Clinical trial designs for evaluating the medical utility of prognostic and predictive biomarkers in oncology

Personalized Medicine

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 33-47

  Simon, Richard ^a  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Adaptive design; Biomarker; Clinical trial design; Predictive; Prognostic; Validation

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; BIOLOGICAL MARKER; TRASTUZUMAB;

ANALYTIC METHOD; BREAST CANCER; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DISEASE COURSE; DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL; DISEASE MARKER; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG EFFICACY; FLUORESCENCE IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION; GENE AMPLIFICATION; GENE EXPRESSION; GENE OVEREXPRESSION; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MACHINE LEARNING; NEOPLASM; ONCOLOGY; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REVIEW; RISK; RISK FACTOR; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TREATMENT RESPONSE; TUMOR RECURRENCE; UNCERTAINTY; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 74049098972     PISSN: 17410541     EISSN: 1744828X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2217/pme.09.49     Document Type: Review

References (47)

1. Chau CH, Rixe O, McLeod H, Figg WD: Validation of analytical methods for biomarkers employed in drug development. Clin. Cancer Res. 14(19), 5967-5976 (2008).
2. Pepe MS: The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests for Classification and Prediction. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (2004).
3. Heagerty PJ, Lumley T, Pepe MS: Time dependent ROC curves for censored survival data and a diagnostic marker. Biometrics 56, 337-344 (2004).
4. Dupuy A, Simon R: Critical review of published microarray studies for cancer outcome and guidelines on statistical ana lysis and reporting. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 99, 147-157 (2007).
5. Simon R, Radmacher MD, Dobbin K, McShane LM: Pitfalls in the use of DNA microarray data for diagnostic and prognostic classification. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 95, 14-18 (2003).
6. Molinaro AM, Simon R, Pfeiffer RM: Prediction error estimation: a comparison of resampling methods. Bioinformatics 21(15), 3301-3307 (2005).
7. Simon R, Korn EL, McShane LM, Radmacher MD, Wright GW, Zhao Y: Design and Ana lysis of DNA Microarray Investigations. Springer Verlag, NY, USA (2003).
8. Pusztai L: Perspectives and challenges of clinical pharmacogenomics in cancer. Pharmacogenomics 5(5), 451-454 (2004).
9. Simon R, Altman DG: Statistical aspects of prognostic factor studies in oncology. Br. J. Cancer 69, 979-985 (1994).
10. Henry NL, Hayes DF: Uses and abuses of tumor markers in the diagnosis, monitoring and treatment of primary and metastatic breast cancer. Oncologist 11, 541-552 (2006).
11. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G et al.: A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 351, 2817-2826 (2004).
12. ■ Provides a good case study of the development of an effective prognostic biomarker.
13. Paik S: Development and clinical utility of a 21-gene recurrence score prognostic assay in patients with early breast cancer treated with tamoxifen. Oncologist 12, 631-635 (2007).
14. Pepe MS, Janes H, Longton G, Leisenring W, Newcomb P: Limitations of the odds ratio in guaging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic or screening marker. Am. J. Epidemiol. 159, 882-890 (2004).
15. ■ Important demonstration of the distinction between measures of association and measures of predictive accuracy.
16. Simon R: When is a genomic classifier ready for prime time? Nat. Clin. Pract. Oncol. 1(1), 2-3 (2004).
17. Mandrekar S, Grothey A, Goetz M, Sargent D: Clinical trial designs for prospective validation of biomarkers. Am. J. Pharmacogenomics 5(5), 317-325 (2005).
18. Hoering A, Leblanc M, Crowley J: Randomized Phase III clinical trial designs for targeted agents. Clin. Cancer Res. 14(14), 4358-4367 (2008).
