Integrating predictive biomarkers and classifiers into oncology clinical development programmes

The future of drug development in oncology lies in identifying subsets of patients who will benefit from particular therapies, using predictive biomarkers. These technologies offer hope of enhancing the value of cancer medicines and reducing the size, cost and failure rates of clinical trials. However, examples of the failure of predictive biomarkers also exist. In these cases the use of biomarkers increased the costs, complexity and duration of clinical trials, and narrowed the treated population unnecessarily. Here, we present methods to adaptively integrate predictive biomarkers into clinical programmes in a data-driven manner, wherein these biomarkers are emphasized in exact proportion to the evidence supporting their clinical predictive value. The resulting programme demands value from predictive biomarkers and is designed to optimally harvest this value for oncology drug development.

[1]  J. Berger.  Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis , 1988 .

[2]  Cyrus R Mehta,et al.  Adaptive, group sequential and decision theoretic approaches to sample size determination , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[3]  Robert A Beckman,et al.  Optimal Cost-Effective Designs of Phase II Proof of Concept Trials and Associated Go–No Go Decisions , 2009, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[4]  Frank Bretz,et al.  Confirmatory Seamless Phase II/III Clinical Trials with Hypotheses Selection at Interim: General Concepts , 2006, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[5]  Sabine Tejpar,et al.  KRAS status and efficacy in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with FOLFIRI with or without cetuximab: The CRYSTAL experience , 2008 .

[6]  T. Jacks,et al.  Cancer Modeling in the Modern Era Progress and Challenges , 2002, Cell.

[7]  S. Friend,et al.  Cancer Biomarkers—An Invitation to the Table , 2006, Science.

[8]  S. Gabriel,et al.  EGFR Mutations in Lung Cancer: Correlation with Clinical Response to Gefitinib Therapy , 2004, Science.

[9]  Richard Simon,et al.  The Use of Genomics in Clinical Trial Design , 2008, Clinical Cancer Research.

[10]  E. Mohammadi,et al.  Barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of a physiological track and trigger system: A systematic review of the qualitative evidence , 2017, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[11]  R. Simon,et al.  A Comparison of Phase II Study Strategies , 2009, Clinical Cancer Research.

[12]  D. Berry,et al.  I‐SPY 2: An Adaptive Breast Cancer Trial Design in the Setting of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy , 2009, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[13]  Robert A. Beckman,et al.  Optimal Cost-Effective Go-No Go Decisions in Late-Stage Oncology Drug Development , 2009 .

[14]  L. Siu,et al.  Surrogate end points for median overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer: literature-based analysis from 39 randomized controlled trials of first-line chemotherapy. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[15]  Daniel J. Freeman,et al.  Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[16]  Paul Gallo,et al.  Sample Size Reestimation: A Review and Recommendations , 2006 .

[17]  D. Berry.  Bayesian clinical trials , 2006, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[18]  R. Wilson,et al.  EGF receptor gene mutations are common in lung cancers from "never smokers" and are associated with sensitivity of tumors to gefitinib and erlotinib. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  Soonmyung Paik,et al.  Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. , 2009, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[20]  R. Simon,et al.  Adaptive Signature Design: An Adaptive Clinical Trial Design for Generating and Prospectively Testing A Gene Expression Signature for Sensitive Patients , 2005, Clinical Cancer Research.

[21]  K. Mcmullen,et al.  Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy , 2005 .

[22]  R. Simon,et al.  The Cross-Validated Adaptive Signature Design , 2010, Clinical Cancer Research.

[23]  Robert A. Beckman,et al.  Hypothesis Testing in a Confirmatory Phase III Trial With a Possible Subset Effect , 2009 .

[24]  T. Fleming,et al.  Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. , 2001, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  R Simon,et al.  Investigating a sequence of randomized phase II trials to discover promising treatments. , 1995, Statistics in medicine.

[26]  Boris Freidlin,et al.  Randomized clinical trials with biomarkers: design issues. , 2010, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[27]  C. Bokemeyer,et al.  KRAS status and efficacy of first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with FOLFOX with or without cetuximab: The OPUS experience , 2008 .

[28]  M. Ratain,et al.  Biomarkers in Phase I Oncology Trials: Signal, Noise, or Expensive Distraction? , 2007, Clinical Cancer Research.

[29]  Victor C. Strasburger,et al.  Review and Recommendations , 1983 .

[30]  Mehmet Toner,et al.  Detection of mutations in EGFR in circulating lung-cancer cells. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[31]  Alex Dmitrienko,et al.  Design and Analysis Considerations in Clinical Trials With a Sensitive Subpopulation , 2010 .

[32]  A. Lièvre,et al.  KRAS mutation status is predictive of response to cetuximab therapy in colorectal cancer. , 2006, Cancer research.

[33]  H. Federrath,et al.  Design issues , 2008 .

[34]  N. Robert,et al.  Multinational study of the efficacy and safety of humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody in women who have HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer that has progressed after chemotherapy for metastatic disease. , 1999, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[35]  W. Weber,et al.  PET for response assessment in oncology: radiotherapy and chemotherapy , 2005 .

[36]  D. Vriens,et al.  Monitoring and Predicting Response to Therapy with 18F-FDG PET in Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[37]  Michael LeBlanc,et al.  Interim futility analysis with intermediate endpoints , 2008, Clinical trials.

[38]  Donald A Berry,et al.  Introduction to Bayesian methods III: use and interpretation of Bayesian tools in design and analysis , 2005, Clinical trials.

[40]  C. Mehta,et al.  The future of drug development: advancing clinical trial design , 2009, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[41]  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.

[42]  Frank Bretz,et al.  Confirmatory adaptive designs with Bayesian decision tools for a targeted therapy in oncology , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

[43]  D. Ransohoff,et al.  Sources of bias in specimens for research about molecular markers for cancer. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[44]  Robert Beckman,et al.  Pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics in oncology therapeutic antibody development. , 2005, BioTechniques.

[45]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Comparison of effect sizes associated with biomarkers reported in highly cited individual articles and in subsequent meta-analyses. , 2011, JAMA.