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

Author:

Cho Doah12ORCID,Lord Sarah J.3ORCID,Ward Robyn4,IJzerman Maarten56,Mitchell Andrew7,Thomas David M.8,Cheyne Saskia3,Martin Andrew39,Morton Rachael L.3,Simes John3,Lee Chee Khoon3

Affiliation:

1. National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Australia

2. Faculty of Medicine and Health, National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Locked Bag 77, Camperdown, NSW 1450, Australia

3. Faculty of Medicine and Health, National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia

4. Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia

5. Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, Centre for Health Policy, University of Melbourne Centre for Cancer Research, Parkville, VIC, Australia

6. Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

7. Department of Health Economics Wellbeing and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia

8. Centre for Molecular Oncology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

9. Centre for Clinical Research, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia

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.

Funder

National Health and Medical Research Council

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Reference133 articles.

1. Hallmarks of Cancer: The Next Generation

2. The Genetic Basis for Cancer Treatment Decisions

3. Are Companion Diagnostics Useful?

4. Unraveling the Genetics of Cancer: Genome Sequencing and Beyond

5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry providing clinical evidence of effectiveness for human drug and biological products, https://www.fda.gov/media/71655/download (1998, accessed 14 June 2023).

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3