Abstract
The future of drug development in oncology lies in identifying subsets of patients who will benefit from particular therapies, using predictive biomarkers. These technologies offer hope of enhancing the value of cancer medicines and reducing the size, cost and failure rates of clinical trials. However, examples of the failure of predictive biomarkers also exist. In these cases the use of biomarkers increased the costs, complexity and duration of clinical trials, and narrowed the treated population unnecessarily. Here, we present methods to adaptively integrate predictive biomarkers into clinical programmes in a data-driven manner, wherein these biomarkers are emphasized in exact proportion to the evidence supporting their clinical predictive value. The resulting programme demands value from predictive biomarkers and is designed to optimally harvest this value for oncology drug development.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Incorporating health economics in guidelines and assessing resource impact. NICE Guidelines Manual [online] (2005).
Cobleigh, M. A. et al. Multinational study of the efficacy and safety of humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody in women who have HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer that has progressed after chemotherapy for metastatic disease. J. Clin. Oncol. 17, 2639–2648 (1999).
Slamon, D. J. et al. Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. N. Engl. J. Med. 344, 783–792 (2001).
Paez, J. G. et al. EGFR mutations in lung cancer: correlation with clinical response to gefitinib therapy. Science 30, 1497–1500 (2004).
Pao, W. et al. EGF receptor gene mutations are common in lung cancers from “never smokers” and are associated with sensitivity of tumors to gefitinib and erlotinib. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 13306–13311 (2004).
Amado, R. G. et al. Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 1626–1634 (2008).
Lievre, A. et al. KRAS mutation status is predictive of response to cetuximab therapy in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res. 66, 3992–3995 (2006).
Bokemeyer, C. et al. KRAS status and efficacy of first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with FOLFOX with or without cetuximab: the OPUS experience. J. Clin. Oncol. Abstr. 26, 4000 (2008).
Van Cutsem, E. et al. KRAS status and efficacy in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with FOLFIRI with or without cetuximab: the CRYSTAL experience. J. Clin. Oncol. Abstr. 26, 2 (2008).
Dalton, W. S. & Friend, S. H. Cancer biomarkers — an invitation to the table. Science 312, 1165–1168 (2006).
Beckman, R. A. Analyze the current biomarker-guided development paradigm: biomarkers are instrumental for any development in oncology. Center for Business Intelligence 2nd Annual Forum on Oncology Commercialization Strategies [online lecture], (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA; 12–13 January 2009).
Yan, L. & Beckman, R. A. Pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics in oncology therapeutic antibody development. Biotechniques 39, 565–568 (2005).
Ransohoff, D. F. & Gourlay, M. L. Sources of bias in specimens for research about molecular markers for cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 698–704 (2010).
Ratain, M. J. & Glassman, R. H. Biomarkers in Phase I oncology trials: signal, noise, or expensive distraction? Clin. Cancer Res. 13, 6545–6548 (2007).
Orloff, J. et al. The future of drug development: advancing clinical trial design. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 8, 949–957 (2009).
Ioannidis, J. P. A. & Panagiotou, O. A. Comparison of effect sizes associated with biomarkers reported in highly cited individual articles and in subsequent meta-analyses. JAMA 305, 2200–2210 (2011).
Freidlin, B. & Simon, R. Adaptive signature design: an adaptive clinical trial design for generating and prospectively testing a gene expression signature for sensitive patients. Clin. Cancer Res. 11, 7872–7878 (2005).
Chen, C. & Beckman, R. A. Hypothesis testing in a confirmatory Phase III trial with a possible subset effect. Stat. Biopharm. Res. 1, 431–440 (2009).
Van Dyke, T. & Jacks, T. Cancer modeling in the modern era: progress and challenges. Cell 108, 135–144 (2002).
Fiebig, H. H., Maier, A. & Burger, A. M. Clonogenic assay with established human tumor xenografts: correlation of in vitro to in vivo activity as a basis for anticancer drug discovery. Eur. J. Cancer 40, 802–820 (2004).
Barker, A. D. et al. I-SPY 2: an adaptive breast cancer trial design in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 86, 97–100 (2009).
Kim, E. S. et al. The BATTLE trial (Biomarker-integrated Approaches of Targeted Therapy for Lung Cancer Elimination): personalizing therapy for lung cancer. in Proceedings of the 101st Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (17–21 Apr 2010; Washington DC, Philadelphia, USA; Abstract LB-1).
Chen, C. & Beckman, R. A. Optimal cost-effective designs of proof of concept trials and associated go-no go decisions. Proc. Am. Stat. Assoc. 394–399 (2007).
