Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CCR Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Breast Cancer
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immunotherapy: Facts and Hopes
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Clinical Cancer Research
Clinical Cancer Research
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CCR Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Breast Cancer
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immunotherapy: Facts and Hopes
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

CCR Focus

Pharmacodynamic Biomarkers: Falling Short of the Mark?

Justin F. Gainor, Dan L. Longo and Bruce A. Chabner
Justin F. Gainor
1Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; and 2Department of Medicine, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dan L. Longo
1Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; and 2Department of Medicine, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bruce A. Chabner
1Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; and 2Department of Medicine, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-3132 Published May 2014
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

In recent years, the clinical development of targeted therapies has been advanced by a greater understanding of tumor biology and genomics. Nonetheless, drug development remains a slow and costly process. An additional challenge is that targeted therapies may benefit only a subset of patients treated—typically those patients whose tumors are dependent on the target of interest. Thus, there is a growing need for the incorporation of both predictive and pharmacodynamic (PD) biomarkers in drug development. Predictive biomarkers are important to help guide patient selection, while PD biomarkers can provide information on the pharmacologic effects of a drug on its target. PD studies may provide insights into proof of mechanism (i.e., Does the agent hit its intended target?) and proof of concept (i.e., Does hitting the drug target result in the desired biologic effect?). PD studies may also provide information on the optimal biologic dosing or scheduling of a targeted agent. Herein, we review PD endpoints in the context of targeted drug development in non–small cell lung cancer, highlighting some of the key challenges encountered to date. In doing so, we discuss recent experiences with repeat tumor biopsies, surrogate tissue analysis, alternative clinical trial designs (e.g., window-of-opportunity trials), circulating biomarkers, and mechanism-based toxicity assessments. The application of such technologies and biomarkers in early clinical trials may facilitate rational drug development, while enhancing our understanding of why certain targeted therapies succeed or fail.

See all articles in this CCR Focus section, “Progress in Pharmacodynamic Endpoints.”

Clin Cancer Res; 20(10); 2587–94. ©2014 AACR.

Introduction

The field of oncology has been transformed by new insights into the molecular biology of cancer. This improved understanding of the genomic and cell biology landscape driving cancer has placed greater emphasis on exploiting such characteristics through the use of targeted therapies. To date, targeted therapies have reshaped the management of chronic myeloid leukemia, BRAF-mutant melanoma, HER2-amplified breast cancer, certain thyroid cancers, and non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) harboring EGF receptor (EGFR) mutations and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangements. Despite these well-profiled successes, barriers remain for targeted drug development. In particular, it has become increasingly clear that targeted therapies may benefit only specific subgroups of patients. Moreover, among initial responders, resistance can develop over time. Thus, as the number of targeted agents in clinical development continues to grow, biomarkers have become increasingly important to guide patient selection, ensure target inhibition, and understand mechanisms of resistance.

The use of biomarkers in phase I trials has increased over time (1). A biomarker is “a characteristic that is objectively measured and evaluated as an indicator of normal biological processes, pathogenic processes or pharmacologic responses to a therapeutic intervention (2).” Prognostic biomarkers provide information about disease course independent of treatment, whereas predictive biomarkers indicate the likelihood of response to a given therapy. Pharmacodynamic (PD) biomarkers provide information about the pharmacologic effects of a drug on its target. In the targeted therapy era, PD endpoints often assess whether a given agent is engaging its molecular target in the expected manner. PD markers can provide information about: (i) proof of mechanism (i.e., Does the drug hit its intended target?), (ii) proof of concept (i.e., Does hitting the drug target alter the biology of the tumor?), (iii) selection of optimal biologic dosing, and (iv) understanding response/resistance mechanisms.

This review focuses on PD biomarkers in the development of targeted therapies. We use NSCLC as a paradigm to examine these issues. Despite widespread use of targeted therapies and predictive biomarkers in NSCLC, PD biomarker studies have generally been lacking. We therefore aim to illustrate the challenges and potential alternative approaches for the incorporation of PD endpoints into clinical trials. Specifically, we review repeat tumor biopsies, surrogate tissue sampling, window-of-opportunity trials, circulating biomarkers, and on-target toxicity-based assessments. Other areas, such as genome-wide association studies and imaging as PD tools, will be discussed elsewhere in this CCR Focus section (3–6).

