Dose selection of novel anticancer drugs: exposing the gap between selected and required doses.

IF 41.6 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Catharina J P Op 't Hoog, Niven Mehra, Marc Maliepaard, Kalijn Bol, Hans Gelderblom, Gabe S Sonke, Adrianus J de Langen, Niels W C J van de Donk, Jeroen J W M Janssen, Monique C Minnema, Nielka P van Erp, Emmy Boerrigter
{"title":"Dose selection of novel anticancer drugs: exposing the gap between selected and required doses.","authors":"Catharina J P Op 't Hoog, Niven Mehra, Marc Maliepaard, Kalijn Bol, Hans Gelderblom, Gabe S Sonke, Adrianus J de Langen, Niels W C J van de Donk, Jeroen J W M Janssen, Monique C Minnema, Nielka P van Erp, Emmy Boerrigter","doi":"10.1016/S1470-2045(24)00134-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Historically, dose selection of anticancer drugs has mainly been based on establishing the maximum tolerated dose in phase 1 clinical trials with a traditional 3 plus 3 design. In the era of targeted therapies and immune-modulating agents, this approach does not necessarily lead to selection of the most favourable dose. This strategy can introduce potentially avoidable toxicity or inconvenience for patients. Multiple changes in drug development could lead to more rational dose selection, such as use of better predictive preclinical models, adaptive and randomised trial design, evaluation of multiple dose levels in late-phase development, assessment of target activity and saturation, and early biomarker use for efficacy and safety evaluation. In this Review, we evaluate the rationale and validation of dose selection in each phase of drug development for anticancer drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration from Jan 1, 2020, to June 30, 2023, and give recommendations for dose optimisation to improve safety and patient convenience. In our evaluation, we classified 20 (65%) of the 31 recently registered anticancer agents as potential candidates for dose optimisation, which could be achieved either by reducing the dose (n=10 [32%]) or adjusting the dosage regimen (n=10 [32%]). Dose selection seemed to be adequately justified for nine (29%) of the drugs, whereas the reviewed data were inconclusive for formulating a recommendation on dose optimisation for two (6%) of the drugs.</p>","PeriodicalId":17942,"journal":{"name":"Lancet Oncology","volume":"25 8","pages":"e340-e351"},"PeriodicalIF":41.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lancet Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(24)00134-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Historically, dose selection of anticancer drugs has mainly been based on establishing the maximum tolerated dose in phase 1 clinical trials with a traditional 3 plus 3 design. In the era of targeted therapies and immune-modulating agents, this approach does not necessarily lead to selection of the most favourable dose. This strategy can introduce potentially avoidable toxicity or inconvenience for patients. Multiple changes in drug development could lead to more rational dose selection, such as use of better predictive preclinical models, adaptive and randomised trial design, evaluation of multiple dose levels in late-phase development, assessment of target activity and saturation, and early biomarker use for efficacy and safety evaluation. In this Review, we evaluate the rationale and validation of dose selection in each phase of drug development for anticancer drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration from Jan 1, 2020, to June 30, 2023, and give recommendations for dose optimisation to improve safety and patient convenience. In our evaluation, we classified 20 (65%) of the 31 recently registered anticancer agents as potential candidates for dose optimisation, which could be achieved either by reducing the dose (n=10 [32%]) or adjusting the dosage regimen (n=10 [32%]). Dose selection seemed to be adequately justified for nine (29%) of the drugs, whereas the reviewed data were inconclusive for formulating a recommendation on dose optimisation for two (6%) of the drugs.

新型抗癌药物的剂量选择:揭示所选剂量与所需剂量之间的差距。
一直以来,抗癌药物的剂量选择主要基于在一期临床试验中采用传统的 3+3 设计来确定最大耐受剂量。在靶向治疗和免疫调节药物时代,这种方法并不一定能选择到最有利的剂量。这种策略可能会给患者带来本可避免的毒性或不便。药物开发过程中的多种变化可能会带来更合理的剂量选择,例如使用更好的预测性临床前模型、适应性和随机试验设计、在晚期开发中评估多个剂量水平、评估靶点活性和饱和度以及使用早期生物标记物进行疗效和安全性评估。在本综述中,我们评估了欧洲药品管理局和美国食品药品管理局从 2020 年 1 月 1 日至 2023 年 6 月 30 日批准的抗癌药物在药物开发各阶段选择剂量的依据和验证,并提出了优化剂量的建议,以提高安全性,方便患者使用。在我们的评估中,我们将最近注册的 31 种抗癌药物中的 20 种(65%)列为剂量优化的潜在候选药物,可通过减少剂量(10 种 [32%])或调整剂量方案(10 种 [32%])来实现。9种药物(29%)的剂量选择似乎有充分的理由,而2种药物(6%)的经审查数据并不确定,无法就剂量优化提出建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Lancet Oncology
Lancet Oncology 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
62.10
自引率
1.00%
发文量
913
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Lancet Oncology is a trusted international journal that addresses various topics in clinical practice, health policy, and global oncology. It covers a wide range of cancer types, including breast, endocrine system, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, gynaecological, haematological, head and neck, neurooncology, paediatric, thoracic, sarcoma, and skin cancers. Additionally, it includes articles on epidemiology, cancer prevention and control, supportive care, imaging, and health-care systems. The journal has an Impact Factor of 51.1, making it the leading clinical oncology research journal worldwide. It publishes different types of articles, such as Articles, Reviews, Policy Reviews, Personal Views, Clinical Pictures, Comments, Correspondence, News, and Perspectives. The Lancet Oncology also collaborates with societies, governments, NGOs, and academic centers to publish Series and Commissions that aim to drive positive changes in clinical practice and health policy in areas of global oncology that require attention.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信