Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research

@article{Begley2012DrugDR,
  title={Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research},
  author={C. Glenn Begley and Lee M. Ellis},
  journal={Nature},
  year={2012},
  volume={483},
  pages={531-533}
}
C. Glenn Begley and Lee M. Ellis propose how methods, publications and incentives must change if patients are to benefit. 

Drug therapy: Preclinical oncology — reporting transparency needed

A meta-analysis of preclinical experiments that examined the efficacy of sunitinib demonstrates how suboptimal preclinical study designs can prompt unwarranted clinical expectations.

Correction: A standardised framework to identify optimal animal models for efficacy assessment in drug development

This research presents a novel probabilistic procedure that allows for direct measurement of the response of the immune system to earthquake-triggered landsliding.

In search of preclinical robustness

Systematic engagement of statisticians in preclinical research could help address the weaknesses that are undermining the likelihood of subsequent success in drug discovery and development.

Limits to Personalized Cancer Medicine.

The authors argue that the principles of clinical investigation need to be applied to address the many unanswered questions in personalized oncology.

Preclinical research: Make mouse studies work.

More investment to characterize animal models can boost the ability of preclinical work to predict drug effects in humans, says Steve Perrin.

Misleading mouse studies waste medical resources

Retrospective of more than 100 failed drugs show many should have never made it to clinical trials.

Lost in the citation valley

Changing the academic reward system to improve translational medicine should start by moving away from a myopic focus on publications.

Irreproducible biology research costs put at $28 billion per year

A study calculates cost of flawed biomedical research in the United States and concludes that the cost of such research should be at least twice as high as it is today.

Novel Targets and Their Assessment for Cancer Treatment

As drug discovery in this field accelerates, the field must focus on human-based biology and build out the appropriate set of tools in order to assess new targets and to predict efficacy in the clinic.
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 10 REFERENCES

Drug development and clinical trials—the path to an approved cancer drug

This Review highlights new approaches in preclinical and clinical drug development that will help accelerate approval of drugs, and aim to provide more-effective treatments alongside companion diagnostic tests to ensure the right treatment is given to the right patient.

Raising the bar for cancer therapy models

The authors find close, if not compelling, correlations between the clinical trial outcomes and the corresponding GEMM therapy results in most, though not all, of their models using the same or very similar treatment regimens.

High drug attrition rates—where are we going wrong?

The reasons for this high attrition rate are complex; however, several articles in this issue provide insights into why this is occurring and the importance of identifying and validating the target and understanding resistance mechanisms.

Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?

1. This indicates the limitations of the predictivity of disease models and also that the validity of the targets being investigated is frequently questionable, which is a crucial issue to address if

Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data

The hypothesis that competitive academic environments increase not only scientists' productivity but also their bias is verified, which might be observed in other countries where academic competition and pressures to publish are high.

Nature Rev. Drug Discov

  • Nature Rev. Drug Discov
  • 2011

Nature Rev. Clin. Oncol

  • Nature Rev. Clin. Oncol
  • 2011

Nature Rev. Clin. Oncol

  • Nature Rev. Clin. Oncol
  • 2012

Nature Biotechnol

  • Nature Biotechnol
  • 2010

PLoS ONE

  • PLoS ONE
  • 2010