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
 · 
207 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. · 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
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Paralleling the growth of ever more cost efficient methods to sequence the whole genome in minute fragments of tissue has been the identification of increasingly numerous molecular abnormalities in cancers-mutations, amplifications, insertions and deletions of genes, and patterns of differential gene expression, i.e., overexpression of growth factors and underexpression of tumor suppressor genes. These abnormalities can be translated into assays to be used in clinical decision making. In general terms, the result of such an assay is subject to a large number of variables regarding the characteristics of the available sample, particularities of the used assay, and the interpretation of the results. This review discusses the effects of these variables on assays of tissue-based biomarkers, classified by macromolecule-DNA, RNA (including micro RNA, messenger RNA, long noncoding RNA, protein, and phosphoprotein). Since the majority of clinically applicable biomarkers are immunohistochemically detectable proteins this review focuses on protein biomarkers. However, the principles outlined are mostly applicable to any other analyte. A variety of preanalytical variables impacts on the results obtained, including analyte stability (which is different for different analytes, i.e., DNA, RNA, or protein), period of warm and of cold ischemia, fixation time, tissue processing, sample storage time, and storage conditions. In addition, assay variables play an important role, including reagent specificity (notably but not uniquely an issue concerning antibodies used in immunohistochemistry), technical components of the assay, quantitation, and assay interpretation. Finally, appropriateness of an assay for clinical application is an important issue. Reference is made to publicly available guidelines to improve on biomarker development in general and requirements for clinical use in particular. Strategic goals are formulated in order to improve on the quality of biomarker reporting, including issues of analyte quality, experimental detail, assay efficiency and precision, and assay appropriateness.
    Archiv für Pathologische Anatomie und Physiologie und für Klinische Medicin 02/2014; · 2.68 Impact Factor

Full-text

View
0 Downloads
Available from