Imaging biomarkers as surrogate endpoints for drug development

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Volumn 33, Issue SUPPL. 13, 2006, Pages

  Richter, Wolf S ^a  

^a BAYER PHARMA AG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Biomarker; Drug development; PET; Surrogate endpoint

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; IMATINIB; NEW DRUG; TRASTUZUMAB; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT; ORPHAN DRUG;

ARTICLE; CONTINUOUS STIRRED TANK REACTOR; EUROPEAN UNION; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HIGH RISK PATIENT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; UNITED STATES; VALIDATION PROCESS; HUMAN; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG INDUSTRY; IMAGE ANALYSIS; ISOTOPE LABELING; REVIEW; SINGLE PHOTON EMISSION COMPUTER TOMOGRAPHY;

BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 33746559665     PISSN: 16197070     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-006-0129-z     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Lander ES, Linton LM, Birren B, Nusbaum C, Zody MC, Baldwin J, et al. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature 2001;409:860-921
2. FDA. Innovation or stagnation. Challenge and opportunity on the Critical Path to new medical products. 2004. http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/ criticalpath/whitepaper.html
3. Charles River Associates. Innovation in the pharmaceutical sector. A study undertaken for the European Commission. 2004. http://europa.eu.int/comm/ enterprise/pharmaceuticals/pharmacos/docs/doc2004/nov/eu_pharma_innovation_25- 11-04.pdf
4. Henderson JA, Smith JJ. Realizing the potential for biomarkers in imaging: background and legal basis. Food Drug Law J 2005;60:511-524
5. DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ 2003;22:151-185
6. Berndt ER, Gottschalk AHB, Strobeck MW. Opportunities for improving the drug development process: results from a survey of industry and FDA. MIT-FDA-Industry White Paper. 2006. http://www.nber.org/books/innovation6/ berndt-et-al6-3-05.pdf
7. Shah RB, Mehra R, Chinnaiyan AM, Shen R, Ghosh D, Zhou M, et al. Androgen-independent prostate cancer is a heterogeneous group of diseases: lessons from a rapid autopsy program. Cancer Res 2004;64:9209-9216
8. Fitzgerald GA. Opinion: anticipating change in drug development: the emerging era of translational medicine and therapeutics. Nature Rev Drug Discov 2005;4:815-818
9. Biomarkers Definitions Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001;69:89-95
10. Smith JJ, Sorensen AG, Thrall JH. Biomarkers in imaging: realizing radiology's future. Radiology 2003;227:633-638
11. Frank R, Hargreaves R. Clinical biomarkers in drug discovery and development. Nature Rev Drug Discov 2003;2:566-580
12. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 1981;47:207-214
13. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Nat Cancer Inst 2000;92:205-216
14. Johnson JR, Williams G, Pazdur R. End points and United States Food and Drug Administration approval of oncology drugs. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:1404-1411
15. Rudin M, Weissleder R. Molecular imaging in drug discovery and development. Nature Rev Drug Discov 2003;2:123-131
16. Hyman SE, Fenton WS. Medicine. What are the right targets for psychopharmacology? Science 2003;299:350-351
17. Committee for medicinal products for human use (CHMP), EMEA. Position paper on non-clinical safety studies to support clinical trials with a single microdose. 2004. http://www.emea.eu.int/pdfs/human/swp/259902en.pdf
18. CDER, FDA. Guidance for industry, investigators, and reviewers - exploratory IND Studies. 2006. http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/7086fnl.htm
19. CDER, CBER, FDA. Guidance for Industry; INDs-approaches to complying with cGMP during phase 1 (draft guidance, distributed for comment purposes). 2006. http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/6164dft.htm
20. Lesko LJ, Atkinson AJ Jr. Use of biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in drug development and regulatory decision making: criteria, validation, strategies. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 2001;41:347-366
21. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) F - Food and Drug Administration. Drug-Diagnostic Co-Development Concept Paper; draft - not for implementation. 2005. http://www.fda.gov/cder/genomics/pharmacoconceptfn.pdf