Predictive Biomarkers in NSCLC: An Overview

Historically, systemic chemotherapy has been the mainstay of treatment for advanced NSCLC. In 2004, however, activating EGFR mutations were found in a subset of NSCLC patients, ushering in a new era of molecularly targeted therapies (7). Subsequently, large-scale genotyping efforts have revealed that ∼50% of lung adenocarcinomas possess genetic alterations in oncogenic drivers—genes that are critical for cell growth and survival (Fig. 1; ref 8). Several of these genetic alterations, such as EGFR mutations and ALK rearrangements, are predictive markers for sensitivity to treatment with genotype-specific tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI; refs. 7 and 9). Still other genetic alterations may serve as negative predictive biomarkers, such as KRAS mutations or the EGFR T790M gatekeeper mutation, which are associated with lack of responsiveness to EGFR inhibitors (10, 11).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Distribution of oncogenic driver mutations in lung adenocarcinomas. Frequencies have been adapted from prior reports (8, 15).

EGFR mutations are identified in 10% to 30% of patients with NSCLC. These mutations are more commonly found among female patients and those with no or minimal smoking history, East Asian ethnicity, and adenocarcinoma histology (12). EGFR mutations confer sensitivity to treatment with EGFR TKIs. In randomized trials, EGFR-mutant patients treated with EGFR TKIs experienced high objective response rates (ORR) and significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) compared with the first-line chemotherapy (13).

Like EGFR mutations, ALK rearrangements have emerged as powerful predictive biomarkers in NSCLC (14). ALK rearrangements are identified in 4% to 6% of patients with NSCLC and are associated with sensitivity to treatment with the ALK TKI crizotinib (9, 14, 15). In single-arm studies, crizotinib was associated with high ORRs in ALK-positive patients (9). Crizotinib has also been found to significantly prolong PFS compared with standard single-agent chemotherapy administered in the second-line setting (16). As a result, clinical testing for EGFR mutations and ALK rearrangements is now recommended for all patients with advanced lung adenocarcinomas.

Pharmacodynamic Biomarkers

As clinical trials are designed for increasingly smaller, molecularly defined patient populations, PD biomarkers are likely to grow in importance. In particular, PD studies may provide insights into optimal biologic dosing, toxicity, and proof of mechanism for targeted therapies.

Serial tumor biopsies

Ideally, PD studies are performed directly on tumor specimens, allowing investigators to evaluate the functional and molecular effects of targeted agents within the tissue of interest. As illustrated in Table 1, PD endpoints may include assessments of protein phosphorylation markers, measures of cellular proliferation/apoptosis, cell-cycle regulation biomarkers, and epigenetic changes (17–26).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Selected pharmacodynamic markers in tumor and surrogate tissues

One illustrative example of the potential usefulness of PD evaluations can be found outside of NSCLC—in early trials of vemurafenib in BRAF-mutant melanoma (24, 27). In these studies, subsets of patients underwent serial tumor biopsies to assess for changes in mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling. Vemurafenib-treated patients exhibited reductions in tumor levels of phosphorylated extracellular signal-related kinase (p-ERK) as well as decreased tumor cell proliferation, as assessed by reductions in cyclin D1 and Ki67. Taken together, these studies helped establish that the predominant PD effect of vemurafenib is through on-target inhibition of MAPK signaling. These studies did not pursue dose-related questions such as what is the optimal biologic dose or the minimal effective dose of the drug.

In NSCLC, clinical trials with serial biopsies to assess PD endpoints have been limited. In one small phase II study, unselected patients with advanced NSCLC were treated with erlotinib after failure of first-line chemotherapy (28). In 14 patients, paired tumor biopsies were obtained before treatment and after 6 weeks of therapy. Significant reductions in p-EGFR and p-MAPK were observed following treatment; however, no objective responses were described. The authors concluded that treatment with erlotinib resulted in EGFR pathway inhibition (i.e., proof of mechanism), but that such inhibition was not sufficient to produce anti-tumor effects (i.e., lack of proof of concept). Importantly, only one of these patients harbored an activating EGFR mutation.

More commonly, sequential tumor biopsies have been performed in NSCLC to determine molecular markers of resistance to targeted therapies (Fig. 2). Repeat biopsies obtained at the time of disease progression on targeted therapies have been important tools for understanding acquired resistance (11, 29–31). In the case of EGFR mutations, for example, repeat biopsies have revealed that ∼50% of patients with resistance to EGFR inhibitors harbor a secondary mutation, T790M, in the EGFR gatekeeper residue (11, 29). Based upon analyses of patient-derived biopsy specimens, additional mechanisms of EGFR TKI resistance have been identified, including EGFR amplification, MET amplification, PIK3CA mutations, BRAF mutations, HER2 amplification, increased AXL expression, epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition, and transition to small-cell lung cancer (32).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Sequential computed tomography images of a patient with ALK-positive lung cancer at baseline and following treatment with crizotinib, demonstrating an initial response to therapy followed by the development of acquired resistance and progression. A biopsy was performed at baseline for tumor genotyping, as well as at the time of tumor progression on crizotinib.

