Trial Designs for Personalizing Cancer Care: A Systematic Review and Classification

Abstract

There is an increasing interest in the evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers for personalizing cancer care. The literature on the trial designs for evaluation of these markers is diverse and there is no consensus in the classification or nomenclature. We set this study to review the literature systematically, to identify the proposed trial designs, and to develop a classification scheme. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Methodology Register, and MathSciNet up to January 2013 for articles describing these trial designs. In each eligible article, we identified the trial designs presented and extracted the term used for labeling the design, components of patient flow (marker status of eligible participants, intervention, and comparator), study questions, and analysis plan. Our search strategy resulted in 88 eligible articles, wherein 315 labels had been used by authors in presenting trial designs; 134 of these were unique. By analyzing patient flow components, we could classify the 134 unique design labels into four basic patient flow categories, which we labeled with the most frequently used term: single-arm, enrichment, randomize-all, and biomarker-strategy designs. A fifth category consists of combinations of the other four patient flow categories. Our review showed that a considerable number of labels has been proposed for trial designs evaluating prognostic and predictive biomarkers which, based on patient flow elements, can be classified into five basic categories. The classification system proposed here could help clinicians and researchers in designing and interpreting trials evaluating predictive biomarkers, and could reduce confusion in labeling and reporting.

Guidance for pharmacogenomic biomarker testing in labels of FDA-approved drugs

“…28,29 However, this design would not be suitable for many situations. Another method is to retrospectively assess biomarkers in clinical data from observational studies or randomized controlled trials in which treatment received did not depend on the biomarker to compare the risk-benefit ratio according to biomarker values.…”

Utility of Next-Generation Sequencing in Cancer Drug Development and Clinical Trials

“…The designs of the trials are based on the information available on the predictive value of the test, and the availability and activity of drug candidates on different targets. Studies provide different answers on drug effect, biomarker effect, biomarker by treatment effect, and the strategic value of complex gene analysis [ 44 ].…”

Molecular diagnostics clinical utility strategy: a six-part framework

“…Marker-only trials can be more ethical; in trials for the cystic fibrosis drug Kalydeco, only marker-positive patients were enrolled as it was felt that patients with genetic loss of the drug's target protein had no likely chance of benefit. In other circumstances, it is helpful or even crucial to enroll both marker-positive and marker-negative populations (for a recent analysis of trial designs, see Tajik et al [17]). The developer brings strategic economic and public policy considerations to the table.…”