Optimizing preclinical study design in oncology research

The current drug development pathway in oncology research has led to a large attrition rate for new drugs, in part due to a general lack of appropriate preclinical studies that are capable of accurately predicting efficacy and/or toxicity in the target population. Because of an obvious need for novel therapeutics in many types of cancer, new compounds are being investigated in human Phase I and Phase II clinical trials before a complete understanding of their toxicity and efficacy profiles is obtained. In fact, for newer targeted molecular agents that are often cytostatic in nature, the conventional preclinical evaluation used for traditional cytotoxic chemotherapies utilizing primary tumor shrinkage as an endpoint may not be appropriate. By utilizing an integrated pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic approach, along with proper selection of a model system, the drug development process in oncology research may be improved leading to a better understanding of the determinants of efficacy and toxicity, and ultimately fewer drugs that fail once they reach human clinical trials.     

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 inhibition: preclinical and clinical development of synthetic lethality

The hereditary forms of breast cancer identified by BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes have a defect in homologous DNA repair and demonstrate a dependence on alternate DNA repair processes by base excision repair, which requires poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP-1). siRNA and deletion mutations demonstrate that interference with PARP-1 function results in enhanced cell death when the malignancy has a defect in homologous recombination. These findings resulted in a plethora of agents in clinical trials that interfere with DNA repair, and these agents offer the potential of being more selective in their effects than classic chemotherapeutic drugs. An electronic search of the National Library of Medicine for published articles written in English used the terms "PARP inhibitors" and "breast cancer" to find prospective, retrospective and review articles. Additional searches were done for articles dealing with mechanism of action. A total of 152 articles dealing with breast cancer and PARP inhibition were identified. PARP inhibition not only affects nonhomologous repair, but also has several other nongenomic functions. Mutational resistance to these agents was seen in preclinical studies. To date, PARP-1 inhibitors were shown to enhance cytotoxic effects of some chemotherapy agents. This new class of agents may offer more therapeutic specificity by exploiting a DNA repair defect seen in some human tumors with initial clinical trials demonstrating antitumor activity. Although PARP inhibitors may offer a therapeutic option for selected malignancies, the long-term effects of these agents have not yet been defined.     

Clinical pharmacodynamics of anticancer drugs: a basis for extending the concept of dose-intensity

The studies reviewed herein support the precept that "systemic dose-intensity" (i.e., systemic exposure) may be more informative than "administered dose-intensity" for certain anticancer drugs. This does not mean that the administered dose-intensity should be ignored; in fact these data indicate the importance of documenting and assessing administered dose-intensity as an initial step toward identifying those situations where systemic dose-intensity may be most important. The studies described in this review were selected as representative examples of successful clinical pharmacodynamic studies; other published examples include vincristine AUC versus severity of neurotoxicity, etoposide systemic exposure versus leukopenia, red cell concentration of mercaptopurine metabolites versus neutropenia in children with ALL, and ARA-CTP retention in leukemic blasts versus clinical response in acute non-lymphocytic leukemia. As is the case with other types of clinical trials in cancer patients, there are also examples of negative pharmacodynamic studies (i.e., no relationship found between concentration and effects). There are several possible reasons for such negative findings, including the lack of such a relationship for some drugs, measuring the inappropriate drug moiety (e.g., failure to measure all active metabolites), measuring drug concentrations in the wrong biological fluid, evaluating systemic exposure over too narrow a range (i.e., all patients have either sub- or supra-therapeutic systemic exposure), selecting inappropriate sampling times or pharmacokinetic parameters, inadequately assessing drug toxicity or response, or simply studying an inadequate number of patients or patients with drug-resistant cancers. Therefore, negative findings in some pharmacodynamic studies should not deter the investigation of other drugs and/or other malignant diseases, just as negative therapeutic trials do not preclude subsequent clinical trials in oncology. Also, finding a relation between systemic exposure and drug toxicity, in the absence of a clear relation to antitumor effects, is potentially of great clinical utility. Such data should allow more objective escalation of drug dosages in individual patients, to ensure maximum dose-intensity while avoiding host toxicity. Obviously, if such dose escalation could be guided by more easily measured patient characteristics (e.g., age, weight, CrCl, shoe size, etc.), then using drug concentrations in individual patients might be obviated.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

Chemoprevention clinical trials.

As part of a program to develop drugs which will delay or prevent cancer in humans, the Chemoprevention Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, is sponsoring 12 Phase I and 22 Phase II and III clinical trials. Three agent classes are significantly advanced in the trials. These are the retinoids, including 13-cis-retinoic acid, retinol, and 4-hydroxyphenylretinamide (nine studies), beta-carotene (seven studies), and calcium compounds (three studies). In addition, six promising new compounds are in Phase I or Phase II trials. These are: piroxicam, ibuprofen, oltipraz (a dithiolthione), difluoromethylornithine, glycyrrhetinic acid, and N-acetylcysteine. Key concepts related to the development of cancer chemopreventive agents are (1) the need for long-term administration, (2) the need for oral route of administration, (3) the matching of toxic side effects to degree of cancer risk.     

