Integrating predictive biomarkers and classifiers into oncology clinical development programmes

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery

Volumn 10, Issue 10, 2011, Pages 735-748

  Beckman, Robert A ^a   Clark, Jason ^b   Chen, Cong ^c  

^a DAIICHI SANKYO INC   (United States)

^b Merck Research Laboratories ^*  (United States)

^c MERCK RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CETUXIMAB; EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR; EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR 2; GEFITINIB; PANITUMUMAB; SORAFENIB; TRASTUZUMAB; TUMOR MARKER;

ADVERSE OUTCOME; ANALYTIC METHOD; ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER RISK; CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN; CLINICAL EVALUATION; COLORECTAL CANCER; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DISEASE CONTROL; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG COST; DRUG MECHANISM; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG TARGETING; DRUG TREATMENT FAILURE; GENE MUTATION; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; IN VIVO STUDY; KIDNEY CARCINOMA; MOLECULAR BIOLOGY; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; MOLECULAR EPIDEMIOLOGY; ONCOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SELECTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; PROTEIN EXPRESSION; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; RISK REDUCTION; THERAPY EFFECT; TREATMENT DURATION; TREATMENT RESPONSE; TUMOR BIOPSY; TUMOR CLASSIFICATION; TUMOR VOLUME; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 80053484515     PISSN: 14741776     EISSN: 14741784     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrd3550     Document Type: Review

References (45)