Similar evaluations of repeat biopsy specimens have been performed in crizotinib-resistant, ALK-positive NSCLC. In these studies, resistance mutations in the ALK kinase domain (e.g., the gatekeeper mutation L1196M) have been identified in approximately 20% to 30% of patients (30, 31, 33). In addition to ALK resistance mutations, analysis of repeat biopsy specimens has revealed ALK gene amplification and upregulation of bypass signaling pathways as alternative mechanisms of resistance (30, 31). Bypass signaling pathways have included ligand-dependent activation of EGFR and c-KIT amplification (30).

Although tumor tissue is considered the gold standard for PD assessments, these studies may be limited by differences in drug exposure among patients and the potential for inter- and intratumoral heterogeneity. Moreover, serial biopsies may be difficult to obtain because of the invasiveness of these procedures as well as patient preferences, logistical constraints, and costs. Although studies have shown that clinical trial participants often consider rates of potential biopsy-related complications to be acceptable, nearly 50% believe that research-related biopsies may have treatment implications (34). This highlights the importance of ensuring appropriate informed consent and minimizing the risks of research biopsies. Moreover, there is a greater need for noninvasive biomarkers and improved technological platforms to allow comprehensive molecular analyses on smaller specimens, such as fine-needle aspirates.

Surrogate tissue biopsies

Certain malignancies (e.g., leukemia) are accessible to repeated samplings during therapy. In solid tumors, however, it is more difficult to collect serial biopsies. Investigators have therefore explored using normal tissues, such as skin, peripheral blood mononuclear cells, and plucked hair follicles, as potential surrogate biomarkers (Fig. 3). For targeted inhibitors, this requires the therapeutic target of interest to be highly expressed in normal tissue. Such PD studies may provide insights into target inhibition (i.e., proof of mechanism) and the time course/duration of such effects, but not necessarily proof of concept. Additional limitations of normal tissue as a surrogate biomarker include (i) differences in drug penetration between normal and tumor tissues; (ii) possible differences in gene expression between tissues (e.g., ALK is aberrantly expressed in ALK-rearranged NSCLC, but it is not expressed in normal skin); (iii) normal tissues lack somatic mutations in the oncogenic target; (iv) mutant enzymes in tumor tissue may lead to significant differences in drug sensitivity as compared with wild-type enzymes in normal tissue (e.g., BRAF, EGFR); and (v) there may be differences in signal transduction pathway regulation in tumors (e.g., oncogene addiction) as compared with normal cells.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Depiction of various pharmacodynamic biomarker assessments, including tissue-based (invasive) approaches and noninvasive tools. Use of particular pharmacodynamic assessments may depend on the target of interest as well as the study disease. Assessments may also be complementary to one another.

Early clinical studies of EGFR TKIs relied on skin biopsies as surrogate markers for PD assessments (18). In these studies, skin biopsies revealed decreases in EGFR phosphorylation with treatment, indicative of target modulation. Despite this proof of mechanism, however, EGFR inhibitors were ultimately found to have only limited antitumor activity in unselected NSCLC populations (35). It is now recognized that wild-type EGFR and the mutant enzyme differ in their sensitivity to EGFR inhibition. Moreover, tumors harboring EGFR mutations are more “addicted” to EGFR signaling. Thus, when targeted agents have greater potency against mutated forms of the target, PD studies conducted on surrogate tissues may provide misleading signals. Nevertheless, depending on the target of interest, surrogate tissue studies may allow investigators to confirm that an agent can produce target/pathway inhibition. These biopsies may also assess the time course of such inhibition, a first step toward effective antitumor use.

Window-of-opportunity studies

One alternative strategy to obtain tumor tissue for PD assessments is to pursue neoadjuvant or “window-of-opportunity” trials. In such studies, patients with early-stage disease are treated with a molecularly targeted therapy during a brief “window” period, after which surgical resection is performed. The resection specimen can then be examined for evidence of antitumor activity. Obviously, the disadvantage to such trials is that patients with early-stage disease may experience a delay in surgical resection—a potentially curative therapy. Also, to be of value, a significant response after a brief period of experimental therapy is needed to provide proof of concept. Some authors have therefore proposed requirements for window-of-opportunity trials (36), such as (i) the targeted therapy should have an adequate safety profile, (ii) the agent should have demonstrated preliminary activity in advanced disease, and (iii) there should be a strong rationale for use of the agent in the intended disease setting.

