BackgroundPersonalized medicine is a growing area of research which aims to tailor the treatment given to a patient according to one or more personal characteristics. These characteristics can be demographic such as age or gender, or biological such as a genetic or other biomarker. Prior to utilizing a patient’s biomarker information in clinical practice, robust testing in terms of analytical validity, clinical validity and clinical utility is necessary. A number of clinical trial designs have been proposed for testing a biomarker’s clinical utility, including Phase II and Phase III clinical trials which aim to test the effectiveness of a biomarker-guided approach to treatment; these designs can be broadly classified into adaptive and non-adaptive. While adaptive designs allow planned modifications based on accumulating information during a trial, non-adaptive designs are typically simpler but less flexible.Methods and FindingsWe have undertaken a comprehensive review of biomarker-guided adaptive trial designs proposed in the past decade. We have identified eight distinct biomarker-guided adaptive designs and nine variations from 107 studies. Substantial variability has been observed in terms of how trial designs are described and particularly in the terminology used by different authors. We have graphically displayed the current biomarker-guided adaptive trial designs and summarised the characteristics of each design.ConclusionsOur in-depth overview provides future researchers with clarity in definition, methodology and terminology for biomarker-guided adaptive trial designs.

Biomarker-guided treatment is a rapidly developing area of medicine, where treatment choice is personalised according to one or more of an individual’s biomarker measurements. A number of biomarker-guided trial designs have been proposed in the past decade, including both adaptive and non-adaptive trial designs which test the effectiveness of a biomarker-guided approach to treatment with the aim of improving patient health. A better understanding of them is needed as challenges occur both in terms of trial design and analysis. We have undertaken a comprehensive literature review based on an in-depth search strategy with a view to providing the research community with clarity in definition, methodology and terminology of the various biomarker-guided trial designs (both adaptive and non-adaptive designs) from a total of 211 included papers. In the present paper, we focus on non-adaptive biomarker-guided trial designs for which we have identified five distinct main types mentioned in 100 papers. We have graphically displayed each non-adaptive trial design and provided an in-depth overview of their key characteristics. Substantial variability has been observed in terms of how trial designs are described and particularly in the terminology used by different authors. Our comprehensive review provides guidance for those designing biomarker-guided trials.

Biomarker-guided trials have drawn considerable attention as they promise to lead to improvements in the benefit-risk ratio of treatments and enhanced opportunities for drug development. A variety of such designs have been proposed in the literature, many of which have been adopted in practice.Implementing such trial designs in practice can be challenging, and identifying those challenges was the main objective of a workshop organised by the MRC Hubs for Trials Methodology Research Network's Stratified Medicine Working Group in March 2017. Participants reflected on completed and ongoing biomarker-guided trials to identify the practical challenges encountered. Here, the key challenges identified during the workshop including those related to funding, ethical and regulatory issues, recruitment, monitoring of samples and laboratories, biomarker assessment, and data sharing and resources, are discussed.Despite the complexities often associated with biomarker-guided trials, the workshop concluded that they can play an important role in advancing the field of personalised medicine. Therefore, it is important that the practical challenges surrounding their implementation are acknowledged and addressed.

Background: Entrectinib is a tropomyosin receptor kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) fusion-positive solid tumours based on single-arm trials. Traditional randomised clinical trials in rare cancers are not feasible; we conducted an intrapatient analysis to evaluate the clinical benefit of entrectinib versus prior standard-of-care systemic therapies. Methods: Patients with locally advanced/metastatic NTRK fusion-positive tumours enrolled in the global phase II, single-arm STARTRK-2 trial were grouped according to prior systemic therapy and response. The key analysis used growth modulation index [GMI; ratio of progression-free survival (PFS) on entrectinib to time to discontinuation (TTD) on the most recent prior therapy]; ratio 1.3 indicated clinically meaningful efficacy. Additional analyses investigated TTD and objective response rate (ORR) for entrectinib and prior therapies. Results: Seventy-one patients were included; 51 received prior systemic therapy. In 38 patients who progressed on prior therapy, ORR was 60.5% (23/38) with entrectinib and 15.8% (6/38) with the most recent prior therapy. Median PFS [11.2 months; 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.7enot estimable] for entrectinib exceeded median TTD (2.9 months; 95% CI 2.0-4.9) for most recent prior therapy. From the intrapatient analysis of GMI, 65.8% had a ratio 1.3 and median GMI was 2.53. Consistent results were observed at more stringent GMI thresholds; 60.5% of patients had GMI 1.5 or 1.8 and 57.9% had GMI 2.0. Conclusions: ORR was high and PFS was longer on entrectinib versus TTD on prior therapy. Furthermore, 65.8% of patients experienced clinically meaningful benefit based on GMI. This intrapatient analysis demonstrates comparative effectiveness of entrectinib in a rare, heterogeneous adult population.