Criteria for assessing evidence for biomarker-targeted therapies in rare cancers-an extrapolation framework.

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology Pub Date : 2024-09-02 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/17588359241273062
Doah Cho, Sarah J Lord, Robyn Ward, Maarten IJzerman, Andrew Mitchell, David M Thomas, Saskia Cheyne, Andrew Martin, Rachael L Morton, John Simes, Chee Khoon Lee
{"title":"Criteria for assessing evidence for biomarker-targeted therapies in rare cancers-an extrapolation framework.","authors":"Doah Cho, Sarah J Lord, Robyn Ward, Maarten IJzerman, Andrew Mitchell, David M Thomas, Saskia Cheyne, Andrew Martin, Rachael L Morton, John Simes, Chee Khoon Lee","doi":"10.1177/17588359241273062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Advances in targeted therapy development and tumor sequencing technology are reclassifying cancers into smaller biomarker-defined diseases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often impractical in rare diseases, leading to calls for single-arm studies to be sufficient to inform clinical practice based on a strong biological rationale. However, without RCTs, favorable outcomes are often attributed to therapy but may be due to a more indolent disease course or other biases. When the clinical benefit of targeted therapy in a common cancer is established in RCTs, this benefit may extend to rarer cancers sharing the same biomarker. However, careful consideration of the appropriateness of extending the existing trial evidence beyond specific cancer types is required. A framework for extrapolating evidence for biomarker-targeted therapies to rare cancers is needed to support transparent decision-making.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To construct a framework outlining the breadth of criteria essential for extrapolating evidence for a biomarker-targeted therapy generated from RCTs in common cancers to different rare cancers sharing the same biomarker.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A series of questions articulating essential criteria for extrapolation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The framework was developed from the core topics for extrapolation identified from a previous scoping review of methodological guidance. Principles for extrapolation outlined in guidance documents from the European Medicines Agency, the US Food and Drug Administration, and Australia's Medical Services Advisory Committee were incorporated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We propose a framework for assessing key assumptions of similarity of the disease and treatment outcomes between the common and rare cancer for five essential components: prognosis of the biomarker-defined cancer, biomarker test analytical validity, biomarker actionability, treatment efficacy, and safety. Knowledge gaps identified can be used to prioritize future studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This framework will allow systematic assessment, standardize regulatory, reimbursement and clinical decision-making, and facilitate transparent discussions between key stakeholders in drug assessment for rare biomarker-defined cancers.</p>","PeriodicalId":23053,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology","volume":"16 ","pages":"17588359241273062"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11369883/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17588359241273062","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Advances in targeted therapy development and tumor sequencing technology are reclassifying cancers into smaller biomarker-defined diseases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often impractical in rare diseases, leading to calls for single-arm studies to be sufficient to inform clinical practice based on a strong biological rationale. However, without RCTs, favorable outcomes are often attributed to therapy but may be due to a more indolent disease course or other biases. When the clinical benefit of targeted therapy in a common cancer is established in RCTs, this benefit may extend to rarer cancers sharing the same biomarker. However, careful consideration of the appropriateness of extending the existing trial evidence beyond specific cancer types is required. A framework for extrapolating evidence for biomarker-targeted therapies to rare cancers is needed to support transparent decision-making.

Objectives: To construct a framework outlining the breadth of criteria essential for extrapolating evidence for a biomarker-targeted therapy generated from RCTs in common cancers to different rare cancers sharing the same biomarker.

Design: A series of questions articulating essential criteria for extrapolation.

Methods: The framework was developed from the core topics for extrapolation identified from a previous scoping review of methodological guidance. Principles for extrapolation outlined in guidance documents from the European Medicines Agency, the US Food and Drug Administration, and Australia's Medical Services Advisory Committee were incorporated.

Results: We propose a framework for assessing key assumptions of similarity of the disease and treatment outcomes between the common and rare cancer for five essential components: prognosis of the biomarker-defined cancer, biomarker test analytical validity, biomarker actionability, treatment efficacy, and safety. Knowledge gaps identified can be used to prioritize future studies.

Conclusion: This framework will allow systematic assessment, standardize regulatory, reimbursement and clinical decision-making, and facilitate transparent discussions between key stakeholders in drug assessment for rare biomarker-defined cancers.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
罕见癌症生物标记物靶向疗法证据评估标准--外推法框架。
背景:靶向治疗开发和肿瘤测序技术的进步正在将癌症重新归类为更小的生物标志物定义的疾病。随机对照试验(RCT)在罕见疾病中往往不切实际,因此人们呼吁单臂研究足以为临床实践提供基于强有力生物学原理的信息。然而,如果没有随机对照试验,有利的结果往往归因于治疗,但也可能是由于病程较为缓慢或其他偏差造成的。当靶向治疗对常见癌症的临床获益在 RCT 中得到证实时,这种获益可能会扩展到具有相同生物标志物的罕见癌症。然而,需要仔细考虑将现有试验证据扩展到特定癌症类型之外是否合适。我们需要一个将生物标记物靶向疗法的证据推广到罕见癌症的框架,以支持透明的决策:构建一个框架,概述从常见癌症的 RCT 中获得的生物标记物靶向疗法证据外推至具有相同生物标记物的不同罕见癌症所必需的标准的广度:一系列问题阐明了外推的基本标准:该框架是根据之前对方法学指南进行的范围界定审查中确定的外推核心主题制定的。欧洲药品管理局、美国食品和药物管理局以及澳大利亚医疗服务咨询委员会的指导文件中概述的外推原则也被纳入其中:我们提出了一个框架,用于评估常见癌症和罕见癌症之间疾病和治疗结果相似性的关键假设,包括五个基本要素:生物标志物定义的癌症预后、生物标志物测试的分析有效性、生物标志物的可操作性、治疗效果和安全性。找出的知识差距可用于确定未来研究的优先次序:该框架将有助于进行系统评估,规范监管、报销和临床决策,并促进主要利益相关者在罕见生物标志物定义的癌症药物评估方面进行透明的讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
2.00%
发文量
160
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal delivering the highest quality articles, reviews, and scholarly comment on pioneering efforts and innovative studies in the medical treatment of cancer. The journal has a strong clinical and pharmacological focus and is aimed at clinicians and researchers in medical oncology, providing a forum in print and online for publishing the highest quality articles in this area. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
期刊最新文献
UFO registry: final analysis of baseline data from patients with advanced prostate cancer in Asia. Phase II trial of dual anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 blockade in rare tumors SWOG/NCI experience: invasive mucinous or non-mucinous lepidic adenocarcinoma of the lung (formerly bronchioloalveolar carcinoma). Perspective review: lessons from successful clinical trials and real-world studies of systemic therapy for metastatic pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas. Antibody-drug conjugates in patients with advanced/metastatic HER2-low-expressing breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Epithelioid inflammatory myofibroblastic sarcoma with exceptionally long response to lorlatinib-a case report.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1