| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Cancer Therapy: Clinical |
Authors' Affiliations: 1 Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; 2 Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School; 3 Center for Biomarkers in Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; 4 Noonday Asset Management, Charlotte, North Carolina; and 5 Program on the Pharmaceutical Industry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Requests for reprints: Bernardo H.L. Goulart, 4735 Ravenna Avenue, NE, Apartment 1, Seattle, WA 98105. E-mail: bhgoulart{at}hotmail.com or bhg{at}u.washington.edu.
Purpose: There has been interest in using biomarkers that aid the evaluation of new anticancer agents. We evaluated trends in the use of biomarkers and their contribution to the main goals of phase I trials.
Experimental Design: We did a systematic review of abstracts submitted to the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting from 1991 to 2002 and the publications related to these abstracts. We analyzed the use of biomarkers and their contribution to published phase I trials.
Results: Twenty percent of American Society of Clinical Oncology phase I abstracts (503 of 2458) from 1991 to 2002 included biomarkers. This proportion increased over time (14% in 1991 compared with 26% in 2002; P < 0.02). Independent predictors of the use of biomarkers included National Cancer Institute sponsorship, submission in the time period of 1999 to 2002, adult population, and drug family (biological agents). Biomarkers supported dose selection for phase II studies in 11 of 87 of the trials (13%) emanating from these abstracts. However, the primary determinants of phase II dose and schedule were toxicity and/or efficacy in all but one of these 87 trials (1%). Biomarker studies provided evidence supporting the proposed mechanism of action in 34 of 87 of the published trials (39%).
Conclusions: The use of biomarkers in phase I trials has increased over the period from 1991 to 2002. To date, biomarker utilization has made a limited and primarily supportive contribution to dose selection, the primary end point of phase I studies. Additional studies are needed to determine what type of biomarker information is most valuable to evaluate in phase I trials.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. H. Doroshow and R. E. Parchment Oncologic Phase 0 Trials Incorporating Clinical Pharmacodynamics: from Concept to Patient Clin. Cancer Res., June 15, 2008; 14(12): 3658 - 3663. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
U. Banerji, J. de Bono, I. Judson, S. Kaye, and P. Workman Biomarkers In Early Clinical Trials: the Committed and the Skeptics Clin. Cancer Res., April 15, 2008; 14(8): 2512 - 2512. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Goulart, T. G. Roberts, J. Clark, and B. A. Chabner Reply to the Letter to the Editor from Banerji et al Clin. Cancer Res., April 15, 2008; 14(8): 2513 - 2513. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Ratain and R. H. Glassman Reply to the Letter to the Editor from Banerji et al Clin. Cancer Res., April 15, 2008; 14(8): 2514 - 2514. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. P. Carden, D. Olmos, and J. S. de Bono Validated and Qualified Biomarkers Are Critical to Optimizing Anticancer Drug Development: Potential Roles for the Study of Circulating Tumor Cells ASCO Educational Book, January 1, 2008; 2008(1): 166 - 170. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Ratain and R. H. Glassman Biomarkers in Phase I Oncology Trials: Signal, Noise, or Expensive Distraction? Clin. Cancer Res., November 15, 2007; 13(22): 6545 - 6548. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Cancer Research | Clinical Cancer Research |
| Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention | Molecular Cancer Therapeutics |
| Molecular Cancer Research | Cancer Prevention Research |
| Cancer Prevention Journals Portal | Cancer Reviews Online |
| Annual Meeting Education Book | Meeting Abstracts Online |
