Regulatory Approvals of Pediatr ic Oncology Drugs : Prev ious

Purpose: To review the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) experience with approvals of new drugs for pediatric oncology and to discuss new regulatory initiatives directed at pediatric oncology. Methods: A retrospective review of FDA archival documents and the published literature. Results: More than 100 drugs have been approved by the Division of Oncology Drug Products of the FDA for the treatment of malignancies. Only 15 have pediatric use information in their labeling, which is less than 50% of the drugs commonly used in the treatment of pediatric malignancies. In the past 20 years, there have been six submissions to the FDA for pediatric oncology indications. To illustrate principles of the approval process, each submission is discussed. Conclusion: Potential reasons for a lack of New Drug Application submissions for pediatric oncology include the small pediatric oncology market compared with the adult oncology market and perceived barriers to performing studies in children. Reasons for failure to approve pediatric indications include small numbers of patients, lack of appropriate controls, and failure to demonstrate patient benefit. Approval criteria include the use of controlled trials, prospective data collection, and diseaseappropriate end points. Regulatory initiatives to promote pediatric therapeutic development and product labeling are discussed. J Clin Oncol 21:1066-1073. © 2003 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[1]  J. Milone,et al.  Vindesine, prednisone, and daunomycin in acute lymphoblastic leukemia in relapse , 2004, Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology.

[2]  W. Bowman,et al.  VM26 therapy in children with drug-refractory lymphocytic leukemia , 2004, Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology.

[3]  S. Hirschfeld,et al.  Oncology drug development: United States Food and Drug Administration perspective. , 2002, Critical reviews in oncology/hematology.

[4]  S. Hirschfeld,et al.  Pediatric oncology: regulatory initiatives. , 2000, The oncologist.

[5]  D. Stram,et al.  Allogeneic versus autologous purged bone marrow transplantation for neuroblastoma: a report from the Childrens Cancer Group. , 1994, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[6]  A. Cantor,et al.  Phase II investigational window using carboplatin, iproplatin, ifosfamide, and epirubicin in children with untreated disseminated neuroblastoma: a Pediatric Oncology Group study. , 1994, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[7]  H. Issacs,et al.  Occult malignancy in neonatal sacrococcygeal teratomas. A report from a Combined Pediatric Oncology Group and Children's Cancer Group study. , 1993, The American journal of pediatric hematology/oncology.

[8]  A. Cantor,et al.  Cisplatin, vincristine, and fluorouracil therapy for hepatoblastoma: a Pediatric Oncology Group study. , 1993, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[9]  A. Lasorella,et al.  Principles of Cancer Chemotherapy in Children , 1992 .

[10]  R. Simon,et al.  Influence of doxorubicin dose intensity on response and outcome for patients with osteogenic sarcoma and Ewing's sarcoma. , 1991, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[11]  B. Leyland-Jones,et al.  Azacitidine: 10 years later. , 1987, Cancer treatment reports.

[12]  J. Anderson,et al.  Comparison of the therapeutic response of patients with childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia in relapse to vindesine versus vincristine in combination with prednisone and L-asparaginase: a phase III trial. , 1981, Cancer treatment reports.

[13]  R. Aur,et al.  VM‐26 and cytosine arabinoside combination chemotherapy for initial induction failures in childhood lymphocytic leukemia , 1980, Cancer.

[14]  R. Aur,et al.  Combined VM‐26 and cytosine arabinoside in treatment of refractory childhood lymphocytic leukemia , 1980, Cancer.