Phase 0 clinical trials in cancer drug development: From FDA guidance to clinical practice

Molecular Interventions

Volumn 7, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 325-334

  Kinders, Robert ^a   Parchment, Ralph E ^a   Ji, Jay ^a   Kummar, Shivaani ^b   Murgo, Anthony J ^b   Gutierrez, Martin ^b   Collins, Jerry ^b   Rubinstein, Larry ^b   Pickeral, Oxana ^b   Steinberg, Seth M ^b   Yang, Sherry ^b   Hollingshead, Melinda ^b   Chen, Alice ^b   Helman, Lee ^b   Wiltrout, Robert ^b   Simpson, Mel ^a   Tomaszewski, Joseph E ^b   Doroshow, James H ^b  

^a SAIC FREDERICK INC   (United States)

^b NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABT 888; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; NEW DRUG; NICOTINAMIDE ADENINE DINUCLEOTIDE ADENOSINE DIPHOSPHATE RIBOSYLTRANSFERASE INHIBITOR; TRASTUZUMAB; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ANTIBODY DEPENDENT CELLULAR CYTOTOXICITY; ANTINEOPLASTIC ACTIVITY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER RESEARCH; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL TRIAL; DRUG MECHANISM; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG TOLERABILITY; DRUG TREATMENT FAILURE; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HUMAN; MOLECULAR IMAGING; NONHUMAN; ONCOGENE NEU; RECOMMENDED DRUG DOSE; RESEARCH ETHICS; REVIEW; TOXICITY TESTING; TUMOR; TUMOR XENOGRAFT;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DRUG DESIGN; DRUGS, INVESTIGATIONAL; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 38349059980     PISSN: 15340384     EISSN: 15432548     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1124/mi.7.6.9     Document Type: Review

References (23)

