1 / 12

Diagnostic Assays to Plan Specific Drug Treatment

Diagnostic Assays to Plan Specific Drug Treatment. Elizabeth Hammond MD. Criteria for Development of Diagnostic assays. Defined assay characteristics for total test Standardized procedures for assay, reference materials and training plan to assure initial and ongoing competence

yale
Download Presentation

Diagnostic Assays to Plan Specific Drug Treatment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Diagnostic Assays to Plan Specific Drug Treatment Elizabeth Hammond MD

  2. Criteria for Development of Diagnostic assays • Defined assay characteristics for total test • Standardized procedures for assay, reference materials and training plan to assure initial and ongoing competence • Acceptable interlaboratory variability evaluated in standard manner, possibly using TMA’s • Plan for new laboratory validation • Plan for ongoing laboratory competence assessment

  3. Assay Characteristics • Specimen adequacy: definition of unacceptable samples • Specimen handling: time from surgery to processing, time in fixative, temperature • Standardized Reference Materials • Assay conditions: precise, clearly reported • Interpretation and reporting criteria: precise, including how reference material is used in the evaluation and acceptable limits of interobserver variation

  4. FISH amplified 2000: 35 participants 35/35 = amplified 2001: 63 participants 58/63= amplified (others= no response) FISH non amplified 2000: 35 participants 35/35= non amplified 2001: 63 participants 49/63= non amplified (others= no response) CAP FISH Survey Results CAP CYH survey results, 2000-2001

  5. FISH amplified case 357 participants IHC scores: 0 19 (3.7%) 1+ 4 2 + 52 3 + 296 FISH unamplified case 380 participants IHC scores: 0 275 1+ 69 2+ 27 (7%) 3+ 10 (3%) CAP IHC (MK) Survey Source: 2000 CYH 01, 02 and MK Surveys, CAP

  6. CAP MK B Survey Image Scoring Score not provided for all images by all participants

  7. FISH vs IHC • Specimen handling, adequacy not specified for either assay type; DNA less affected than protein • FISH for Her2 has internal standard (Chr 17) • Standard procedures and training are mandatory for laboratories performing FISH, but not required for all IHC assays • Interpretation criteria are quantitative and clearly specified for FISH, ambiguous for IHC

  8. Conclusions Use of central laboratory during pivotal trial is necessary if there is not assay method standardization, standardized reference materials and training plans for assay and interpretation Interlaboratory comparison of assay and interpretation criteria should be conducted concurrently with pivotal trial Validated assay with standardized reference materials, training plan, and interpretation criteria is required prior to Phase III trial

  9. Treatment Guidelines for Patients with Negative Assay Results • Assay should not be used to assign treatment if: • Relationship between analyte and drug efficacy is unclear • Interpretation guidelines of assay do not clearly specify cut point of positive and negative • Assay method is non validated • Standardized reference materials are not available

  10. Package Insert Information • Specific information about specimen adequacy and handling parameters • Assay performance characteristics with assay comparisons, where appropriate • Assay interpretation guidelines • Acceptable methods of assay validation in a lab • Acceptable levels of interlaboratory variability • Requirement of laboratory participation in ongoing competency assessment

  11. Assay Utility Assessment • Phase III clinical trials should be used to assess assay utility • Tissue banking on such trials should be mandatory so that new assays can be validated on the same specimens • TMAs can be created to promote new assay utility assessment while optimizing tissue bank specimen use.

  12. TMA Concordance with Slides RTOG Study, presented USCAP, 2001; N= 150 tumors

More Related