Although neoadjuvant studies have been pursued extensively in breast cancer as a path for drug development and approval, they have not been routinely used in NSCLC, perhaps because of a lack of validated surrogate endpoints (e.g., pathologic complete response) and the rarity of major responses in the brief period of treatment. Several studies evaluating the use of neoadjuvant EGFR TKIs have been conducted in early-stage NSCLC; however, such studies were generally performed in unselected patient populations (37, 38) and/or lacked PD assessments of target inhibition (37–39). Recently, a window-of-opportunity study was performed in patients with NSCLC with stage I/II disease who were treated with neoadjuvant pazopanib (36). This study included gene-expression profiling on pre- and posttreatment specimens, which revealed transcriptional changes in pazopanib target genes and other angiogenic factors (e.g., VEGFR-1, PDGFR-α) following treatment suggestive of on-target effects.

Circulating biomarkers

Given the challenges of obtaining serial tumor biopsies in patients with advanced cancer, efforts are ongoing to identify noninvasive biomarkers, such as circulating tumor cells (CTC) and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Specifically, there is interest in using these “liquid biopsies” to provide information on prognosis, genetic determinants of response, dynamic tumor assessments, and monitoring of resistance (40, 41).

Studies in colorectal, prostate, and breast cancer have demonstrated that CTC levels are prognostic biomarkers (40). Preliminary analyses have also suggested that CTCs may be prognostic biomarkers in NSCLC (42), but data on CTCs as PD endpoints in lung cancer are limited. Krebs and colleagues reported on 101 patients with advanced NSCLC who had CTC levels measured at baseline and following one cycle of cytotoxic chemotherapy (42). Patients were divided into favorable and unfavorable groups based upon a cutoff of 5 CTCs per 7.5 mL of blood. The median PFS and overall survival (OS) durations for the favorable group (<5 CTCs) were 6.8 and 8.1 months, respectively. In contrast, the median PFS and OS for the unfavorable group (≥5 CTCs) were 2.4 and 4.3 months, respectively. The authors also assessed changes in CTC number following one cycle of chemotherapy in a subset of patients (n = 18), finding that a reduction in CTC number after therapy was predictive for improved survival. In a separate phase II study of erlotinib and pertuzumab in advanced NSCLC (43), on-treatment decreases in CTC counts were found to correlate with radiographic response and PFS. It should be noted that in both studies, measurements of the absolute numbers of CTCs were used as the PD biomarker, rather than specific targets within CTCs. Such findings will require prospective validation in larger cohorts.

Despite the promise of CTCs as biomarkers, a number of challenges have emerged. Several different CTC detection technologies have been developed. This has led to a lack of standardization for CTC detection, cutoffs, and data analysis, making reproducibility and generalizations across studies difficult (44). To date, the only commercially available system approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is the CellSearch CTC platform (Veridex); however, this system is currently not approved for use in NSCLC. Nonetheless, several reports in NSCLC have highlighted the potential of CTCs. For example, Maheswaran and colleagues used a microfluidic-based platform to isolate CTCs, identifying activating EGFR mutations and the appearance of an EGFR T790M resistance mutation in patients (45). More recently, ALK rearrangements in CTCs were also detected (46). Moving forward, it is hoped that such technology may be used for dynamic tumor assessments.

In addition to CTCs, extracellular microRNAs (miRNA) and ctDNA have been proposed as noninvasive biomarkers (41, 47). miRNAs are a class of small, non–protein-coding RNAs that serve as negative gene regulators. miRNAs can exist stably in circulation in tumor-derived exosomes or microvesicles (47). To date, early studies in NSCLC have largely focused on using miRNA as biomarkers for early disease detection and prognosis, but PD studies have been lacking (48, 49).

ctDNA is thought to be released into the bloodstream from cancer cells undergoing apoptosis or necrosis. Although it represents only a small proportion of the total cell-free DNA in circulation (<1%; ref 41), ctDNA can be identified and distinguished from normal cell-free DNA by testing for genetic mutations that are tumor specific (e.g., point mutations, chromosomal rearrangements). ctDNA levels have correlated with changes in tumor burden in a number of different malignancies (41, 50). Thus, ctDNA has potential to serve as a noninvasive tool for PD assessments.

In studies of NSCLC to date, ctDNA has been predominantly used to identify predictive biomarkers, such as EGFR and KRAS mutations (51, 52). ctDNA has also been used to track the development of resistance, such as the EGFR T790M resistance mutation (53). More recently, preliminary studies have also described serial assessments of ctDNA to monitor response, suggesting that ctDNA may be useful as a PD endpoint. In one report, Oxnard and colleagues performed droplet digital PCR of ctDNA to quantify plasma levels of mutant EGFR in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC receiving erlotinib (54). Plasma levels of mutant EGFR became undetectable in 8 of 9 (89%) patients following initiation of therapy, and the ninth patient also experienced a reduction in plasma levels of mutant EGFR. Interestingly, plasma levels of mutant EGFR eventually rose to detectable levels in 6 (67%) of these patients, preceding objective radiographic progression by up to 4 months. Although the sample size from this study is small, it provides early proof of principle that such PD assessments are feasible using ctDNA.