1. Kola, I., and Landis, J. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 711-715 (2004). This review cogently reiterates the difficulties involved in modern drug development including the low success rates for new cancer agents.
2. Johnson, J. I., Decker, S., Zaharevitz, D. et al. Relationships between drug activity in NCI preclinical in vitro and in vivo models and early clinical trials. Br. J. Cancer 84, 1424-1431 (2001). This paper reviews the experience of the NCI in the use of xenograft tumor models for new drug development; it makes clear how ineffective these models are for predicting the potential utility of a specific molecule, particularly based on the histology of the tumor xenograft employed.
3. Park, J.W., Kerbel, R.S., Kelloff, G.J. et al. Rationale for biomarkers and surrogate end points in mechanism-driven oncology drug development. Clin. Cancer Res. 10, 3885-3896 (2004). This is a concise review of the requirements for the development of novel biomarkers to enhance oncologic drug development.
4. DeGeorge, J.J., Ahn, C.H., Andrews, P.A. et al. Regulatory considerations for preclinical development of anticancer drugs. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 41, 173-185 (1998).
5. Innovation or Stagnation: Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to New Medical Products [online], http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/ criticalpath/whitepaper.pdf (2004). The FDA's critical path initiative to improve drug development is described in detail in this white paper.
6. Kummar, S., Kinders, R., Rubinstein, L. et al. Compressing drug development timelines in oncology using phase '0' trials. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 7, 131-139 (2007). This paper reviews the potential of Phase 0 trials to speed cancer drug development, and proposes a new, preclinicalassay-based approach to oncologic therapeutics.
7. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry, Investigators, and Reviewers, Exploratory IND Studies. US Food and Drug Administration [online], http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/7086fnl.pdf (2006).
8. Findlay J., Smith W., Lee D., Nordblom G., Das I., DeSilva B., Khan M., and Bowsher R. Validation of immunoassays for bioanalysis: A pharmaceutical industry perspective. J. Pharmaceut. Biomed. Anal. 21, 1249-1273 (2000).
9. Workman, P., Aboagye, E.O., Chung, Y.L. et al. Cancer Research UK Pharmacodynamic/Pharmacokinetic Technologies Advisory Committee. Minimally invasive pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic technologies in hypothesis testing clinical trials of innovative therapies. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 98, 580-598 (2006). This review focuses on the use of imaging modalities as therapeutic biomarkers in oncology.
10. Kummar, S., Kinders, R., Gutierrez, M. et al. Inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) by ABT-888 in patients with advanced malignancies: Results of a phase 0 trial. J. Clin. Oncol. (Suppl.1) 25, 142s, (2007).
11. Donawho, C.K., Luo, Y., Luo, Y. et al. ABT-888, an orally active poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that potentiates DNA-damaging agents in preclinical tumor models. Clin. Cancer Res. 13, 2728-2737 (2007). Description of the preclinical efficacy of ABT-888 in xenograft models alone and in combination with a variety of anticancer agents that damage DNA.
12. Kinders, R.J., Hollingshead, M., Parchment, R.E., Khin, S., Kaur, G., Phillips, L., Tomaszewski, J., and Doroshow, J. Preclinical modeling of a phase 0 clinical trial protocol. J. Clin. Oncol. (Suppl.1) 25, 616s, (2007).
13. National Cancer Institute Developmental Therapeutics Program Web Site: http://dtp.nci.nih.gov/docs/phase0/PharmacoDynamicAssaydeveloment.html
14. Warburton, C., Dragowska, W.H., Gelmon, K., Chia, S., Yan, H., Masin, D., Denyssevych, T., Wallis, A.E., and Bally, M.B. Treatment of HER-2/neu overexpressing breast cancer xenograft models with trastuzumab (Herceptin) and gefitinib (ZD1839): Drug combination effects on tumor growth, HER-2/neu and epidermal growth factor receptor expression, and viable hypoxic cell fraction. Clin. Cancer Res. 10, 2512-2524 (2004).
15. Kono, K., Takahashi, A., Ichihara, F., Sugai, H., Fujii, H., and Matsumoto, Y. Impaired antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity mediated by herceptin in patients with gastric cancer. Cancer Res. 62, 5813-5817 (2002).
16. Mineo, J.F, Bordron, A., Quintin-Roue, I., Loisel, S., Ster, K.L., Buhe, V., Lagarde, N., and Berthou, C. Recombinant humanised anti-HER2/neu antibody (Herceptin) induces cellular death of glioblastomas. Br. J. Cancer. 91, 1195-1199 (2004).
17. Pfeiffer, R., Brabeck, C., and Burkle, A. Quantitative nonisotopic immuno-dot-blot method for the assessment of cellular poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation capacity. Anal. Biochem. 275, 118-122 (1999).
18. Ji, J., Redon, C., Pommier, Y., Kinders, R., Parchment, R., Hollingshead, M., Yang, S., Murgo, A., Tomaszewski, J., and Doroshow, J. Polyadenosinediphosphate-ribose polymerase inhibitors as sensitizers for therapeutic treatments in human tumor and blood mononuclear cells. J. Clin. Oncol. (Suppl.1) 25, 613s, (2007).
19. Gutierrez, M., Kummar, S., Horneffer, Y., Juwara, L., Chen, A., Melilo, G., Pickeral, O., Tomaszewski, J.E., Murgo, A.J., and Doroshow, J.H. Recruitment experience in a phase 0 trial of ABT-888, an inhibitor of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase, in patients (pts) with advanced malignancies. J. Clin. Oncol. (Suppl.1) 25, 620s, (2007).
20. Marchetti, S., and Schellens, J.H.M. The impact of FDA and EMEA guidelines on drug development in relation to phase 0 trials. Brit. J. Cancer 97, 577-581 (2007). This review provides a European perspective on the use of microdose studies and molecular pharmacodynamic trials in new anticancer drug development.
21. Kelloff, G.J., Krohn, K.A., Larson, S.M. et al. The progress and promise of molecular imaging probes in oncologic drug development. Clin. Cancer Res. 11, 7967-7985 (2005).
22. Collins, J.M. Imaging and other biomarkers in early clinical studies: one step at a time or re-engineering drug development? J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 5417-5419 (2005). This short review provides a compelling argument for the concomitant use of molecular imaging approaches in the future development of new anticancer agents.
23. Breast Imaging Using Indium In 111 CHX-A DTPA Trastuzumab in Women With Stage I, Stage II, Stage III, or Stage IV Breast Cancer [online] http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00474578?order=1.