Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Aug 16;7(33):53037-53046.
doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.10588.

An appraisal of drug development timelines in the Era of precision oncology

Affiliations

An appraisal of drug development timelines in the Era of precision oncology

Denis Leonardo Jardim et al. Oncotarget. .

Abstract

The effects of incorporating a biomarker-based (personalized or precision) selection strategy on drug development timelines for new oncology drugs merit investigation. Here we accessed documents from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) database for anticancer agents approved between 09/1998 and 07/2014 to compare drugs developed with and without a personalized strategy. Sixty-three drugs were included (28 [44%] personalized and 35 [56%] non-personalized). No differences in access to FDA-expedited programs were observed between personalized and non-personalized drugs. A personalized approach for drug development was associated with faster clinical development (Investigational New Drug [IND] to New Drug Application [NDA] submission; median = 58.8 months [95% CI 53.8-81.8] vs. 93.5 months [95% CI 73.9-112.9], P =.001), but a similar approval time (NDA submission to approval; median=6.0 months [95% CI 5.5-8.4] vs. 6.1 months [95% CI 5.9-8.3], P = .756) compared to a non-personalized strategy. In the multivariate model, class of drug stratified by personalized status (targeted personalized vs. targeted non-personalized vs. cytotoxic) was the only independent factor associated with faster total time of clinical drug development (clinical plus approval phase, median = 64.6 vs 87.1 vs. 112.7 months [cytotoxic], P = .038). Response rates (RR) in early trials were positively correlated with RR in registration trials (r = 0.63, P = <.001), and inversely associated with total time of drug development (r = -0.29, P = .049). In conclusion, targeted agents were developed faster than cytotoxic agents. Shorter times to approval were associated, in multivariate analysis, with a biomarker-based clinical development strategy.

Keywords: FDA; biomarkers; drug development; pharmacoeconomics; precision medicine.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Razelle Kurzrock has research funds from Sequenom, Foundation Medicine, Guardant, Pfizer, Merck Serono and Genentech, is a consultant to Actuate Therapeutics and Sequenom, and has an ownership interest in Novena Inc. and Curematch Inc.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flow chart of drug selection
Figure 2
Figure 2. Development phases of drugs approved between 09/1998 and 07/2014 for the treatment of advanced cancers
Figure 3
Figure 3. Reported response rates in phase I trials in all tumors (A) and tumors in which the drug was eventually approved (B) and total time of drug development (IND submission to NDA/BLA approval) in months
Total time of development was inversely associated with response rate. Reported response rates in phase I trials in all tumors (C) and tumors in which the drugs were eventually approved (D) and response rates in registration trials of the same drug. Phase I trials were matched to registration trials as described in methods section and previously published. [31].

References

    1. Cancer Genome Atlas Research N Comprehensive genomic characterization of squamous cell lung cancers. Nature. 2012;489:519–525. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cancer Genome Atlas Research N Comprehensive molecular profiling of lung adenocarcinoma. Nature. 2014;511:543–550. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hutchinson KE, Lipson D, Stephens PJ, Otto G, Lehmann BD, Lyle PL, Vnencak-Jones CL, Ross JS, Pietenpol JA, Sosman JA, Puzanov I, Miller VA, Pao W. BRAF fusions define a distinct molecular subset of melanomas with potential sensitivity to MEK inhibition. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:6696–6702. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Krampitz GW, Norton JA. RET gene mutations (genotype and phenotype) of multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 and familial medullary thyroid carcinoma. Cancer. 2014;120:1920–1931. - PubMed
    1. Food and Drug Administration and US Department of Health and Human Services. Critical Path Report. 2006 Mar; http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/CriticalPathI...

MeSH terms

Substances

LinkOut - more resources