Molecular Oncology
Volume 3, Issue 1 , Pages 24-32 , February 2009

Biomarkers in oncology drug development

  • Darren R. Hodgson

      Affiliations

    • Oncology Therapy Area, AstraZeneca, Alderley Park, Macclesfield, Cheshire SK10 4TG, UK
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +44 (0) 1625 516105; fax: +44 (0) 1625 516563.
    • ,
  • Robin D. Whittaker

      Affiliations

    • Oncology Therapy Area, AstraZeneca, Alderley Park, Macclesfield, Cheshire SK10 4TG, UK
    • ,
  • Athula Herath

      Affiliations

    • Statistical Science, AstraZeneca, Alderley Park, Macclesfield, Cheshire SK10 4TG, UK
    • ,
  • Dereck Amakye

      Affiliations

    • Oncology Therapy Area, AstraZeneca, Alderley Park, Macclesfield, Cheshire SK10 4TG, UK
    • ,
  • Glen Clack

      Affiliations

    • Oncology Therapy Area, AstraZeneca, Alderley Park, Macclesfield, Cheshire SK10 4TG, UK

Received 29 November 2008 ,Accepted 2 December 2008.

References 

  1. Adjei AA, Cohen RB, Franklin W, Morris C, Wilson D, Molina JR, et al. Phase I pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of the oral, small-molecule mitogen-activated protein kinase 1/2 inhibitor AZD6244 (ARRY-142886) in patients with advanced cancers. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008 May 1;26(13):2139–2146
  2. Allard WJ, Matera J, Miller MC, Repollet M, Connelly MC, Rao C, et al. Tumor cells circulate in the peripheral blood of all major carcinomas but not in healthy subjects or patients with nonmalignant diseases. Clin. Cancer. Res. 2004 Oct 15;10(20):6897–6904
  3. Altar CA, Amakye D, Bounos D, Bloom J, Clack G, Dean R, et al. Feb. A prototypical process for creating evidentiary standards for biomarkers and diagnostics. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2008;83(2):368–371
  4. Badve SS, Baehner FL, Gray RP, Childs BH, Maddala T, Liu ML, et al Estrogen- and progesterone-receptor status in ECOG 2197: comparison of immunohistochemistry by local and central laboratories and quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction by central laboratory. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008 May 20;26(15):2473–2481Erratum in: J. Clin. Oncol. Jul 10;26(20):3472. Perez, Edith D [corrected to Perez, Edith A]
  5. Baker SG. Surrogate endpoints: wishful thinking or reality?. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2006 April 19;98(8):
  6. Bouxsein ML, Delmas PD. Considerations for development of surrogate endpoints for antifracture efficacy of new treatments in osteoporosis: a perspective. JBMR. 2008;23(8):1155–1167
  7. Buyse M, Molenberghs G. Criteria for the validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments. Biometrics. 1998;54:1014–1029
  8. Brady G, Hurley P, Grimes E, Herath A, Wilson C, Moore J, et al. Hair is a viable surrogate tissue for routine measurement of gene expression in clinical studies [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 98th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2007 Oct 22–26; San Francisco. California (CA): AACR; 2007;p. 7;(Abstract no. C44)
  9. Carroll KJ. Biomarkers in drug development: friend or foe? A personal reflection gained working within oncology. Pharm. Stat. 2007 Oct–Dec;6(4):253–260
  10. Cleator SJ, Powles TJ, Dexter T, Fulford L, Mackay A, Smith IE, et al. The effect of the stromal component of breast tumours on prediction of clinical outcome using gene expression microarray analysis. Breast Cancer Res. 2006;8(3):R32;(Epub 2006 Jun 21)
  11. Costa DB, Nguyen KS, Cho BC, Sequist LV, Jackman DM, Riely GJ, et al Effects of erlotinib in EGFR mutated non-small cell lung cancers with resistance to gefitinib. Clin. Cancer Res. 2008 Nov 1;14(21):7060–7067
  12. Cristofanilli M, Hayes D, et al. Circulating tumor cells, disease progression, and survival in metastatic breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004;351:781–791
  13. Cristofanilli M, Hayes D, et al. Circulating tumor cells: a novel prognostic factor for newly diagnosed breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005;23(7):1420–1430
  14. Drug–Diagnostic Co-Development Concept paper . FDA. Available from: <http://www.fda.gov/cder/genomics/pharmacoconceptfn.pdf>2005;
  15. De Gruttola VG, Clax P, DeMets DL, Downing GJ, Ellenberg SS, Friedman L, et al. Considerations in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in clinical trials. Summary of a National Institutes of Health Workshop. Control Clin. Trials. 2001 Oct;22(5):485–502