On-target toxicity assessments

Clinical parameters can also serve as PD markers. Specifically, assessments of mechanism-based, or “on-target” toxicities, have been used as PD biomarkers in clinical trials of various targeted therapies. These adverse events can arise when the molecular drug target is also expressed on normal cells. Importantly, such on-target toxicities do not necessarily correlate with disease response, but rather they may provide support for the proposed mechanism of action of an agent. Illustrative examples include EGFR inhibitors, which are associated with rash; vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors, which are associated with arterial hypertension; and phosphatidylinositide-3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors, which affect insulin and glucose (55).

Conclusions

In summary, the number of targeted agents in clinical development continues to grow. Historically, the development of such agents has been costly and slow, but with the use of predictive biomarkers for patient selection, increasingly rapid approval is possible. The experience in NSCLC highlights that targeted therapies are likely to benefit only specific subgroups of patients. Therefore, in addition to the continued development of predictive biomarkers, there is a greater need for the incorporation of PD endpoints in clinical trials.

Thus far, the use of PD studies in oncology in general and in NSCLC in particular has been somewhat limited. This may be because of a number of issues, including technical factors (e.g., insufficient dynamic range of assays), practical considerations (e.g., cost, patient preferences), inter- and intratumoral heterogeneity, and the invasive nature of biopsies. Nonetheless, PD studies may provide valuable insights into optimal biological dosing, toxicity, and, most importantly, proof of mechanism and proof of concept. PD studies are of greatest importance in phase I/II studies evaluating investigational agents with novel mechanisms of action or compounds directed at new targets. Ideally, such assessments should be performed directly on tumor tissue and focus on mechanism-based PD endpoints (e.g., changes in target protein phosphorylation status or the activation status of downstream signaling molecules in response to a TKI). Because objective tumor responses are relatively uncommon in phase I studies, such assessments may provide early insights into proof of mechanism.

At present, PD studies have not been incorporated into routine clinical practice in NSCLC because of the invasive nature of repeat tumor biopsies and the lack of validated PD endpoints. Moving forward, invasive biomarker studies will likely need to be combined with less invasive strategies, such as imaging-based assessments and circulating biomarkers (e.g., CTCs and ctDNA). Together, these assessments may allow investigators to gain deeper insights into the dynamics of tumor response and the emergence of resistance. This may in turn inform early phases of future drug development and clinical practice.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Authors' Contributions

Conception and design: J.F. Gainor, D.L. Longo

Development of methodology: J.F. Gainor

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): J.F. Gainor

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): J.F. Gainor, D.L. Longo

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: J.F. Gainor, D.L. Longo, B.A. Chabner

