Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T10:53:24.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Developing translational research infrastructure and capabilities associated with cancer clinical trials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

Jacqueline A Hall*
Affiliation:
Associate Head of Translational Research, Imaging and Radiotherapy Department, EORTC Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium
Robert Brown
Affiliation:
Chair in Translational Oncology, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
*
*Corresponding author: Jacqueline A Hall, Associate Head of Translational Research, Imaging and Radiotherapy Department, EORTC Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

The integration of molecular information in clinical decision making is becoming a reality. These changes are shaping the way clinical research is conducted, and as reality sets in, the challenges in conducting, managing and organising multi-disciplinary research become apparent. Clinical trials provide a platform to conduct translational research (TR) within the context of high quality clinical data accrual. Integrating TR objectives in trials allows the execution of pivotal studies that provide clinical evidence for biomarker-driven treatment strategies, targeting early drug development trials to a homogeneous and well defined patient population, supports the development of companion diagnostics and provides an opportunity for deepening our understanding of cancer biology and mechanisms of drug action. To achieve these goals within a clinical trial, developing translational research infrastructure and capabilities (TRIC) plays a critical catalytic role for translating preclinical data into successful clinical research and development. TRIC represents a technical platform, dedicated resources and access to expertise promoting high quality standards, logistical and operational support and unified streamlined procedures under an appropriate governance framework. TRIC promotes integration of multiple disciplines including biobanking, laboratory analysis, molecular data, informatics, statistical analysis and dissemination of results which are all required for successful TR projects and scientific progress. Such a supporting infrastructure is absolutely essential in order to promote high quality robust research, avoid duplication and coordinate resources. Lack of such infrastructure, we would argue, is one reason for the limited effect of TR in clinical practice beyond clinical trials.

Type
Review Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Auffray, C., Chen, Z. and Hood, L. (2009) Systems medicine: the future of medical genomics and healthcare. Genome Medicine 1, 2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Hood, L. and Friend, S.H. (2011) Predictive, personalized, preventive, participatory (P4) cancer medicine. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 8, 184-187CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Mirnezami, R., Nicholson, J. and Darzi, A. (2012) Preparing for precision medicine. New England Journal of Medicine 366, 489-491CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Swanton, C. and Caldas, C. (2010) From genomic landscapes to personalized cancer management-is there a roadmap? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1210, 34-44CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Yap, A.T. and Workman, P. (2013) Exploiting the Cancer Genome: strategies for the discovery and clinical development of targeted molecular therapeutics. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology 2012, 549-573Google Scholar
6Barker, A.D. et al. (2009) I-SPY 2: an adaptive breast cancer trial design in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 86, 97-100CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Kim, E.S. et al. (2012) The BATTLE trial: personalizing therapy for lung cancer. Cancer Discovery 1, 44-53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Shaw, E. et al. (2012) Emerging results from the Cancer Research UK Stratified Medicine Programme. Presented at the ASCO Annual Meeting (1-5 June, 2012, Chicago, IL), Journal of Clinical Oncology 30, 2012 (suppl; abstr TPS10633), http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/99103-114Google Scholar
9Lacombe, D. and Piccart, M. (2010) 16 Molecular driven clinical trials: the EORTC Network of Core Institutions (NOCI) perspectives. European Journal of Cancer Supplements 8, 15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Laurinavicius, A. et al. (2011) Digital image analysis in pathology: benefits and obligation. Analytical Cellular Pathology (Amsterdam) 35, 75-78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Nelson, D., Ziv, A. and Bandali, K.S. (2012) Going glass to digital: virtual microscopy as a simulation-based revolution in pathology and laboratory science. Journal of Clinical Pathology 65, 877-881CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Willmann, J.K. et al. (2008) Molecular imaging in drug development. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 7, 591-607CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Clotworthy, M. (2012) The application of human tissue for drug discovery and development. Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery 7, 543-547CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Amado, R.G. et al. (2008) Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 26, 1626-1634CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Pinhel, I.F. et al. (2010) Extreme loss of immunoreactive p-Akt and p-Erk1/2 during routine fixation of primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research 12, R76CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Vaught, J. and Lockhart, N.C. (2012) The evolution of biobanking best practices. Clinica Chimica Acta 413, 1569-1575CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Bevilacqua, G. et al. (2010) The role of the pathologist in tissue banking: European Consensus Expert Group Report. Virchows Archiv 456, 449-454CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Caboux, E., Plymoth, A. and Hainaut, P. (2007) International Network of Biological Resource Centres for Cancer Research: Recommendations on Common minimal Technical Standards. IARC/WHO, Lyon. (Ref Type: Online Source)Google Scholar
19Mager, S.R. et al. (2007) Standard operating procedure for the collection of fresh frozen tissue samples. European Journal of Cancer 43, 828-34CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Betsou, F. et al. (2012) Identification of evidence-based biospecimen quality-control tools: a report of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories (ISBER) biospecimen science working group. Journal of Molecular Diagnostics 15, 3-16CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Norlin, L. et al. (2012) A Minimum Data Set for Sharing Biobank Samples, Information, and Data: MIABIS. Biopreservation and Biobanking 10, 343-48CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22ISBER (2013) ISBER Self Assessment Tool. 26-2-2013. (Ref Type: Online Source)Google Scholar
23Barrett, T. et al. (2011) BioProject and BioSample databases at NCBI: facilitating capture and organization of metadata. Nucleic Acids Research 40(Database issue), 53-63Google ScholarPubMed
24Gostev, M. et al. (2011) The BioSample Database (BioSD) at the European Bioinformatics Institute. Nucleic Acids Research 40(Database issue), 64-70CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25Voegele, C. et al. (2010) A sample storage management system for biobanks. Bioinformatics 26, 2798-800CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26Tan, W. et al. (2010) CaGrid Workflow Toolkit: a Taverna based workflow tool for cancer grid. BMC Bioinformatics 11, 542CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Hall, J.A. et al. (2011) Integrating collection of biospecimens in clinical trials: the approach of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Biopreservation and Biobanking 9, 181-186CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Moore, H.M. et al. (2012) Biospecimen reporting for improved study quality (BRISQ). Cancer Cytopathology 119, 92-101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29Schilsky, R.L. et al. (2012) Development and use of integral assays in clinical trials. Clinical Cancer Research 18, 1540-1546CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30Schmitt, M. et al. (2004) Identification, validation, and clinical implementation of tumor-associated biomarkers to improve therapy concepts, survival, and quality of life of cancer patients: tasks of the Receptor and Biomarker Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. International Journal of Oncology 25, 1397-1406Google ScholarPubMed
31Cummings, J. et al. (2010) Fit-for-purpose biomarker method validation for application in clinical trials of anticancer drugs. British Journal of Cancer 103, 1313-1317CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32Cancer Reserach UK (2013) Cancer Reserach UK, Biomarkers, imaging definitions. 26-2-2013. (Ref Type: Online Source)Google Scholar
33NCI (2013) NCI Assay standards. 26-2-2013. (Ref Type: Online Source)Google Scholar
34BIQSFP (2013) BIQSFP Biomarker Imaging Study Checklist. (Ref Type: Online Source)Google Scholar
35NCI (2013) Clinical Assay Development Program. 3-5-0013. (Ref Type: Online Source)Google Scholar
36Perez, E.A. et al. (2006) HER2 testing by local, central, and reference laboratories in specimens from the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N9831 intergroup adjuvant trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology 24, 3032-3038CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37Roche, P.C. et al. (2002) Concordance between local and central laboratory HER2 testing in the breast intergroup trial N9831. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 94, 855-857CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38EMA (2012) Reflection Paper for Laboratories that Perform the Analysis or Evaluation of Clinical Trial Samples. GCP Inspectors Working Group, editor. European Medicines Agency. (Ref Type: Online Source)Google Scholar
39NCRI (2013). www.ncri.org.uk/ccb/bestpractice.html. (Ref Type: Online Source)Google Scholar
40Carter, A., Betsou, F. and Clark, B.J. (2011) Quality management and accreditation of research tissue banks. Virchows Archiv 458, 247-248CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41Carter, A. and Betsou, F. (2011) Quality assurance in cancer biobanking. Biopreservation and Biobanking 9, 157-163CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42Ringborg, U. et al. (2008) Managing cancer in the EU: the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI). European Journal of Cancer 44, 772-773CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43Bogaerts, J. et al. (2006) Gene signature evaluation as a prognostic tool: challenges in the design of the MINDACT trial. Nature Clinical Practice Oncology 3, 540-551CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44McShane, L.M. et al. (2005) Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). Journal of the National Cancer Institute 97, 416-422Google ScholarPubMed
