Abstract
The treatment of cancer, including Head and Neck, often requires powerful medication which needs to undergo a rigorous development and evaluation process. This complex interaction between basic scientists, clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry is largely overseen by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA must regulate the medications approved in the United States for the safety and benefit of the patient. Therefore, a comprehensive and detailed approval process has been developed over the last several decades that attempts to assure proper drug evaluation without undue delay in approval of these vital products. The elaborate process begins with preclinical trials where investigational medications are tested in animals to assess whether there is predicted benefit and safety in humans. When the medication is deemed safe enough to evaluate in humans a lengthy process of three phases of clinical trials begins. Each clinical trial phase has specific goals and requirements allowing progression of the drug towards approval. When it comes to testing and utilizing these medications for head and neck cancer patients there are several important ethical issues to consider. These issues include that these medications are usually only tested in patients who have tried and failed already approved treatment regimens, placebos should not be used in this patient population because it is not ethical to give these sick patients no treatment at all and patients that cannot participate in the clinical trial due to the very specific requirements of many trials may be able to access the investigational medication through a protocol process. Investigators in head and neck clinical trials are responsible for looking out for the needs of these very ill patients. It is a delicate balance to maintain proper clinical care and still conduct trials to search for better drug treatment regimens. An investigational review board is used to review and oversee clinical trials to make sure the trials are being completed properly and in the best interest of the patients. In instances where the trials show positive results, the developers of the drug will seek FDA approval to be marketed for specific clinical uses. This entire approval process is followed by surveillance of the drug even after it has reached the clinical use market. Although the FDA is charged with the task of careful consideration of all new potential cancer drugs there is some controversy as to whether this process actually slows clinical use of certain drugs in the United States. Whether a clinician is considering using a new cancer drug or an investigator is looking for the next hopefully better drug, knowledge of the FDA process of trials and drug development is vital to understand.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Abbreviations
- BLA:
-
Biologic License Application
- DMF:
-
Drug Master File
- EMA:
-
European Medicines Agency
- FDA:
-
Food and Drug Administration
- ICH:
-
International Conference of Harmonisation
- IND:
-
Investigational New Drug Application
- IRB:
-
Institutional Review Board
- NDA:
-
New Drug Application
References
Rivera SM, Gilman AG (2011) Drug invention and the pharmaceutical industry (chapter 1). In: Rivera SM, Gilman AG (eds) Goodman & Gilman’s the pharmacological basis of therapeutics, 12th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York
Grilley B (2012) Investigational drugs (chapter 17). In: Malone PM, Kier KL, Stanovich JE (eds) Drug information: a guide for pharmacists, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York
United States Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Investigational new drug application. Section 312.8: Charging for investigational drugs under an IND; Revised 4 April 2011
Abraham J (2004) Pharmaceuticals, the state and global harmonization process. Aust Health Rev 28:150–160
European Medicines Agency and Food and Drug Administration Parallel Scientific Advice Meetings. Pilot Program, pp 1–3, 17 Sept 2004
Moore SW (2003) An overview of drug development in the United States and current challenges. South Med J 96:1244–1255
Sheppard GS, Bouska JJ (2005) Why optimize cancer drugs for ADMET? Drug Discov Today 2:343–349
Hodgson J (2001) ADMET – turning chemicals into drugs. Nat Biotechnol 19:722–726
United States Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Investigational new drug application. Section 312.2: Applicability; Revised 4 April 2011
United States Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Applications for FDA approval to market a new drug. Section 314.50: Content and format of applications; Revised 4 April 2011
