Predicting the active doses in humans from animal studies: a novel approach in oncology.

The success rate of clinical drug development is significantly lower in oncology than in other therapeutic areas. Predicting the activity of new compounds in humans from preclinical data could substantially reduce the number of failures. A novel approach for predicting the expected active doses in humans from the first animal studies is presented here. The method relies upon a PK/PD model of tumour growth inhibition in xenografts, which provides parameters describing the potency of the tested compounds. Anticancer drugs, currently used in the clinic, were evaluated in xenograft models and their potency parameters were estimated. A good correlation was obtained between these parameters and the exposures sustained at the therapeutically relevant dosing regimens. Based on the corresponding regression equation and the potency parameters estimated in the first preclinical studies, the therapeutically active concentrations of new compounds can be estimated. An early knowledge of level of exposure or doses to be reached in humans will improve the risk evaluation and decision making processes in anticancer drug development.

[1]  Thomas J Lynch,et al.  The phase III trial in the era of targeted therapy: unraveling the "go or no go" decision. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[2]  L. Kèlland,et al.  Of mice and men: values and liabilities of the athymic nude mouse model in anticancer drug development. , 2004, European journal of cancer.

[3]  K. Munesada,et al.  Fast turnaround bioanalysis in discovery and early clinical development , 2002 .

[4]  Alexander Kamb,et al.  Why is cancer drug discovery so difficult? , 2007, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[5]  L. Norton,et al.  Predicting the course of Gompertzian growth , 1976, Nature.

[6]  L. Norton,et al.  Growth curve of an experimental solid tumor following radiotherapy. , 1977, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[7]  W. Stigelman,et al.  Goodman and Gilman's the Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics , 1986 .

[8]  S. Steinberg,et al.  Compressing drug development timelines in oncology using phase '0' trials , 2007, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[9]  J. Schellens,et al.  Inter- and intratumoral disposition of platinum in solid tumors after administration of cisplatin. , 2002, Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

[10]  M. Bibby,et al.  Orthotopic models of cancer for preclinical drug evaluation: advantages and disadvantages. , 2004, European journal of cancer.

[11]  A. Maier,et al.  Clonogenic assay with established human tumour xenografts: correlation of in vitro to in vivo activity as a basis for anticancer drug discovery. , 2004, European journal of cancer.

[12]  R. John Davenport,et al.  Go or No-Go? , 2003 .

[13]  G. Granneman,et al.  Use of In Vitro and In Vivo Data to Estimate the Likelihood of Metabolic Pharmacokinetic Interactions , 1997, Clinical pharmacokinetics.

[14]  N. Komarova Mathematical modeling of tumorigenesis: mission possible , 2005, Current opinion in oncology.

[15]  Paolo Magni,et al.  Predictive Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Modeling of Tumor Growth Kinetics in Xenograft Models after Administration of Anticancer Agents , 2004, Cancer Research.

[16]  V. Devita,et al.  Cancer : Principles and Practice of Oncology , 1982 .

[17]  P. Houghton,et al.  Relationship between topotecan systemic exposure and tumor response in human neuroblastoma xenografts. , 1998, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[18]  M. Christian,et al.  Relationships between drug activity in NCI preclinical in vitro and in vivo models and early clinical trials , 2001, British Journal of Cancer.

[19]  L. Seymour,et al.  Clinical predictive value of the in vitro cell line, human xenograft, and mouse allograft preclinical cancer models. , 2003, Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

[20]  T. Gura Systems for Identifying New Drugs Are Often Faulty , 1997, Science.

[21]  G. Nicolao,et al.  A PK-PD model for predicting tumor growth inhibition in mice: a useful tool in oncology drug development , 2004 .

[22]  M. Broggini,et al.  Pharmacokinetics of VP16-213 in Lewis lung carcinoma bearing mice , 1982, Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology.

[23]  G. De Nicolao,et al.  A pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model for predicting tumour growth inhibition in mice: a useful tool in oncology drug development. , 2005, Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology.

[24]  Rihard Karba,et al.  Mathematical modelling of tumor growth in mice following electrotherapy and bleomycin treatment , 1995 .

[25]  L. Goodman,et al.  The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics , 1941 .

[26]  M Rocchetti,et al.  A mathematical model to study the effects of drugs administration on tumor growth dynamics. , 2006, Mathematical biosciences.

[27]  I. Kola,et al.  Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? , 2004, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[28]  A. Lissoni,et al.  Phase I multicenter study of combined high-dose ifosfamide and doxorubicin in the treatment of advanced sarcomas. Swiss Group for Clinical Research (SAKK). , 1998, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[29]  Alexander Kamb,et al.  What's wrong with our cancer models? , 2005, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[30]  P. Houghton,et al.  Integrating pharmacology and in vivo cancer models in preclinical and clinical drug development. , 2004, European journal of cancer.