Carcinogenicity assessments of biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals: a review of approved molecules and best practice recommendations.

An important safety consideration for developing new therapeutics is assessing the potential that the therapy will increase the risk of cancer. For biotherapeutics, traditional two-year rodent bioassays are often not scientifically applicable or feasible. This paper is a collaborative effort of industry toxicologists to review past and current practice regarding carcinogenicity assessments of biotherapeutics and to provide recommendations. Publicly available information on eighty marketed protein biotherapeutics was reviewed. In this review, no assessments related to carcinogenicity or tumor growth promotion were identified for fifty-one of the eighty molecules. For the twenty-nine biotherapeutics in which assessments related to carcinogenicity were identified, various experimental approaches were employed. This review also discusses several key principles to aid in the assessment of carcinogenic potential, including (1) careful consideration of mechanism of action to identify theoretical risks, (2) careful investigation of existing data for indications of proliferative or immunosuppressive potential, and (3) characterization of any proliferative or immunosuppressive signals detected. Traditional two-year carcinogenicity assays should not be considered as the default method for assessing the carcinogenicity potential of biotherapeutics. If experimentation is considered warranted, it should be hypothesis driven and may include a variety of experimental models. Ultimately, it is important that preclinical data provide useful guidance in product labeling.

Safety assessment of biopharmaceuticals: Japanese perspective on ICH S6 guideline maintenance.

Safety assessment of biopharmaceuticals in preclinical studies is guided by the ICH S6 guideline issued in 1997. Along with enormous experiences and knowledge on safety assessment of some classes of biopharmaceuticals over the last decade, the necessity and feasibility of updating the guideline has been discussed. According to a recommendation by safety experts at the ICH meeting in Chicago in 2006, regional discussions of ICH S6 were held in the USA, EU and Japan. The meeting to clarify the values, challenges and recommendations for ICH S6 from Japanese perspective was held as a part of the first Drug Evaluation Forum in Tokyo on August 10, 2007. Of utmost importance, the "case-by-case" approach must be preserved as the basic principle of the ICH S6 guideline. It is our opinion that oligonucleotides, siRNA, aptamers and related molecules should be excluded from ICH S6 and may be more appropriate for separate guidance. However, based on experiences and accumulated knowledge, there are a number of issues that can be updated including new types of biopharmaceuticals such as bioconjugates, use of homologous proteins and transgenic animals, reproductive/developmental toxicity studies in non-human primates, in vitro cardiac ion channel assay and alternative approaches for carcinogenicity assessment. Preliminary recommendations for some of these topics were outlined at the meeting. The overall Japanese recommendation is that the ICH S6 guideline should be updated to address these topics.