Predicting success in regulatory approval from Phase I results

AbstractPurpose Drug development in oncology is resource intensive and has a high failure rate. In this exploratory analysis, we aimed to identify the characteristics and outcomes of published Phase I studies associated with future Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval.MethodsPhase I studies of approved and non-approved anticancer agents between 2000 and 2013 were retrospectively examined. Fisher’s exact and chi-squared tests were used to compare the potential predictive measures.ResultsPhase I studies of 88 anticancer agents (54 approved and 34 non-approved by the FDA), treating a total of 4,423 subjects, were examined. The median number of patients in Phase I trials of approved and non-approved agents was 44.5 and 32, respectively. A total of 423 subjects (86 reporting studies) had a complete responses, and 342 subjects (80 reporting studies) had a partial responses (PR). A higher number of PR (P < 0.001), PR rate (P = 0.003) and longer PR duration (P = 0.001) were predictive of regulatory success.ConclusionsThese preliminary findings indicate that objective responses in Phase I trials may have predictive value for later regulatory approval.

[1]  Suzanne F. Jones,et al.  A phase I evaluation of multitargeted antifolate (MTA, LY231514), administered every 21 days, utilizing the modified continual reassessment method for dose escalation , 1999, Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology.

[2]  D. D. Hoff,et al.  Response rates, duration of response, and dose response effects in phase I studies of antineoplastics , 1991, Investigational New Drugs.

[3]  T. Mukohara,et al.  Eribulin mesylate in patients with refractory cancers: a Phase I study , 2011, Investigational New Drugs.

[4]  M. van Glabbeke,et al.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[5]  P. Vasey,et al.  A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of LY231514, the multitargeted antifolate. , 1998, Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

[6]  A. Miller,et al.  Reporting results of cancer treatment , 1981, Cancer.

[7]  Daniel,et al.  There are no bad anticancer agents, only bad clinical trial designs--twenty-first Richard and Hinda Rosenthal Foundation Award Lecture. , 1998 .

[8]  John P A Ioannidis,et al.  Improving the drug development process: more not less randomized trials. , 2014, JAMA.

[9]  S. Ryser,et al.  Drug approvals and failures: implications for alliances , 2008, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[10]  C. Takimoto,et al.  A Phase I Study of Eribulin Mesylate (E7389), a Mechanistically Novel Inhibitor of Microtubule Dynamics, in Patients with Advanced Solid Malignancies , 2009, Clinical Cancer Research.

[11]  Janet Woodcock,et al.  Expediting drug development--the FDA's new "breakthrough therapy" designation. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  Ian Walker,et al.  Do molecularly targeted agents in oncology have reduced attrition rates? , 2009, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[13]  H. Hurwitz,et al.  Clinical evaluation of ZD6474, an orally active inhibitor of VEGF and EGF receptor signaling, in patients with solid, malignant tumors. , 2005, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[14]  M Van Glabbeke,et al.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[15]  M. Okada,et al.  [New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours-revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)]. , 2009, Gan to kagaku ryoho. Cancer & chemotherapy.

[16]  N. Saijo,et al.  A Phase I Dose-Escalation Study of ZD6474 in Japanese Patients with Solid, Malignant Tumors , 2006, Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.