinical trials, alongside the distinct clinical pathway for biosimilars, mean that developing these treatments must be approached very differently from novel biologic development. Knowing what to expect from the development process enables preparation and, ultimately, a greater likelihood of success.
The field of oncology biosimilars is rapidly evolving across multiple axes, requiring a forward-looking perspective. To explore the future of oncology biosimilars, including the patent and market landscape; current regulatory requirements and likely regulatory shifts; and considerations for drug modalities and post-market monitoring, read ICON’s whitepaper, “The future of oncology biosimilars: Considerations for development through 2040.”
Sources:
1“Biosimilars Drive Cost Savings and Achieve 53% Market Share Across Treatment Areas.” Center for Biosimilars, 16 Jan. 2025, https://www.centerforbiosimilars.com/view/biosimilars-drive-cost-savings-and-achieve-53-market-share-across-treatment-areas.
2Reflection Paper on a Tailored Clinical Approach in Biosimilar Development | European Medicines Agency (EMA). 1 Apr. 2025, https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/reflection-paper-tailored-clinical-approach-biosimilardevelopment.
3Socinski, Mark A., et al. “Clinical Considerations for the Development of Biosimilars in Oncology.” MAbs, vol. 7, no. 2, Jan. 2015, pp. 286–93, https://doi.org/10.1080/19420862.2015.1008346.
4He, Kun, et al. “Statistical Considerations in Evaluating a Biosimilar Product in an Oncology Clinical Study.” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 22, no. 21, Nov. 2016, pp. 5167–70, https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-1010.
In this section
-
Digital Disruption
-
Clinical strategies to optimise SaMD for treating mental health
-
Digital Disruption: Surveying the industry's evolving landscape
- AI and clinical trials
-
Clinical trial data anonymisation and data sharing
-
Clinical Trial Tokenisation
-
Closing the evidence gap: The value of digital health technologies in supporting drug reimbursement decisions
-
Digital disruption in biopharma
-
Disruptive Innovation
- Remote Patient Monitoring
-
Personalising Digital Health
- Real World Data
-
The triad of trust: Navigating real-world healthcare data integration
-
Decoding AI in software as a medical device (SaMD)
-
Software as a medical device (SaMD)
-
Clinical strategies to optimise SaMD for treating mental health
-
Patient Centricity
-
Agile Clinical Monitoring
-
Capturing the voice of the patient in clinical trials
-
Charting the Managed Access Program Landscape
-
Developing Nurse-Centric Medical Communications
- Representation and inclusion in clinical trials
-
Exploring the patient perspective from different angles
-
Patient safety and pharmacovigilance
-
A guide to safety data migrations
-
Taking safety reporting to the next level with automation
-
Outsourced Pharmacovigilance Affiliate Solution
-
The evolution of the Pharmacovigilance System Master File: Benefits, challenges, and opportunities
-
Sponsor and CRO pharmacovigilance and safety alliances
-
Understanding the Periodic Benefit-Risk Evaluation Report
-
A guide to safety data migrations
-
Patient voice survey
-
Patient Voice Survey - Decentralised and Hybrid Trials
-
Reimagining Patient-Centricity with the Internet of Medical Things (IoMT)
-
Using longitudinal qualitative research to capture the patient voice
-
Prioritising patient-centred research for regulatory approval
-
Agile Clinical Monitoring
-
Regulatory Intelligence
-
An innovative approach to rare disease clinical development
- EU Clinical Trials Regulation
-
Using innovative tools and lean writing processes to accelerate regulatory document writing
-
Current overview of data sharing within clinical trial transparency
-
Global Agency Meetings: A collaborative approach to drug development
-
Keeping the end in mind: key considerations for creating plain language summaries
-
Navigating orphan drug development from early phase to marketing authorisation
-
Procedural and regulatory know-how for China biotechs in the EU
-
RACE for Children Act
-
Early engagement and regulatory considerations for biotech
-
Regulatory Intelligence Newsletter
-
Requirements & strategy considerations within clinical trial transparency
-
Spotlight on regulatory reforms in China
-
Demystifying EU CTR, MDR and IVDR
-
Transfer of marketing authorisation
-
Exploring FDA guidance for modern Data Monitoring Committees
-