Emerging therapeutic agents for lung cancer

Lung cancer continues to be the most common cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Recent advances in molecular diagnostics and immunotherapeutics have propelled the rapid development of novel treatment agents across all cancer subtypes, including lung cancer. Additionally, more pharmaceutical therapies for lung cancer have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in the last 5 years than in previous two decades. These drugs have ushered in a new era of lung cancer managements that have promising efficacy and safety and also provide treatment opportunities to patients who otherwise would have no conventional chemotherapy available. In this review, we summarize recent advances in lung cancer therapeutics with a specific focus on first in-human or early-phase I/II clinical trials. These drugs either offer better alternatives to drugs in their class or are a completely new class of drugs with novel mechanisms of action. We have divided our discussion into targeted agents, immunotherapies, and antibody drug conjugates for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We briefly review the emerging agents and ongoing clinical studies. We have attempted to provide the most current review on emerging therapeutic agents on horizon for lung cancer.     

New approaches to molecular cancer therapeutics

Cancer drug development is leading the way in exploiting molecular biological and genetic information to develop "personalized" medicine. The new paradigm is to develop agents that target the precise molecular pathology driving the progression of individual cancers. Drug developers have benefited from decades of academic cancer research and from investment in genomics, genetics and automation; their success is exemplified by high-profile drugs such as Herceptin (trastuzumab), Gleevec (imatinib), Tarceva (erlotinib) and Avastin (bevacizumab). However, only 5% of cancer drugs entering clinical trials reach marketing approval. Cancer remains a high unmet medical need, and many potential cancer targets remain undrugged. In this review we assess the status of the discovery and development of small-molecule cancer therapeutics. We show how chemical biology approaches offer techniques for interconnecting elements of the traditional linear progression from gene to drug, thereby providing a basis for increasing speed and success in cancer drug discovery.     

TGN1412: time to change the paradigm for the testing of new pharmaceuticals

Clinical studies in human volunteers are an essential part of drug development. These studies are designed to account for possible differences between the effects of pharmaceutical products in preclinical studies and in humans. However, the tragic outcome of the recent Phase 1 clinical trial on TGN1412 casts considerable doubt over the relevance of this traditional drug development paradigm to the testing of therapeutic agents for human use. The role of alternatives to animal testing is considered, and a series of recommendations are made, which could ensure that clinical trials are well informed and based on the most relevant scientific information.     

Navigating the clinical development landscape for oncolytic viruses and other cancer therapeutics: No shortcuts on the road to approval

Chemotherapy remains a common mode of anticancer treatment even though in most cancer indications the therapeutic approach is not effective and ultimately associated with the onset of chemoresistance. A better understanding of genetic differences in tumors ushered in the era of targeted therapy which has revolutionized the treatment of certain cancer types. However, generally targeted therapies are only cytostatic and a proportion of the patient population may be non-responsive to targeted therapy due to mutations of other genes in the same pathway (e.g. ras mutations in patients with colorectal cancer treated with EGFR targeted therapy). Therefore, there exists a need for a radically new approach to cancer therapy. Oncolytic viruses (OVs) possess many properties of an ideal cancer therapeutic. OVs are cytotoxic and target cancers via multiple mechanisms of action while at the same time exploiting validated genetic pathways known to be dysregulated in many cancers. Indeed, promising safety and efficacy data has emerged from Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials with diverse OVs (e.g. JX-594, a targeted oncolytic poxvirus). Though the field has lagged behind with pivotal, randomized Phase 3 trials, these are currently being initiated for a number of OVs. In addition, the field must ensure a continued clinical development of newly developed OVs; a strategy for the clinical development of novel cancer therapeutics is outlined.     

A multiscale mathematical model of avascular tumor growth to investigate the therapeutic benefit of anti-invasive agents

With the aim of inhibiting cancer growth and reducing the risk of metastasis, pharmaceutical companies in the early 1990s developed anti-metastatic agents called inhibitors of metalloproteinases (MMPi). Despite the promising results obtained in pre-clinical studies, results of Phase III trials have been somewhat disappointing for late stage cancer patients. With the aim of mathematically investigating this therapeutic failure, we developed a mechanistically based model which integrates cell cycle regulation and macroscopic tumor dynamics. By simulating the model, we evaluated the efficacy of MMPi therapy. Simulation results predict the lack of efficacy of MMPi in advanced cancer patients. The theoretical model may aid in evaluating the efficacy of anti-metastatic therapies, thus benefiting the design of prospective clinical trials.     