Chen, C. & Beckman, R. A. Optimal cost-effective go-no go decisions in late-stage oncology drug development. Stat. Biopharm. Res. 1, 159–169 (2009).
Chen, C. & Beckman, R. A. Optimal cost-effective designs of Phase II proof of concept trials and associated go-no go decisions. J. Biopharm. Stat. 19, 424–436 (2009).
Strauss, N. & Simon, R. Investigating a sequence of randomized Phase II trials to discover promising treatments. Stat. Med. 14, 1479–1489 (1995).
Freidlin, B., McShane L. & Korn, E. L. Randomized clinical trials with biomarkers: design issues. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 102, 152–160 (2010).
Maheswaren, S. et al. Detection of mutations in EGFR in circulating lung-cancer cells. N. Engl. J. Med. 359, 366–377 (2008).
Tang, P. A., Bentsen, S. M, Chen, E. X. & Siu, L. L. Surrogate endpoints for median overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer: literature-based analysis from 39 randomized controlled trials of first-line chemotherapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 4562–4568 (2007).
Simon, R. M., Paik, S. & Hayes, D. F. Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 101, 1446–1452 (2009).
Freidlin, B., Jiang, W. & Simon, R. The cross-validated adaptive signature design. Clin. Cancer Res. 16, 691–698 (2010).
Simon, R. The use of genomics in clinical trial design. Clin. Cancer Res. 14, 5984–5993 (2008).
Zhao, Y. D., Dimitrienko, A. & Tamura, R. Design and analysis considerations in clinical trials with a sensitive subpopulation. Stat. Biopharm. Res. 2, 72–83 (2010).
De Geus-Oei, L. F. et al. Monitoring and predicting response to therapy with 18F-FDG PET in colorectal cancer: a systematic review. J. Nuc. Med. 50, 43S–54S (2009).
Weber, W. A. PET for response assessment in oncology: radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Br. J. Radiol. S28, 42–49 (2005).
Goldman, B., LeBlanc, M. & Crowley, J. Interim futility analysis with intermediate endpoints. Clin. Trials 5, 14–22 (2008).
Hunsicker, S., Zhao, Y. & Simon, R. M. A comparison of Phase II study strategies. Clin. Cancer Res. 15, 5950–5955 (2009).
Chen, C. & Sun, L. On quantification of PFS effect for accelerated approval of oncology drugs. Stat. Biopharm. Res. 2011 (in the press).
Brannath, W. et al. Confirmatory adaptive designs with Bayesian decision tools for a targeted therapy in oncology. Stat. Med. 28, 1445–1463 (2009).
Berry, D. A. Bayesian clinical trials. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 5, 27–36 (2006).
Berry, D. A. Introduction to Bayesian methods III: use and interpretation of Bayesian tools in design and analysis. Clin. Trials 2, 295–300 (2005).
Bretz, F. et al. Confirmatory seamless Phase II/III clinical trials with hypotheses selection at interim: general concepts. Biom. J. 48, 623–634 (2006).
Mehta, C. R. & Patel, N. R. Adaptive, group sequential and decision theoretic approaches to sample size determination. Stat. Med. 25, 3250–3269 (2006).
Chuang-Stein, C. et al. Sample size re-estimation: a review and recommendations. Drug Inf. J. 40, 475–484 (2006).
Berger, J. Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis 2nd edn (Springer Verlag, New York, 1985).
Acknowledgements
We thank R. M. Simon, head of the Biometrics Division at the US National Cancer Institute, for his very helpful discussions and for his critical review of the manuscript. We also thank D. Parkinson, Chair of the Cancer Steering Committee, Biomarkers Consortium of the Foundation for the US National Institutes of Health, for his helpful comments. The inspiration for this article, which represents the opinion of the authors, came from crossfunctional discussions — led by R.A.B. — of predictive biomarker integration into clinical development plans. From Amgen, the following individuals contributed to these discussions: A. Ang, D. Beaupre, L. Chen, D. Freeman, E. Loh, I. McCaffrey, E. Rasmussen and M. Wolf. From Daiichi-Sankyo Pharmaceutical Development, the following individuals contributed to these discussions: M. Aonuma, T. Bocanegra, B. Dornseif, S. Ge, I. Gorbatchevsky, G. Gormley, A. Halim, X. Jin, P. Kumar, K. Liu, K. Nakamaru, M. Rosen, D. Salazar, R. Scheyer, G. Senaldi, S. Smith, A. Tse, R. von Roemeling, J. Walker, Q. Wang and Y. Wang. From Merck Research Laboratories, the following individuals contributed to these discussions: K. Anderson, D. Bergstrom, C. Buser-Doepner, P. Carroll, T. Demuth, P. Ehrlich, C. Gause, D. Geho, B. Gertz, G. Harris, K. Hsu, J. Milloy, R. Phillips, C. Pickett, P. Shaw and L. Yan. From Rosetta BioInpharmatics, T. Fare contributed to these discussions. From U3 Pharma, the following individuals contributed to these discussions: K. Akahane and T. Hettman. The affiliations listed are the affiliations of the individuals at the time the discussions occurred.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
Robert A. Beckman is an employee of Daiichi Sankyo Pharmaceutical Development and is a stockholder in Daiichi Sankyo Inc. and Johnson & Johnson corporation.
