Defining Success in Oncology Drug Development Richard Pazdur, MD CDER, FDA The views expressed are the results of independent work and do not necessarily.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Susan Boynton, VP, Global Regulatory Affairs, Shire
Advertisements

Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee
1 QOL in oncology clinical trials: Now that we have the data what do we do?
U.S. Food and Drug Administration Notice: Archived Document The content in this document is provided on the FDA’s website for reference purposes only.
Synopsis of FDA Colorectal Cancer Endpoints Workshop Michael J. O’Connell, MD Director, Allegheny Cancer Center Associate Chairman, NSABP Pittsburgh, PA.
Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices | The Farm is a Federal Institute within the portfolio of the Federal Ministry of Health (Germany) How.
Accelerated Approval Update 2005 Ramzi Dagher, MD DDOP/OODP/CDER/FDA.
天 津 医 科 大 学天 津 医 科 大 学 Clinical trail. 天 津 医 科 大 学天 津 医 科 大 学 1.Historical Background 1537: Treatment of battle wounds: 1741: Treatment of Scurvy 1948:
Clinical Trials Medical Interventions
Importance of Pharmacogenetics in Oncology Richard Pazdur, MD. Director Office of Oncology Drug Products Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Food and.
Special Topics in IND Regulation
Meeting Agenda Presentations on endpoints –Regulatory issues –Scientific issues Pros and cons of end points –Classical end points –Non-classical end points.
Defining Success in Oncology Drug Development Richard Pazdur, MD CDER, FDA The views expressed are the results of independent work and do not necessarily.
Clinical Trials The Way We Make Progress Against Disease.
Oncology Pediatric Initiatives Richard Pazdur, MD Director, Division of Oncology Drug Products.
Selected Issues in Oncology Trial Design Grant Williams, M.D. DODP, CDER, FDA.
INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA 1. The following are considerations when defining the cardiac arrest trial patient population (i.e., the inclusion/exclusion.
Trastuzumab [Genentech Inc.] Labeling Supplement to Include FISH Testing as a Method to Select Patients for Treatment FDA Clinical Review December 5, 2001.
INVESTIGATIONAL DRUG SERVICES IN THE HOSPITAL Sheree Miller, Pharm.D. University of Washington Medical Center
Phase II Trials in Oncology S. Gail Eckhardt, MD Lillian Siu, MD Brian I. Rini, M.D.
1 The Chemoprevention of Sporadic Colorectal Cancer Issues Surrounding a Benefit/Risk Analysis in Clinical Trials Mark Avigan MD CM Medical Officer Division.
Regulatory Background and Past FDA Approvals in Colorectal Cancer Amna Ibrahim M.D DODP, FDA.
Drug Treatment of Metastatic Breast Cancer
Committee Questions Design, Statistical Considerations and Study Conduct 1. There are no clear guidelines regarding the number of people that should be.
Hormone Refractory Prostate Cancer A Regulatory Perspective of End Points to Measure Safety and Efficacy of Drugs Hormone Refractory Prostate Cancer Bhupinder.
First In Human Pediatric Trials and Safety Assessment for Rare and Orphan Diseases Andrew E. Mulberg, MD, FAAP Division Deputy Director OND/ODE3/DGIEP.
Investigational Drugs in the hospital. + What is Investigational Drug? Investigational or experimental drugs are new drugs that have not yet been approved.
NDA ZD1839 for Treatment of NSCLC FDA Review Division of Oncology Drug Products.
CLAIMS STRUCTURE FOR SLE Jeffrey Siegel, M.D. Arthritis Advisory Committee September 29, 2003.
Clinical Trials Considerations in Primary Bacteremia due to Staphylococcus aureus Clinical Trials Considerations in Primary Bacteremia due to Staphylococcus.
Consumer behavior studies1 CONSUMER BEHAVIOR STUDIES STATISTICAL ISSUES Ralph B. D’Agostino, Sr. Boston University Harvard Clinical Research Institute.
1 SNDA Gemzar plus Carboplatin Treatment of Late Relapsing Ovarian Cancer.
