Steven Gutman

Translational Crossroads for Biomarkers

A group of investigators met at a Specialized Programs of Research Excellence Workshop to discuss key issues in the translation of biomarker discovery to the development of useful laboratory tests for cancer care. Development and approval of several new markers and technologies have provided informative examples that include more specific markers for prostate cancer, more sensitive tests for ovarian cancer, more objective analysis of tissue architecture and an earlier indication of response to treatment in breast cancer. Although there is no clear paradigm for biomarker development, several principles are clear. Marker development should be driven by clinical needs, including early cancer detection, accurate pretreatment staging, and prediction of response to treatment, as well as monitoring disease progression and response to therapy. Development of a national repository that uses carefully preserved, well-annotated tissue specimens will facilitate new marker development. Reference standards will be an essential component of this process. Both hospital-based and commercial laboratories can play a role in developing biomarkers from discovery to test validation. Partnering of academe and industry should occur throughout the process of biomarker development. The National Cancer Institute is in a unique position to bring together academe, industry, and the Food and Drug Administration to (a) define clinical needs for biomarkers by tumor type, (b) establish analytic and clinical paradigms for biomarker development, (c) discuss ways in which markers from different companies might be evaluated in combination, (d) establish computational methods to combine data from multiple biomarkers, (e) share information regarding promising markers developed in National Cancer Institute–supported programs, and (f) exchange data regarding new platforms and techniques that can accelerate marker development.

A Perspective on Challenges and Issues in Biomarker Development and Drug and Biomarker Codevelopment

A workshop sponsored by the National Cancer Institute and the US Food and Drug Administration addressed past lessons learned and ongoing challenges faced in biomarker development and drug and biomarker codevelopment. Participants agreed that critical decision points in the product life cycle depend on the level of understanding of the biology of the target and its interaction with the drug, the preanalytical and analytical factors affecting biomarker assay performance, and the clinical disease process. The more known about the biology and the greater the strength of association between an analytical signal and clinical result, the more efficient and less risky the development process will be. Rapid entry into clinical practice will only be achieved by using a rigorous scientific approach, including careful specimen collection and standardized and quality-controlled data collection. Early interaction with appropriate regulatory bodies will ensure studies are appropriately designed and biomarker test performance is well characterized.

Evidence of Clinical Utility: An Unmet Need in Molecular Diagnostics for Patients with Cancer

This article defines and describes best practices for the academic and business community to generate evidence of clinical utility for cancer molecular diagnostic assays. Beyond analytical and clinical validation, successful demonstration of clinical utility involves developing sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a diagnostic test results in an improvement in patient outcomes. This discussion is complementary to theoretical frameworks described in previously published guidance and literature reports by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Institute of Medicine, and Center for Medical Technology Policy, among others. These reports are comprehensive and specifically clarify appropriate clinical use, adoption, and payer reimbursement for assay manufacturers, as well as Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–certified laboratories, including those that develop assays (laboratory developed tests). Practical criteria and steps for establishing clinical utility are crucial to subsequent decisions for reimbursement without which high-performing molecular diagnostics will have limited availability to patients with cancer and fail to translate scientific advances into high-quality and cost-effective cancer care. See all articles in this CCR Focus section, “The Precision Medicine Conundrum: Approaches to Companion Diagnostic Co-development.” Clin Cancer Res; 20(6); 1428–44. ©2014 AACR.

Food and Drug Administration Regulation of in Vitro Diagnostic Devices

The Food and Drug Administration regulates the sale and distribution of laboratory devices under a statutory and regulatory framework that is unfamiliar to most clinical laboratory scientists. In this article we briefly describe the criteria that are used to classify and review in vitro diagnostic devices. We discuss the similarities and differences between devices that are not subject to premarket review, and those that are required to undergo either a premarket application or premarket notification [510(k)] pathway. We then discuss the methods that the Food and Drug Administration uses to assess the performance of in vitro diagnostic devices in the marketplace as a component of the total life cycle approach to medical device regulation.

The Role of Minimal Residual Disease Testing in Myeloma Treatment Selection and Drug Development: Current Value and Future Applications.

Treatment of myeloma has benefited from the introduction of more effective and better tolerated agents, improvements in supportive care, better understanding of disease biology, revision of diagnostic criteria, and new sensitive and specific tools for disease prognostication and management. Assessment of minimal residual disease (MRD) in response to therapy is one of these tools, as longer progression-free survival (PFS) is seen consistently among patients who have achieved MRD negativity. Current therapies lead to unprecedented frequency and depth of response, and next-generation flow and sequencing methods to measure MRD in bone marrow are in use and being developed with sensitivities in the range of 10−5 to 10−6 cells. These technologies may be combined with functional imaging to detect MRD outside of bone marrow. Moreover, immune profiling methods are being developed to better understand the immune environment in myeloma and response to immunomodulatory agents while methods for molecular profiling of myeloma cells and circulating DNA in blood are also emerging. With the continued development and standardization of these methodologies, MRD has high potential for use in gaining new drug approvals in myeloma. The FDA has outlined two pathways by which MRD could be qualified as a surrogate endpoint for clinical studies directed at obtaining accelerated approval for new myeloma drugs. Most importantly, better understanding of MRD should also contribute to better treatment monitoring. Potentially, MRD status could be used as a prognostic factor for making treatment decisions and for informing timing of therapeutic interventions. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 3980–93. ©2017 AACR.

Pharmacogenomic Testing and Regulation: The Role of Pharmacogenomics in Pharmaceutical Development and the Regulation of Pharmacogenetic Test as in Vitro Diagnostics*

This article reviews the current role and future trends of pharmacogenomic testing in pharmaceutical development and postmarketing surveillance. The regulatory controls operating in Europe and the United States are described and compared. It is suggested that codevelopment of the diagnostic test should be considered as an integral part of the drug development program. The regulatory controls of the pharmacogenetic test and the drug need to be better aligned. Integration of patient and professional information is required. International standards are required for “traceability.”