Noninvasive assessment of cancer response to therapy

Rapid assessment of cancer response to a therapeutic regimen can determine efficacy early in the course of treatment. Although biopsies of cancer can be used to rapidly assess pharmacodynamic response, certain disease sites are less accessible to repeated biopsies. Here, we simultaneously assess response in all sites of disease within days of starting therapy by use of peptide ligands selected for their ability to discern responding from nonresponding cancers. When conjugated to near-infrared imaging agents, the HVGGSSV peptide differentiates between these two types of cancer. Rapid, noninvasive assessment of the pharmacodynamic response within cancer promises to accelerate drug development and minimize the duration of treatment with ineffective regimens in cancer patients.     

Do we want more cancer patients on clinical trials If so, what are the barriers to greater accrual

It is often stated that only a small proportion of adult cancer patients participate in clinical trials. This is said to be a bad thing, with calls for more trials to include more patients. Here I argue that whether or not greater accrual to clinical trials would be a good thing depends on the trials we conduct. The vast majority of clinical trials in cancer are currently early phase trials, and most do not lead to further studies even if they have encouraging results. The key metric is thus not the number of patients on clinical trials, but the number on the sort of large, randomized, Phase III trials that can be used as a basis for clinical decisions. I also address two important barriers to greater clinical trial participation. The first barrier is financial: clinical research has long been the poor cousin of basic research, with perhaps no more than a nickel in the cancer research dollar going to clinical research. The second barrier is regulatory: clinical research has become so overburdened by regulation that it takes years to initiate a trial, and dedicated staff just to deal with the paperwork once the trial starts. This not only adds significantly to the costs of clinical research, but scares many young investigators away. It has been estimated that nearly half of all US-sponsored trials are being conducted abroad, and it is plausible that excessive regulation is at least partly responsible. That statistic should serve as a wake-up call to the US clinical research community to implement the recommendations of the now decade-old report of National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Program Review Group, which largely center around simplifying trials and streamlining trial procedures.     

A comparison of methods for constructing confidence intervals after phase II/III clinical trials

Recently, in order to accelerate drug development, trials that use adaptive seamless designs such as phase II/III clinical trials have been proposed. Phase II/III clinical trials combine traditional phases II and III into a single trial that is conducted in two stages. Using stage 1 data, an interim analysis is performed to answer phase II objectives and after collection of stage 2 data, a final confirmatory analysis is performed to answer phase III objectives. In this paper we consider phase II/III clinical trials in which, at stage 1, several experimental treatments are compared to a control and the apparently most effective experimental treatment is selected to continue to stage 2. Although these trials are attractive because the confirmatory analysis includes phase II data from stage 1, the inference methods used for trials that compare a single experimental treatment to a control and do not have an interim analysis are no longer appropriate. Several methods for analysing phase II/III clinical trials have been developed. These methods are recent and so there is little literature on extensive comparisons of their characteristics. In this paper we review and compare the various methods available for constructing confidence intervals after phase II/III clinical trials.     

Tamoxifen and trifluoroperazine (Stelazine) potentiate cytostatic/cytotoxic effects of P-30 protein, a novel protein possessing anti-tumour activity

Abstract. P-30 protein, a novel protein isolated in our laboratory from fertilized Rana pipiens eggs, has been shown to possess significant anti-proliferative and cytotoxic activity against a variety of human tumour cell lines. This protein also shows a potent anti-tumour activity in vivo in animal tumour models and is currently undergoing Phase I human clinical trials in cancer patient volunteers. The present study describes the in vitro effects of the concerted action of this protein and two other agents which affect the cell proliferative cycle. A significant potentiation of the P-30 protein-induced cell growth inhibition by tamoxifen as well as trifluoroperazine (Stelazine) in both the human A-549 lung carcinoma and the ASPC-1 pancreatic adenocarcinoma systems at wide ranges of drug concentrations was observed. The effect was apparently due to the synergistic action of P-30 protein and the agents tested. This data may provide clues that can be useful in explaining the mechanism of its anti-tumour activity. The results are also helpful for the designing in vivo animal and, perhaps eventually, human studies, whereby the combination therapies utilizing P-30 protein with agents of relatively low toxicity such as tamoxifen and/or Stelazine could offer a promising treatment(s) for these notoriously refractory types of human cancer.     

