Advertisement
Journal of Clinical Oncology  
Search for:
Limit by:
  Browse by Subject or Issue
Home Search or Browse JCO Subscriptions PDA Services My JCO Customer Service

Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 23, No 9 (March 20), 2005: pp. 2020-2027
© 2005 American Society of Clinical Oncology.
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.01.112

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

REVIEW ARTICLE

Clinical Trial Designs for Predictive Marker Validation in Cancer Treatment Trials

Daniel J. Sargent, Barbara A. Conley, Carmen Allegra, Laurence Collette

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.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
NEJMHome page
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]


Home page
Ann OncolHome page
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]


Home page
J. Clin. Pathol.Home page
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]


Home page
JCOHome page
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]


Home page
JCOHome page
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]


Home page
JCOHome page
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]


Home page
JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
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]


Home page
JCOHome page
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]


Home page
Ann OncolHome page
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]


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


Home page
JCOHome page
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]


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



About
JCO
 Editorial
Roster
 Advertising
Information
 Librarians &
Institutions
 Rights &
Permissions
 Site Map

Copyright © 2005 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1527-7755. Print ISSN: 0732-183X
Terms and Conditions of Use
  HighWire Press HighWire Press™ assists in the publication of JCO Online