National Cancer Institute - NCI Division of Cancer Treatment and ...

National Cancer Institute - NCI Division of Cancer Treatment and ... National Cancer Institute - NCI Division of Cancer Treatment and ...

dctd.cancer.gov
from dctd.cancer.gov More from this publisher
25.12.2012 Views

Co-Development of Diagnostics and Therapeutics: Using Biomarkers for Personalization of Treatment During 2004, Dr. Simon published two papers that demonstrated the vast improvement in efficiency of randomized phase III trials that can be achieved from using a biomarker or genomic classifier to select patients likely to respond to the new treatment. In many cases, however, such classifiers are not available at the start of phase III trials. During 2005, Drs. Freidlin and Simon published a new phase III design that addressed this limitation. The design does not limit entry based on a biomarker but requires that tumor specimens be collected at the time of entry. At the end of the trial, outcomes for all patients on the new treatment are compared to those for all patients on the control. If the difference is significant at a level of 0.04 or better, results are taken to support approval of the new drug with a broad labeling indication. If not, then the specimens from the first half of patients randomized are used to develop a classifier of which patients appear to benefit from the new regimen. That classifier is then applied to the second half of the randomized patients, and those predicted to be sensitive to the new treatment are identified. If the outcomes for patients in that subset on the new treatment are significantly better than for the control patients in the subset and if the significance level is 0.01 or less, then the data are taken to support approval with a narrowed labeling indication for the new treatment. S C I E N T I F I C A D V A N C E S Freidlin B, Simon R. Adaptive signature design: an adaptive clinical trial design for generating and prospectively testing a gene expression signature for sensitive patients. Clin Cancer Res 2005:11;7872–8. Dr. Simon has interacted with scientists from industry and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in numerous scientific workshops and seminars to develop effective approaches to the development and evaluation of biomarker classifiers that identify patients who respond to particular therapeutics. In order to facilitate the application of this approach, Dr. Simon has established formal pharmacogenomic agreements with Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development and Centicor. Simon R. Roadmap for developing and validating therapeutically relevant genomic classifiers. J Clin Oncol 2005:23;7332–41. Simon R, Wang SJ. Use of genomic signatures in therapeutics development in oncology and other diseases. Pharmacogenomics J (In press). Trepicchio WL, Essayan D, Hall ST, Schechter G, Tezak Z, Wang SJ, Weinrich D, Simon R. Designing prospective clinical pharmacogenomic trials. Effective use of genomic biomarkers for use in clinical decision making. Pharmacogenomics J (In press). Simon R. Validation of pharmacogenomic biomarker classifiers for treatment selection. Dis Markers (In press). Simon R. A checklist for evaluating reports of expression profiling for treatment selection. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol (In press). Simon R. Guidelines for the design of clinical studies for development and validation of therapeutically relevant biomarkers and biomarker based classification systems. In: Biomarkers in Breast Cancer: Molecular Diagnostics for Predicting and Monitoring Therapeutic Effect. Hayes DF, Gasparini G, eds. Totawa, NJ: Humana Press; 2005. B I O M E T R I C R E S E A R C H B R A N C H ■ 17

Simon R. DNA microarrays for diagnostic and prognostic prediction. In: Encyclopedia of Medical Genomics & Proteomics. Fuchs J, Podda M, eds. New York: Marcel Dekker (In press). Simon R. Development and validation of therapeutically relevant multi-gene biomarker classifiers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005:97;866–7. Simon R. An agenda for clinical trials: clinical trials in the genomic era. Clin Trials 2004:1; 468–70. Methodology Development in Computational Cancer Biology and Statistical Genomics Dr. Simon, in collaboration with Dr. Ruth Pfeiffer, DCEG Biostatistics Branch, and a postdoctoral fellow, Dr. Annette Molinaro, conducted research comparing a wide range of resampling methods for estimating prediction accuracy with high dimensional data such as from DNA microarrays. The results demonstrated that leave- one-out cross-validation is superior to split-sample validation or repeated split-sample validation, in contradiction to much of current conventional wisdom. Drs. Wenyu Jiang, a current postdoctoral fellow in BRB, and Simon have continued this research in conducting a study evaluating a wide variety of bootstrap resampling methods and found that many of the claims in the biostatistical literature concerning bootstrap methods are not applicable to high dimensional data problems. They developed a new adjusted bootstrap method that appears to be superior to previously reported methods. Drs. Varma and Simon have developed a method of optimizing classifier tuning parameters using resampling methods. 18 ■ P R O G R A M A C C O M P L I S H M E N T S 2 0 0 6 ■ ■ ■ BRB staff developed a method for sample size planning of clinical studies with an objective to develop a predictor of outcome or predictor of phenotypic/genotypic class based on whole genome expression profiling. Molinaro AM, Simon R, Pfeiffer RM. Prediction error estimation: a comparison of resampling methods. Bioinformatics 2005:21;3301–7. Jiang W, Simon R. A comparison of bootstrap methods and an adjusted bootstrap for estimating prediction error in microarray analysis. Submitted for publication. Varma S, Simon R. Bias in error estimation when using cross-validation for model selection. BMC Bioinformatics (In press). Drs. Alain Dupuy, a guest researcher from France, and Simon have reviewed all publications on whole-genome expression profiling of cancers that used patient outcome. They wrote a critical review of these publications and developed guidelines for use by authors, journal reviewers, and readers. Dupuy A, Simon R. Critical review of published microarray studies for cancer outcome and guidelines on statistical analysis and reporting. Submitted for publication. Pooling is often perceived as an efficient approach for microarray studies comparing gene expression between two classes because it may decrease the number of expensive microarray hybridizations required through reduction of the biological variability. BRB’s Dr. McShane and collaborators conducted a microarray experiment using MCF-7 breast cancer cell line studied under two different experimental conditions for which the same number of independent pools as the number of individual samples was hybridized on Affymetrix GeneChips®. They showed the unexpected result that the number of probe sets found differentially expressed between treated and untreated cells when three individual samples per treatment class were hybridized on the GeneChips®