Drug - Device Combination Issues : Oncology Perspective Ramzi Dagher, M.D. DODP/CDER/FDA.
Successful Concepts Study Rationale Literature Review Study Design Rationale for Intervention Eligibility Criteria Endpoint Measurement Tools.
1 Statistics in Drug Development Mark Rothmann, Ph. D.* Division of Biometrics I Food and Drug Administration * The views expressed here are those of the.
BASED ON PROTOCOL VERSION 1 SEPTEMBER 2012 A new study evaluating an investigational drug to treat patients with HER2-positive metastatic gastroesophageal.
The Use of Predictive Biomarkers in Clinical Trial Design Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute
EXPERIMENTAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
The New Drug Development Process (www. fda. gov/cder/handbook/develop
Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices The BfArM is a Federal Institute within the portfolio of the Federal Ministry of Health (BMG) The use of.
Accelerated Approvals in Oncology
Zometa for Patients with Bone Metastases Overview and Review of Study 010 Grant Williams, M.D. Medical Team Leader Division of Oncology Drug Products.
Some Design Issues in Microbicide Trials August 20, 2003 Thomas R. Fleming, Ph.D. Professor and Chair of Biostatistics University of Washington FDA Antiviral.
Endpoints for Past Approvals Ramzi Dagher DODP/CDER/FDA.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration Notice: Archived Document The content in this document is provided on the FDA’s website for reference purposes only.
1 Study Design Issues and Considerations in HUS Trials Yan Wang, Ph.D. Statistical Reviewer Division of Biometrics IV OB/OTS/CDER/FDA April 12, 2007.
General Regulatory Issues in the Development of Drugs Intended for Treatment of Chronic Illness Sharon Hertz, M.D. Medical Officer Division of Anesthetic,
© Guidant 2005 Surrogate Endpoints and Non-randomized Trials Roseann White Humble Biostatistician.
Regulatory Considerations
CV-1 Trial 709 The ISEL Study (IRESSA ® Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer) Summary of Data as of December 16, 2004 Kevin Carroll, MSc Summary of Data.
Endpoints for Pediatric Brain Tumors December 6, 2006 meeting of the Pediatric Subcommittee to ODAC Karen D. Weiss, M.D. Deputy Director Office of Oncology.
Acute Bacterial Otitis Media Summary and Charge to the Committee Renata Albrecht, M.D. Division of Special Pathogen and Immunologic Drug Products ODEIV,
Regulatory Considerations for Endpoints Ann T. Farrell, M.D. FDA/CDER/DODP.
Agency Review of sNDA SE-006 DOXIL for Ovarian Cancer Division of Oncology Drug Products Office of Drug Evaluation 1 Center for Drug Evaluation.
Clinical Trials - PHASE II. Introduction  Important part of drug discovery process  Why important??  Therapeutic exploratory trial  First time in.
Zometa for Prostate Cancer Bone Metastases Protocol 039 Amna Ibrahim, M.D. Oncology Drug Products FDA.
Response, PFS or OS – what is the best endpoint in advanced colorectal cancer? Marc Buyse IDDI, Louvain-la-Neuve & Hasselt University
PRAGMATIC Study Designs: Elderly Cancer Trials
FDA DRUG APPROVAL FDA’s Lengthy Drug Approval Process in Twelve Steps Overview of the FDA Drug Approval Process Drug Developed June 13, 2016 | Emilia Varrone.
CLINICAL PROTOCOL DEVELOPMENT
FDA’s IDE Decisions and Communications
Expedited Drug Approval Programs
Balancing Pre and Postmarket Requirements Different Scenarios
Medical Device Regulatory Essentials: An FDA Division of Cardiovascular Devices Perspective Bram Zuckerman, MD, FACC Director, FDA Division of Cardiovascular.
Erica Takai, PhD for Andrew Farb, M.D.
Clinical Trials in STS Shreyaskumar Patel, M.D.
Speeding access to therapies
Issues in TB Drug Development: A Regulatory Perspective
Development Plans: Study Design and Dose Selection
Regulatory Perspective of the Use of EHRs in RCTs
Presentation transcript:

