Oncology dose optimization paradigms: knowledge gained and extrapolated from approved oncology therapeutics
- PMID: 35965268
- DOI: 10.1007/s00280-022-04444-0
Oncology dose optimization paradigms: knowledge gained and extrapolated from approved oncology therapeutics
Abstract
There has been increasing attention to dose optimization in the development of targeted oncology therapeutics. The current report has analyzed the dose selection approaches for 116 new molecular entities (NMEs) approved for oncology indications by the US FDA from 2010 to August 2021, with the goal to extract learnings about the ways to select the optimal dose. The analysis showed that: (1) the initial label dose was lower than the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or maximum studied dose (MSD) in Phase 1 for the majority of approved NMEs, and that the MTD approach is no longer the mainstay for dose selection; (2) there was no dose ranging or optimization beyond Phase 1 dose escalation for ~ 80% of the NMEs; (3) integrated dose/exposure-response analyses were commonly used to justify the dose selection; (4) lack of dose optimization led to dose-related PMRs/PMCs in 14% of cases, but 82% of these did not result in change of the initial label dose; and (5) depending on properties of the NME and specific benefit/risk considerations for the target patient population, there could be different dose selection paradigms leading to identification of the appropriate clinical dose. The analysis supports the need to incorporate more robust dose optimization during oncology clinical development, through comparative assessment of benefit/risk of multiple dose levels, over a wide exposure range using therapeutically relevant endpoints and adequate sample size. On the other hand, in certain cases, data from FIP dose escalation may be adequate to support the dose selection.
Keywords: Dose selection; Maximum tolerated dose; Oncology; Optimal dose; Recommended phase 2 dose.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
References
-
- Sacks LV, Shamsuddin HH, Yasinskaya YI, Bouri K, Lanthier ML, Sherman RE (2014) Scientific and regulatory reasons for delay and denial of FDA approval of initial applications for new drugs, 2000–2012. JAMA J Am Med Assoc 311(4):378–384. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.282542 - DOI
-
- Minasian L, Rosen O, Auclair D, Rahman A, Pazdur R, Schilsky RL (2014) Optimizing dosing of oncology drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther 96(5):572–579. https://doi.org/10.1038/clpt.2014.153 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Janne PA, Kim G, Shaw AT, Sridhara R, Pazdur R, McKee AE (2016) Dose finding of small-molecule oncology drugs: optimization throughout the development life cycle. Clin Cancer Res 22(11):2613–2617. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-2643 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Mathijssen RH, Sparreboom A, Verweij J (2014) Determining the optimal dose in the development of anticancer agents. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 11(5):272–281. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2014.40 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Corbaux P, El-Madani M, Tod M, Peron J, Maillet D, Lopez J, Freyer G, You B (2019) Clinical efficacy of the optimal biological dose in early-phase trials of anti-cancer targeted therapies. Eur J Cancer 120:40–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2019.08.002 - DOI - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
