Skip to main content

Cancer Drugs, Clinical Trials, and Regulatory Agencies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 2937 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

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

  1. 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

    Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    Google Scholar 

  4. Abraham J (2004) Pharmaceuticals, the state and global harmonization process. Aust Health Rev 28:150–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. European Medicines Agency and Food and Drug Administration Parallel Scientific Advice Meetings. Pilot Program, pp 1–3, 17 Sept 2004

    Google Scholar 

  6. Moore SW (2003) An overview of drug development in the United States and current challenges. South Med J 96:1244–1255

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sheppard GS, Bouska JJ (2005) Why optimize cancer drugs for ADMET? Drug Discov Today 2:343–349

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hodgson J (2001) ADMET – turning chemicals into drugs. Nat Biotechnol 19:722–726

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Investigational new drug application. Section 312.2: Applicability; Revised 4 April 2011

    Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Google Scholar 

  14. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Investigational device exemptions. Section 812.35: Supplemental applications; Revised 4 April 2011

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hamburg MA (2010) Innovation, regulation and the FDA. N Engl J Med 363:2228–2232

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 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

    Google Scholar 

  17. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jayson G, Harris J (2006) How participants in cancer trials are chosen: ethics and conflicting interests. Nat Rev Cancer 6:330–336

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Henderson GE (2011) Is informed consent broken? Am J Med Sci 342:267–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lidz CW (2011) Informed consent: a critical part of modern medical research. Am J Med Sci 342:273–275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kodish E, Lantos JD, Siegler M (1990) Ethical considerations in randomized controlled clinical trials. Cancer 65:2400–2404

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hirschfeld S, Pazdur R (2002) Oncology drug development: United States Food and Drug Administration perspective. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 42:137–143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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

    Google Scholar 

  25. Davidoff F, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM et al (2001) Sponsorship, authorship and accountability. Lancet 358:854–856

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Institutional Review Board. Section 56.107: IRB membership; Revised 1 April 2011

    Google Scholar 

  27. Pech C, Cob N, Cejka JT (2007) Understanding institutional review boards: practical guidance to the IRB review process. Nutr Clin Pract 22:618–628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. The Wall Street Journal (2011) The FDA and slower cures. 28 Feb

    Google Scholar 

  29. Zakaria F (2011) Finding a strategy for growth. Washington Post. 4 Jan

    Google Scholar 

  30. Gottlieb S (2010) The FDA is evading the law. Wall Street Journal. 23 Dec

    Google Scholar 

  31. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Stafford RS (2008) Regulating off-label drug use – rethinking the role of the FDA. N Engl J Med 358:1427–1429

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Pearson H (2007) Cancer patients opt for unapproved drug. Nature 446:474–475

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Stacpoole PW, Henderson GN, Yan Z et al (1998) Clinical pharmacology and toxicology of dichloroacetate. Environ Health Perspect 106:989–994

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Michelakis ED, Sutendra G, Dromparis P et al (2010) Metabolic modulation of glioblastoma with dichloroacetate. Sci Transl Med 2:31–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Papandreou I, Goliasova T, Denko NC (2011) Anticancer drugs that target metabolism: is dichloroacetate the new paradigm? Int J Cancer 128:1001–1008

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emma A. Platt .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics