Article

Lessons Learned from the Investigational Device Exemption Review of Children's Oncology Group Trial AAML1031

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Clinical Cancer Research (Impact Factor: 8.19). 03/2012; 18(6):1547-54. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-2205
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is now exerting its regulatory authority over the use of molecular diagnostics and related assays for medical decision making in clinical trials, by performing pre-Investigational Device Exemption reviews in all phases of clinical trials. In this review, we assess the analytical performance of the assay for the diagnostic, and consider how that performance affects the diagnostic and the patient and their risks and benefits from treatment. We also discuss the process involved in the first review of a new Children's Oncology Group phase III trial in acute myelogenous leukemia. The lessons learned and recommendations for how to prepare for and incorporate this new level of regulatory review into the protocol development process are presented.

1 Follower
 · 
268 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The development of clinically useful molecular diagnostics requires validation of clinical assay performance and achievement of clinical qualification in clinical trials. As discussed elsewhere in this Focus section on molecular diagnostics, validation of assay performance must be rigorous, especially when the assay will be used to guide treatment decisions. Here we review some of the problems associated with assay development, especially for academic investigators. These include lack of expertise and resources for analytical validation, lack of experience in designing projects for a specific clinical use, lack of specimens from appropriate patient groups, and lack of access to Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified laboratories. In addition, financial support for assay validation has lagged behind financial support for marker discovery or drug development, even though the molecular diagnostic may be considered necessary for the successful use of the companion therapeutic. The National Cancer Institute supports a large number of clinical trials and a significant effort in drug development. In order to address some of these barriers for predictive and prognostic assays that will be used in clinical trials to select patients for a particular treatment, stratify patients into molecularly defined subgroups, or choose between treatments for molecularly defined tumors, the National Cancer Institute has begun a pilot program designed to lessen barriers to the development of validated prognostic and predictive assays.
    Clinical Cancer Research 03/2012; 18(6):1531-9. DOI:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-2203 · 8.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clinical trials that include integral biomarkers to determine eligibility, assign treatment, or assess outcome must employ robust assays to measure the molecular analyte of interest. The decision to develop a biomarker assay into a test suitable for use in humans should be driven by clinical need, that is, there should be a clear clinical purpose for undertaking the test development. Supporting in vitro or in vivo research on the ability of the marker to distinguish subgroups of patients with a given characteristic is necessary. The magnitude of the difference in treatment effect expected with use of the marker should be sufficient to support differential treatment prescription for marker-positive and -negative patients. Analytical and clinical validation of the marker assay should be completed before the clinical trial is initiated to ensure that the assay is stable enough for clinical use throughout the trial. Clinical use of the assay requires that it be performed in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-accredited laboratory, and the need to apply for an Investigational Device Exemption from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration should be considered. In this article we elaborate on the steps required to get a biomarker assay ready for use as an integral component of a clinical trial and give an example of the use of an integral assay in a phase III trial.
    Clinical Cancer Research 03/2012; 18(6):1540-6. DOI:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-2202 · 8.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Molecular diagnostics are becoming increasingly important in clinical research to stratify or identify molecularly profiled patient cohorts for targeted therapies, to modify the dose of a therapeutic, and to assess early response to therapy or monitor patients. Molecular diagnostics can also be used to identify the pharmacogenetic risk of adverse drug reactions. The articles in this CCR Focus section on molecular diagnosis describe the development and use of markers to guide medical decisions regarding cancer patients. They define sources of preanalytic variability that need to be minimized, as well as the regulatory and financial challenges involved in developing diagnostics and integrating them into clinical practice. They also outline a National Cancer Institute program to assist diagnostic development. Molecular diagnostic clinical tests require rigor in their development and clinical validation, with sensitivity, specificity, and validity comparable to those required for the development of therapeutics. These diagnostics must be offered at a realistic cost that reflects both their clinical value and the costs associated with their development. When genome-sequencing technologies move into the clinic, they must be integrated with and traceable to current technology because they may identify more efficient and accurate approaches to drug development. In addition, regulators may define progressive drug approval for companion diagnostics that requires further evidence regarding efficacy and safety before full approval can be achieved. One way to accomplish this is to emphasize phase IV postmarketing, hypothesis-driven clinical trials with biological characterization that would permit an accurate definition of the association of low-prevalence gene alterations with toxicity or response in large cohorts.
    Clinical Cancer Research 03/2012; 18(6):1515-23. DOI:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-2206 · 8.19 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
2 Downloads
Available from