4.6 Review

Neurooncology clinical trial design for targeted therapies: Lessons learned from the North American Brain Tumor Consortium

Journal

NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Volume 10, Issue 4, Pages 631-642

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1215/15228517-2008-021

Keywords

brain tumor; clinical trials; North American Brain Tumor Consortium; targeted therapies

Funding

  1. NCATS NIH HHS [UL1 TR000005] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCI NIH HHS [CA 62422, CA 62426, CA 62399, CA 16672, CA 62412, CA 105663-03, U01 CA062399, CA 62421, CA 62405, CA 62407-13] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NCRR NIH HHS [M01-RR00056, 1U11RR025011, M01-RR00079, M01-RR0865] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The North American Brain Tumor Consortium (NABTC) is a multi-institutional consortium with the primary objective of evaluating novel therapeutic strategies through early phase clinical trials. The NABTC has made substantial changes to the design and methodology of its trials since its inception in 1994. These changes reflect developments in technology, new types of therapies, and advances in our understanding of tumor biology and biological markers. We identify the challenges of early clinical assessment of therapeutic agents by reviewing the clinical trial effort of the NABTC and the evolution of the protocol template used to design trials. To better prioritize effort and allocation of patient resources and funding, we propose an integrated clinical trial design for the early assessment of efficacy of targeted therapies in neurooncology. This design would mandate tissue acquisition prior to therapeutic intervention with the drug, allowing prospective evaluation of its effects. It would also include a combined phase 0/I pharmacokinetic study to determine the safety and biologically optimal dose of the agent and to verify successful modulation of the target prior to initiating a larger, phase II efficacy study.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available