This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Save to my personal folders Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sargent, D. J. Articles by Collette, L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sargent, D. J. Articles by Collette, L. Social Bookmarking                            What's this?

Clinical Trial Designs for Predictive Marker Validation in Cancer Treatment Trials

From the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Medical Oncology Clinical Research Unit, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Network for Medical Communication and Research, Atlanta, GA; and Data Center, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Brussels, Belgium

Address reprint requests to Daniel J. Sargent, PhD, Mayo Clinic, Kahler 1A, 200 First St, SW, Rochester, MN 55905; e-mail: sargent.daniel{at}mayo.edu

Current staging and risk-stratification methods in oncology, while helpful, fail to adequately predict malignancy aggressiveness and/or response to specific treatment. Increased knowledge of cancer biology is generating promising marker candidates for more accurate diagnosis, prognosis assessment, and therapeutic targeting. To apply these exciting results to maximize patient benefit, a disciplined application of well-designed clinical trials for assessing the utility of markers should be used. In this article, we first review the major issues to consider when designing a clinical trial assessing the usefulness of a predictive marker. We then present two classes of clinical trial designs: the Marker by Treatment Interaction Design and the Marker-Based Strategy Design. In the first design, we assume that the marker splits the population into groups in which the efficacy of a particular treatment will differ. This design can be viewed as a classical randomized clinical trial with upfront stratification for the marker. In the second design, after the marker status is known, each patient is randomly assigned either to have therapy determined by their marker status or to receive therapy independent of marker status. The predictive value of the marker is assessed by comparing the outcome of all patients in the marker-based arm to that of all of the patients in the non–marker-based arm. We present detailed sample size calculations for a specific clinical scenario. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the two trial designs and their appropriateness to specific clinical situations to assist investigators seeking to design rigorous, marker-based clinical trials.

Supported by and prepared under the auspices of the Joint National Cancer Institute/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Working Group on Clinical Trials Methodology for Tumor Marker Studies.

Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest are found at the end of this article.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. M. Simon, S. Paik, and D. F. Hayes Use of Archived Specimens in Evaluation of Prognostic and Predictive Biomarkers J Natl Cancer Inst, November 4, 2009; 101(21): 1446 - 1452. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. E. Taube, G. M. Clark, J. E. Dancey, L. M. McShane, C. C. Sigman, and S. I. Gutman A Perspective on Challenges and Issues in Biomarker Development and Drug and Biomarker Codevelopment J Natl Cancer Inst, November 4, 2009; 101(21): 1453 - 1463. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Leushuis, J. W. van der Steeg, P. Steures, P. M.M. Bossuyt, M. J.C. Eijkemans, F. van der Veen, B. W.J. Mol, and P. G.A. Hompes Prediction models in reproductive medicine: a critical appraisal Hum. Reprod. Update, September 1, 2009; 15(5): 537 - 552. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. J. Mandrekar and D. J. Sargent Clinical Trial Designs for Predictive Biomarker Validation: Theoretical Considerations and Practical Challenges J. Clin. Oncol., August 20, 2009; 27(24): 4027 - 4034. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. A. Cannistra Phase II Trials in Journal of Clinical Oncology J. Clin. Oncol., July 1, 2009; 27(19): 3073 - 3076. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. F. Hayes Clinical Utility of Tumor Markers: Study Design and Evaluation Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. Educ. Book, April 18, 2009; 2009(1): 273 - 277. [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. A. Miles, B. Ganeshan, M. R. Griffiths, R. C. D. Young, and C. R. Chatwin Colorectal Cancer: Texture Analysis of Portal Phase Hepatic CT Images as a Potential Marker of Survival Radiology, February 1, 2009; 250(2): 444 - 452. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. J. Duffy and J. Crown A Personalized Approach to Cancer Treatment: How Biomarkers Can Help Clin. Chem., November 1, 2008; 54(11): 1770 - 1779. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. S. Pepe, Z. Feng, H. Janes, P. M. Bossuyt, and J. D. Potter Pivotal Evaluation of the Accuracy of a Biomarker Used for Classification or Prediction: Standards for Study Design J Natl Cancer Inst, October 15, 2008; 100(20): 1432 - 1438. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. L. George Statistical Issues in Translational Cancer Research Clin. Cancer Res., October 1, 2008; 14(19): 5954 - 5958. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Simon The Use of Genomics in Clinical Trial Design Clin. Cancer Res., October 1, 2008; 14(19): 5984 - 5993. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. J. Goldstein, R. Gray, S. Badve, B. H. Childs, C. Yoshizawa, S. Rowley, S. Shak, F. L. Baehner, P. M. Ravdin, N. E. Davidson, et al. Prognostic Utility of the 21-Gene Assay in Hormone Receptor-Positive Operable Breast Cancer Compared With Classical Clinicopathologic Features J. Clin. Oncol., September 1, 2008; 26(25): 4063 - 4071. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I Zlobec and A Lugli Prognostic and predictive factors in colorectal cancer Postgrad. Med. J., August 1, 2008; 84(994): 403 - 411. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. F. Schlenk, K. Dohner, J. Krauter, S. Frohling, A. Corbacioglu, L. Bullinger, M. Habdank, D. Spath, M. Morgan, A. Benner, et al. Mutations and Treatment Outcome in Cytogenetically Normal Acute Myeloid Leukemia N. Engl. J. Med., May 1, 2008; 358(18): 1909 - 1918. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Soong, N. Shah, M. Salto-Tellez, B. C. Tai, R. A. Soo, H. C. Han, S. S. Ng, W. L. Tan, N. Zeps, D. Joseph, et al. Prognostic significance of thymidylate synthase, dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase and thymidine phosphorylase protein expression in colorectal cancer patients treated with or without 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy Ann. Onc., May 1, 2008; 19(5): 915 - 919. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I Zlobec and A Lugli Prognostic and predictive factors in colorectal cancer J. Clin. Pathol., May 1, 2008; 61(5): 561 - 569. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. B. Benson III From Silos to a Critical Path of New Agent Development: A Paradigm to Revolutionize Clinical Research J. Clin. Oncol., April 20, 2008; 26(12): 1924 - 1925. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. J. O'Dwyer, S. G. Eckhardt, D. G. Haller, J. Tepper, D. Ahnen, S. Hamilton, A. B. Benson III, M. Rothenberg, N. Petrelli, H.-J. Lenz, et al. Priorities in Colorectal Cancer Research: Recommendations From the Gastrointestinal Scientific Leadership Council of the Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups J. Clin. Oncol., June 1, 2007; 25(16): 2313 - 2321. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Agulnik, A. M. Oza, G. R. Pond, and L. L. Siu Impact and Perceptions of Mandatory Tumor Biopsies for Correlative Studies in Clinical Trials of Novel Anticancer Agents J. Clin. Oncol., October 20, 2006; 24(30): 4801 - 4807. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Asgharzadeh, R. Pique-Regi, R. Sposto, H. Wang, Y. Yang, H. Shimada, K. Matthay, J. Buckley, A. Ortega, and R. C. Seeger Prognostic Significance of Gene Expression Profiles of Metastatic Neuroblastomas Lacking MYCN Gene Amplification. J Natl Cancer Inst, September 6, 2006; 98(17): 1193 - 1203. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. K. Bergsland When Does the Presence of the Target Predict Response to the Targeted Agent? J. Clin. Oncol., January 10, 2006; 24(2): 213 - 216. [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. H. Smorenburg, G. J. Peters, C. J. van Groeningen, P. Noordhuis, K. Smid, A. M. G. H. van Riel, W. Dercksen, H. M. Pinedo, and G. Giaccone Phase II study of tailored chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer with either 5-fluouracil and leucovorin or oxaliplatin and irinotecan based on the expression of thymidylate synthase and dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase Ann. Onc., January 1, 2006; 17(1): 35 - 42. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. H. Sehn Optimal Use of Prognostic Factors in Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Hematology, January 1, 2006; 2006(1): 295 - 302. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. D. Brenton, L. A. Carey, A. A. Ahmed, and C. Caldas Molecular Classification and Molecular Forecasting of Breast Cancer: Ready for Clinical Application? J. Clin. Oncol., October 10, 2005; 23(29): 7350 - 7360. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. N. Hait Updated Methods for Reporting Clinical Trials Clin. Cancer Res., October 1, 2005; 11(19): 6753 - 6754. [Full Text] [PDF]