Pharmacogenomic biomarkers as inclusion criteria in clinical trials of oncology-targeted drugs: a mapping of ClinicalTrials.gov

Study designs for clinical trials applied to personalised medicine: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Personalised medicine (PM) allows treating patients based on their individual demographic, genomic or biological characteristics for tailoring the 'right treatment for the right person at the right time'. Robust methodology is required for PM clinical trials, to correctly identify groups of participants and treatments. As an initial step for the development of new recommendations on trial designs for PM, we aimed to present an overview of the study designs that have been used in this field.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

METHODS

We searched (April 2020) PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library for all reports in English, French, German, Italian and Spanish, describing study designs for clinical trials applied to PM. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate resolving disagreements by consensus or by involving a third expert reviewer. We extracted information on the characteristics of trial designs and examples of current applications of these approaches. The extracted information was used to generate a new classification of trial designs for PM.

RESULTS

We identified 21 trial designs, 10 subtypes and 30 variations of trial designs applied to PM, which we classified into four core categories (namely, Master protocol, Randomise-all, Biomarker strategy and Enrichment). We found 131 clinical trials using these designs, of which the great majority were master protocols (86/131, 65.6%). Most of the trials were phase II studies (75/131, 57.2%) in the field of oncology (113/131, 86.3%). We identified 34 main features of trial designs regarding different aspects (eg, framework, control group, randomisation). The four core categories and 34 features were merged into a double-entry table to create a new classification of trial designs for PM.

CONCLUSIONS

A variety of trial designs exists and is applied to PM. A new classification of trial designs is proposed to help readers to navigate the complex field of PM clinical trials.

Comparison between protocols and publications for prognostic and predictive cancer biomarker studies

BACKGROUND

Method prespecification in study protocols is important for controlling bias in reports. The primary goal of this study was to assess potential for discordance between study protocols and publications reporting predictive or prognostic cancer biomarker research. Secondary objectives included comparing characteristics of publications with accessible protocols compared to those without.

METHODS

Publications reporting predictive or prognostic cancer biomarker research were identified from 15 major journals, 2012-2015. Protocols were sought online or through repeated queries of corresponding authors. The following four items were extracted: (1) biomarkers, (2) biospecimen/assays, (3) sample size, (4) endpoints. We defined "explicit discordance" as the presence of major inconsistencies on these items.

RESULTS

Of 149 eligible publications, we obtained 19 eligible protocols online (13%). Out of a random sample of 103 publications where protocols were not available online, 12 protocols (12%) were furnished by corresponding authors; 8 (8% of authors) explicitly stated the absence of a protocol. Among 24 retrospective cohort studies, no protocol could be accessed. We found explicit discordance between publications and protocols for 18 studies (58%), in particular choice of biomarkers (36%), biospecimen/assays (6%), or endpoints (29%).

CONCLUSION

Protocols are generally not accessible or not used for cancer biomarker studies. Publications were often explicitly discordant with protocols, particularly regarding biomarkers and endpoints. Our findings point to common unaddressed risk of bias in publications of major journals reporting the relationship between cancer biomarkers and clinical endpoints.

Population-scale genomics-Enabling precision public health

The current excitement for affordable genomics technologies and national precision medicine initiatives marks a turning point in worldwide healthcare practices. The last decade of global population sequencing efforts has defined the enormous extent of genetic variation in the human population resulting in insights into differential disease burden and response to therapy within and between populations. Population-scale pharmacogenomics helps to provide insights into the choice of optimal therapies and an opportunity to estimate, predict and minimize adverse events. Such an approach can potentially empower countries to formulate national selection and dosing policies for therapeutic agents thereby promoting public health with precision. We review the breadth and depth of worldwide population-scale sequencing efforts and its implications for the implementation of clinical pharmacogenetics toward making precision medicine a reality.

Impact of Biomarker-based Design Strategies on the Risk of False-Positive Findings in Targeted Therapy Evaluation

PURPOSE

When there is more than one potentially predictive biomarker for a new drug, the drug is often evaluated in different subpopulations defined by different biomarkers. We aim to (i) estimate the risk of false-positive findings with this approach and (ii) evaluate the cross-validated adaptive signature design (CVASD) as a potential alternative.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

By using numerically simulated data, we compare the current approach and the CVASD across different settings and scenarios. We consider three strategies for CVASD. The first two CVASD strategies are different in terms of the partitioning of the overall significance level (between the population test and the subgroup test). In the third CVASD strategy, the order of the two tests is reversed, that is, the population test is realized when the prioritized subgroup test is not statistically significant.

RESULTS

The current approach results in a high risk of false-positive findings, whereas this risk is close to the nominal level of 5% once applying the CVASD, regardless of the strategy. When the treatment is equally effective to all patients, only the CVASD strategies could specify correctly the absence of a sensitive subgroup. When the treatment is only effective for some sensitive responders, the third CVASD strategy stands out by its ability to correctly identify the predictive biomarker(s).

CONCLUSIONS

The drug-biomarker coevaluation based on a series of independent enrichment trials can result in a high risk of false-positive findings. CVASD with some appropriate adjustments can be a good alternative to overcome this multiplicity issue.

Evidence for Treatment-by-Biomarker interaction for FDA-approved Oncology Drugs with Required Pharmacogenomic Biomarker Testing

For oncology drugs that were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and required pharmacogenomic biomarker testing, we describe 1) the use of enrichment (biomarker-positive patients) and a randomized controlled design by pre-approval trials and 2) the treatment-by-biomarker interaction. From the 137 drugs included in the FDA table, we selected the 22 oncology drugs with required genetic testing in their labels. These drugs corresponded to 35 approvals supported by 80 clinical studies included in the FDA medical officer reviews of efficacy. For two thirds of approvals (24/35, 69%), all clinical studies were restricted to biomarker-positive patients (enriched). Among the 11 remaining approvals with at least one non-enriched trial, for five approvals, the non-enriched studies were non-randomized. The treatment-by-biomarker interaction was statistically significant for three approvals and missing for two. Among the six approvals with a non-enriched randomized controlled trial, three featured a statistically significant treatment-by-biomarker interaction (p < 0.10), for an enhanced treatment effect in the biomarker-positive subgroup. For two thirds of FDA approvals of anticancer agents, the requirement for predictive biomarker testing was based on clinical development restricted to biomarker-positive patients. We found only few cases with clinical evidence that biomarker-negative patients would not benefit from treatment.