Fit-for-purpose biomarker method validation in anticancer drug development

Drug Discovery Today

Volumn 15, Issue 19-20, 2010, Pages 816-825

  Cummings, Jeffrey ^a   Ward, Tim H ^a   Dive, Caroline ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

DRUG RESEARCH; HUMAN; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ASSAY; REVIEW; VALIDATION PROCESS;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; BIOMARKERS, PHARMACOLOGICAL; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DRUG DESIGN; HUMANS;

EID: 77957670966     PISSN: 13596446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2010.07.006     Document Type: Review

References (76)

1. Zerhouni E. Medicine. The NIH roadmap. Science 2003, 302:63-72.
2. McShane L.M., et al. Effective incorporation of biomarkers into phase II trials. Clin. Cancer Res. 2009, 15:1898-1905.
3. Kola I., Landis J. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates?. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2004, 3:711-715.
4. Carden C.P., et al. From darkness to light with biomarkers in early clinical trials of cancer drugs. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2009, 85:131-133.
5. Wagner J.A., et al. Biomarkers and surrogate end points for fit-for-purpose development and regulatory evaluation of new drugs. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2007, 81:104-107.
6. Carden C.P., et al. Can molecular biomarker-based patient selection in Phase I trials accelerate anticancer drug development?. Drug Discov. Today 2010, 15:88-97.
7. Pepe M.S., et al. Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2001, 93:1054-1061.
8. Maruvada P., Srivastava S. Joint National Cancer Institute-Food and Drug Administration workshop on research strategies, study designs, and statistical approaches to biomarker validation for cancer diagnosis and detection. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2006, 15:1078-1082.
9. Jain R.K., et al. Biomarkers of response and resistance to antiangiogenic therapy. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2009, 6:327-338.
10. Cummings J., et al. Biomarker method validation in anticancer drug development. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2008, 153:646-656.
11. FDA Guidance for Industry Pharmacogenomic Data Submissions 2005, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm126957.pdf.
12. Jennings L., et al. Recommended principles and practices for validating clinical molecular pathology tests. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2009, 133:743-755.
13. Chau C.H., et al. Validation of analytic methods for biomarkers used in drug development. Clin. Cancer Res. 2008, 14:5967-5976.
14. Shah V.P., et al. Analytical methods validation: bioavailability, bioequivalence and pharmacokinetic studies. Conference report. Eur. J. Drug Metab. Pharmacokinet. 1991, 16:249-255.
15. Shah V.P., et al. Bioanalytical method validation - a revisit with a decade of progress. Pharm. Res. 2000, 17:1551-1557.
16. FDA Guidance for Industry: Bioanalytical Method Validation 2001, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm070107.pdf.
17. Shah V.P. The history of bioanalytical method validation and regulation: evolution of a guidance document on bioanalytical methods validation. AAPS J. 2007, 9:E43-E47.
18. Lee J.W., et al. Method validation and measurement of biomarkers in nonclinical and clinical samples in drug development: a conference report. Pharm. Res. 2005, 22:499-511.
19. Lee J.W., et al. Fit-for-purpose method development and validation for successful biomarker measurement. Pharm. Res. 2006, 23:312-328.
20. 17025, I.I. General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories 2005, ISO. http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm%3Fcsnumber=39883.
21. 9000, I. Quality Management Systems - Fundamentals and Vocabulary 2005, International Organization for Standardization. http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm%3Fcsnumber=42180.
22. Feinberg M., et al. New advances in method validation and measurement uncertainty aimed at improving the quality of chemical data. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2004, 380:502-514.
23. Hubert P., et al. Harmonization of strategies for the validation of quantitative analytical procedures. A SFSTP proposal - Part I. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2004, 36:579-586.