Jason Clark is an employee of Incyte Pharmaceuticals and a stockholder in Merck & Co., Inc.
Cong Chen is an employee of Merck & Co., Inc. and a stockholder in Merck & Co., Inc., Sanofi and Johnson & Johnson corporation.
Glossary
- Analytical validation
-
A process for demonstrating that a biomarker assay (or assays) have suitable calibration properties, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and reproducibility to be potentially approved for commercial use after further clinical validation.
- Clinical benefit identification (ID) hypothesis
-
The hypothesis that a particular predictive biomarker classifier identifies the subset of patients who will benefit from the therapy.
- Clinical validation
-
The demonstration that a biomarker assay (or assays) identify the subset of patients who will benefit clinically.
- Ethics committees
-
Committees that are composed of clinical development experts, patient advocates and lay people; these committees evaluate proposed clinical research studies for a particular hospital or clinic before the studies are permitted to commence at that institution. These committees focus particularly on protecting the rights of patients. This term is used particularly in Europe.
- Go/no-go criteria
-
Criteria that determine whether or not to proceed to a Phase III pivotal trial. If the observed clinical benefit in a Phase II proof-of-concept study is equal to or better than the go/no-go criterion, the same drug–indication combination is studied in a randomized Phase III study for the approval of health authorities.
- In vitro diagnostic
-
A biomarker assay that has been approved for commercial use in conjunction with a therapy, for the purpose of identifying the subset of patients who will benefit from the therapy.
- Institutional review boards
-
Committees that are composed of clinical development experts, patient advocates and lay people; these committees evaluate proposed clinical research studies for a particular hospital or clinic before the studies are permitted to commence at that institution. These committees focus particularly on protecting the rights of patients. This term is applied particularly in the United States.
- Objective utility functions
-
Mathematical functions that quantify the usefulness (utility) of a particular strategy. They can be used to objectively compare strategies. An example is the efficiency function for proof-of-concept studies.
- Power
-
The probability that the proof-of-concept study or another confirmatory study will correctly declare an effective drug to be effective. It is equal to 100% minus the false-negative rate (the type II error).
- Predictive biomarkers
-
Biomarkers that utilize a baseline characteristic of a patient to predict whether or not the patient will benefit from an associated therapy.
- Prognostic biomarker
-
A biomarker that utilizes a baseline characteristic of a patient to predict the patient's outcome independently of any specific therapy.
- Proof of concept
-
Statistical evidence from a randomized Phase II study that a particular drug is beneficial in a particular clinical setting or indication.
- Qualified clinical end points
-
Clinical end points in Phase II studies that have a reasonable likelihood of predicting true clinical benefit. Examples of qualified clinical end points include RECIST responses (tumour shrinkage or stabilization of tumour size, according to standard criteria) or — when measured in randomized studies — progression-free survival (the time from the start of the therapy to tumour worsening or death). These qualified clinical end points may predict actual clinical benefit measured by overall survival (the time from the start of the therapy to death) or quality of life.
- Research grade assay
-
A biomarker assay that has undergone informal testing in the research laboratory but has not undergone formal analytical validation.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Beckman, R., Clark, J. & Chen, C. Integrating predictive biomarkers and classifiers into oncology clinical development programmes. Nat Rev Drug Discov 10, 735–748 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd3550
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd3550
This article is cited by
-
Aiding the Adoption of Master Protocols by Optimizing Patient Engagement
Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science (2023)
-
Antitumor pharmacological research in the era of personalized medicine
Acta Pharmacologica Sinica (2022)
-
Innovations in Clinical Development in Rare Diseases of Children and Adults: Small Populations and/or Small Patients
Pediatric Drugs (2022)
-
A roadmap to using historical controls in clinical trials – by Drug Information Association Adaptive Design Scientific Working Group (DIA-ADSWG)
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases (2020)