Facilitating the Use of Imaging Biomarkers in Therapeutic Clinical
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
QIBA Profile. FDG-PET/CT As an Imaging Biomarker 4 Measuring Response to Cancer Therapy
1 2 3 QIBA Profile. FDG-PET/CT as an Imaging Biomarker 4 Measuring Response to Cancer Therapy 5 Version 1.05 6 Publicly Reviewed Version 7 December 11, 2013 8 Copyright © 2013: RSNA 9 Note to users – when referencing this QIBA Profile document, please use the following format: FDG-PET/CT Technical Committee. FDG-PET/CT as an Imaging Biomarker Measuring Response to Cancer Therapy, Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance, Version 1.05, Publicly Reviewed Version. QIBA, December 11, 2013. Available from: RSNA.ORG/QIBA. Page: 1 10 11 12 Table of Contents 13 1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 3 14 Summary for Clinical Trial Use ....................................................................................................................... 4 15 2. Clinical Context and Claims............................................................................................................................. 5 16 Applications and Endpoints for Clinical Trials ................................................................................................ 5 17 Claim: Measure Change in SUV ...................................................................................................................... 6 18 3. Profile Details .................................................................................................................................................. 7 19 3.1. Subject Handling ..................................................................................................................................... -
Surrogate Endpoint Biomarkers for Cervical Cancer Chemoprevention Trials
Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, Supplement 23:113-124 (1 995) Surrogate Endpoint Biomarkers for Cervical Cancer Chemoprevention Trials Mack T. Ruffin IV, MD, MPH: Mohammed S. Qgaily, MD: Carolyn M. Johnston, MD? Lucie Gregoire, PhD: Wayne D. Lancaster, PhD; and Dean E. Brenner, MD6 Department of Family Practice, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0708 Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Simpson Memorial Institute, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0724 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0718 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI 48201 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, Detroit, MI 48201 Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Simpson Memorial Institute, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0724 Abstract Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) represents a spectrum of epithelial changes that provide an excellent model for developing chemopreventive interventions for cervical cancer. Possible drug effect surrogate endpoint biomarkers are dependent on the agent under investigation. Published and preliminary clinical reports suggest retinoids and carotenoids are effective chemopreventive agents for CIN. Determination of plasma and tissue pharmacology of these agents and their metabolites could serve as drug effect intermediate endpoints. In addition, retinoic acid receptors could serve as both drug and biological effect intermediate endpoints. Possible biological effect surrogate endpoint biomarkers include cytomorphological parameters, proliferation markers, genomic markers, regulatory markers, and differentiation. Given the demonstrated causality of human papillomavirus (HPV) for cervical cancer, establishing the relationship to HPV will be an essential component of any biological intermediate endpoint biomarker. -
Design and Conduct of Early Clinical Studies
Published OnlineFirst February 21, 2020; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-3136 CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH | PERSPECTIVES Design and Conduct of Early Clinical Studies of Immunotherapy: Recommendations from the Task Force on Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies 2019 (MDICT) Martin Smoragiewicz1, Alex A. Adjei2, Emiliano Calvo3, Josep Tabernero4, Aurelien Marabelle5, Christophe Massard5, Jun Tang6, Elisabeth G.E. de Vries7, Jean-Yves Douillard8, and Lesley Seymour1; for the task force on Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies ABSTRACT ◥ Purpose: To review key aspects of the design and conduct of early Results: Although early successes have been seen, the landscape clinical trials (ECT) of immunotherapy agents. continues to be very dynamic, and there are ongoing concerns Experimental Design: The Methodology for the Development of regarding the capacity to test all new drugs and combinations in Innovative Cancer Therapies Task Force 2019 included experts clinical trials. from academia, nonprofit organizations, industry, and regulatory Conclusions: Optimization of drug development methodology agencies. The review focus was on methodology for ECTs testing is required, taking into account early, late, and lower grade immune-oncology therapies (IO) used in combination with other intolerable toxicities, novel response patterns, as well as phar- IO or chemotherapy. macodynamic data. Introduction Materials and Methods The Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer The 2019 meeting was held at the International Symposium on Therapies (MDICT) task force, established in 2006, is composed of Targeted Anticancer Therapies (ESMO-TAT). Participants included experts from academia, nonprofit organizations, industry, and regu- experts from academia, nonprofit organizations, industry, and regu- latory stakeholders, and provides guidance and recommendations on latory agencies. -
