No. | Assessment criteria |
---|---|
General criteria | |
1. | Sound scientific rationale, including a robust biological hypothesis that supports the need to assess in the disease setting |
2. | Preliminary evidence to support mechanisms of action or activity or, for combinations, synergy in the disease setting being investigated |
3. | Therapy is as different as possible from other therapies in the trial (past, present and future) |
4. | Clear path for the trial results to translate into improved clinical care or impact on public health |
5. | Investigator enthusiasm for the new research arm and ability to recruit patient population |
6. | Sufficient number of sites could be reasonably expected to meet the requirements to participate |
7. | Successful independent peer review as for a new study |
8. | If appropriate, relevant industry partners willing to collaborate and contribute to the trial, if the research comparison involves a pharmaceutical agent |
9. | Financial sustainability: funding identified and secured to ensure central TMT support in place to support new comparison |
10. | Future relevance: The results must still be relevant when the trial matures. Other trials are not already under way for this treatment or will not report sooner unless duplication, replication and/or more data are strongly required |
11. | Recruitment to new comparison must not jeopardise completion of the ongoing research comparisons |
12. | No implications for ongoing and future planned comparisons (e.g. overlapping populations of interest, impact on accrual) |
Biomarker-specific criteria | |
13. | Preliminary evidence to support the claim that a particular class of drug or specific agent has mechanisms of action or clinical activity that identifies it as a candidate within the biomarker defined subgroup. Acceptable data include: • evidence that targeting the driver pathway in the biomarker defined subgroup results in preclinical and or clinical evidence of activity; • strong epidemiological evidence of a link between an agent and a biomarker defined subgroup; • preclinical data to support a synthetic lethal interaction between a biomarker defined subgroup and an agent; • clinical data from a different disease setting for drug activity in a defined biomarker subgroup |
14. | Biomarker assay characteristics: Technical ability to test for the biomarker, reproducibly with establishment of an SOP for assessment of the biomarker, with clear positive and negative controls and a quality assurance programme established between the biomarker laboratories |
15. | Biomarker operating characteristics: Prevalence of biomarker likely to be sufficient to define an achievable population |
16. | Prognostic and predictive effects are sufficiently well understood |