Literature DB >> 20338899

Clinical trials for predictive medicine: new challenges and paradigms.

Richard Simon1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Developments in biotechnology and genomics have increased the focus of biostatisticians on prediction problems. This has led to many exciting developments for predictive modeling where the number of variables is larger than the number of cases. Heterogeneity of human diseases and new technology for characterizing them presents new opportunities and challenges for the design and analysis of clinical trials.
PURPOSE: In oncology, treatment of broad populations with regimens that do not benefit most patients is less economically sustainable with expensive molecularly targeted therapeutics. The established molecular heterogeneity of human diseases requires the development of new paradigms for the design and analysis of randomized clinical trials as a reliable basis for predictive medicine [Simon R. An agenda for clinical trials: clinical trials in the genomic era. Clin Trials 2004; 1:468-70, Simon R. New challenges for 21st century clinical trials. Clin Trials 2007; 4: 167-9.].
RESULTS: We have reviewed prospective designs for the development of new therapeutics with candidate predictive biomarkers. We have also outlined a prediction based approach to the analysis of randomized clinical trials that both preserves the type I error and provides a reliable internally validated basis for predicting which patients are most likely or unlikely to benefit from the new regimen.
CONCLUSIONS: Developing new treatments with predictive biomarkers for identifying the patients who are most likely or least likely to benefit makes drug development more complex. But for many new oncology drugs it is the only science based approach and should increase the chance of success. It may also lead to more consistency in results among trials and has obvious benefits for reducing the number of patients who ultimately receive expensive drugs which expose them risks of adverse events but no benefit. This approach also has great potential value for controlling societal expenditures on health care. Development of treatments with predictive biomarkers requires major changes in the standard paradigms for the design and analysis of clinical trials. Some of the key assumptions upon which current methods are based are no longer valid. In addition to reviewing a variety of new clinical trial designs for co-development of treatments and predictive biomarkers, we have outlined a prediction based approach to the analysis of randomized clinical trials. This is a very structured approach whose use requires careful prospective planning. It requires further development but may serve as a basis for a new generation of predictive clinical trials which provide the kinds of reliable individualized information which physicians and patients have long sought, but which have not been available from the past use of post-hoc subset analysis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20338899      PMCID: PMC4041069          DOI: 10.1177/1740774510366454

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Trials        ISSN: 1740-7745            Impact factor:   2.486


  21 in total

Review 1.  Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker.

Authors:  Margaret Sullivan Pepe; Holly Janes; Gary Longton; Wendy Leisenring; Polly Newcomb
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2004-05-01       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  An agenda for clinical trials: clinical trials in the genomic era.

Authors:  Richard M Simon
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.486

3.  Prediction error estimation: a comparison of resampling methods.

Authors:  Annette M Molinaro; Richard Simon; Ruth M Pfeiffer
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2005-05-19       Impact factor: 6.937

4.  New challenges for 21st century clinical trials.

Authors:  Richard Simon
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.486

Review 5.  The use of genomics in clinical trial design.

Authors:  Richard Simon
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2008-10-01       Impact factor: 12.531

6.  The cross-validated adaptive signature design.

Authors:  Boris Freidlin; Wenyu Jiang; Richard Simon
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2010-01-12       Impact factor: 12.531

7.  K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Christos S Karapetis; Shirin Khambata-Ford; Derek J Jonker; Chris J O'Callaghan; Dongsheng Tu; Niall C Tebbutt; R John Simes; Haji Chalchal; Jeremy D Shapiro; Sonia Robitaille; Timothy J Price; Lois Shepherd; Heather-Jane Au; Christiane Langer; Malcolm J Moore; John R Zalcberg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-10-23       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Approaches to evaluation of treatment effect in randomized clinical trials with genomic subset.

Authors:  Sue-Jane Wang; Robert T O'Neill; H M James Hung
Journal:  Pharm Stat       Date:  2007 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 1.894

9.  Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. I. Introduction and design.

Authors:  R Peto; M C Pike; P Armitage; N E Breslow; D R Cox; S V Howard; N Mantel; K McPherson; J Peto; P G Smith
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1976-12       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. II. analysis and examples.

Authors:  R Peto; M C Pike; P Armitage; N E Breslow; D R Cox; S V Howard; N Mantel; K McPherson; J Peto; P G Smith
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1977-01       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  15 in total

Review 1.  Implementing prognostic and predictive biomarkers in CRC clinical trials.

Authors:  Sandra Van Schaeybroeck; Wendy L Allen; Richard C Turkington; Patrick G Johnston
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-02-15       Impact factor: 66.675

2.  Changes in the Use of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in Clinical Trials for Older Patients with Cancer over Time.

Authors:  Olivia Le Saux; Claire Falandry; Hui K Gan; Benoit You; Gilles Freyer; Julien Péron
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2019-02-01

Review 3.  Implementing personalized cancer genomics in clinical trials.

Authors:  Richard Simon; Sameek Roychowdhury
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 84.694

4.  Adaptive clinical trial designs for simultaneous testing of matched diagnostics and therapeutics.

Authors:  Howard I Scher; Shelley Fuld Nasso; Eric H Rubin; Richard Simon
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 5.  Biomarker-Guided Non-Adaptive Trial Designs in Phase II and Phase III: A Methodological Review.

Authors:  Miranta Antoniou; Ruwanthi Kolamunnage-Dona; Andrea L Jorgensen
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2017-01-25

6.  How to develop treatments for biologically heterogeneous "diseases".

Authors:  Richard M Simon
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2012-06-07       Impact factor: 12.531

7.  Cancer biomarker discovery and validation.

Authors:  Nicolas Goossens; Shigeki Nakagawa; Xiaochen Sun; Yujin Hoshida
Journal:  Transl Cancer Res       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 1.241

8.  The Use of Covariates and Random Effects in Evaluating Predictive Biomarkers Under a Potential Outcome Framework.

Authors:  Zhiwei Zhang; Lei Nie; Guoxing Soon; Aiyi Liu
Journal:  Ann Appl Stat       Date:  2014-12-19       Impact factor: 2.083

9.  Bayesian hierarchical modeling of patient subpopulations: efficient designs of Phase II oncology clinical trials.

Authors:  Scott M Berry; Kristine R Broglio; Susan Groshen; Donald A Berry
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2013-08-27       Impact factor: 2.486

10.  Adjusting for misclassification in a stratified biomarker clinical trial.

Authors:  Chunling Liu; Aiyi Liu; Jiang Hu; Vivian Yuan; Susan Halabi
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2014-04-14       Impact factor: 2.373

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.