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): J.F. Gainor

  • Received January 31, 2014.
  • Revision received March 7, 2014.
  • Accepted March 21, 2014.
  • ©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Goulart BH,
    2. Clark JW,
    3. Pien HH,
    4. Roberts TG,
    5. Finkelstein SN,
    6. Chabner BA
    . Trends in the use and role of biomarkers in phase I oncology trials. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:6719–26.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Biomarkers Definitions Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001;69:89–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Yap TA,
    2. Lorente D,
    3. Omlin A,
    4. Olmos D,
    5. de Bono JS
    . Circulating tumor cells: a multifunctional biomarker. Clin Cancer Res 2014;20:2553–68.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. van der Veldt AAM,
    2. Lammertsma AA
    . In vivo imaging as pharmacodynamic marker. Clin Cancer Res 2014;20:2569–77.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Hertz DL,
    2. McLeod HL
    . Using pharmacogene polymorphism panels to detect germline pharmacodynamic markers in oncology. Clin Cancer Res 2014;20:2530–40.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Low S-K,
    2. Takahashi A,
    3. Mushiroda T,
    4. Kubo M
    . Genome-wide association study: a useful tool to identify common genetic variants associated with drug toxicity and efficacy in cancer pharmacogenomics. Clin Cancer Res 2014;20:2541–52.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Lynch TJ,
    2. Bell DW,
    3. Sordella R,
    4. Gurubhagavatula S,
    5. Okimoto RA,
    6. Brannigan BW,
    7. et al.
    Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor underlying responsiveness of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2129–39.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Sequist LV,
    2. Heist RS,
    3. Shaw AT,
    4. Fidias P,
    5. Rosovsky R,
    6. Temel JS,
    7. et al.
    Implementing multiplexed genotyping of non-small-cell lung cancers into routine clinical practice. Ann Oncol 2011;22:2616–24.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Kwak EL,
    2. Bang YJ,
    3. Camidge DR,
    4. Shaw AT,
    5. Solomon B,
    6. Maki RG,
    7. et al.
    Anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibition in non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2010;363:1693–703.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Linardou H,
    2. Dahabreh IJ,
    3. Kanaloupiti D,
    4. Siannis F,
    5. Bafaloukos D,
    6. Kosmidis P,
    7. et al.
    Assessment of somatic k-RAS mutations as a mechanism associated with resistance to EGFR-targeted agents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and metastatic colorectal cancer. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:962–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Kobayashi S,
    2. Boggon TJ,
    3. Dayaram T,
    4. Jänne PA,
    5. Kocher O,
    6. Meyerson M,
    7. et al.
    EGFR mutation and resistance of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib. N Engl J Med 2005;352:786–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Pao W,
    2. Miller V,
    3. Zakowski M,
    4. Doherty J,
    5. Politi K,
    6. Sarkaria I,
    7. et al.
    EGF receptor gene mutations are common in lung cancers from “never smokers” and are associated with sensitivity of tumors to gefitinib and erlotinib. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004;101:13306–11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Mok TS,
    2. Wu YL,
    3. Thongprasert S,
    4. Yang CH,
    5. Chu DT,
    6. Saijo N,
    7. et al.
    Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med 2009;361:947–57.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Soda M,
    2. Choi YL,
    3. Enomoto M,
    4. Takada S,
    5. Yamashita Y,
    6. Ishikawa S,
    7. et al.
    Identification of the transforming EML4-ALK fusion gene in non-small-cell lung cancer. Nature 2007;448:561–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Shaw AT,
    2. Yeap BY,
    3. Mino-Kenudson M,
    4. Digumarthy SR,
    5. Costa DB,
    6. Heist RS,
    7. et al.
    Clinical features and outcome of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer who harbor EML4-ALK. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:4247–53.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Shaw AT,
    2. Kim DW,
    3. Nakagawa K,
    4. Seto T,
    5. Crinó L,
    6. Ahn MJ,
    7. et al.
    Crizotinib versus chemotherapy in advanced ALK-positive lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2013;368:2385–94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Yap TA,
    2. Olmos D,
    3. Brunetto AT,
    4. Tunariu N,
    5. Barriuso J,
    6. Riisnaes R,
    7. et al.
    Phase I trial of a selective c-MET inhibitor ARQ 197 incorporating proof of mechanism pharmacodynamic studies. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:1271–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Malik SN,
    2. Siu LL,
    3. Rowinsky EK,
    4. deGraffenried L,
    5. Hammond LA,
    6. Rizzo J,
    7. et al.
    Pharmacodynamic evaluation of the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor OSI-774 in human epidermis of cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 2003;9:2478–86.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Shapiro GI,
    2. Rodon J,
    3. Bedell C,
    4. Kwak EL,
    5. Baselga J,
    6. Braña I,
    7. et al.
    Phase I safety, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic study of SAR245408 (XL147), an oral pan-class I PI3K inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res 2014;20:233–45.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Weekes CD,
    2. Von Hoff DD,
    3. Adjei AA,
    4. Leffingwell DP,
    5. Eckhardt SG,
    6. Gore L,
    7. et al.
    Multicenter phase I trial of the mitogen-activated protein kinase 1/2 inhibitor BAY 86-9766 in patients with advanced cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19:1232–43.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. La Rosée P,
    2. Holm-Eriksen S,
    3. Konig H,
