Biomarkers and Surrogate Endpoints: How and When might They Impact Drug Development?

As the pharmaceutical industry starts developing novel molecules developed based on molecular biology principles and a better understanding of the human genome, it becomes increasingly important to develop early indicators of activity and/or toxicity. Biomarkers are measurements based on molecular pharmacology and/or pathophysiology of the disease being evaluated that may assist with decision-making in various phases of drug development. The utility of biomarkers in the development of drugs is described in this review. Additionally, the utility of pharmacokinetic data in drug development is described. Development of biomarkers may help reduce the cost of drug development by allowing key decisions earlier in the drug development process. Additionally, biomarkers may be used to select patients who have a high likelihood of benefit or they could be used by clinicians to evaluate the potential for efficacy after start of treatment

Pharmacokinetic results of a phase I trial of sorafenib in combination with dacarbazine in patients with advanced solid tumors

International audienc

Phase I trial of sorafenib and gemcitabine in advanced solid tumors with an expanded cohort in advanced pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: With its potent inhibitory effects against Raf-1 kinase and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2, sorafenib is a novel oral anticancer agent targeting signal transduction and angiogenic pathways. This study is designed to combine sorafenib and gemcitabine due to their compatibility in preclinical models and nonoverlapping clinical toxicities. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: An initial dose-escalation part of the study enrolled patients with advanced solid tumors, followed by an expanded cohort at the recommended dose for patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Sorafenib is administered continuously, whereas gemcitabine is given at 1,000 mg/m2 weekly x 7 followed by 1 rest week, then weekly x 3 every 4 weeks. RESULTS: Forty-two patients have been enrolled overall, including 19 in the dose-escalation part and 23 in the extended pancreatic cancer cohort. Demographics were as follows: male-to-female ratio = 26:16; median age = 61 years (range 39-83 years); Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0:1:2 ratio = 16:21:5. The recommended dose of this combination is sorafenib 400 mg twice daily and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2. The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events of all causalities were thrombocytopenia (28.6%), lymphopenia (21.4%), lipase elevation (19%), neutropenia (16.7%), and fatigue (14.3%). Antitumor activity was observed in both groups, with 2 (10.5%) confirmed partial responses in ovarian cancer and 12 patients (63.2%) with disease stabilization in the dose-escalation part; 13 patients (56.5%) achieved disease stabilization in the pancreatic cohort. There was no consistent pharmacokinetic drug-to-drug interaction between sorafenib and gemcitabine. CONCLUSIONS: Sorafenib and gemcitabine are well tolerated in combination; further evaluations in pancreatic and ovarian cancers are warranted.Clinical Trial, Phase IJournal ArticleMulticenter StudyResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Plasma biomarkers as predictors of outcome in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Validated biomarkers of prognosis and response to drug have not been identified for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). One of the objectives of the phase III, randomized, controlled Sorafenib HCC Assessment Randomized Protocol (SHARP) trial was to explore the ability of plasma biomarkers to predict prognosis and therapeutic efficacy

Safety and pharmacokinetics of sorafenib combined with capecitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors: results of a phase 1 trial.

Sorafenib (twice daily [bid]) plus capecitabine (2 weeks on schedule/1 week off schedule) safety and pharmacokinetics were investigated in patients with advanced solid tumors (N = 35). Cohort 1 (n = 13) included sorafenib 200 mg bid and capecitabine 1050 mg/m(2) bid; cohort 2 (n = 4), sorafenib 400 mg bid and capecitabine 1050 mg/m(2) bid; cohort 3 (n = 6), sorafenib 200 mg bid and capecitabine 1050 mg/m(2) bid (cycles 1 and 2), then 400 mg bid and capecitabine 1050 mg/m(2) bid (cycle 3 onwards); and cohort 4 (n = 12), sorafenib 400 mg bid and capecitabine 850 mg/m(2) bid. The combination of sorafenib and capecitabine was generally well tolerated. Most frequent drug-related adverse events were hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR, 89%), diarrhea (71%), and fatigue (69%). The HFSR was dose-limiting toxicities in 6 patients. Sorafenib exposure (C(max) and AUC(0-12)) was unaffected by concomitant capecitabine. Concomitant sorafenib moderately increased capecitabine and 5-fluorouracil (metabolite) exposure when the capecitabine dose was 1050 mg/m(2) bid. Simultaneous administration of 400 mg bid sorafenib and 850 mg/m(2) bid capecitabine, however, had only minor effects on the exposure to capecitabine and 5-fluorouracil. Based on the overall toxicity profile and pharmacokinetic parameters, the recommended phase 2 doses were therefore sorafenib 400 mg bid and capecitabine 850 mg/m(2) bid, as scheduled above.Clinical Trial, Phase IJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tFLWINSCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe