Considerations for the successful co-development of targeted cancer therapies and companion diagnostics

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery

Volumn 12, Issue 10, 2013, Pages 743-755

  Fridlyand, Jane ^a   Simon, Richard M ^b   Walrath, Jessica C ^c   Roach, Nancy ^d   Buller, Richard ^e   Schenkein, David P ^f   Flaherty, Keith T ^g   Allen, Jeff D ^c   Sigal, Ellen V ^c   Scher, Howard I ^h  

^a GENENTECH INC   (United States)

^b NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c Friends of Cancer Research   (United States)

^d Patient Advocacy   (United States)

^e PFIZER INC   (United States)

^f AGIOS PHARMACEUTICALS   (United States)

^g MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^h MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER; CETUXIMAB; CRIZOTINIB; IMATINIB; SUNITINIB; TRASTUZUMAB; VEMURAFENIB;

ASSAY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER THERAPY; CHRONIC MYELOID LEUKEMIA; CLINICAL STUDY; COMPANION DIAGNOSTICS; DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; DRUG USE; ESOPHAGUS CANCER; FLUORESCENCE IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; GASTROINTESTINAL STROMAL TUMOR; HUMAN; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; KIDNEY CARCINOMA; LUNG NON SMALL CELL CANCER; MEDICAL DEVICE; MELANOMA; METASTATIC COLORECTAL CANCER; MOLECULARLY TARGETED THERAPY; PATIENT SELECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REAL TIME POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; REVIEW; SOLID TUMOR; STOMACH CANCER;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; DEVICE APPROVAL; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG DESIGN; HUMANS; MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES; MOLECULAR TARGETED THERAPY; NEOPLASMS; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 84885021119     PISSN: 14741776     EISSN: 14741784     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrd4101     Document Type: Review

References (49)

