Predictive biomarker validation in practice: lessons from real trials.
BACKGROUND
With the advent of targeted therapies, biomarkers provide a promising means of individualizing therapy through an integrated approach to prediction using the genetic makeup of the disease and the genotype of the patient. Biomarker validation has therefore become a central topic of discussion in the field of medicine, primarily due to the changing landscape of therapies for treatment of a disease and these therapies purported mechanism(s) of action.


OBJECTIVE
In this report, we discuss the merits and limitations of some of the clinical trial designs for predictive biomarker validation using examples from ongoing or completed clinical trials.


METHODS
The designs are broadly classified as retrospective (i.e., using data from previously well-conducted randomized controlled trials (RCT)) versus prospective (enrichment or targeted, unselected or all-comers, hybrid, and adaptive analysis). We discuss some of these designs in the context of real trials.


RESULTS
Well-designed retrospective analysis of prospective RCT can bring forward effective treatments to marker defined subgroup of patients in a timely manner. An example is the KRAS gene status in colorectal cancer - the benefit from cetuximab and panitumumab was demonstrated to be restricted to patients with wild type status based on prospectively specified analyses using data from previously conducted RCTs. Prospective enrichment designs are appropriate when compelling preliminary evidence suggests that not all patients will benefit from the study treatment under consideration; however, this may sometimes leave questions unanswered. An example is the established benefit of trastuzumab as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer; a clear definition of HER2-positivity and the assay reproducibility have, however, remained unanswered. An all-comers design is optimal where preliminary evidence regarding treatment benefit and assay reproducibility is uncertain (e.g., EGFR expression and tyrosine kinase inhibitors in lung cancer), or to identify the most effective therapy from a panel of regimens (e.g., chemotherapy options in breast cancer).


CONCLUSIONS
The designs discussed here rest on the assumption that the technical feasibility, assay performance metrics, and the logistics of specimen collection are well established and that initial results demonstrate promise with regard to the predictive ability of the marker(s).


CONCLUSIONS
The choice of a clinical trial design is driven by a combination of scientific, clinical, statistical, and ethical considerations. There is no one size fits all solution to predictive biomarker validation.
Mandrekar
Sumithra J
SJ
Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. mandrekar.sumithra@mayo.edu
Sargent
Daniel J
DJ
D014408:Biomarkers, Tumor; D006801:Humans; D058990:Molecular Targeted Therapy; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D011446:Prospective Studies; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / Q000379:methods*; D012107:Research Design; D012189:Retrospective Studies
D014408:Biomarkers, Tumor
J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jul 1;24(19):3032-8
16809727
Clin Cancer Res. 2009 Jan 15;15(2):502-10
19147755
N Engl J Med. 2008 Oct 23;359(17):1757-65
18946061
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Apr 1;26(10):1626-34
18316791
N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 15;357(20):2040-8
18003960
Hum Mol Genet. 2007 Oct 15;16 Spec No. 2:R226-32
17911165
Cancer. 2008 Oct 1;113(7 Suppl):1760-7
18800387
Clin Trials. 2008;5(3):181-93
18559407
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Aug 20;27(24):4027-34
19597023
Mol Cancer Ther. 2008 Oct;7(10):3141-9
18852117
Cancer Genomics Proteomics. 2007 May-Jun;4(3):147-55
17878518
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Sep 10;26(26):4253-60
18779612
N Engl J Med. 2004 Dec 30;351(27):2817-26
15591335
Am J Pharmacogenomics. 2005;5(6):357-64
16336001
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Dec 9;105(49):19432-7
19050079
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Feb 10;26(5):729-35
18258980
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Mar 20;23(9):2020-7
15774793
Pharm Stat. 2007 Jul-Sep;6(3):227-44
17688238
Lung Cancer. 2003 Aug;41 Suppl 1:S29-42
12867060
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Sep 1;23(25):5900-9
16043828
Genome Med. 2009 Jul 13;1(7):69
19638184
Clin Cancer Res. 2006 Jul 15;12(14 Pt 2):4416s-4420s
16857820
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Nov 4;101(21):1446-52
19815849
Biotechnol Annu Rev. 2003;9:259-67
14650930
J Thorac Oncol. 2007 May;2(5):423-9
17473658
Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Aug 1;13(15 Pt 2):s4606-12
17671150
Lancet. 2000 May 20;355(9217):1745-50
10832824
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Jul 4;99(13):1036-43
17596577
Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2006 Oct;3(10):540-51
17019432
Clin Cancer Res. 2001 May;7(5):1343-9
11350904
Dis Markers. 2004;20(2):35-43
15322312
J Biopharm Stat. 2009;19(3):530-42
19384694
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Feb 10;26(5):721-8
18258979
Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2008 Feb;18(1):62-7
18339540
N Engl J Med. 2005 Oct 20;353(16):1673-84
16236738
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Oct 15;21(20):3798-807
12953099