Applications for oncologic drugs: A descriptive analysis of the oncologic drugs advisory committee reviews

Oncologist

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 299-304

  Chan, John K ^a,d   Kiet, Tuyen K ^a   Monk, Bradley J ^b   Young Lin, Nichole ^a   Blansit, Kevin ^a,d   Kapp, Daniel S ^c   Amanam, Idoroenyi ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinical trial study design; Oncologic drugs advisory committee; Oncology drug applications; U.S. food and drug administration

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; ATRASENTAN; BEVACIZUMAB; BICALUTAMIDE; BRENTUXIMAB VEDOTIN; CARMUSTINE; CLOFARABINE; DASATINIB; DOXORUBICIN; DUTASTERIDE; EFAPROXIRAL; FINASTERIDE; GEFITINIB; HOMOHARRINGTONINE; IBRITUMOMAB TIUXETAN; LAROMUSTINE; LENALIDOMIDE; NELARABINE; OBLIMERSEN; OFATUMUMAB; PEMETREXED; PIXANTRONE; PRALATREXATE; RALOXIFENE; ROMIDEPSIN; SATRAPLATIN; TIPIFARNIB; TOSITUMOMAB; TOSITUMOMAB I 131; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; VINCRISTINE; VINCRISTINE SULFATE;

ACUTE LYMPHOBLASTIC LEUKEMIA; ADVISORY COMMITTEE; ARTICLE; BONE CANCER; BRAIN CANCER; BREAST CANCER; CHRONIC MYELOID LEUKEMIA; CUTANEOUS T CELL LYMPHOMA; DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH; DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG TOXICITY; GLIOBLASTOMA; HEMATOLOGIC DISEASE; HUMAN; KIDNEY CANCER; LEUKEMIA; LUNG CANCER; LUNG NON SMALL CELL CANCER; LYMPHOMA; OVARY CANCER; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PANCREAS CANCER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL; PROSTATE CANCER; SAMPLE SIZE; SARCOMA; SKIN CANCER; SOLID TUMOR; STUDY DESIGN; THYROID CANCER; DRUG THERAPY; NEOPLASMS; ONCOLOGY; STANDARDS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; DRUG THERAPY; HUMANS; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY; NEOPLASMS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84896475622     PISSN: 10837159     EISSN: 1549490X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2013-0276     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. ParmarMK, BarthelFM, SydesMet al. Speeding up the evaluation of new agents in cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008; 100: 1204-1214.
2. Califf RM, ZarinDA, Kramer JMet al. Characteristics of clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials. gov, 2007-2010. JAMA 2012; 307: 1838-1847.
3. Reichert JM, Wenger JB. Development trends for new cancer therapeutics and vaccines. Drug Discov Today 2008; 13: 30-37.
4. Nottage M, Siu LL. Principles of clinical trial design. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 42S-46S.
5. Roberts TG Jr., Lynch TJ Jr., Chabner BA. The phase III trial intheeraof targetedtherapy: Unraveling the"go or no go" decision. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 3683-3695.
6. DiMasi JA, HansenRW, Grabowski HG. The price of innovation: New estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ 2003; 22: 151-185.
7. Collier R. Drugdevelopment costestimates hard to swallow. CMAJ 2009; 180: 279-280.
8. Kola I, Landis J. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nat Rev Drug Discov 2004; 3: 711-715.
9. U. S. Food and Drug Administration. Innovation or Stagnation: ChallengeandOpportunityonthe Critical Path to New Medical Products. Challenges andOpportunitiesReport. 2004. Availableat: http://www. fda. gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/CriticalPathInitiative/CriticalPathOpportunitiesReports/ucm077262. htm. Accessed September 29, 2012.
10. Pazdur R. The FDA's new oncology office. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol 2005; 3: 612-613.
11. Chan J, Loring M, Sherman A et al. Factor associatedwith successfulFDAapprovalafterapositive phase III clinical trial using targeted anti cancer agents paper [oral presentation]. Presented at the proceeding of the Western Association of Gynecologic Oncology, Vancouver, BC, Canada, June 24-27, 2009.
12. Triggle CR, Triggle DJ. What is the future of peer review?Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Whydo scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of: "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"? Vasc Health Risk Manag 2007; 3: 39-53.
13. Ross DB. TheFDAandthe case of Ketek. NEngl J Med 2007; 356: 1601-1604.
14. Niraula S, Seruga B, Ocana A et al. The price we pay for progress: Ameta-analysis of harms of newly approved anticancer drugs. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 3012-3019.
15. Kirk R. Targeted therapies: The toxic reality of new drugs. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2012; 9: 488.
16. Sargent DJ, Hayes DF. Assessing themeasureof a new drug: Is survival the only thing that matters? J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 1922-1923.
17. Tang PA, Bentzen SM, Chen EX et al. Surrogate end points for median overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer: Literature-based analysis from 39 randomizedcontrolledtrials of first-line chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 4562-4568.
18. Buyse M, Burzykowski T, Carroll K et al. Progression-free survival is a surrogate for survival in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 5218-5224.
19. Booth CM, Eisenhauer EA. Progression-free survival: Meaningful or simply measurable? J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 1030-1033.
20. Miksad RA, Zietemann V, Gothe R et al. Progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint in advanced breast cancer. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008; 24: 371-383.
21. Sherrill B, Amonkar M, Wu Y et al. Relationship between effects on time-to-disease progression and overall survival in studies of metastatic breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2008; 99: 1572-1578.
22. Dimasi JA. Risks in new drug development: Approval success rates for investigational drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001; 69: 297-307.
23. Amir E, Seruga B, Martinez-Lopez J et al. Oncogenic targets, magnitude of benefit, andmarket pricing of antineoplastic drugs. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 2543-2549.