Literature DB >> 15737552

New science-based endpoints to accelerate oncology drug development.

Gary J Kelloff1, Caroline C Sigman.   

Abstract

Although several new oncology drugs have reached the market, more than 80% of drugs for all indications entering clinical development do not get marketing approval, with many failing late in development often in Phase III trials, because of unexpected safety issues or difficulty determining efficacy, including confounded outcomes. These factors contribute to the high costs of oncology drug development and clearly show the need for faster, more cost-effective strategies for evaluating oncology drugs and better definition of patients who will benefit from treatment. Remarkable advances in the understanding of neoplastic progression at the cellular and molecular levels have spurred the discovery of molecularly targeted drugs. This progress along with advances in imaging and bioassay technologies are the basis for describing and evaluating new biomarker endpoints as well as for defining other biomarkers for identifying patient populations, potential toxicity, and providing evidence of drug effect and efficacy. Definitions and classifications of these biomarkers for use in oncology drug development are presented in this paper. Science-based and practical criteria for validating biomarkers have been developed including considerations of mechanistic plausibility, available methods and technology, and clinical feasibility. New promising tools for measuring biomarkers have also been developed and are based on genomics and proteomics, direct visualisation by microscopy (e.g., confocal microscopy and computer-assisted image analysis of cellular features), nanotechnologies, and direct and remote imaging (e.g., fluorescence endoscopy and anatomical, functional and molecular imaging techniques). The identification and evaluation of potential surrogate endpoints and other biomarkers require access to and analysis of large amounts of data, new technologies and extensive research resources. Further, there is a requirement for a convergence of research, regulatory and drug developer thinking - an effort that will not be accomplished by individual scientists or research institutions. Research collaborations are needed to foster development of these new endpoints and other biomarkers and, in the United States (US), include ongoing efforts among the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Cancer Institute (NCI), academia, and industry.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15737552     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2004.12.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer        ISSN: 0959-8049            Impact factor:   9.162


  20 in total

Review 1.  Envisioning the future of early anticancer drug development.

Authors:  Timothy A Yap; Shahneen K Sandhu; Paul Workman; Johann S de Bono
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2010-06-10       Impact factor: 60.716

Review 2.  Biomarker method validation in anticancer drug development.

Authors:  J Cummings; T H Ward; A Greystoke; M Ranson; C Dive
Journal:  Br J Pharmacol       Date:  2007-09-17       Impact factor: 8.739

3.  Justification of the starting dose as the main determinant of accrual time in dose-seeking oncology phase 1 trials.

Authors:  Nicolas Penel; Pierre Leblond; Amélie Lansiaux; Stéphanie Clisant; Eric Dansin; Antoine Adenis; Jacques Bonneterre
Journal:  Invest New Drugs       Date:  2009-09-16       Impact factor: 3.850

Review 4.  Translational research in phase I trials.

Authors:  Angelica Fasolo; Cristiana Sessa
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 3.405

5.  Upholding the principles of autonomy, beneficence, and justice in phase I clinical trials.

Authors:  Taofeek K Owonikoko
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2013-03-01

6.  Intraspinal transplantation of neurogenin-expressing stem cells generates spinal cord neural progenitors.

Authors:  J Simon Lunn; Crystal Pacut; Emily Stern; Stacey A Sakowski; J Matthew Velkey; Sue O'Shea; Eva L Feldman
Journal:  Neurobiol Dis       Date:  2012-01-08       Impact factor: 5.996

7.  Advanced MRI: translation from animal to human in brain tumor research.

Authors:  Bradford A Moffat; Craig J Galbán; Alnawaz Rehemtulla
Journal:  Neuroimaging Clin N Am       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 2.264

8.  Quantitative imaging to assess tumor response to therapy: common themes of measurement, truth data, and error sources.

Authors:  Charles R Meyer; Samuel G Armato; Charles P Fenimore; Geoffrey McLennan; Luc M Bidaut; Daniel P Barboriak; Marios A Gavrielides; Edward F Jackson; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Paul E Kinahan; Nicholas Petrick; Binsheng Zhao
Journal:  Transl Oncol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.243

Review 9.  Institutional shared resources and translational cancer research.

Authors:  Paolo De Paoli
Journal:  J Transl Med       Date:  2009-06-29       Impact factor: 5.531

10.  Variance of SUVs for FDG-PET/CT is greater in clinical practice than under ideal study settings.

Authors:  Virendra Kumar; Kavindra Nath; Claudia G Berman; Jongphil Kim; Tawee Tanvetyanon; Alberto A Chiappori; Robert A Gatenby; Robert J Gillies; Edward A Eikman
Journal:  Clin Nucl Med       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 7.794

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.