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.
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.