19. Mandrekar S, Sargent D: Clinical trial designs for predictive biomarker validation: one size does not fit all. J. Biopharm. Stat. 19, 530-542 (2009).
20. Bogaerts J, Cardoso F, Buyse M et al.: Gene signature evaluation as a prognostic tool: challenges in the design of the MINDACT trial. Nat. Clin. Pract. Oncol. 3(10), 540-551 (2006).
21. ■ Good review of the design considerations for a prospective trial to validate a prognostic biomarker.
22. Sparano JA, Paik S: Development of the 21-gene assay and its application in clinical practice and clinical trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 26(5), 721-728 (2008).
23. Simon RM, Paik S, Hayes DF: Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. Natl Cancer Inst. 101(21), 1446-1452 (2009).
24. Pepe MS, Feng Z, Janes H, Bossuyt PM, Potter J: Pivotal evaluation of the accuracy of a classification biomarker: the probe study design. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 100, 432-438 (2008).
25. ■ Important paper on an improved approach to the design of studies for the evaluation of biomarkers used for early disease detection.
26. Hayes DF: Prognostic and predictive factors revisited. Breast 14, 493-499 (2005).
27. Gennari A, Sormani MP, Pronzato P et al.: HER2 status and efficacy of adjuvant anthracyclines in early breast cancer: a pooled ana lysis of randomized clinical trials. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 100(1), 14-20 (2008).
28. Hayes DF, Thor AD, Dressler LG et al.: HER2 and response to paclitaxel in node-positive breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 357, 1496-1506 (2007).
29. Amado RG, Wolf M, Peeters M et al.: Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 26(10), 1626-1634 (2008).
30. Karapetis CS, Khambata-Ford S, Jonker DJ et al.: Kras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 359(17), 1757-1765 (2008).
31. Wolff AC, Hammond EH, Schwartz JN et al.: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 25(1), 118-145 (2007).
32. Sawyers CL: The cancer biomarker problem. Nature 452, 548-552 (2008).
33. ■■ Very useful review of the importance and challenges in the development of predictive biomarkers.
34. Simon R, Maitournam A: Evaluating the efficiency of targeted designs for randomized clinical trials. Clin. Cancer Res. 10, 6759-6763 (2005).
35. ■■ Quantitative evaluation of the efficiency of targeted enrichment designs.
36. Simon R, Maitournam A: Evaluating the efficiency of targeted designs for randomized clinical trials: supplement and correction. Clin. Cancer Res. 12, 3229 (2006).
37. Maitournam A, Simon R: On the efficiency of targeted clinical trials. Stat. Med. 24, 329-339 (2005).
38. Simon R: Using genomics in clinical trial design. Clin. Cancer Res. 14, 5984-5993 (2008).
39. ■■ Provides a roadmap for the prospective validation of predictive biomarkers.
40. Simon R: Designs and adaptive ana lysis plans for pivotal clinical trials of therapeutics and companion diagnostics. Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn. 2(6), 721-729 (2008).
41. Simon R, Wang SJ: Use of genomic signatures in therapeutics development. Pharmacogenomics J. 6, 1667-1173 (2006).
42. Wang SJ, O'Neill RT, Hung HMJ: Approaches to evaluation of treatment effect in randomized clinical trials with genomic subset. Pharm. Stat. 6, 227-244 (2007).
43. Liu A, Li Q, Yu KF, Yuan VW: A threshold sample-enrichment approach in a clinical trial with heterogeneous subpopulations. Stat. Med. (2009) (In press).
44. Jiang W, Freidlin B, Simon R: Biomarker adaptive threshold design: a procedure for evaluating treatment with possible biomarker-defined subset effect. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 99, 1036-1043 (2007).
45. Freidlin B, Simon R: Adaptive signature design: an adaptive clinical trial design for generating and prospectively testing a gene expression signature for sensitive patients. Clin. Cancer Res. 11, 7872-7878 (2005).
46. Song Y, Chi GYH: A method for testing a prespecified subgroup in clinical trials. Stat. Med. 26, 3535-3549 (2007).
47. National Cancer Institute: Biometric Research Branch http://brb.nci.nih. gov