Nature reviews. Clinical oncology
-
Advances in our understanding of cancer biology have led to the discovery of a spectrum of new therapeutic targets. However, despite remarkable progress in the identification and characterization of novel mechanisms of the oncogenic process, the success rate for approval of oncology drugs remains low relative to other therapeutic areas. ⋯ To maximize the effectiveness of these new strategies, close collaboration between academic, industry, and regulatory agencies will be required. In this Review, we highlight new approaches in preclinical and clinical drug development that will help accelerate approval of drugs, and aim to provide more-effective treatments alongside companion diagnostic tests to ensure the right treatment is given to the right patient.
-
Modern oncology drug development faces challenges very different from those of the past and it must adapt accordingly. The size and expense of phase III clinical trials continue to increase, but the success rate remains unacceptably low. Adaptive trial designs can make development more informative, addressing whether a drug is safe and effective while showing how it should be delivered and to whom. ⋯ Longitudinal models of biomarkers (including tumor burden assessed via imaging) enable predictions of primary end points. Taking a Bayesian perspective facilitates building an efficient and accurate trial, including using longitudinal information. A wholly new paradigm for drug development exemplifying personalized medicine is evinced by an adaptive trial called I-SPY2, in which drugs from many companies are evaluated in the same trial--a phase II screening process.
-
In the era of cytotoxic therapies, tumor regression has rarely been observed in phase I trials and randomized controlled trials have usually been required to demonstrate modest improvements over prevailing standards of care. In the era of effective targeted therapies, drugs such as vemurafenib and crizotinib have demonstrated convincing efficacy in early clinical testing, raising the question of whether randomized phase III trials are necessary and feasible before drug approval. ⋯ In this Review, we use a number of historical examples to make the case that it may be reasonable to consider foregoing randomized phase III trials for certain drugs before drug approval. We explore the consequences (both good and bad) of foregoing randomized phase III trials and propose criteria that might be used to select drugs for consideration of such an approach.
-
Abiraterone plus prednisone prolongs overall survival relative to prednisone alone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who have disease progression after treatment with docetaxel. The survival gain observed in this pivotal trial is accomplished with few adverse events and conclusively demonstrates that patients with castration levels of serum testosterone remain sensitive to additional hormonal manipulation.