45Teschendorff, A.E., Zhuang, J. and Widschwendter, M. (2011) Independent surrogate variable analysis to deconvolve confounding factors in large-scale microarray profiling studies. Bioinformatics 27, 1496-1505CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46McShane, L.M. et al. (2012) Criteria for use of omics-based predictors in NCI-sponsored clinical trials. Presented at the Markers in Cancer meeting (11-13 October, 2012, Hollywood, FL), Journal of Clinical Oncology 30, 2012 (suppl 30; abstr 58), http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/103634-127.Google Scholar
47Baggerly, K.A. and Coombes, K.R. (2011) What information should be required to support clinical -omics publications? Clinical Chemistry 57, 688-690CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48Horswell, S., Matthews, N. and Swanton, C. (2012) Cancer heterogeneity and “The Struggle for Existence”: diagnostic and analytical challenges. Cancer Letters 12, S0304-S3835Google Scholar
49Simon, R.M., Paik, S. and Hayes, D.F. (2009) Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 101, 1446-52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
50Leisch, F. (2002) Sweave: Dynamic Generation of Statistical Reports using Literate Data Analysis. Physika Verlag, Heidelberg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
51Ruttenberg, A. et al. (2007) Advancing translational research with the Semantic Web. BMC Bioinformatics 8 (Suppl 3), S2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
52Schadt, E.E. et al. (2010) Computational solutions to large-scale data management and analysis. Nature Reviews Genetics 11, 647-57CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
53Miriovsky, B.J., Shulman, L.N. and Abernethy, A.P. (2012) Importance of health information technology, electronic health records, and continuously aggregating data to comparative effectiveness research and learning health care. Journal of Clinical Oncology 30, 4243-4248CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
54Almeida, J.S. et al. (2006) Data integration gets ‘Sloppy’. Nature Biotechnology 24, 1070-1071CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
55Yassin, R. et al. (2010) Custodianship as an ethical framework for biospecimen-based research. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention 19, 1012-1015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
56Kaye, J. (2006) Do we need a uniform regulatory system for biobanks across Europe? European Journal of Human Genetics 14, 245-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
57Zika, E. et al. (2008) Sample, data use and protection in biobanking in Europe: legal issues. Pharmacogenomics 9, 773-81CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
58Kaye, J. (2012) The tension between data sharing and the protection of privacy in genomics research. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 13, 415-31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
59Wolfson, M. et al. (2010) DataSHIELD: resolving a conflict in contemporary bioscience–performing a pooled analysis of individual-level data without sharing the data. International Journal of Epidemiology 39, 1372-82CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
60Kaye, J. (2011) From single biobanks to international networks: developing e-governance. Human Genetics 130, 377-82CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
61Dilts, D.M., Rosenblum, D. and Trochim, W.M. (2012) A virtual national laboratory for reengineering clinical translational science. Science Translational Medicine 4, 118CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
62Vaught, J. et al. (2011) Biobankonomics: developing a sustainable business model approach for the formation of a human tissue biobank. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs 42, 24-31Google Scholar
63Waligora, M. (2012) A European consistency for functioning of RECs? We just lost our chance. Journal of Medica Ethics 39, 408-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
64Andre, F. et al. (2011) Biomarker studies: a call for a comprehensive biomarker study registry. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 8, 171-176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
65Wicks, P. et al. (2010) Sharing health data for better outcomes on PatientsLikeMe. Journal of Medical Internet Research 12, e19CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
66Willke, R.J., Burke, L.B., Erickson, P. (2004) Measuring treatment impact: a review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved product labels. Controlled Clinical Trials 25, 535-52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
67Norman, T. et al. (2011) The precompetitive space: time to move the yardsticks. Science Translational Medicine 3, 76cm10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
68Eck, S.L. and Paul, S.M. (2009) Biomarker qualification via public-private partnerships. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 87, 21-23CrossRefGoogle Scholar