  16. Dowsett M. Preoperative models to evaluate endocrine strategies for breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2003 Jan;9(1 Pt 2):502S–510S
  17. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. Jan. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur. J. Cancer. 2009;45(2):228–247
  18. Fleischhacker M, Schmidt B. Circulating nucleic acids (CNAs) and cancer—a survey. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 2007 Jan;1775(1):181–232(Epub 2006 Oct 7)
  19. Greystoke A, Cummings J, Ward T, Simpson K, Renehan A, Butt F, et al. Optimisation of circulating biomarkers of cell death for routine clinical use. Ann. Oncol. 2008 May;19(5):990–995
  20. Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R, Norton L, Ravdin P, Taube S, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007 Nov 20;25(33):5287–5312
  21. Hayes , Cristofanilli M, et al. Circulating tumor cells at each follow-up time point during therapy of metastatic breast cancer patients predict progression-free and overall survival. Clin. Cancer Res. 2006 July 15;12(14):
  22. Hodgson DR, Foy CA, Partridge M, Pateromichelakis S, Gibson NJ. Development of a facile fluorescent assay for the detection of 80 mutations within the p53 gene. Mol. Med. 2002 May;8(5):227–237
  23. Kalikaki A, Koutsopoulos A, Trypaki M, Souglakos J, Stathopoulos E, Georgoulias V, et al. Comparison of EGFR and K-RAS gene status between primary tumours and corresponding metastases in NSCLC. Br. J. Cancer. 2008 Aug 26;(Epub ahead of print)
  24. Li Z, Chines AA, Meredith MP. Statistical validation of surrogate endpoints: is bone density a valid surrogate for fracture?. J. Musculoskelet. Neuronal Interact. 2004;4(1):64–74
  25. Mok . Available from: <http://www.esmo.org/fileadmin/media/presentations/977/2123/3_Tony%20Mok_2008%2009%2010%20IPASS%20ESMO%20press%20conference_v3.ppt.pdf>2008;
  26. Molenberghs G, Geys H, Buyse M. Evaluation of surrogate endpoints in randomised experiments with mixed discrete and continuous outcomes. Stat. Med. 2001;20:3023–3038
  27. NIH/FDA Biomarker Consortium. Available from: <http://www.biomarkersconsortium.org>.
  28. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, Kim C, Baker J, Cronin M, et al. Multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004 Dec 30;351(27):2817–2826(Epub 2004 Dec 10)
  29. Prentice RL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definitions and operational criteria. Stat. Med. 1989;8:431–440
  30. Response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST): new guidelines. Med. Pediatr. Oncol. 2001 Jul;37(1):1–3
  31. Royal Society Report, 2005. Personalised medicines: hopes and realities. Available from: <http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=15874>.
  32. Senn S. Individual response to treatment: is it a valid assumption?. BMJ. 2004 Oct 23;329(7472):966–968(Review)
  33. Simon R. The use of genomics in clinical trial design. Clin. Cancer Res. 2008 Oct 1;14(19):5984–5993
  34. Smethurst D, Hughes A. Staged risk management of candidate drug efficacy. Int. J. Pharm. Med. 2005;19(4):227
  35. Stopeck A, Cristofanilli M, et al. Circulating tumor cells - not serum tumor markers - predict survival in metastatic breast cancer Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2005 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings. 2005;Vol 23, No. 16S, Part I of II (June 1 Supplement): 9516
  36. Weir CJ, Walley RJ. Statistical evaluation of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints: a literature review. Stat. Med. 2006;25:183–230
  37. Workman P, Aboagye EO, Chung YL, Griffiths JR, Hart R, Leach MO, et al. Minimally invasive pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic technologies in hypothesis-testing clinical trials of innovative therapies. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2006 May 3;98(9):580–598(Review)
  38. Workman P. How much gets there and what does it do?: the need for better pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic endpoints in contemporary drug discovery and development. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2003;9(11):891–902(Review)

PII: S1574-7891(08)00152-X

doi: 10.1016/j.molonc.2008.12.002

Molecular Oncology
Volume 3, Issue 1 , Pages 24-32 , February 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution