Prudent precaution in clinical trials of nanomedicines

Rethinking risk assessment for emerging technology first-in-human trials

Recent progress in synthetic biology (SynBio) has enabled the development of novel therapeutic opportunities for the treatment of human disease. In the near future, first-in-human trials (FIH) will be indicated. FIH trials mark a key milestone in the translation of medical SynBio applications into clinical practice. Fostered by uncertainty of possible adverse events for trial participants, a variety of ethical concerns emerge with regards to SynBio FIH trials, including 'risk' minimization. These concerns are associated with any FIH trial, however, due to the novelty of the approach, they become more pronounced for medical applications of emerging technologies (emTech) like SynBio. To minimize potential harm for trial participants, scholars, guidelines, regulations and policy makers alike suggest using 'risk assessment' as evaluation tool for such trials. Conversely, in the context of emTech FIH trials, we believe it to be at least questionable to contextualize uncertainty of potential adverse events as 'risk' and apply traditional risk assessment methods. Hence, this issue needs to be discussed to enable alterations of the evaluation process before the translational phase of SynBio applications begins. In this paper, we will take the opportunity to start the debate and highlight how a misunderstanding of the concept of risk, and the possibilities and limitations of risk assessment, respectively, might impair decision-making by the relevant regulatory authorities and research ethics committees, and discuss possible solutions to tackle the issue.

The value of multigene predictors of clinical outcome in breast cancer: an analysis of the evidence

OBJECTIVE

Multigene predictors are being used increasingly in early-stage breast cancer patients for prediction and prognosis. However, one consequence of the increased use of multigene predictors, and the heightened efforts toward their incorporation into routine clinical practice, is the potential for future malpractice litigation. It is, therefore, important to ascertain the strength of the evidence for using the different commercially available multigene predictor assays clinically. We evaluated the literature for evidence of clinical validity of four currently available gene signatures and to assess the influence of the 21-gene-expression assay on changes in treatment recommendations.

METHODS

A systematic search of the peer-reviewed literature from January 2002 to March 2014 for multigene predictor assays was carried out, and a meta-analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

The adjusted Cox hazard ratio average for studies that met the eligibility criteria was 3.538 (95% CI: 1.513-8.469). The 21-gene signature showed the highest stability in the estimation of likelihood of distant risk of recurrence. Using the recurrence scores resulted in changes in treatment recommendations in 31.8% of all patients in the studies.

CONCLUSION

This study may provide insight about the use of multigene predictors in clinical practice for prediction and prognosis of breast cancer.