24. Boulanger B., et al. A risk-based analysis of the AAPS conference report on quantitative bioanalytical methods validation and implementation. J. Chromatogr. B: Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2009, 877:2235-2243.
25. Rozet E., et al. Using tolerance intervals in pre-study validation of analytical methods to predict in-study results. The fit-for-future-purpose concept. J. Chromatogr. A 2007, 1158:126-137.
26. Feinberg M. Validation of analytical methods based on accuracy profiles. J. Chromatogr. A 2007, 1158:174-183.
27. Kelloff G.J., Sigman C.C. New science-based endpoints to accelerate oncology drug development. Eur. J. Cancer 2005, 41:491-501.
28. Ludwig J.A., Weinstein J.N. Biomarkers in cancer staging, prognosis and treatment selection. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2005, 5:845-856.
29. Lee J.W., et al. Biomarker assay translation from discovery to clinical studies in cancer drug development: quantification of emerging protein biomarkers. Adv. Cancer Res. 2007, 96:269-298.
30. Cummings J., et al. Quantitative analysis of biomarkers by LC-MS/MS. J. Chromatogr. B Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2009, 877:1221.
31. Barnidge D.R., et al. Absolute quantification of the model biomarker prostate-specific antigen in serum by LC-MS/MS using protein cleavage and isotope dilution mass spectrometry. J. Proteome Res. 2004, 3:644-652.
32. Fenselau C. A review of quantitative methods for proteomic studies. J. Chromatogr. B Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2007, 855:14-20.
33. van der Merwe D.E., et al. Mass spectrometry: uncovering the cancer proteome for diagnostics. Adv. Cancer Res. 2007, 96:23-50.
34. DeSilva B., et al. Recommendations for the bioanalytical method validation of ligand-binding assays to support pharmacokinetic assessments of macromolecules. Pharm. Res. 2003, 20:1885-1900.
35. Peters F.T., et al. Validation of new methods. Forensic Sci. Int. 2007, 165:216-224.
36. Bansal S., DeStefano A. Key elements of bioanalytical method validation for small molecules. AAPS J. 2007, 9:E109-E114.
37. Miller K.J., et al. Workshop on bioanalytical methods validation for macromolecules: summary report. Pharm. Res. 2001, 18:1373-1383.
38. Findlay J.W., et al. Validation of immunoassays for bioanalysis: a pharmaceutical industry perspective. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2000, 21:1249-1273.
39. Smolec J., et al. Bioanalytical method validation for macromolecules in support of pharmacokinetic studies. Pharm. Res. 2005, 22:1425-1431.
40. Findlay J.W. Specificity and accuracy data for ligand-binding assays for macromolecules should be interpreted with caution. AAPS J. 2008, 10:433-434.
41. Findlay J.W. Some important considerations for validation of ligand-binding assays. J. Chromatogr. B Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2009, 877:2191-2197.
42. Boulanger B., et al. An analysis of the SFSTP guide on validation of chromatographic bioanalytical methods: progress and limitations. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2003, 32:753-765.
43. Hubert P., et al. Harmonization of strategies for the validation of quantitative analytical procedures. A SFSTP proposal - part II. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2007, 45:70-81.
44. Hubert P., et al. Harmonization of strategies for the validation of quantitative analytical procedures. A SFSTP proposal - part III. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2007, 45:82-96.
45. Hubert P., et al. Harmonization of strategies for the validation of quantitative analytical procedures: a SFSTP proposal part IV. Examples of application. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2008, 48:760-771.
46. James C.A., Hill H.M. Procedural elements involved in maintaining bioanalytical data integrity for good laboratory practices and regulated clinical studies. AAPS J. 2007, 9:E123-E127.
47. Nowatzke W., Wood E. Best practices during bioanalytical method validation for the characterisation of assay reagents and the evaluation of analyte stability in assay standards, quality controls and study samples. AAPS J. 2007, 9:E117-E122.
48. Gonzalez R.M., et al. Development and validation of sandwich ELISA microarrays with minimal assay interference. J. Proteome Res. 2008, 7:2406-2414.
49. Ling M.M., et al. Multiplexing molecular diagnostics and immunoassays using emerging microarray technologies. Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn. 2007, 7:87-98.
