Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Eur J Cancer ; 50(16): 2747-51, 2014 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25227487

ABSTRACT

The Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies (MDICT) task force discussed incorporation of genomic profiling into early (Phase I and II) clinical trials in oncology. The task force reviewed the challenges of standardising genomics data in a manner conducive to conducting clinical trials. Current barriers to successful and efficient implementation were identified and discussed, as well as the methods of genomic analysis, the proper setting for study and strategies to facilitate timely completion of genomics-based studies. The importance of properly capturing and cataloguing outcomes was also discussed. Several recommendations regarding the use of genomics in these trials are provided.


Subject(s)
Genomics , Medical Oncology/methods , Neoplasms/therapy , Advisory Committees , Clinical Trials as Topic , Genome, Human , Humans , Maximum Tolerated Dose , Medical Oncology/organization & administration , Signal Transduction , Therapies, Investigational/methods , Treatment Outcome
2.
Eur J Cancer ; 49(8): 1808-14, 2013 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23428669

ABSTRACT

The Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies (MDICT) task force considered aspects of the design and conduct of early (phase I and II) studies of combinations of molecular targeted agents during their 2012 meeting. The task force defined necessary non-clinical data, such as evidence of additive or synergistic effects in multiple molecularly credentialed and validated models, and appropriate pharmacodynamic marker development. A robust hypothesis was considered critical while non-clinical pharmacokinetic studies were also considered valuable. Clinical trials should include clear objectives that will prove or disprove the hypothesis. Predictive biomarkers/classifiers should be explored in phase I studies, rather than used to select patients. Trial design should be efficient and flexible rather than based on a strict progression from phase I to II to III; researchers could consider phase I studies with an expansion cohort, Phase I/II designs or phase II studies with a safety run in. Pharmacokinetics are recommended when interactions or overlapping toxicity is expected. Pharmacodynamic evaluations should be considered especially in a subset of patients closest to the recommended dose; an attempt should be made to validate surrogate tissues to enable inclusion for all patients. Schedule and or dose should be formally explored for e.g. with a randomised or an adaptive design. Data and knowledge sharing was strongly recommended, including the creation of formal or informal consortia of laboratories with individual expertise in pathway or target based models, collaboration between companies to ensure that agents which are 'best in class' are combined, and the development of databases which will be able to inform the development of future recommendations/guidelines.


Subject(s)
Advisory Committees/standards , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Research Design/standards , Therapies, Investigational/methods , Clinical Trials as Topic/methods , Humans
3.
Eur J Cancer ; 44(1): 25-9, 2008 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-17845846

ABSTRACT

The Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies (MDICT) task force considered aspects of the design and conduct of phase II studies for molecular targeted agents during their 2007 meeting. The task force recommended that multinomial endpoints and designs should be considered for phase II studies of targeted agents, that both single arm as well as randomised designs remain appropriate in certain settings, and that further assessment of novel endpoints (tumour growth kinetic assessment, biomarker or functional imaging) and designs (randomised discontinuation or Bayesian adaptive design) be encouraged. The MDICT cautioned on the use of small randomised trials which have a number of statistical pitfalls and dangers and strongly encouraged the complete reporting, including negative trials, in the scientific literature.


Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic use , Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic/methods , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Therapies, Investigational/methods , Drug Design , Health Planning Guidelines , Humans
4.
Eur J Cancer ; 44(1): 19-24, 2008 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-17890079

ABSTRACT

Oncology drug development has seen a paradigm shift in the past decade from traditional cytotoxic agents to molecular targeted therapies. Given the different mechanisms and toxicities of these agents, drug development methodology may also require novel approaches. To address emerging issues in oncology drug development the 'Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies' (MDICT) task force was established to provide a forum for academic leaders involved in cancer drug development to discuss methodological issues inherent to the study of targeted anticancer therapy. At the inaugural MDICT meeting in 2006, discussion focused on the most appropriate primary endpoints for first-in-man phase I studies of targeted anticancer agents and organisational issues of such studies. This report summarises the scientific reviews and discussions as well as the recommendations regarding phase I trial design formulated by the MDICT task force.


Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic use , Clinical Trials, Phase I as Topic , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Therapies, Investigational , Adult , Aged , Drug Design , Health Planning Guidelines , Humans , Middle Aged
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...