    4. Härtel N,
    5. Ernst T,
    6. Debatin J,
    7. et al.
    Phospho-CRKL monitoring for the assessment of BCR-ABL activity in imatinib-resistant chronic myeloid leukemia or Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients treated with nilotinib. Haematologica 2008;93:765–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Adjei AA,
    2. Cohen RB,
    3. Franklin W,
    4. Morris C,
    5. Wilson D,
    6. Molina JR,
    7. et al.
    Phase I pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of the oral, small-molecule mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase 1/2 inhibitor AZD6244 (ARRY-142886) in patients with advanced cancers. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:2139–46.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Armstrong AJ,
    2. Netto GJ,
    3. Rudek MA,
    4. Halabi S,
    5. Wood DP,
    6. Creel PA,
    7. et al.
    A pharmacodynamic study of rapamycin in men with intermediate- to high-risk localized prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2010;16:3057–66.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Trunzer K,
    2. Pavlick AC,
    3. Schuchter L,
    4. Gonzalez R,
    5. McArthur GA,
    6. Hutson TE,
    7. et al.
    Pharmacodynamic effects and mechanisms of resistance to vemurafenib in patients with metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:1767–74.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Venugopal B,
    2. Baird R,
    3. Kristeleit RS,
    4. Plummer R,
    5. Cowan R,
    6. Stewart A,
    7. et al.
    A phase I study of quisinostat (JNJ-26481585), an oral hydroxamate histone deacetylase inhibitor with evidence of target modulation and antitumor activity, in patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19:4262–72.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Appleton K,
    2. Mackay HJ,
    3. Judson I,
    4. Plumb JA,
    5. McCormick C,
    6. Strathdee G,
    7. et al.
    Phase I and pharmacodynamic trial of the DNA methyltransferase inhibitor decitabine and carboplatin in solid tumors. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:4603–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Flaherty KT,
    2. Puzanov I,
    3. Kim KB,
    4. Ribas A,
    5. McArthur GA,
    6. Sosman JA,
    7. et al.
    Inhibition of mutated, activated BRAF in metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med 2010;363:809–19.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Felip E,
    2. Rojo F,
    3. Reck M,
    4. Heller A,
    5. Klughammer B,
    6. Sala G,
    7. et al.
    A phase II pharmacodynamic study of erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 2008;14:3867–74.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Sequist LV,
    2. Waltman BA,
    3. Dias-Santagata D,
    4. Digumarthy S,
    5. Turke AB,
    6. Fidias P,
    7. et al.
    Genotypic and histological evolution of lung cancers acquiring resistance to EGFR inhibitors. Sci Transl Med 2011;3:75ra26.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Katayama R,
    2. Shaw AT,
    3. Khan TM,
    4. Mino-Kenudson M,
    5. Solomon BJ,
    6. Halmos B,
    7. et al.
    Mechanisms of acquired crizotinib resistance in ALK-rearranged lung Cancers. Sci Transl Med 2012;4:120ra17.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Doebele RC,
    2. Pilling AB,
    3. Aisner DL,
    4. Kutateladze TG,
    5. Le AT,
    6. Weickhardt AJ,
    7. et al.
    Mechanisms of resistance to crizotinib in patients with ALK gene rearranged non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2012;18:1472–82.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Gainor JF,
    2. Shaw AT
    . Emerging paradigms in the development of resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors in lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:3987–96.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Gainor JF,
    2. Varghese AM,
    3. Ou SH,
    4. Kabraji S,
    5. Awad MM,
    6. Katayama R,
    7. et al.
    ALK Rearrangements are mutually exclusive with mutations in EGFR or KRAS: an analysis of 1,683 patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19:4273–81.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Agulnik M,
    2. Oza AM,
    3. Pond GR,
    4. Siu LL
    . Impact and perceptions of mandatory tumor biopsies for correlative studies in clinical trials of novel anticancer agents. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:4801–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Shepherd FA,
    2. Rodrigues Pereira J,
    3. Ciuleanu T,
    4. Tan EH,
    5. Hirsh V,
    6. Thongprasert S,
    7. et al.
    Erlotinib in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;353:123–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Altorki N,
    2. Lane ME,
    3. Bauer T,
    4. Lee PC,
    5. Guarino MJ,
    6. Pass H,
    7. et al.
    Phase II proof-of-concept study of pazopanib monotherapy in treatment-naive patients with stage I/II resectable non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:3131–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    1. Lara-Guerra H,
    2. Waddell TK,
    3. Salvarrey MA,
    4. Joshua AM,
    5. Chung CT,
    6. Paul N,
    7. et al.
    Phase II study of preoperative gefitinib in clinical stage I non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:6229–36.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    1. Lara-Guerra H,
    2. Chung CT,
    3. Schwock J,
    4. Pintilie M,
    5. Hwang DM,
    6. Leighl NB,
    7. et al.
    Histopathological and immunohistochemical features associated with clinical response to neoadjuvant gefitinib therapy in early stage non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2012;76:235–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Schaake EE,
    2. Kappers I,
    3. Codrington HE,
    4. Valdés Olmos RA,
    5. Teertstra HJ,
    6. van Pel R,
    7. et al.
    Tumor response and toxicity of neoadjuvant erlotinib in patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:2731–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    1. Alix-Panabières C,
    2. Schwarzenbach H,
    3. Pantel K
