Ten years of marketing approvals of anticancer drugs in Europe: regulatory policy and guidance documents need to find a balance between different pressures

Despite important progress in understanding the molecular factors underlying the development of cancer and the improvement in response rates with new drugs, long-term survival is still disappointing for most common solid tumours. This might be because very little of the modest gain for patients is the result of the new compounds discovered and marketed recently. An assessment of the regulatory agencies' performance may suggest improvements. The present analysis summarizes and evaluates the type of studies and end points used by the EMEA to approve new anticancer drugs, and discusses the application of current regulations. This report is based on the information available on the EMEA web site. We identified current regulatory requirements for anticancer drugs promulgated by the agency and retrieved them in the relevant directory; information about empirical evidence supporting the approval of drugs for solid cancers through the centralised procedure were retrieved from the European Public Assessment Report (EPAR). We surveyed documents for drug applications and later extensions from January 1995, when EMEA was set up, to December 2004. We identified 14 anticancer drugs for 27 different indications (14 new applications and 13 extensions). Overall, 48 clinical studies were used as the basis for approval; randomised comparative (clinical) trial (RCT) and Response Rate were the study design and end points most frequently adopted (respectively, 25 out of 48 and 30 out of 48). In 13 cases, the EPAR explicitly reported differences between arms in terms of survival: the range was 0–3.7 months, and the mean and median differences were 1.5 and 1.2 months. The majority of studies (13 out of 27, 48%) involved the evaluation of complete and/or partial tumour responses, with regard to the end points supporting the 27 indications. Despite the recommendations of the current EMEA guidance documents, new anticancer agents are still often approved on the basis of small single arm trials that do not allow any assessment of an ‘acceptable and extensively documented toxicity profile' and of end points such as response rate, time to progression or progression-free survival which at best can be considered indicators of anticancer activity and are not ‘justified surrogate markers for clinical benefit'. Anticipating an earlier than ideal point along the drug approval path and the use of not fully validated surrogate end points in nonrandomised trials looks like a dangerous shortcut that might jeopardise consumers' health, leading to unsafe and ineffective drugs being marketed and prescribed. The present Note for Guidance for new anticancer agents needs revising. Drugs must be rapidly released for patients who need them but not be at the expense of adequate knowledge about the real benefit of the drugs

Leaders, leadership and future primary care clinical research

Background: A strong and self confident primary care workforce can deliver the highest quality care and outcomes equitably and cost effectively. To meet the increasing demands being made of it, primary care needs its own thriving research culture and knowledge base. Methods: Review of recent developments supporting primary care clinical research. Results: Primary care research has benefited from a small group of passionate leaders and significant investment in recent decades in some countries. Emerging from this has been innovation in research design and focus, although less is known of the effect on research output. Conclusion: Primary care research is now well placed to lead a broad re-vitalisation of academic medicine, answering questions of relevance to practitioners, patients, communities and Government. Key areas for future primary care research leaders to focus on include exposing undergraduates early to primary care research, integrating this early exposure with doctoral and postdoctoral research career support, further expanding cross disciplinary approaches, and developing useful measures of output for future primary care research investment

Transcriptome analysis of embryonic mammary cells reveals insights into mammary lineage establishment

