Biomarkers in oncology drug development.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hodgson DR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5527864 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Biomarkers in oncology drug development.
Hodgson Darren R DR Whittaker Robin D RD Herath Athula A Amakye Dereck D Clack Glen G
Molecular oncology 20081211 1
Biomarker measurements have become an essential component of oncology drug development, particularly so in this era of targeted therapies. Such measurements ensure that clinical studies are testing our biological hypotheses and can help make the difficult decisions required to choose which drugs to stop developing or de-prioritise. For those drugs taken forward, biomarker measurements may also help choose the appropriate dose, schedule and patient population. In this review we discuss the intrin ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Technological advancements in the molecular characterization of cancers have enabled researchers to identify an increasing number of key molecular drivers of cancer progression. These discoveries have led to multiple novel anticancer therapeutics, and clinical benefit in selected patient populations. Despite this, the identification of clinically relevant predictive biomarkers of response continues to lag behind. In this review, we discuss strategies for the molecular characterization of cancers and the importance of biomarkers for the development of novel antitumor therapeutics. We also review critical successes and failures in oncology, and detail the lessons learnt, which may aid in the acceleration of anticancer drug development and biomarker discovery.
| S-EPMC4189730 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The inhibitors of apoptosis (IAPs) constitute a family of proteins involved in the regulation of various cellular processes, including cell death, immune and inflammatory responses, cell proliferation, cell differentiation, and cell motility. There is accumulating evidence supporting IAP-targeting in tumors: IAPs regulate various cellular processes that contribute to tumor development, such as cell death, cell proliferation, and cell migration; their expression is increased in a number of human tumor samples, and IAP overexpression has been correlated with tumor growth, and poor prognosis or low response to treatment; and IAP expression can be rapidly induced in response to chemotherapy or radiotherapy because of the presence of an internal ribosome entry site (IRES)-dependent mechanism of translation initiation, which could contribute to resistance to antitumor therapy. The development of IAP antagonists is an important challenge and was subject to intense research over the past decade. Six molecules are currently in clinical trials. This review focuses on the role of IAPs in tumors and the development of IAP-targeting molecules for anticancer therapy.
| S-EPMC3787928 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Progress in oncology drug development has been hampered by a lack of preclinical models that reliably predict clinical activity of novel compounds in cancer patients. In an effort to address these shortcomings, there has been a recent increase in the use of patient-derived tumour xenografts (PDTX) engrafted into immune-compromised rodents such as athymic nude or NOD/SCID mice for preclinical modelling. Numerous tumour-specific PDTX models have been established and, importantly, they are biologically stable when passaged in mice in terms of global gene-expression patterns, mutational status, metastatic potential, drug responsiveness and tumour architecture. These characteristics might provide significant improvements over standard cell-line xenograft models. This Review will discuss specific PDTX disease examples illustrating an overview of the opportunities and limitations of these models in cancer drug development, and describe concepts regarding predictive biomarker development and future applications.
| S-EPMC3928688 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Oncology drug development is among the most challenging of any therapeutic area, with first-in-human trials expected to deliver information on both safety and activity. Until recently, therapeutic approaches in oncology focused on cytotoxic chemotherapy agents, ruling out even the possibility of enrolling normal healthy volunteers (NHVs) in clinical trials due to safety considerations. The emergence of noncytotoxic modalities, including molecularly targeted agents with more favorable safety profiles, however, has led to increasing numbers of clinical pharmacology studies of these agents being conducted in NHVs. Beyond rapid enrollment and cost savings, there are other advantages of conducting specific types of studies in NHVs with the goal of more appropriate dosing decisions in certain subsets of the intended patient populations, allowing for enrollment of such patients in therapeutic trials from which they might otherwise have been excluded. Nevertheless, the decision must be carefully weighed against potential disadvantages, and although the considerations surrounding conduct of clinical trials using NHVs are generally well-defined in most other therapeutic areas, they are less well-defined in oncology.