United States Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) (1989) Drug master files: guidelines. Office of Drug Evaluation, Washington, DC, September 1989
Katzung BG, Trevor AJ, Masters SB (2010) Drug evaluation & regulation (chapter 5). In: Katzung BG, Trevor AJ, Masters SB (eds) Pharmacology: examination & board review, 9th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York
United States Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Licensing. Section 601.2: Applications for biologics licenses; procedures for filing; Revised 4 April 2011
United States Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Investigational device exemptions. Section 812.35: Supplemental applications; Revised 4 April 2011
Hamburg MA (2010) Innovation, regulation and the FDA. N Engl J Med 363:2228–2232
United States Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologic Evaluation and Research (CBER) (2007) Guidance for industry: clinical trial endpoints for the approval of cancer drugs and biologics. Office of Training and Communications, Washington, DC
Johnson JR, Williams G, Pazdur R (2003) End points and United States Food and Drug Administration approval of oncology drugs. J Clin Oncol 21:1404–1411
Jayson G, Harris J (2006) How participants in cancer trials are chosen: ethics and conflicting interests. Nat Rev Cancer 6:330–336
Daugherty CK, Ratain MJ, Emanuel EJ et al (2008) Ethical, scientific and regulatory perspectives regarding the use of placebos in cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 26:1371–1378
Henderson GE (2011) Is informed consent broken? Am J Med Sci 342:267–272
Lidz CW (2011) Informed consent: a critical part of modern medical research. Am J Med Sci 342:273–275
Kodish E, Lantos JD, Siegler M (1990) Ethical considerations in randomized controlled clinical trials. Cancer 65:2400–2404
Hirschfeld S, Pazdur R (2002) Oncology drug development: United States Food and Drug Administration perspective. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 42:137–143
United States Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Investigational new drug application. Section 312.62: Investigator recording and record retention; Revised 1 April 2011
Davidoff F, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM et al (2001) Sponsorship, authorship and accountability. Lancet 358:854–856
United States Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Institutional Review Board. Section 56.107: IRB membership; Revised 1 April 2011
Pech C, Cob N, Cejka JT (2007) Understanding institutional review boards: practical guidance to the IRB review process. Nutr Clin Pract 22:618–628
The Wall Street Journal (2011) The FDA and slower cures. 28 Feb
Zakaria F (2011) Finding a strategy for growth. Washington Post. 4 Jan
Gottlieb S (2010) The FDA is evading the law. Wall Street Journal. 23 Dec
Roberts SA, Allen JD, Sigal EV (2011) Despite criticism of the FDA review process, new cancer drugs reach patients sooner in the United States than in Europe. Health Aff 30:1375–1381
Stafford RS (2008) Regulating off-label drug use – rethinking the role of the FDA. N Engl J Med 358:1427–1429
Olsen RJ, Lydlatt WM, Koepsell SA et al (2005) C-erb-B2 (HER2/neu) expression in synovial sarcoma of the head and neck. Head Neck 27:883–892
Chen DT, Wynia MK, Moloney RM et al (2009) US physician knowledge of FDA-approved indications and evidence base for commonly prescribed drugs: results of a national survey. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 18:1094–1100
Bonnet S, Archer SL, Allalunis-Turner J et al (2007) A mitochondria-K+ channel axis is suppressed in cancer and its normalization promotes apoptosis and inhibits cancer growth. Cancer Cell 11:37–51
Pearson H (2007) Cancer patients opt for unapproved drug. Nature 446:474–475
Stacpoole PW, Henderson GN, Yan Z et al (1998) Clinical pharmacology and toxicology of dichloroacetate. Environ Health Perspect 106:989–994
Michelakis ED, Sutendra G, Dromparis P et al (2010) Metabolic modulation of glioblastoma with dichloroacetate. Sci Transl Med 2:31–34
Papandreou I, Goliasova T, Denko NC (2011) Anticancer drugs that target metabolism: is dichloroacetate the new paradigm? Int J Cancer 128:1001–1008
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Platt, E.A. (2013). Cancer Drugs, Clinical Trials, and Regulatory Agencies. In: Radosevich, J. (eds) Head & Neck Cancer: Current Perspectives, Advances, and Challenges. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5827-8_27
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5827-8_27
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5826-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5827-8
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)