1. Incorporating health economics in guidelines and assessing resource impact. NICE Guidelines Manual [online] http://www.nice.org.uk/newsroom/ features/measuringeffectivenessandcosteffectivenesstheqaly. jsp (2005).
2. Cobleigh, M. A. et al. Multinational study of the efficacy and safety of humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody in women who have HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer that has progressed after chemotherapy for metastatic disease. J. Clin. Oncol. 17, 2639-2648 (1999). (Pubitemid 29415219)
3. Slamon, D. J. et al. Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. N. Engl. J. Med. 344, 783-792 (2001). (Pubitemid 32222155)
4. Paez, J. G. et al. EGFR mutations in lung cancer: correlation with clinical response to gefitinib therapy. Science 30, 1497-1500 (2004). (Pubitemid 38720929)
5. Pao, W. et al. EGF receptor gene mutations are common in lung cancers from "never smokers" and are associated with sensitivity of tumors to gefitinib and erlotinib. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 13306-13311 (2004). (Pubitemid 39209661)
6. Amado, R. G. et al. Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 1626-1634 (2008).
7. Lievre, A. et al. KRAS mutation status is predictive of response to cetuximab therapy in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res. 66, 3992-3995 (2006).
8. Bokemeyer, C. et al. KRAS status and efficacy of first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with FOLFOX with or without cetuximab: the OPUS experience. J. Clin. Oncol. Abstr. 26, 4000 (2008).
9. Van Cutsem, E. et al. KRAS status and efficacy in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with FOLFIRI with or without cetuximab: the CRYSTAL experience. J. Clin. Oncol. Abstr. 26, 2 (2008).
10. Dalton, W. S. & Friend, S. H. Cancer biomarkers-an invitation to the table. Science 312, 1165-1168 (2006).
11. Beckman, R. A. Analyze the current biomarker-guided development paradigm: biomarkers are instrumental for any development in oncology. Center for Business Intelligence 2nd Annual Forum on Oncology Commercialization Strategies [online lecture], http://www.cbinet.com/compendiums/PC10168/Presentations/ Robert-Beckman-Pres.pdf (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA; 12-13 January 2009).
12. Yan, L. & Beckman, R. A. Pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics in oncology therapeutic antibody development. Biotechniques 39, 565-568 (2005).
13. Ransohoff, D. F. & Gourlay, M. L. Sources of bias in specimens for research about molecular markers for cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 698-704 (2010).
14. Ratain, M. J. & Glassman, R. H. Biomarkers in Phase I oncology trials: signal, noise, or expensive distraction? Clin. Cancer Res. 13, 6545-6548 (2007). (Pubitemid 350206786)
15. Orloff, J. et al. The future of drug development: advancing clinical trial design. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 8, 949-957 (2009).
16. Ioannidis, J. P. A. & Panagiotou, O. A. Comparison of effect sizes associated with biomarkers reported in highly cited individual articles and in subsequent meta-analyses. JAMA 305, 2200-2210 (2011).
17. 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). (Pubitemid 41611633)
18. Chen, C. & Beckman, R. A. Hypothesis testing in a confirmatory Phase III trial with a possible subset effect. Stat. Biopharm. Res. 1, 431-440 (2009).
19. Van Dyke, T. & Jacks, T. Cancer modeling in the modern era: progress and challenges. Cell 108, 135-144 (2002). (Pubitemid 34161134)
20. Fiebig, H. H., Maier, A. & Burger, A. M. Clonogenic assay with established human tumor xenografts: correlation of in vitro to in vivo activity as a basis for anticancer drug discovery. Eur. J. Cancer 40, 802-820 (2004). (Pubitemid 38519759)
21. Barker A. D. et al. I-SPY 2: an adaptive breast cancer trial design in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 86, 97-100 (2009).
22. Kim, E. S. et al. The BATTLE trial (Biomarker-integrated Approaches of Targeted Therapy for Lung Cancer Elimination): personalizing therapy for lung cancer. in Proceedings of the 101st Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (17-21 Apr 2010; Washington DC, Philadelphia, USA; Abstract LB-1).
23. Chen, C. & Beckman, R. A. Optimal cost-effective designs of proof of concept trials and associated go-no go decisions. Proc. Am. Stat. Assoc. 394-399 (2007).
24. Chen, C. & Beckman, R. A. Optimal cost-effective go-no go decisions in late-stage oncology drug development. Stat. Biopharm. Res. 1, 159-169 (2009).
25. Chen, C. & Beckman, R. A. Optimal cost-effective designs of Phase II proof of concept trials and associated go-no go decisions. J. Biopharm. Stat. 19, 424-436 (2009).
26. Strauss, N. & Simon, R. Investigating a sequence of randomized Phase II trials to discover promising treatments. Stat. Med. 14, 1479-1489 (1995).
27. Freidlin, B., McShane L. & Korn, E. L. Randomized clinical trials with biomarkers: design issues. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 102, 152-160 (2010).
28. Maheswaren, S. et al. Detection of mutations in EGFR in circulating lung-cancer cells. N. Engl. J. Med. 359, 366-377 (2008).
29. Tang, P. A., Bentsen, S. M, Chen, E. X. & Siu, L. L. Surrogate endpoints for median overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer: literature-based analysis from 39 randomized controlled trials of first-line chemotherapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 4562-4568 (2007). (Pubitemid 350035313)
30. Simon, R. M., Paik, S. & Hayes, D. F. Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 101, 1446-1452 (2009).
31. Freidlin, B., Jiang, W. & Simon, R. The cross-validated adaptive signature design. Clin. Cancer Res. 16, 691-698 (2010).
32. Simon, R. The use of genomics in clinical trial design. Clin. Cancer Res. 14, 5984-5993 (2008).
33. Zhao, Y. D., Dimitrienko, A. & Tamura, R. Design and analysis considerations in clinical trials with a sensitive subpopulation. Stat. Biopharm. Res. 2, 72-83 (2010).
34. De Geus-Oei, L. F. et al. Monitoring and predicting response to therapy with 18F-FDG PET in colorectal cancer: a systematic review. J. Nuc. Med. 50, 43S-54S (2009).
35. Weber, W. A. PET for response assessment in oncology: radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Br. J. Radiol. S28, 42-49 (2005). (Pubitemid 43154235)
36. Goldman, B., LeBlanc, M. & Crowley, J. Interim futility analysis with intermediate endpoints. Clin. Trials 5, 14-22 (2008). (Pubitemid 351412367)
37. Hunsicker, S., Zhao, Y. & Simon, R. M. A comparison of Phase II study strategies. Clin. Cancer Res. 15, 5950-5955 (2009).
38. Chen, C. & Sun, L. On quantification of PFS effect for accelerated approval of oncology drugs. Stat. Biopharm. Res. 2011 (in the press).
39. Brannath, W. et al. Confirmatory adaptive designs with Bayesian decision tools for a targeted therapy in oncology. Stat. Med. 28, 1445-1463 (2009).
40. Berry, D. A. Bayesian clinical trials. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 5, 27-36 (2006).
41. Berry, D. A. Introduction to Bayesian methods III: use and interpretation of Bayesian tools in design and analysis. Clin. Trials 2, 295-300 (2005). (Pubitemid 41306270)
42. Bretz, F. et al. Confirmatory seamless Phase II/III clinical trials with hypotheses selection at interim: general concepts. Biom. J. 48, 623-634 (2006). (Pubitemid 44367905)
43. Mehta, C. R. & Patel, N. R. Adaptive, group sequential and decision theoretic approaches to sample size determination. Stat. Med. 25, 3250-3269 (2006). (Pubitemid 44489392)
44. Chuang-Stein, C. et al. Sample size re-estimation: a review and recommendations. Drug Inf. J. 40, 475-484 (2006). (Pubitemid 44721125)
45. Berger, J. Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis 2nd edn (Springer Verlag, New York, 1985).