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: 7.84). 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.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
215 Views
  • 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. · 7.84 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent discoveries in cancer biology have greatly increased the understanding of cancer at the molecular level, but translating this knowledge into clinically useful diagnostic tests has proved challenging. More efficient transfer of new molecular tests into patient care requires better standardization of laboratory practices, measurement methods and data management. The workshop assembled experts from National Cancer Institute, US FDA, National Institute of Standards and Technology, academia and industry, to address the most efficient approaches to biomarker standardization and validation. The workshop participants described the current state of research in molecular diagnostics standardization and addressed three questions: what has worked? What has not?And what needs improving?
    Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics 06/2013; 13(5):421-3. · 4.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Molecular assays have been routinely applied to improve diagnosis for the last 25 years. Assays that guide therapy have a similar history; however, their evolution has lacked the focus on analytic integrity that is required for the molecularly targeted therapies of today. New molecularly targeted agents require assays of greater precision/quantitation to predict the likelihood of response, i.e., to identify patients whose tumors will respond, while at the same time excluding and protecting those patients whose tumors will not respond or in whom treatment will cause unacceptable toxicity. The handling of tissue has followed a fit-for-purpose approach focused on appropriateness for diagnostic needs, which is less rigorous than the demands of new molecular assays that interrogate DNA, RNA, and proteins in a quantitative, multiplex manner. There is a new appreciation of the importance and fragility of tissue specimens as the source of analytes to direct therapy. By applying a total test paradigm and defining and measuring sources of variability in specimens, we can develop a set of specifications that can be incorporated into the clinical-care environment to ensure that a specimen is appropriate for analysis and will return a true result.
    Clinical Cancer Research 03/2012; 18(6):1524-30. · 7.84 Impact Factor

Full-text

View
0 Downloads
Available from