Clinical trial designs for evaluating the medical utility of prognostic and predictive biomarkers in oncology.
Physicians need improved tools for selecting treatments for individual patients. Many diagnostic entities hat were traditionally viewed as individual diseases are heterogeneous in their molecular pathogenesis and treatment responsiveness. This results in the treatment of many patients with ineffective drugs, incursion of substantial medical costs for the treatment of patients who do not benefit and the conducting of large clinical trials to identify small, average treatment benefits for heterogeneous groups of patients. In oncology, new genomic technologies provide powerful tools for the selection of patients who require systemic treatment and are most (or least) likely to benefit from a molecularly targeted therapeutic. In the large amount of literature on biomarkers, there is considerable uncertainty and confusion regarding the specifics involved in the development and evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarker diagnostics. There is a lack of appreciation that the development of drugs with companion diagnostics increases the complexity of clinical development. Adapting to the fundamental importance of tumor heterogeneity and achieving the benefits of personalized oncology for patients and healthcare costs will require paradigm changes for clinical and statistical investigators in academia, industry and regulatory agencies. In this review, I attempt to address some of these issues and provide guidance on the design of clinical trials for evaluating the clinical utility and robustness of prognostic and predictive biomarkers.
Simon
Richard
R
National Cancer Institute, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892-7434, USA, Tel.: +1 301 496 0975.
N Engl J Med. 2004 Dec 30;351(27):2817-26
15591335
Clin Cancer Res. 2008 Oct 1;14(19):5984-93
18829477
Oncologist. 2006 Jun;11(6):541-52
16794234
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Apr 1;26(10):1626-34
18316791
Clin Cancer Res. 2004 Oct 15;10(20):6759-63
15501951
Pharmacogenomics J. 2006 May-Jun;6(3):166-73
16415922
Am J Epidemiol. 2004 May 1;159(9):882-90
15105181
Expert Opin Med Diagn. 2008 Jun;2(6):721-9
23495781
Bioinformatics. 2005 Aug 1;21(15):3301-7
15905277
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jan 1;25(1):118-45
17159189
Nature. 2008 Apr 3;452(7187):548-52
18385728
Breast. 2005 Dec;14(6):493-9
16239111
Stat Med. 2007 Aug 30;26(19):3535-49
17266164
Biometrics. 2000 Jun;56(2):337-44
10877287
Br J Cancer. 1994 Jun;69(6):979-85
8198989
Clin Cancer Res. 2008 Jul 15;14(14):4358-67
18628448
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003 Jan 1;95(1):14-8
12509396
Pharmacogenomics. 2004 Jul;5(5):451-4
15212580
N Engl J Med. 2008 Oct 23;359(17):1757-65
18946061
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Jan 2;100(1):14-20
18159072
Pharm Stat. 2007 Jul-Sep;6(3):227-44
17688238
Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2004 Nov;1(1):4-5
16264774
Am J Pharmacogenomics. 2005;5(5):317-25
16196501
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Nov 4;101(21):1446-52
19815849
Clin Cancer Res. 2008 Oct 1;14(19):5967-76
18829475
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Jan 17;99(2):147-57
17227998
Clin Cancer Res. 2005 Nov 1;11(21):7872-8
16278411
Clin Trials. 2010 Oct;7(5):537-45
20685769
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Oct 15;100(20):1432-8
18840817
Stat Med. 2005 Feb 15;24(3):329-39
15551403
Oncologist. 2007 Jun;12(6):631-5
17602054
N Engl J Med. 2007 Oct 11;357(15):1496-506
17928597
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Jul 4;99(13):1036-43
17596577
Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2006 Oct;3(10):540-51
17019432
J Biopharm Stat. 2009;19(3):530-42
19384694
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Feb 10;26(5):721-8
18258979