3 Regulatory Aspects in Using Surrogate Markers in Clinical Trials
3 Regulatory Aspects in Using Surrogate Markers in Clinical Trials Aloka Chakravarty 3.1 Introduction and Motivation Surrogate marker plays an important role in the regulatory decision pro- cesses in drug approval. The possibility of reduced sample size or trial duration when a distal clinical endpoint is replaced by a more proximal one hold real benefit in terms of reaching the intended patient population faster, cheaper, and safer as well as a better characterization of the efficacy profile. In situations where endpoint measurements have competing risks or are invasive in nature, certain latitude in measurement error can be accepted by deliberately choosing an alternate endpoint in compensation for a better quality of life or for ease of measurement. 3.1.1 Definitions and Their Regulatory Ramifications Over the years, many authors have given various definitions for a surrogate marker. Some of the operational ramifications of these definitions will be examined in their relationship to drug development. Wittes, Lakatos, and Probstfield (1989) defined surrogate endpoint sim- ply as “an endpoint measured in lieu of some so-called ‘true’ endpoint.” While it provides the core, this definition does not provide any operational motivation. Ellenberg and Hamilton (1989) provides this basis by stating: “investigators use surrogate endpoints when the endpoint of interest is too difficult and/or expensive to measure routinely and when they can define some other, more readily measurable endpoint, which is sufficiently well correlated with the first to justify its use as a substitute.” This paved the way to a statistical definition of a surrogate endpoint by Prentice (1989): 14 Aloka Chakravarty “a response variable for which a test of null hypothesis of no relationship to the treatment groups under comparison is also a valid test of the cor- responding null hypothesis based on the true endpoint.” This definition, also known as the Prentice Criteria, is often very hard to verify in real-life clinical trials. -
Imaging Biomarker Roadmap for Cancer [email protected]
Imaging Biomarkers in Radiation Oncology and Beyond: Development, Evaluation and Clinical Translation Imaging Biomarker Roadmap for Cancer [email protected] AAPM/COMP 2020-07-14 Funding Support, Disclosures, and Conflict of Interest statement FUNDING. The research leading to these results has received support from the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking (www.imi.europa.eu) under grant agreement number 115151, resources of which are composed of financial contribution from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007- 2013) and EFPIA companies’ in kind contribution. Part of the work was also performed during the author's previous employment with AstraZeneca, a for-profit company engaged in the discovery, development, manufacturing and marketing of proprietary therapeutics. DISCLOSURES & CONFLICT OF INTEREST. John Waterton holds stock in Quantitative Imaging Ltd and receives compensation from Bioxydyn Ltd, a for-profit company engaged in the discovery, development, provision and marketing of imaging biomarkers. BEST resource (2016) Biomarker: A defined characteristic that is measured as an indicator of normal biological processes, pathogenic processes, or responses to an exposure or intervention, including therapeutic interventions. Molecular, histologic, radiographic, or physiologic characteristics are types of biomarkers. A biomarker is not an assessment of how an individual feels, functions, or survives. Categories of biomarkers include: • susceptibility/risk biomarker • diagnostic biomarker • monitoring biomarker • prognostic biomarker • predictive biomarker Development of 1999 workshop • pharmacodynamic/response biomarker (Atkinson et al 2001) • safety biomarker Six key cancer imaging modalities Metrology Colloquial Examples definition definition Ordered How ugly? categorical (incl. binary) Extensive How big? Intensive How hot? Metrology Colloquial Examples definition definition Ordered How ugly? • TNM stage PET SPECT vis XR/CT MR us categorical • OR PET SPECT vis XR/CT MR us (incl. -
Surrogate Endpoints for Overall Survival in Cancer Randomized Controlled Trials Marion Savina