| S-EPMC6951451 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The effects of incorporating a biomarker-based (personalized or precision) selection strategy on drug development timelines for new oncology drugs merit investigation. Here we accessed documents from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) database for anticancer agents approved between 09/1998 and 07/2014 to compare drugs developed with and without a personalized strategy. Sixty-three drugs were included (28 [44%] personalized and 35 [56%] non-personalized). No differences in access to FDA-expedited programs were observed between personalized and non-personalized drugs. A personalized approach for drug development was associated with faster clinical development (Investigational New Drug [IND] to New Drug Application [NDA] submission; median = 58.8 months [95% CI 53.8-81.8] vs. 93.5 months [95% CI 73.9-112.9], P =.001), but a similar approval time (NDA submission to approval; median=6.0 months [95% CI 5.5-8.4] vs. 6.1 months [95% CI 5.9-8.3], P = .756) compared to a non-personalized strategy. In the multivariate model, class of drug stratified by personalized status (targeted personalized vs. targeted non-personalized vs. cytotoxic) was the only independent factor associated with faster total time of clinical drug development (clinical plus approval phase, median = 64.6 vs 87.1 vs. 112.7 months [cytotoxic], P = .038). Response rates (RR) in early trials were positively correlated with RR in registration trials (r = 0.63, P = <.001), and inversely associated with total time of drug development (r = -0.29, P = .049). In conclusion, targeted agents were developed faster than cytotoxic agents. Shorter times to approval were associated, in multivariate analysis, with a biomarker-based clinical development strategy.
| S-EPMC5288167 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRegulatory approval of oncology drugs is the cornerstone of the development process and approval characteristics shape eventual utilization. Approval trends and characteristics provide valuable information for drug developers and regulators and ultimately affect clinicians and patients.MethodsIndication characteristics were tabulated for drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for systemic therapy of malignancies from 1949 through October 2011. Variables included time to approval, initial/supplemental indication, tumor type, stage of disease, specification of protein expression or genetic information, drug class, trial design, concomitant agent, trial size, and endpoint.ResultsA total of 121 unique anticancer agents, including 242 unique indications, were approved. The number of trials for each indication has decreased; however, trial size has increased and more randomized controlled trials have been performed. Trial designs have increasingly used time-to-event endpoints and rarely have used symptom-based primary endpoints. Approvals have been primarily single agent, with less emphasis on palliative treatments and increasing emphasis on advanced disease stages and requirements for prior therapy. Molecular specifications in labels have increased, but they are present in less than 30% of recent indications and are not associated with shorter approval times.ConclusionApproval of oncology agents is occurring in increasingly more challenging settings, suggesting gaps between eventual practice and development in potentially suboptimal indications. Molecular specifications promise to enhance development, yet widespread use in label indications has not yet been achieved.
| S-EPMC3556246 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMouse clinical trials (MCTs) are becoming wildly used in pre-clinical oncology drug development, but a statistical framework is yet to be developed. In this study, we establish such as framework and provide general guidelines on the design, analysis and application of MCTs.MethodsWe systematically analyzed tumor growth data from a large collection of PDX, CDX and syngeneic mouse tumor models to evaluate multiple efficacy end points, and to introduce statistical methods for modeling MCTs.ResultsWe established empirical quantitative relationships between mouse number and measurement accuracy for categorical and continuous efficacy endpoints, and showed that more mice are needed to achieve given accuracy for syngeneic models than for PDXs and CDXs. There is considerable disagreement between methods on calling drug responses as objective response. We then introduced linear mixed models (LMMs) to describe MCTs as clustered longitudinal studies, which explicitly model growth and drug response heterogeneities across mouse models and among mice within a mouse model. Case studies were used to demonstrate the advantages of LMMs in discovering biomarkers and exploring drug's mechanisms of action. We introduced additive frailty models to perform survival analysis on MCTs, which more accurately estimate hazard ratios by modeling the clustered mouse population. We performed computational simulations for LMMs and frailty models to generate statistical power curves, and showed that power is close for designs with similar total number of mice. Finally, we showed that MCTs can explain discrepant results in clinical trials.ConclusionsMethods proposed in this study can make the design and analysis of MCTs more rational, flexible and powerful, make MCTs a better tool in oncology research and drug development.