Simon R. DNA microarrays for diagnostic <strong>and</strong><br />

prognostic prediction. In: Encyclopedia <strong>of</strong><br />

Medical Genomics & Proteomics. Fuchs J, Podda<br />

M, eds. New York: Marcel Dekker (In press).<br />

Simon R. Development <strong>and</strong> validation <strong>of</strong><br />

therapeutically relevant multi-gene biomarker<br />

classifiers. J Natl <strong>Cancer</strong> Inst 2005:97;866–7.<br />

Simon R. An agenda for clinical trials: clinical<br />

trials in the genomic era. Clin Trials 2004:1;<br />

468–70.<br />

Methodology Development in<br />

Computational <strong>Cancer</strong> Biology<br />

<strong>and</strong> Statistical Genomics<br />

Dr. Simon, in collaboration with Dr. Ruth<br />

Pfeiffer, DCEG Biostatistics Branch, <strong>and</strong> a<br />

postdoctoral fellow, Dr. Annette Molinaro,<br />

conducted research comparing a wide<br />

range <strong>of</strong> resampling methods for estimating<br />

prediction accuracy with high dimensional<br />

data such as from DNA microarrays.<br />

The results demonstrated that leave-<br />

one-out cross-validation is superior<br />

to split-sample validation or repeated<br />

split-sample validation, in contradiction<br />

to much <strong>of</strong> current conventional wisdom.<br />

Drs. Wenyu Jiang, a current postdoctoral<br />

fellow in BRB, <strong>and</strong> Simon have continued<br />

this research in conducting a study<br />

evaluating a wide variety <strong>of</strong> bootstrap<br />

resampling methods <strong>and</strong> found that<br />

many <strong>of</strong> the claims in the biostatistical<br />

literature concerning bootstrap methods<br />

are not applicable to high dimensional<br />

data problems. They developed a new<br />

adjusted bootstrap method that appears<br />

to be superior to previously reported<br />

methods. Drs. Varma <strong>and</strong> Simon have<br />

developed a method <strong>of</strong> optimizing<br />

classifier tuning parameters using<br />

resampling methods.<br />

18 ■ P R O G R A M A C C O M P L I S H M E N T S 2 0 0 6<br />

■ ■ ■<br />

BRB staff developed a method for sample size planning<br />

<strong>of</strong> clinical studies with an objective to develop a predictor<br />

<strong>of</strong> outcome or predictor <strong>of</strong> phenotypic/genotypic class<br />

based on whole genome expression pr<strong>of</strong>iling.<br />

Molinaro AM, Simon R, Pfeiffer RM. Prediction<br />

error estimation: a comparison <strong>of</strong> resampling<br />

methods. Bioinformatics 2005:21;3301–7.<br />

Jiang W, Simon R. A comparison <strong>of</strong> bootstrap<br />

methods <strong>and</strong> an adjusted bootstrap for estimating<br />

prediction error in microarray analysis.<br />

Submitted for publication.<br />

Varma S, Simon R. Bias in error estimation<br />

when using cross-validation for model selection.<br />

BMC Bioinformatics (In press).<br />

Drs. Alain Dupuy, a guest researcher from<br />

France, <strong>and</strong> Simon have reviewed all publications<br />

on whole-genome expression<br />

pr<strong>of</strong>iling <strong>of</strong> cancers that used patient outcome.<br />

They wrote a critical review <strong>of</strong> these<br />

publications <strong>and</strong> developed guidelines<br />

for use by authors, journal reviewers,<br />

<strong>and</strong> readers.<br />

Dupuy A, Simon R. Critical review <strong>of</strong> published<br />

microarray studies for cancer outcome <strong>and</strong><br />

guidelines on statistical analysis <strong>and</strong> reporting.<br />

Submitted for publication.<br />

Pooling is <strong>of</strong>ten perceived as an efficient<br />

approach for microarray studies comparing<br />

gene expression between two classes<br />

because it may decrease the number<br />

<strong>of</strong> expensive microarray hybridizations<br />

required through reduction <strong>of</strong> the biological<br />

variability. BRB’s Dr. McShane <strong>and</strong><br />

collaborators conducted a microarray<br />

experiment using MCF-7 breast cancer<br />

cell line studied under two different experimental<br />

conditions for which the same<br />

number <strong>of</strong> independent pools as the number<br />

<strong>of</strong> individual samples was hybridized<br />

on Affymetrix GeneChips®. They showed<br />

the unexpected result that the number <strong>of</strong><br />

probe sets found differentially expressed<br />

between treated <strong>and</strong> untreated cells when<br />

three individual samples per treatment<br />

class were hybridized on the GeneChips®

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!