Surrogate Endpoints for Overall Survival in Cancer Randomized Controlled Trials Marion Savina To cite this version: Marion Savina. Surrogate Endpoints for Overall Survival in Cancer Randomized Controlled Trials. Human health and pathology. Université de Bordeaux, 2017. English. NNT : 2017BORD0894. tel-01865829 HAL Id: tel-01865829 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01865829 Submitted on 2 Sep 2018 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Thèse présentée pour obtenir le grade de Docteur de l’Université de Bordeaux Ecole Doctorale Sociétés, Politique, Santé Publique Spécialité Santé Publique, option Biostatistique Par Marion SAVINA Critères de Substitution à la Survie Globale dans les Essais Cliniques Randomisés en Cancérologie Surrogate Endpoints for Overall Survival in Cancer Randomized Controlled Trials Sous la direction de Carine BELLERA Soutenue le 14 décembre 2017 devant les membres du jury : M. SALMI Rachid Pr, INSERM U1219, Bordeaux Président Mme MOLLEVI Caroline Dr, INSERM U1194, Montpellier Rapporteuse M. CHAMOREY Emmanuel Dr, Université Nice-Sophia Antipolis Rapporteur Mme MATHOULIN-PELISSIER Simone Pr, INSERM U1219, Bordeaux Examinatrice Mme MIGEOT Virginie Pr, INSERM CIC1402, Poitiers Examinatrice Mme GOURGOU Sophie MsC, Institut du Cancer de Montpellier Invitée M. -
Qualification Opinion on Dopamine Transporter Imaging As an Enrichment Biomarker for Parkinson’S Disease Clinical Trials in Patients with Early Parkinsonian Symptoms
29 May 2018 EMA/CHMP/SAWP/765041/2017 Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) Qualification opinion on dopamine transporter imaging as an enrichment biomarker for Parkinson’s disease clinical trials in patients with early Parkinsonian symptoms Draft agreed by Scientific Advice Working Party 26 October 2017 Adopted by CHMP for release for consultation 09 November 20171 Start of public consultation 24 January 20182 End of consultation (deadline for comments) 07 March 20183 Adoption by CHMP 26 April 2018 Biomarker, Molecular neuroimaging, Parkinson’s disease Keywords 1 Last day of relevant Committee meeting. 2 Date of publication on the EMA public website. 3 Last day of the month concerned. 30 Churchill Place ● Canary Wharf ● London E14 5EU ● United Kingdom Telephone +44 (0)20 3660 6000 Facsimile +44 (0)20 3660 5555 Send a question via our website www.ema.europa.eu/contact An agency of the European Union © European Medicines Agency, 2018. Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Executive summary Critical Path Global Ltd.’s Critical Path for Parkinson’s (CPP) is a multinational consortium of the Critical Path Institute supported by Parkinson’s UK and industry. This broad collaboration of pharmaceutical companies, government agencies, academic institutions, and charities aims to accelerate the development of therapies for Parkinson’s disease (PD). The CPP Imaging Biomarker team aims to achieve a qualification opinion by EMA Committee for Medical Products for Human Use (CHMP) for the use of low baseline Dopamine Transporter levels for subject enrichment in clinical trials in early stages of PD. This package reports the results of the Critical Path Global Ltd. -
Biomarkers and Surrogate Endpoints in Clinical Studies for New Animal
#267 Biomarkers and Surrogate Endpoints in Clinical Studies to Support Effectiveness of New Animal Drugs Guidance for Industry Draft Guidance This guidance document is being distributed for comment purposes only. Submit comments on this draft guidance by the date provided in the Federal Register notice announcing the availability of the draft guidance. Submit electronic comments to https://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with docket number FDA-2020-D-1402. For further information regarding this document, contact Susan Storey, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-131), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Place, Rockville MD 20855, 240-402-0578, email: [email protected]. Additional copies of this draft guidance document may be requested from the Policy and Regulations Staff (HFV-6), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Place, Rockville MD 20855, and may be viewed on the Internet at either https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary or https://www.regulations.gov. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) July 2020 Contains Nonbinding Recommendations Draft — Not for Implementation Table of Contents I. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3 II. Background ...................................................................................................................... -
Imaging Biomarkers a New Dimension Olea in the Precision Imagein Medicine Era
Imaging Biomarkers A new Dimension Olea in the Precision Imagein Medicine Era P9 P15 P19-25-29-35-47 P5-41 Interventional Molecular Liver, Prostate QSM & MSK Oncology Imaging & Stroke Biomarkers #8 - October 2019 - JFR-RSNA Edition Edito EDITO - Dr. Adam Davis P3 QUANTITATIVE SUSCEPTIBILITY MAPPING - Dr. Yasutaka Fushimimi, P5 INTERVENTIONAL ONCOLOGY - Interview with Prof. Ricardo Garcia Monaco P9 A biomarker is any medical sign or characteristic that objectively measures a MOLECULAR IMAGING - Interview with Prof. Gabriel P. Krestin P15 normal or pathological process or a response to treatment [1,2]. In essence, all LIVER PREDICTIVE IMAGING - Interview with Prof. Alain Luciani P19 imaging findings are biomarkers. Radiographic characteristics are objective – quantifiable and reproducible, even if the interpretation is not. Dr François FAT & IRON CONTENT IN THE LIVER - Interview with Prof. Scott B. Reeder P25 Cornud elegantly describes the use of complex diffusion-based values such as PROSTATE IMAGING BIOMARKERS - Dr. Daniel Margolis P29 ADC, IVIM, Kurtosis & DTI as modern biomarkers for prostate cancer evaluation. Yet even the simplest radiographic sign – the absorption of an X-ray on a plain PROSTATE IMAGING - Interview with Dr. François Cornud P35 radiograph, reflects a quantity that radiologists use to define a physiologic or MUSCULOSKELETAL BIOMARKERS - Interview with Prof. Christian Jorgensen P41 pathologic state. ALGO-LESS BIOMARKERS - Christophe Avare P43 If biomarkers are as old as radiology itself, then why are they now attracting so much attention? Dr Krestin remarks: “medical imaging is moving from simple STROKE BIOMARKERS - Interview with Prof. Vincent Costalat P47 interpretation of the morphological appearance of anatomy and diseases, WOMEN IMAGING-BREAST CANCER - Case Report with Prof. -