| S-EPMC6643318 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Traditionally, drug development has evaluated dose, safety, activity, and comparative benefit in a sequence of phases using trial designs and endpoints specifically devised for each phase. Innovations in drug development seek to consolidate the phases and rapidly expand accrual with "seamless" trial designs. Although consolidation and rapid accrual may yield efficiencies, widespread use of seamless first-in-human (FiH) trials without careful consideration of objectives, statistical analysis plans, or trial oversight raises concerns. A working group formed by the National Cancer Institute convened to consider and discuss opportunities and challenges for such trials as well as encourage responsible use of these designs. We reviewed all abstracts presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meetings from 2010 to 2017 for FiH trials enrolling at least 100 patients. We identified 1786 early-phase trials enrolling 57 559 adult patients. Fifty-one of the trials (2.9%) investigated 50 investigational new drugs, were seamless, and accounted for 14.6% of the total patients. The seamless trials included a median of 3 (range = 1-13) expansion cohorts. The overall risk of clinically significant treatment-related adverse events (grade 3-4) was 49.1% (range = 0.0-100%), and seven studies reported at least one toxic death. Rapid expansion of FiH trials may lead to earlier drug approval and corresponding widespread patient access to active therapeutics. Nevertheless, seamless designs must adhere to established ethical, scientific, and statistical standards. Protocols should include prospectively planned analyses of efficacy in disease- or biomarker-defined cohorts of sufficient rigor to support accelerated approval.
| S-EPMC6376915 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The past decade has seen a dramatic increase in the discovery of candidate biomarkers for ALS. These biomarkers typically can either differentiate ALS from control subjects or predict disease course (slow versus fast progression). At the same time, late-stage clinical trials for ALS have failed to generate improved drug treatments for ALS patients. Incorporation of biomarkers into the ALS drug development pipeline and the use of biologic and/or imaging biomarkers in early- and late-stage ALS clinical trials have been absent and only recently pursued in early-phase clinical trials. Further clinical research studies are needed to validate biomarkers for disease progression and develop biomarkers that can help determine that a drug has reached its target within the central nervous system. In this review we summarize recent progress in biomarkers across ALS model systems and patient population, and highlight continued research directions for biomarkers that stratify the patient population to enrich for patients that may best respond to a drug candidate, monitor disease progression and track drug responses in clinical trials. It is crucial that we further develop and validate ALS biomarkers and incorporate these biomarkers into the ALS drug development process. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled ALS complex pathogenesis.
| S-EPMC4809521 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo assess whether a model-based analysis increased statistical power over an analysis of final day volumes and provide insights into more efficient patient derived xenograft (PDX) study designs.MethodsTumour xenograft time-series data was extracted from a public PDX drug treatment database. For all 2-arm studies the percent tumour growth inhibition (TGI) at day 14, 21 and 28 was calculated. Treatment effect was analysed using an un-paired, two-tailed t-test (empirical) and a model-based analysis, likelihood ratio-test (LRT). In addition, a simulation study was performed to assess the difference in power between the two data-analysis approaches for PDX or standard cell-line derived xenografts (CDX).ResultsThe model-based analysis had greater statistical power than the empirical approach within the PDX data-set. The model-based approach was able to detect TGI values as low as 25% whereas the empirical approach required at least 50% TGI. The simulation study confirmed the findings and highlighted that CDX studies require fewer animals than PDX studies which show the equivalent level of TGI.ConclusionsThe study conducted adds to the growing literature which has shown that a model-based analysis of xenograft data improves statistical power over the common empirical approach. The analysis conducted showed that a model-based approach, based on the first mathematical model of tumour growth, was able to detect smaller size of effect compared to the empirical approach which is common of such studies. A model-based analysis should allow studies to reduce animal use and experiment length providing effective insights into compound anti-tumour activity.
| S-EPMC7847196 | biostudies-literature