Introduction: The mammary primordium forms during embryogenesis as a result of inductive interactions between its constitutive tissues, the mesenchyme and epithelium, and represents the earliest evidence of commitment to the mammary lineage. Previous studies of embryonic mouse mammary epithelium indicated that, by mid-gestation, these cells are determined to a mammary cell fate and that a stem cell population has been delimited. Mammary mesenchyme can induce mammary development from simple epithelium even across species and classes, and can partially restore features of differentiated tissue to mouse mammary tumours in co-culture experiments. Despite these exciting properties, the molecular identity of embryonic mammary cells remains to be fully characterised. Methods: Here, we define the transcriptome of the mammary primordium and the two distinct cellular compartments that comprise it, the mammary primordial bud epithelium and mammary mesenchyme. Pathway and network analysis was performed and comparisons of embryonic mammary gene expression profiles to those of both postnatal mouse and human mammary epithelial cell sub-populations and stroma were made. Results: Several of the genes we have detected in our embryonic mammary cell signatures were previously shown to regulate mammary cell fate and development, but we also identified a large number of novel candidates. Additionally, we determined genes that were expressed by both embryonic and postnatal mammary cells, which represent candidate regulators of mammary cell fate, differentiation and progenitor cell function that could signal from mammary lineage inception during embryogenesis through postnatal development. Comparison of embryonic mammary cell signatures with those of human breast cells identified potential regulators of mammary progenitor cell functions conserved across species. Conclusions: These results provide new insights into genetic regulatory mechanisms of mammary development, particularly identification of novel potential regulators of mammary fate and mesenchymal-epithelial cross-talk. Since cancers may represent diseases of mesenchymal-epithelial communications, we anticipate these results will provide foundations for further studies into the fundamental links between developmental, stem cell and breast cancer biology

Evaluating genetic markers and neurobiochemical analytes for fluoxetine response using a panel of mouse inbred strains

RationaleIdentification of biomarkers that establish diagnosis or treatment response is critical to the advancement of research and management of patients with depression.ObjectiveOur goal was to identify biomarkers that can potentially assess fluoxetine response and risk to poor treatment outcome.MethodsWe measured behavior, gene expression, and the levels of 36 neurobiochemical analytes across a panel of genetically diverse mouse inbred lines after chronic treatment with water or fluoxetine.ResultsGlyoxylase 1 (GLO1) and guanine nucleotide-binding protein 1 (GNB1) mostly account for baseline anxiety-like and depressive-like behavior, indicating a common biological link between depression and anxiety. Fluoxetine-induced biochemical alterations discriminated positive responders, while baseline neurobiochemical differences differentiated negative responders (p < 0.006). Results show that glial fibrillary acidic protein, S100 beta protein, GLO1, and histone deacetylase 5 contributed most to fluoxetine response. These proteins are linked within a cellular growth/proliferation pathway, suggesting the involvement of cellular genesis in fluoxetine response. Furthermore, a candidate genetic locus that associates with baseline depressive-like behavior contains a gene that encodes for cellular proliferation/adhesion molecule (Cadm1), supporting a genetic basis for the role of neuro/gliogenesis in depression.ConclusionWe provided a comprehensive analysis of behavioral, neurobiochemical, and transcriptome data across 30 mouse inbred strains that has not been accomplished before. We identified biomarkers that influence fluoxetine response, which, altogether, implicate the importance of cellular genesis in fluoxetine treatment. More broadly, this approach can be used to assess a wide range of drug response phenotypes that are challenging to address in human samples.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00213-011-2574-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Homeostatic regulation of the endoneurial microenvironment during development, aging and in response to trauma, disease and toxic insult

The endoneurial microenvironment, delimited by the endothelium of endoneurial vessels and a multi-layered ensheathing perineurium, is a specialized milieu intérieur within which axons, associated Schwann cells and other resident cells of peripheral nerves function. The endothelium and perineurium restricts as well as regulates exchange of material between the endoneurial microenvironment and the surrounding extracellular space and thus is more appropriately described as a blood–nerve interface (BNI) rather than a blood–nerve barrier (BNB). Input to and output from the endoneurial microenvironment occurs via blood–nerve exchange and convective endoneurial fluid flow driven by a proximo-distal hydrostatic pressure gradient. The independent regulation of the endothelial and perineurial components of the BNI during development, aging and in response to trauma is consistent with homeostatic regulation of the endoneurial microenvironment. Pathophysiological alterations of the endoneurium in experimental allergic neuritis (EAN), and diabetic and lead neuropathy are considered to be perturbations of endoneurial homeostasis. The interactions of Schwann cells, axons, macrophages, and mast cells via cell–cell and cell–matrix signaling regulate the permeability of this interface. A greater knowledge of the dynamic nature of tight junctions and the factors that induce and/or modulate these key elements of the BNI will increase our understanding of peripheral nerve disorders as well as stimulate the development of therapeutic strategies to treat these disorders