Tamoxifen and trifluoroperazine (Stelazine) potentiate cytostatic/cytotoxic effects of P-30 protein, a novel protein possessing anti-tumor activity

P-30 protein, a novel protein isolated in our laboratory from fertilized Rana pipiens eggs, has been shown to possess significant anti-proliferative and cytotoxic activity against a variety of human tumour cell lines. This protein also shows a potent anti-tumour activity in vivo in animal tumour models and is currently undergoing Phase I human clinical trials in cancer patient volunteers. The present study describes the in vitro effects of the concerted action of this protein and two other agents which affect the cell proliferative cycle. A significant potentiation of the P-30 protein-induced cell growth inhibition by tamoxifen as well as trifluoroperazine (Stelazine) in both the human A-549 lung carcinoma and the ASPC-1 pancreatic adenocarcinoma systems at wide ranges of drug concentrations was observed. The effect was apparently due to the synergistic action of P-30 protein and the agents tested. This data may provide clues that can be useful in explaining the mechanism of its anti-tumour activity. The results are also helpful for the designing in vivo animal and, perhaps eventually, human studies, whereby the combination therapies utilizing P-30 protein with agents of relatively low toxicity such as tamoxifen and/or Stelazine could offer a promising treatment(s) for these notoriously refractory types of human cancer.     

Species differences in tumour responses to cancer chemotherapy

Despite advances in chemotherapy, radiotherapy and targeted drug development, cancer remains a disease of high morbidity and mortality. The treatment of human cancer patients with chemotherapy has become commonplace and accepted over the past 100 years. In recent years, and with a similar incidence of cancer to people, the use of cancer chemotherapy drugs in veterinary patients such as the dog has also become accepted clinical practice. The poor predictability of tumour responses to cancer chemotherapy drugs in rodent models means that the standard drug development pathway is costly, both in terms of money and time, leading to many drugs failing in Phase I and II clinical trials. This has led to the suggestion that naturally occurring cancers in pet dogs may offer an alternative model system to inform rational drug development in human oncology. In this review, we will explore the species variation in tumour responses to conventional chemotherapy and highlight our understanding of the differences in pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics and pharmacogenomics between humans and dogs. Finally, we explore the potential hurdles that need to be overcome to gain the greatest value from comparative oncology studies.     

Apoptosis pathway-targeted drugs--from the bench to the clinic

It is an exciting time for cancer researchers in the field of apoptotic cell death. The avalanche of discoveries over the past decade or so regarding how apoptosis is regulated begins to be exploited for therapeutic benefit as the first apoptosis-targeted drugs enter early clinical trials. This chapter provides a selective review on the development of such drugs. We also outline issues regarding the regulation and design of early clinical trials of this type of molecularly targeted agent. Finally, we discuss the biomarkers and surrogate pharmacodynamic endpoint assays currently available to chart the efficacy of apoptosis-inducing anticancer therapy.     

The importance of stereoselective determination of drugs in the clinical laboratory

About 56% of the drugs currently in use are chiral compounds, and 88% of these chiral synthetic drugs are used therapeutically as racemates. Only a few of these drugs qualify for a stereospecific determination in a clinical laboratory for therapeutic drug monitoring of patients. If the qualitative and quantitative pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects are similar, the enantiomers do not need to be separated. However, if the metabolism of the different stereoisomers is handled by different enzymes which are either polymorphic or can be induced or inhibited, and if their pharmacodynamic effects have differences either in strength or in quality, enantiospecific analysis is urgently needed. Unfortunately, there are many racemic drugs where the stereospecificity of the metabolism and/or the pharmacodynamic effects of the enantiomers is not known today. For these drugs, there is a great need for studies concentrating on these differences to improve treatment of the patients.     

The clinical application of chronobiology to oncology

The introduction to medical practice of chemical agents for fighting human cancer some 30 years ago brought hope to a field of medicine previously shrouded in despair and impeded by superstition. Gradually more and better agents have become available to the physician and to the patient suffering from cancer. The physician-scientist has, in turn, learned a great deal about normal and abnormal cellular biology by using these drugs as probes. The observations that certain tissues and certain tumors share patterns of drug toxicity have led to a broadening of biologic understanding and to the use of combinations of drugs with shared antitumor activity and unshared toxicities. This empiric art of cancer chemotherapy has resulted in great progress in the treatment of a large number of advanced cancers. As important, however, is that this experience has resulted in knowledge which is leading to the development of rationally designed therapeutic regimens; to drug analogues seeking greater therapeutic-toxic ratios; to the development of methods for chemically interfering with toxic drug effects while allowing or enhancing antitumor effect; and to work defining effects of drug timing. Drug timing research considers drug dosage in respect to the timing of a drug relative to the timing of other drugs (drug-time-drug interactions) or to other doses of that same drug (drug-drug interval); the order of drugs (drug-drug sequence); and the timing of drugs relative to an internal organismic time structure (time-drug interactions). Data in this brief review clearly show that drug timing needs to be considered when designing rational chemotherapy for a living organism suffering from a cancer. The beautiful spatiotemporal complexity of life is not to be ignored or avoided, but should be considered as a golden opportunity to use what few imprecise chemical weapons we have a little more effectively.