Defining Success in Oncology Drug Development Richard Pazdur, MD CDER, FDA The views expressed are the results of independent work and do not necessarily represent the views or findings of the United States Food and Drug Administration or the United States

Basis for NDA Approval Demonstration of efficacy with acceptable safety in adequate and well-controlled studies Ability to generate product labeling that –Defines an appropriate patient population –Provides adequate information to enable safe and effective use –Approval for an indication, not drug

Activity vs. Benefit Biologic Activity--screening of a compound, phase II trial endpoint, an indication for further study Clinical benefit--what is meaningful to a patient The approval process is not a screening process for drug activity

Regulatory Terms Accelerated Approval--serious or life- threatening disease, benefit over available therapy. Use of surrogate; mandated phase IV trials Fast Track--life-threatening disease, potential to address unmet medical need. Rolling NDA, meetings Priority review--drug would be a significant improvement compared to available drugs. Review of NDA in 6 months

Oncology Trial Concerns Minimize bias –Blinding trials (few) –Endpoints that minimize bias –Internal consistency of subgroups, endpoints Magnitude of change of endpoint –Clinical significance –Underpowered trials--guessing treatment effect Isolating effect of drug

Risks in Developing Oncology Drugs Indication--lack of predictive models “Creative Indications”--progressively more refractory patient, market share Two trials versus one trial Dose ranging studies--moving away from MTD

Endpoints in Oncology Survival and improvement in patient reported symptoms considered clinical benefit Objective Response Rate and Time to Progression usually viewed as surrogates Exceptions : relatively non-toxic products such as hormonal therapies or some biologics

Endpoints 1990 to regular approvals; 10 accelerated 43/62 oncology drug applications were approved on endpoints other than survival Tumor response was basis in 27/52 supported by relief of tumor specific sxs in 10/27 Relief of tumor symptoms provided support in 13/52 regular approvals

Traditional Endpoints: Survival Non-inferior or improved survival constitutes “patient benefit” after consideration of toxicity and the magnitude of the benefit Non-inferior outcome ensures that a survival advantage associated with an approved drug will not be lost with a new agent

Traditional Endpoints: Survival Drawbacks –Requires large sample size and long follow-up –Confounder--Cross-over therapy may “wash out” a survival effect

Time to Progression--Advantages Could use a smaller sample size and shorter follow-up than trials that require a survival endpoint Differences will not be obscured by secondary therapy if cross-over effect exists “Time to symptomatic progression”

TTP: Problems Unblinded trials introduce bias Must evaluate all patients on a regular basis –Must evaluate all sites of possible disease –Complete ascertainment of all sites at baseline and follow-up (i.e., look for new sites) –Same type of assessment tool at each follow-up –Should use same evaluation schedule

TTP: Problems How much improvement constitutes benefit?

Response Rate Unique endpoint--treatment is “entirely” responsible for tumor reduction In contrast, survival and TTP have an effect of the natural history PLUS treatment effect Must consider duration of response Does not include stable disease Pick your criteria and stick with it

Complicated Picture of RR Number of CRs vs PRs? Duration of responses? Location of responses (e.g., liver vs skin)? Association with symptom improvement? Extent or bulk of metastatic disease?

Palliation and Patient Reported Outcomes Blinding and associated antitumor effects (response rates) lend credibility –Use simple instruments –Hypothesis-driven –Avoid multiple endpoints –Example: Photofrin PDT and dysphagia scale

Potential palliative endpoint: Health-related quality of life Pro: Patient’s perspective on treatment Con: –Blinding is essential, but difficult to do –Careful serial assessments Missing data makes interpretation problematic Multiple endpoints and comparisons to baseline must be adjusted for in the statistical analysis plan –Clinical significance of score changes may be unclear –Is additional information gained, compared to a careful recording of toxicity/symptom data?

Accelerated Approval- Subpart H (21CFR 314) For serious or life-threatening diseases Where the drug appears to provide benefit over available therapy Approval based on a surrogate that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit

21CFR314 (continued) Subject to the requirement that the applicant verify and describe benefit Post-marketing studies would usually be underway The applicant shall carry out such studies with due diligence

Withdrawal Procedures Conditions –postmarketing study fails to verify benefit –applicant fails to perform required study with due diligence –postmarketing restrictions inadequate to assure safe use –failure to adhere to postmarketing restrictions –promotional materials false/misleading Requires a hearing

Endpoints Utilized Single arm trials : ORR Randomized Setting : Cytologic response, number of polyps, ORR, TTP, DFS, LVEF ; CHF

RR in Single Arm Trials

Randomized Trials

Randomized Trials (contd)

Uncertainty of Benefit to Ultimate Outcome Amifostine (Ethyol) Dexrazoxane (Zinecard) Anastrozole (Arimidex)

Timing of Confirmatory Trials Converted Indications

Issues Related to the AA Program As a Whole The importance of confirmatory trials being underway at the time of AA The approach of studying slightly different populations in the confirmatory setting than the AA population Relative merits of different trial designs –single arm in refractory populations –randomized trials in less refractory patients

Scientific Challenges Re-define diseases; surrogate validation Greater efficacy in selected population may result in smaller patient populations Dosing aimed at target rather than MTD Dose studies, chronic administration Exclude pts who would benefit due to unrecognized mechanisms

Regulatory Challenges Differences in oncology drug development/regulation compared to other therapeutic areas Coordination of Agency’s Centers (Drugs, Biologics, Devices) regarding oncology therapeutics Scientific foundation must precede regulatory decision-making