Search

The US National Cancer Institute (NCI), in collaboration with scientists representing multiple areas of expertise relevant to 'omics'-based test development, has developed a checklist of criteria that can be used to determine the readiness of omics-based tests for guiding patient care in clinical trials. The checklist criteria cover issues relating to specimens, assays, mathematical modelling, clinical trial design, and ethical, legal and regulatory aspects. Funding bodies and journals are encouraged to consider the checklist, which they may find useful for assessing study quality and evidence strength. The checklist will be used to evaluate proposals for NCI-sponsored clinical trials in which omics tests will be used to guide therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

High-throughput ‘omics’ technologies that generate molecular profiles for biospecimens have been extensively used in preclinical studies to reveal molecular subtypes and elucidate the biological mechanisms of disease, and in retrospective studies on clinical specimens to develop mathematical models to predict clinical endpoints. Nevertheless, the translation of these technologies into clinical tests that are useful for guiding management decisions for patients has been relatively slow. It can be difficult to determine when the body of evidence for an omics-based test is sufficiently comprehensive and reliable to support claims that it is ready for clinical use, or even that it is ready for definitive evaluation in a clinical trial in which it may be used to direct patient therapy. Reasons for this difficulty include the exploratory and retrospective nature of many of these studies, the complexity of these assays and their application to clinical specimens, and the many potential pitfalls inherent in the development of mathematical predictor models from the very high-dimensional data generated by these omics technologies. Here we present a checklist of criteria to consider when evaluating the body of evidence supporting the clinical use of a predictor to guide patient therapy. Included are issues pertaining to specimen and assay requirements, the soundness of the process for developing predictor models, expectations regarding clinical study design and conduct, and attention to regulatory, ethical, and legal issues. The proposed checklist should serve as a useful guide to investigators preparing proposals for studies involving the use of omics-based tests. The US National Cancer Institute plans to refer to these guidelines for review of proposals for studies involving omics tests, and it is hoped that other sponsors will adopt the checklist as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A new diagnostic tool must pass three major tests before it is adopted for routine clinical use. First, the tool must be robust and reproducible; second, the clinical value of the tool must be proven, i.e. the tool should reliably trigger a clinical decision that results in patient benefit; and, third, the clinical community has to be convinced of the need for this tool and the benefits it affords. Another factor that can influence the adoption of new tools relates to the cost and the vagaries of insurance reimbursement. The Cancer Diagnosis Program (CDP) of the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) launched the Program for the Assessment of Clinical Cancer Tests (PACCT) in 2000 to develop a process for moving the results of new technologies and new understanding of cancer biology more efficiently and effectively into clinical practice. PACCT has developed an algorithm that incorporates the iterative nature of assay development into an evaluation process that includes developers and end users. The effective introduction of new tests into clinical practice has been hampered by a series of common problems that are best described using examples of successes and failures. The successful application of the PACCT algorithm is described in the discussion of the recent development of the OncotypeDX™ assay and plan for a prospective trial of this assay by the NCI-supported Clinical Trials Cooperative Groups. The assay uses reverse transcription (RT)-PCR evaluation of a set of 16 genes that were shown to strongly associate with the risk of recurrence of breast cancer in women who presented with early stage disease (hormone responsive, and no involvement of the auxiliary lymph nodes). The test is highly reproducible. It provides information to aid the physician and patient in making important clinical decisions, including the aggressiveness of the therapy that should be recommended. A trial is planned to test whether OncotypeDX™ can be used as a standalone trigger for specific treatment decisions. The problems that have been encountered and have delayed the development of other diagnostic tools are exemplified in the development of tests for human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2) overexpression, for predictors of response to epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, and for the detection of residual disease following chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The importance of circulating free DNA (cfDNA) in cancer clinical research was recognized in 1994 when a mutated RAS gene fragment was detected in a patient's blood sample. Up to 1% of the total circulating DNA in patients with cancer is circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) that originates from tumor cells. As ctDNA is rapidly cleared from the blood stream and can be obtained by minimally invasive methods, it can be used as a dynamic cancer biomarker for cancer early detection, diagnosis, and treatment monitoring. Despite the potential for clinical use, few ctDNA assays have been cleared or approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. As tools for clinical and translational research, current ctDNA assays face some challenges, and more research is needed to advance use of these assays. On September 29-30, 2016, the Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis at the National Cancer Institute convened a workshop entitled "Circulating Tumor DNA Assays in Clinical Cancer Research" to garner input from industry experts, academia, and government research and regulatory agencies to understand and promote the translation of ctDNA assays to clinical research, with potential to advance to use in clinical practice. This Commentary presents the topics of the workshop covered in the presentations and points made in the discussions that followed: 1) background on ctDNA, 2) potential clinical utility of ctDNA assays, 3) assay technology, 4) assay clinical and analytical validation, and 5) industry perspectives. Additional relevant information that has come to light since the workshop has been included. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]