    . Circulating tumor cells and circulating tumor DNA. Annu Rev Med 2012;63:199–215.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Diaz LA,
    2. Bardelli A
    . Liquid biopsies: genotyping circulating tumor DNA. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:579–86.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. 42.↵
    1. Krebs MG,
    2. Sloane R,
    3. Priest L,
    4. Lancashire L,
    5. Hou JM,
    6. Greystoke A,
    7. et al.
    Evaluation and prognostic significance of circulating tumor cells in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:1556–63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. 43.↵
    1. Punnoose EA,
    2. Atwal S,
    3. Liu W,
    4. Raja R,
    5. Fine BM,
    6. Hughes BG,
    7. et al.
    Evaluation of circulating tumor cells and circulating tumor DNA in non-small cell lung cancer: association with clinical endpoints in a phase II clinical trial of pertuzumab and erlotinib. Clin Cancer Res 2012;18:2391–401.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. Wong MP
    . Circulating tumor cells as lung cancer biomarkers. J Thorac Dis 2012;4:631–4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Maheswaran S,
    2. Sequist LV,
    3. Nagrath S,
    4. Ulkus L,
    5. Brannigan B,
    6. Collura CV,
    7. et al.
    Detection of mutations in EGFR in circulating lung-cancer cells. N Engl J Med 2008;359:366–77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Pailler E,
    2. Adam J,
    3. Barthélémy A,
    4. Oulhen M,
    5. Auger N,
    6. Valent A,
    7. et al.
    Detection of circulating tumor cells harboring a unique ALK rearrangement in ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:2273–81.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. 47.↵
    1. Wang J,
    2. Zhang KY,
    3. Liu SM,
    4. Sen S
    . Tumor-associated circulating microRNAs as biomarkers of cancer. Molecules 2014;19:1912–38.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    1. Sozzi G,
    2. Boeri M,
    3. Rossi M,
    4. Verri C,
    5. Suatoni P,
    6. Bravi F,
    7. et al.
    Clinical utility of a plasma-based miRNA signature classifier within computed tomography lung cancer screening: a correlative MILD trial study. J Clin Oncol 2014 Jan 13 [Epub ahead of print].
  49. 49.↵
    1. Hu Z,
    2. Chen X,
    3. Zhao Y,
    4. Tian T,
    5. Jin G,
    6. Shu Y,
    7. et al.
    Serum microRNA signatures identified in a genome-wide serum microRNA expression profiling predict survival of non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1721–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. 50.↵
    1. Dawson SJ,
    2. Tsui DW,
    3. Murtaza M,
    4. Biggs H,
    5. Rueda OM,
    6. Chin SF,
    7. et al.
    Analysis of circulating tumor DNA to monitor metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1199–209.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    1. Yung TK,
    2. Chan KC,
    3. Mok TS,
    4. Tong J,
    5. To KF,
    6. Lo YM
    . Single-molecule detection of epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in plasma by microfluidics digital PCR in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:2076–84.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. 52.↵
    1. Gautschi O,
    2. Huegli B,
    3. Ziegler A,
    4. Gugger M,
    5. Heighway J,
    6. Ratschiller D,
    7. et al.
    Origin and prognostic value of circulating KRAS mutations in lung cancer patients. Cancer Lett 2007;254:265–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    1. Kuang Y,
    2. Rogers A,
    3. Yeap BY,
    4. Wang L,
    5. Makrigiorgos M,
    6. Vetrand K,
    7. et al.
    Noninvasive detection of EGFR T790M in gefitinib or erlotinib resistant non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:2630–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. 54.↵
    1. Oxnard GR,
    2. Paweletz CP,
    3. Kuang Y,
    4. Mach SL,
    5. O'Connell A,
    6. Messineo MM,
    7. et al.
    Noninvasive detection of response and resistance in EGFR-mutant lung cancer using quantitative next-generation genotyping of cell-free plasma DNA. Clin Cancer Res 2014 Feb 27 [Epub ahead of print].
  55. 55.↵
    1. Dienstmann R,
    2. Braña I,
    3. Rodon J,
    4. Tabernero J
    . Toxicity as a biomarker of efficacy of molecular targeted therapies: focus on EGFR and VEGF inhibiting anticancer drugs. Oncologist 2011;16:1729–40.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Clinical Cancer Research: 20 (10)
May 2014
Volume 20, Issue 10
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Clinical Cancer Research article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Pharmacodynamic Biomarkers: Falling Short of the Mark?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Clinical Cancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Clinical Cancer Research.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Pharmacodynamic Biomarkers: Falling Short of the Mark?
Justin F. Gainor, Dan L. Longo and Bruce A. Chabner
Clin Cancer Res May 15 2014 (20) (10) 2587-2594; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-3132

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Pharmacodynamic Biomarkers: Falling Short of the Mark?
Justin F. Gainor, Dan L. Longo and Bruce A. Chabner
Clin Cancer Res May 15 2014 (20) (10) 2587-2594; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-3132
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Predictive Biomarkers in NSCLC: An Overview
    • Pharmacodynamic Biomarkers
    • Conclusions
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Authors' Contributions
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Endpoints for Immuno-oncology Trials
  • Limitations and Challenges in Immuno-oncology Trials
  • Developing Early-Phase Combination Immunotherapy Trials
Show more CCR Focus
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn  YouTube  RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • CCR Focus Archive
  • Meeting Abstracts

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Clinical Cancer Research

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Clinical Cancer Research
eISSN: 1557-3265
ISSN: 1078-0432

Advertisement