Clinical Endpoints
GUIDELINE Endpoints used for relative effectiveness assessment of pharmaceuticals: CLINICAL ENDPOINTS Final version February 2013 EUnetHTA – European network for Health Technology Assessment 1 The primary objective of EUnetHTA JA1 WP5 methodology guidelines is to focus on methodological challenges that are encountered by HTA assessors while performing a rapid relative effectiveness assessment of pharmaceuticals. This guideline “Endpoints used for REA of pharmaceuticals – Clinical endpoints” has been elaborated by experts from HIQA, reviewed and validated by HAS and all members of WP5 of the EUnetHTA network. The whole process was coordinated by HAS. As such the guideline represents a consolidated view of non-binding recommendations of EUnetHTA network members and in no case an official opinion of the participating institutions or individuals. The EUnetHTA draft guideline on clinical endpoints is a work in progress, the aim of which is to reach the consensus on clinical endpoints and their assessment that is common to all or most of the European reimbursement authorities in charge of assessing new drugs. As such, it may be amended in future to better represent common thinking in this respect. EUnetHTA – European network for Health Technology Assessment 2 Table of contents Acronyms – Abbreviations.................................................................................4 Summary and Recommendations.........................................................................5 Summary ..............................................................................................................5 -
QA & Imaging Biomarkers Within the Framework of Clinical Trials
QA & imaging biomarkers within the framework of clinical trials L Fournier, Y Liu, N de Souza, P Bourguet For the Imaging Group - EORTC Imaging biomarkers in clinical trials: role Clinical trial = validation of the imaging biomarker Imaging biomarker Imaging biomarker = endpoint of clinical trial 2 Imaging biomarkers in clinical trials: role Clinical trial = validation of the imaging biomarker Imaging biomarker Imaging biomarker = endpoint of clinical trial 3 Imaging biomarkers in clinical trials • In oncology clinical trials: imaging is almost always present • “Endpoints for FDA approval in oncology drugs” Johnson, JCO 2003;21:1404-1411 • 1990-2002: 57 molecules approved • 18 (32%) on OS • 29 (51%) on response criteria or PFS MEASURED ON IMAGING 4 Imaging biomarkers: interrogating biology Diffusion MRI PET- FDG Cellularity Cell metabolism MRSpectroscopy Molecular composition Perfusion imaging Angiogenesis BOLD MRI Hypoxia O O2 2 O2 Hanahan & Weinberg, Cell 2011 Innovative imaging biomarkers: hurdles • Upstream • Technical validation understand the conditions for reliable quantification • Clinical trial • Complexity of imaging technologies • Safety issues related to new imaging contrast agents • Standardisation of image acquisition across multivendor platforms • Variable post-processing options Centers selected for their clinical not their imaging expertise 6 Upstream: technical validation • Pre-clinical and clinical phase • Phantom studies • Repeatability (test-retest) • Reproducibility • Variability between machines • Variability -
Advancing Biomarker Development
This is a repository copy of Advancing biomarker development through convergent engagement : Summary Report of the 2nd International Danube Symposium on Biomarker Development, Molecular Imaging and Applied Diagnostics; March 14–16, 2018; Vienna, Austria. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/151395/ Version: Published Version Article: Lim, M, Beyer, T, Soares, Marta Ferreira Oliveira orcid.org/0000-0003-1579-8513 et al. (1 more author) (2019) Advancing biomarker development through convergent engagement : Summary Report of the 2nd International Danube Symposium on Biomarker Development, Molecular Imaging and Applied Diagnostics; March 14–16, 2018; Vienna, Austria. Molecular Imaging and Biology. ISSN 1536-1632 Reuse This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence. This licence allows you to distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon the work, even commercially, as long as you credit the authors for the original work. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Mol Imaging Biol (2019) DOI: 10.1007/s11307-019-01361-2 * The Author(s), 2019 SPECIAL TOPIC Advancing Biomarker Development Through Convergent Engagement: Summary Report of the 2nd International Danube Symposium on Biomarker Development, Molecular Imaging and Applied Diagnostics; March 14–16, 2018; Vienna, Austria M. S. Lim,1 Thomas Beyer ,2 A.