50. Backen A.C., et al. 'Fit-for-purpose' validation of SearchLight multiplex ELISAs of angiogenesis for clinical trial use. J. Immunol. Methods 2009, 342:106-114.
51. Chowdhury F., et al. Validation and comparison of two multiplex technologies. Luminex and Mesoscale Discovery, for human cytokine profiling. J. Immunol. Methods 2009, 340:55-64.
52. Maity H., et al. Effects of pH and arginine on the solubility and stability of a therapeutic protein (Fibroblast Growth Factor 20): relationship between solubility and stability. Curr. Pharm. Biotechnol. 2009, 10:609-625.
53. Mahler H.C., et al. Protein aggregation: pathways, induction factors and analysis. J. Pharm. Sci. 2009, 98:2909-2934.
54. Wu F.T., et al. A compartment model of VEGF distribution in humans in the presence of soluble VEGF receptor-1 acting as a ligand trap. PLoS ONE 2009, 4:e5108.
55. Nayeri F., et al. Sample handling and stability of hepatocyte growth factor in blood samples. Cytokine 2002, 19:201-205.
56. Cummings J., et al. Qualification of M30 and M65 ELISAs as surrogate biomarkers of cell death: long term antigen stability in cancer patient plasma. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 2007, 60:921-924.
57. Deligezer U., et al. Circulating fragmented nucleosomal DNA and caspase-3 mRNA in patients with lymphoma and myeloma. Exp. Mol. Pathol. 2006, 80:72-76.
58. Urbanowska T., et al. Protein microarray platform for the multiplex analysis of biomarkers in human sera. J. Immunol. Methods 2006, 316:1-7.
59. Toedter G., et al. Simultaneous detection of eight analytes in human serum by two commercially available platforms for multiplex cytokine analysis. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 2008, 15:42-48.
60. Kelley M., DeSilva B. Key elements of bioanalytical method validation for macromolecules. AAPS J. 2007, 9:E156-E163.
61. Viswanathan C.T., et al. Quantitative bioanalytical methods validation and implementation: best practices for chromatographic and ligand binding assays. Pharm. Res. 2007, 9:E30-E42.
62. Westgard J.O. Selecting appropriate quality-control rules. Clin. Chem. 1994, 40:499-501.
63. Fast D.M., et al. Workshop report and follow-up - AAPS Workshop on current topics in GLP bioanalysis: assay reproducibility for incurred samples - implications of Crystal City recommendations. AAPS J. 2009, 11:238-241.
64. Greystoke A., et al. Optimisation of circulating biomarkers of cell death for routine clinical use. Ann. Oncol. 2008, 19:990-995.
65. Aziz N., et al. Variables that affect assays for plasma cytokines and soluble activation markers. Clin. Diagn. Lab. Immunol. 1999, 6:89-95.
66. Hoffman D., et al. Statistical methods for assessing long-term analyte stability in biological matrices. J. Chromatogr. B Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2009, 877:2262-2269.
67. Board R.E., et al. Detection of PIK3CA mutations in circulating free DNA in patients with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2010, 120:461-467.
68. Board R.E., et al. Multiplexed assays for detection of mutations in PIK3CA. Clin. Chem. 2008, 54:757-760.
69. Hodgson D.R., et al. Circulating tumour-derived predictive biomarkers in oncology. Drug Discov. Today 2010, 15:98-101.
70. Dean E., et al. Phase I trial of AEG35156 administered as a 7-day and 3-day continuous intravenous infusion in patients with advanced refractory cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009, 27:1660-1666.
71. Hou J.M., et al. Evaluation of circulating tumor cells and serological cell death biomarkers in small cell lung cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Am. J. Pathol. 2009, 175:808-816.
72. Holdenrieder S., et al. Nucleosomes in serum of patients with benign and malignant diseases. Int. J. Cancer 2001, 95:114-120.
73. Holdenrieder S., et al. Nucleosomes in serum as a marker for cell death. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 2001, 39:596-605.
74. Holdenrieder S., et al. Early and specific prediction of the therapeutic efficacy in non-small cell lung cancer patients by nucleosomal DNA and cytokeratin-19 fragments. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2006, 1075:244-257.
75. Holdenrieder S., et al. Circulating nucleosomes predict the response to chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2004, 10:5981-5987.
76. Wiktor A.E., et al. Preclinical validation of fluorescence in situ hybridization assays for clinical practice. Genet. Med. 2006, 8:16-23.