Streamlining dossier preparation
-
An innovative approach to rare disease clinical development
-
Therapeutics insights
-
Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders
- Cardiovascular
- Cell and Gene Therapies
-
Central Nervous System
-
A mind for digital therapeutics
-
Challenges and opportunities in traumatic brain injury clinical trials
-
Challenges and opportunities in Parkinson’s Disease clinical trials
-
Early, precise and efficient; the methods and technologies advancing Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s R&D
-
Key Considerations in Chronic Pain Clinical Trials
-
ICON survey report: CNS therapeutic development
-
A mind for digital therapeutics
-
Glycomics
- Infectious Diseases
- NASH
- Obesity
- Oncology
- Paediatrics
-
Respiratory
-
Rare and orphan diseases
-
Advanced therapies for rare diseases
-
Cross-border enrollment of rare disease patients
-
Crossing the finish line: Why effective participation support strategy is critical to trial efficiency and success in rare diseases
-
Diversity, equity and inclusion in rare disease clinical trials
-
Identify and mitigate risks to rare disease clinical programmes
-
Leveraging historical data for use in rare disease trials
-
Natural history studies to improve drug development in rare diseases
-
Patient Centricity in Orphan Drug Development
-
The key to remarkable rare disease registries
-
Therapeutic spotlight: Precision medicine considerations in rare diseases
-
Advanced therapies for rare diseases
-
Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders
-
Transforming Trials
-
Accelerating biotech innovation from discovery to commercialisation
-
Ensuring the validity of clinical outcomes assessment (COA) data: The value of rater training
-
Linguistic validation of Clinical Outcomes Assessments
-
Optimising biotech funding
- Adaptive clinical trials
-
Best practices to increase engagement with medical and scientific poster content
-
Decentralised clinical trials
-
Biopharma perspective: the promise of decentralised models and diversity in clinical trials
-
Decentralised and Hybrid clinical trials
-
Practical considerations in transitioning to hybrid or decentralised clinical trials
-
Navigating the regulatory labyrinth of technology in decentralised clinical trials
-
Biopharma perspective: the promise of decentralised models and diversity in clinical trials
-
eCOA implementation
-
Blended solutions insights
-
Clinical trials in Japan: An enterprise growth and management strategy
-
How investments in supply of CRAs is better than competing with the demand for CRAs
-
The evolution of FSP: not just for large pharma
-
Embracing a blended operating model
-
Observations in outsourcing: Survey results show a blended future
-
Clinical trials in Japan: An enterprise growth and management strategy
-
Implications of COVID-19 on statistical design and analyses of clinical studies
-
Improving pharma R&D efficiency
-
Increasing Complexity and Declining ROI in Drug Development
-
Innovation in Clinical Trial Methodologies
- Partnership insights
-
Risk Based Quality Management
-
Transforming the R&D Model to Sustain Growth
-
Behind Biotech: Stories of science and resilience
-
Accelerating biotech innovation from discovery to commercialisation
-
Value Based Healthcare
-
Strategies for commercialising oncology treatments for young adults
-
US payers and PROs
-
Accelerated early clinical manufacturing
-
Cardiovascular Medical Devices
-
CMS Part D Price Negotiations: Is your drug on the list?
-
COVID-19 navigating global market access
-
Ensuring scientific rigor in external control arms
-
Evidence Synthesis: A solution to sparse evidence, heterogeneous studies, and disconnected networks
-
Health technology assessment
-
Perspectives from US payers
-
ICER’s impact on payer decision making
-
Making Sense of the Biosimilars Market
-
Medical communications in early phase product development
-
Navigating the Challenges and Opportunities of Value Based Healthcare
-
Payer Reliance on ICER and Perceptions on Value Based Pricing
-
Payers Perspectives on Digital Therapeutics
-
Precision Medicine
-
RWE Generation Cross Sectional Studies and Medical Chart Review
-
Survey results: How to engage healthcare decision-makers
-
The affordability hurdle for gene therapies
-
The Role of ICER as an HTA Organisation
-
Integrating openness and precision for competitive advantage
-
Strategies for commercialising oncology treatments for young adults
-
Blog
-
Videos
-
Webinar Channel