1. Naylor, S. & Cole, T. Overview of companion diagnostics in the pharmaceutical industry. Drug Discovery World [online], http://www.ddw-online. com/personalised-medicine/p92845-overview-of-companion-diagnostics-in-the- pharmaceutical-industry.spring-10.html (2010).
2. US National Cancer Institute. Targeted cancer therapies (Fact Sheet). US National Cancer Institute [online], http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/ factsheet/Therapy/targeted (2012).
3. Savage, D. G. & Antman, K. H. Imatinib mesylate - a new oral targeted therapy. N. Engl. J. Med. 346, 683-693 (2002).
4. Demetri, G. D. et al. Efficacy and safety of imatinib mesylate in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors. N. Engl. J. Med. 347, 472-480 (2002).
5. Garnock-Jones, K. P., Keating, G. M. & Scott, L. J. Trastuzumab: a review of its use as adjuvant treatment in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive early breast cancer. Drugs 70, 215-239 (2010).
6. Hudziak, R. M. et al. p185HER2 monoclonal antibody has antiproliferative effects in vitro and sensitizes human breast tumor cells to tumor necrosis factor. Mol. Cell. Biol. 9, 1165-1172 (1989).
7. Kulke, M. H. Systemic therapy for advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Semin. Oncol. 40, 75-83 (2013).
8. Motzer, R. J. et al. Sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. JAMA 295, 2516-2524 (2006).
9. US Food & Drug Administration. Guidance for industry and Food and Drug Administration staff - in vitro companion diagnostic devices (draft guidance). US Food & Drug Administration [online], http://www.fda.gov/ MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm262292.htm (2011).
10. Teutsch, S. M. et al. The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group. Genet. Med. 11, 3-14 (2009).
11. US Food & Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: enrichment strategies for clinical trials to support approval of human drugs and biological products (draft duidance). US Food & Drug Administration [online], http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ Guidances/UCM332181.pdf (2012).
12. European Medicines Agency. Reflection paper on co-development of pharmacogenomic biomarkers and assays in the context of drug development. European Medicines Agency [online], http://www.ema. europa.eu/docs/en-GB/ document-library/Scientific- guideline/2010/07/WC500094445.pdf (2010).
13. US Food & Drug Administration. Drug-diagnostic co-development concept paper (draft - not for implementation). US Food & Drug Administration [online], http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/scienceresearch/researchareas/ pharmacogenetics/ucm116689.pdf (2005).
14. Moore, M. W., Babu, D. & Cotter, P. D. Challenges in the codevelopment of companion diagnostics. Per. Med. 9, 485-496 (2012).
15. Beckman, R. A., Clark, J. & Chen, C. Integrating predictive biomarkers and classifiers into oncology clinical development programmes. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 735-748 (2011).
16. Ravnan, M. C. & Matalka, M. S. Vemurafenib in patients with BRAF V600E mutation-positive advanced melanoma. Clin. Ther. 34, 1474-1486 (2012).
17. Tanizaki, J. et al. Activation of HER family signaling as a mechanism of acquired resistance to ALK inhibitors in EML4-ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 18, 6219-6226 (2012).
18. Brand, T. M., Iida, M. & Wheeler, D. L. Molecular mechanisms of resistance to the EGFR monoclonal antibody cetuximab. Cancer Biol. Ther. 11, 777-792 (2011).
19. Chung, K. Y. et al. Cetuximab shows activity in colorectal cancer patients with tumors that do not express the epidermal growth factor receptor by immunohistochemistry. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 1803-1810 (2005).
20. Fridlyand, J. et al. An industry statistician's perspective on PHC drug development. Contemp. Clin. Trials http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2013.04.006 (2013).
21. Freidlin, B., McShane, L. M., Polley, M. Y. & Korn, E. L. Randomized phase II trial designs with biomarkers. J. Clin. Oncol. 30, 3304-3309 (2012).
22. Kaiser, L., Becker, C., Kukreti, S. & Fine, B. Decision making for a companion diagnostic in an oncology clinical development program. Drug Inform. J. 46, 294-302 (2012).
23. Mandrekar, S. J. & Sargent, D. J. Clinical trial designs for predictive biomarker validation: theoretical considerations and practical challenges. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, 4027-4034 (2009).
24. Mandrekar, S. J. & Sargent, D. J. All-comers versus enrichment design strategy in phase II trials. J. Thorac. Oncol. 6, 658-660 (2011).
25. Simon, R. Clinical trial designs for evaluating the medical utility of prognostic and predictive biomarkers in oncology. Per. Med. 7, 33-47 (2010).
26. Zhan, S. et al. Defective neuropeptide processing and ischemic brain injury: a study on proprotein convertase 2 and its substrate neuropeptide in ischemic brains. J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab. 29, 698-706 (2009).
27. Spiegl-Kreinecker, S. et al. O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase protein expression in tumor cells predicts outcome of temozolomide therapy in glioblastoma patients. Neuro Oncol. 12, 28-36 (2010).
28. Brannath, W. et al. Confirmatory adaptive designs with Bayesian decision tools for a targeted therapy in oncology. Stat. Med. 28, 1445-1463 (2009).
29. 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).
30. Hochberg, Y. A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika 75, 800-802 (1988).
31. Wang, S. J., O'Neill, R. T. & Hung, H. M. Approaches to evaluation of treatment effect in randomized clinical trials with genomic subset. Pharm. Stat. 6, 227-244 (2007).
32. 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).
33. Christine, M. M., Sharly, J. N. & Gilbert, S. O. (eds) Evolution of Translational Omics: Lessons Learned and the Path Forward (The National Academies Press, 2012).
34. Breiman, L. Bagging predictors. Machine Learn. 24, 123-140 (1996).
35. Freidlin, B., Jiang, W. & Simon, R. The cross-validated adaptive signature design. Clin. Cancer Res. 16, 691-698 (2010).
36. 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).
37. Kaiser, L. D. Stratification of randomization is not required for a pre-specified subgroup analysis. Pharm. Stat. 12, 43-47 (2013).
38. Scher, H. I., Nasso, S. F., Rubin, E. H. & Simon, R. Adaptive clinical trial designs for simultaneous testing of matched diagnostics and therapeutics. Clin. Cancer Res. 17, 6634-6640 (2011).
39. 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).
40. European Medicines Agency. Reflection paper on methodological issues associated with pharmacogenomic biomarkers in relation to clinical development and patient selection. European Medicines Agency [online], http://www.ema. europa.eu/docs/en-GB/document-library/Scientific- guideline/2011/07/WC500108672. pdf (2011).
41. Goldberg, P. KRAS finding changes oncology practice but poses profound regulatory dilemma. The Cancer Letter 35, 1-8 (2009).
42. Patterson, S. D. et al. Prospective-retrospective biomarker analysis for regulatory consideration: white paper from the industry pharmacogenomics working group. Pharmacogenomics 12, 939-951 (2011).
43. Simon, R. & Roychowdhury, S. Implementing personalized cancer genomics in clinical trials. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 12, 358-369 (2013).
44. Park, R. Companion diagnostics: a blossoming field. IVD Technology [online], http://www.ivdtechnology. com/article/companion-diagnostics- blossoming-field (2011).
45. Gaffney, A. Device group launches offensive against pending EU legislation. Regulatory Focus [online], http://www.raps.org/focus-online/news/ news-article-view/article/2977/device-group-launches-offensive-against-pending- eu-legislation.aspx (2013).
46. European Commission. In vitro diagnostic medical devices: Directive 98/79/EC. European Commission [online], http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/ european-standards/harmonised-standards/iv-diagnostic-medical-devices/(1998).
47. Stynen, D. Revision of Europe's IVD Directive 98/79/EC. IVD Technology [online], http://www.ivdtechnology. com/article/revision-europe's-ivd-directive- 9879ec (2011).
48. European Commission. Revision of the medical device directives. European Commission [online], http://ec. europa.eu/health/medical-devices/documents/ revision (2012).
49. Study Group 1 of the Global Harmonization Task Force. Principles of In Vitro Diagnostic (IVD) Medical Devices Classification [online], http://www.imdrf.org/docs/ghtf/final/sg1/procedural-docs/ghtf-sg1-n045-2008- principles-ivd-medical-devices-classification-080219. pdf (Global Harmonization Task Force, 2008).