Drug and Device Development for Localized Prostate Cancer: Report of a Food and Drug Administration/American Urological Association Public Workshop

Urology (Impact Factor: 2.19). 05/2014; 83(5). DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.10.087


Summary of the discussion at a public workshop cosponsored by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the American Urological Association reviewing potential trial designs for product and device development for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Product development for treatment of localized prostate cancer has been stymied by the impracticality of using overall survival as an endpoint in patients with localized disease and the lack of acceptable surrogate endpoints. A workshop evaluating potential trial designs for the development of therapies for localized prostate cancer was held in San Diego, CA, in May 2013. Invited experts represented multiple stakeholders, including urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, industry, and patient advocates. The expert panel discussed development of products for all risk strata of clinically localized prostate cancer. The panel responded to specific questions from FDA, discussing trial design for patients with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk prostate cancer, focal therapy for prostate cancer, patients who have undergone definitive radiation therapy, and adjuvant therapy for patients undergoing radiation therapy or surgery. Expert commentary provided by the panel will inform a planned FDA guidance on pathways for product and device development for treatment of localized prostate cancer and will be discussed at meetings of the FDA's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee. FDA intends to develop a set of principles that can be used to promote the development of new products or devices for the treatment of this disease.

8 Reads
  • Source
    • "The optimal trial design for ablative therapies has been debated and discussed in detail by numerous consensus groups of clinicians and methodologists [15] [16] [17]. The FDA in the US has also recently held a panel discussion in 2013 to look into this area [18]. The key problem has been in deciding on a trial design that shows benefit to patients. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction Focal therapy may reduce the toxicity of current radical treatments while maintaining the oncological benefit. Irreversible Electroporation (IRE) has been proposed to be tissue selective and so might have favourable characteristics compared to currently used prostate ablative technologies. The aim of this trial is to determine the adverse events, genito-urinary side effects and early histological outcomes of focal IRE in men with localised prostate cancer. Methods Single centre prospective development (stage 2a) study following the IDEAL recommendations for evaluating new surgical procedures. Twenty men who have MRI-visible disease localised in the anterior part of the prostate will be recruited. The sample size permits a precision estimate around key functional outcomes. Inclusion criteria include PSA </= 15ng/ml, Gleason score </= 4+3, stage T2N0M0 and absence of clinically significant disease outside the treatment area. Treatment delivery will be changed in an adaptive iterative manner so as to allow optimisation of the IRE protocol. After focal IRE, men will be followed during 12 months using validated patient reported outcome measures (IPSS, IIEF-15, UCLA-EPIC, EQ-5D, FACT-P, MAX-PC). Early disease control will be evaluated by mpMRI and targeted transperineal biopsy of the treated area at 6 months. Discussion The NEAT trial will assess the early functional and disease control outcome of focal IRE using an adaptive design. Our protocol can provide guidance for designing an adaptive trial to assess new surgical technologies in the challenging landscape of health technology assessment in prostate cancer treatment.
    Contemporary Clinical Trials 09/2014; 39(1). DOI:10.1016/j.cct.2014.07.006 · 1.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Focal therapy in prostate cancer aims to treat only the part of the gland harboring clinically significant disease while preserving the rest of the tissue. This approach may substantially reduce treatment-related toxicity without compromising disease control outcomes. Short- to medium-term functional and oncological results in prospective interventional studies are promising, but comparative effectiveness research against standard of care is required to incorporate focal therapy among standard options. In this review, we discuss the actual stage of assessment and results of sources of energy commonly used to deliver focal therapy. We also provide our viewpoint on how the field will evolve in the near future.
    Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy 06/2014; 14(11):1-9. DOI:10.1586/14737140.2014.932692 · 3.46 Impact Factor
  • Urology 09/2014; 84(3):732-3. DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2014.06.007 · 2.19 Impact Factor