Literature DB >> 16670384

Minimally invasive pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic technologies in hypothesis-testing clinical trials of innovative therapies.

Paul Workman1, Eric O Aboagye, Yuen-Li Chung, John R Griffiths, Rachel Hart, Martin O Leach, Ross J Maxwell, Paul M J McSheehy, Pat M Price, Jamal Zweit.   

Abstract

Clinical trials of new cancer drugs should ideally include measurements of parameters such as molecular target expression, pharmacokinetic (PK) behavior, and pharmacodynamic (PD) endpoints that can be linked to measures of clinical effect. Appropriate PK/PD biomarkers facilitate proof-of-concept demonstrations for target modulation; enhance the rational selection of an optimal drug dose and schedule; aid decision-making, such as whether to continue or close a drug development project; and may explain or predict clinical outcomes. In addition, measurement of PK/PD biomarkers can minimize uncertainty associated with predicting drug safety and efficacy, reduce the high levels of drug attrition during development, accelerate drug approval, and decrease the overall costs of drug development. However, there are many challenges in the development and implementation of biomarkers that probably explain their disappointingly low implementation in phase I trials. The Pharmacodynamic/Pharmacokinetic Technologies Advisory committee of Cancer Research UK has found that submissions for phase I trials of new cancer drugs in the United Kingdom often lack detailed information about PK and/or PD endpoints, which leads to suboptimal information being obtained in those trials or to delays in starting the trials while PK/PD methods are developed and validated. Minimally invasive PK/PD technologies have logistic and ethical advantages over more invasive technologies. Here we review these technologies, emphasizing magnetic resonance spectroscopy and positron emission tomography, which provide detailed functional and metabolic information. Assays that measure effects of drugs on important biologic pathways and processes are likely to be more cost-effective than those that measure specific molecular targets. Development, validation, and implementation of minimally invasive PK/PD methods are encouraged.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16670384     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djj162

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  63 in total

1.  Development of a validated immunofluorescence assay for γH2AX as a pharmacodynamic marker of topoisomerase I inhibitor activity.

Authors:  Robert J Kinders; Melinda Hollingshead; Scott Lawrence; Jiuping Ji; Brian Tabb; William M Bonner; Yves Pommier; Larry Rubinstein; Yvonne A Evrard; Ralph E Parchment; Joseph Tomaszewski; James H Doroshow
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2010-10-05       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 2.  Diffusion-weighted (DW) and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for monitoring anticancer therapy.

Authors:  Anwar R Padhani; Aftab Alam Khan
Journal:  Target Oncol       Date:  2010-04-11       Impact factor: 4.493

Review 3.  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 4.  Development of radiotracers for oncology--the interface with pharmacology.

Authors:  Rohini Sharma; Eric Aboagye
Journal:  Br J Pharmacol       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 8.739

Review 5.  The changing landscape of phase I trials in oncology.

Authors:  Kit Man Wong; Anna Capasso; S Gail Eckhardt
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-11-10       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 6.  Integrated pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in drug development.

Authors:  Jasper Dingemanse; Silke Appel-Dingemanse
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 6.447

Review 7.  Biomarkers in oncology drug development.

Authors:  Darren R Hodgson; Robin D Whittaker; Athula Herath; Dereck Amakye; Glen Clack
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2008-12-11       Impact factor: 6.603

Review 8.  A review of imaging agent development.

Authors:  Eric D Agdeppa; Mary E Spilker
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2009-05-05       Impact factor: 4.009

Review 9.  Imaging angiogenesis of genitourinary tumors.

Authors:  Ying-Kiat Zee; James P B O'Connor; Geoff J M Parker; Alan Jackson; Andrew R Clamp; M Ben Taylor; Noel W Clarke; Gordon C Jayson
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2010-01-19       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 10.  Methods and challenges in quantitative imaging biomarker development.

Authors:  Richard G Abramson; Kirsteen R Burton; John-Paul J Yu; Ernest M Scalzetti; Thomas E Yankeelov; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Mishal Mendiratta-Lala; Brian J Bartholmai; Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan; Leon Lenchik; Rathan M Subramaniam
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 3.173

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.