The decision to incorporate the specific evaluation of a candidate companion diagnostic (CDx) in a clinical development plan (CDP) is often difficult and is exacerbated by the lack of relevant decision tools. In this article, we discuss a novel method to assess the probability of technical success (PTS) of a CDP that adequately evaluates a CDx compared with a CDP that doesn’t. We propose splitting the PTS into subjective (biological uncertainty) and quantitative (clinical uncertainty) components, assessing each separately, and then combining them in a decision theoretical manner to obtain an overall success probability of a CDP with and without a CDx.
WoodcockJ. The prospects for “personalized medicine” in drug development and drug therapy. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007;81:164–169.
2.
SchilskyRL. Personalized medicine in oncology: the future is now. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9:363–366.
3.
FineBMAmlerL. Predictive biomarkers in the development of oncology drugs: a therapeutic industry perspective. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009;85:535–538.
4.
SlamonDJLeyland-JonesBShakS. Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:783–792.
5.
FlahertyKTPuzanovIKimKB. Inhibition of mutated, activated BRAF in metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:809–819.
6.
Bode-GreuelKMGreuelJM. Determining the value of drug development candidates and technology platforms. J Commer Biotechnol. 2005;11:155–170.
7.
StevenSE. Focused portfolio measures to support decision making throughout the pipeline. Drug Inf J. 2002;36:623–630.
8.
RosatiN. Decision analysis and drug development portfolio management: uncovering the real options value of your projects. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2002;2:179–187.
9.
KaiserLHelterbrandJBarronH. Accounting for interim analyses in the assessment of program expected net present value. Drug Inf J. 2008;42:597–606.
10.
RothMKeelingPSmartD. Driving personalized medicine: capturing maximum net present value and optimal return on investment. Per Med. 2010;7:103–114.
11.
KynnM. The “heuristics and biases” bias in expert elicitation. J R Stat Soc Ser A. 2008;171:239–264.
12.
KolaILandisJ. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates?Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2004;3:711–715.
13.
DiMasiJAGrabowskiHG. Economics of new oncology drug development. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:209–216.
14.
TrusheimMRBerndtERDouglasFL. Stratified medicine: strategic and economic implications of combining drugs and clinical biomarkers. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2007;6:287–293.
15.
KochGG. Discussion of “p-value adjustments for subgroup analyses.”J Biopharm Stat. 1997;7:323–331.
16.
LanKKGDeMetsDL. Discrete sequential boundaries for clinical trials. Biometrika. 1983;70:659–663.
RifaiNGilletteMACarrSA. Protein biomarker discovery and validation: the long and uncertain path to clinical utility. Nat Biotechnol. 2006;24:971–983.
19.
PhillipsKAVan BebberSIssaAM. Diagnostics and biomarker development: priming the pipeline. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2006;5:463–469.
20.
JonesCLHolmgrenE. An adaptive Simon two-stage design for phase 2 studies of targeted therapies. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007:28;654–661.
21.
BrannathWZuberEBransonM. Confirmatory adaptive designs with Bayesian decision tools for a targeted therapy in oncology. Stat Med. 2009;28:1445–1463.
22.
SchoenfeldD. The asymptotic properties of nonparametric tests for comparing survival distributions. Biometrika. 1981;68:316–319.
23.
ReboussinDMDeMetsDLKimKMLanKKG. Programs for computing group sequential boundaries using the Lan-DeMets method, Version 2. http://www.biostat.wisc.edu/landemets/simple.html. Accessed February 14, 2012.
24.
SchmoorCSchumacherM. Effects of covariate omission and categorization when analysing randomized trials with the Cox model. Stat Med. 1997:16:225–237.
