搜索结果：investigational

Nanomedicine is a relatively new and rapidly evolving field combining nanotechnology with the biomedical and pharmaceutical sciences.1-3 Nanoparticles (NPs) can impart many pharmacokinetic, efficacy, safety, and targeting benefits when they are included in drug formulations.1-5 Many nanodrugs have entered clinical practice, and even more are being investigated in clinical trials for a wide variety of indications.2 However, nanopharmaceuticals also face challenges, such as the need for better characterization, possible toxicity issues, a lack of specific regulatory guidelines, cost-benefit considerations, and waning enthusiasm among some health care professionals. 4,5 For these reasons, expectations regarding nanodrugs that are in early stages of development or clinical trials need to remain realistic.4.

IMPORTANCE: Many investigational drugs fail in late-stage clinical development. A better understanding of why investigational drugs fail can inform clinical practice, regulatory decisions, and future research. OBJECTIVE: To assess factors associated with regulatory approval or reasons for failure of investigational therapeutics in phase 3 or pivotal trials and rates of publication of trial results. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using public sources and commercial databases, we identified investigational therapeutics that entered pivotal trials between 1998 and 2008, with follow-up through 2015. Agents were classified by therapeutic area, orphan designation status, fast track designation, novelty of biological pathway, company size, and as a pharmacologic or biologic product. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: For each product, we identified reasons for failure (efficacy, safety, commercial) and assessed the rates of publication of trial results. We used multivariable logistic regression models to evaluate factors associated with regulatory approval. RESULTS: Among 640 novel therapeutics, 344 (54%) failed in clinical development, 230 (36%) were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and 66 (10%) were approved in other countries but not by the FDA. Most products failed due to inadequate efficacy (n = 195; 57%), while 59 (17%) failed because of safety concerns and 74 (22%) failed due to commercial reasons. The pivotal trial results were published in peer-reviewed journals for 138 of the 344 (40%) failed agents. Of 74 trials for agents that failed for commercial reasons, only 6 (8.1%) were published. In analyses adjusted for therapeutic area, agent type, firm size, orphan designation, fast-track status, trial year, and novelty of biological pathway, orphan-designated drugs were significantly more likely than nonorphan drugs to be approved (46% vs 34%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4-3.7). Cancer drugs (27% vs 39%; aOR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.9) and agents sponsored by small and medium-size companies (28% vs 42%; aOR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7) were significantly less likely to be approved. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Roughly half of investigational drugs entering late-stage clinical development fail during or after pivotal clinical trials, primarily because of concerns about safety, efficacy, or both. Results for the majority of studies of investigational drugs that fail are not published in peer-reviewed journals.

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is common and associated with multiple serious public health implications. A consensus definition of TRD with demonstrated predictive utility in terms of clinical decision-making and health outcomes does not currently exist. Instead, a plethora of definitions have been proposed, which vary significantly in their conceptual framework. The absence of a consensus definition hampers precise estimates of the prevalence of TRD, and also belies efforts to identify risk factors, prevention opportunities, and effective interventions. In addition, it results in heterogeneity in clinical practice decision-making, adversely affecting quality of care. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have adopted the most used definition of TRD (i.e., inadequate response to a minimum of two antidepressants despite adequacy of the treatment trial and adherence to treatment). It is currently estimated that at least 30% of persons with depression meet this definition. A significant percentage of persons with TRD are actually pseudo-resistant (e.g., due to inadequacy of treatment trials or non-adherence to treatment). Although multiple sociodemographic, clinical, treatment and contextual factors are known to negatively moderate response in persons with depression, very few factors are regarded as predictive of non-response across multiple modalities of treatment. Intravenous ketamine and intranasal esketamine (co-administered with an antidepressant) are established as efficacious in the management of TRD. Some second-generation antipsychotics (e.g., aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, cariprazine, quetiapine XR) are proven effective as adjunctive treatments to antidepressants in partial responders, but only the olanzapine-fluoxetine combination has been studied in FDA-defined TRD. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is established as effective and FDA-approved for individuals with TRD, with accelerated theta-burst TMS also recently showing efficacy. Electroconvulsive therapy is regarded as an effective acute and maintenance intervention in TRD, with preliminary evidence suggesting non-inferiority to acute intravenous ketamine. Evidence for extending antidepressant trial, medication switching and combining antidepressants is mixed. Manual-based psychotherapies are not established as efficacious on their own in TRD, but offer significant symptomatic relief when added to conventional antidepressants. Digital therapeutics are under study and represent a potential future clinical vista in this population.

暂无摘要（点击查看原文获取完整内容）

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, multicenter, Food and Drug Administration-regulated Investigational Device Exemption clinical trial. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of lumbar total disc replacement, using the CHARITE artificial disc (DePuy Spine, Raynham, MA), with anterior lumbar interbody fusion, for the treatment of single-level degenerative disc disease from L4-S1 unresponsive to nonoperative treatment. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Reported results of lumbar total disc replacement have been favorable, but studies have been limited to retrospective case series and/or small sample sizes. METHODS: Three hundred four (304) patients were enrolled in the study at 14 centers across the United States and randomized in a 2:1 ratio to treatment with the CHARITE artificial disc or the control group, instrumented anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Data were collected pre- and perioperatively at 6 weeks and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months following surgery. The key clinical outcome measures were a Visual Analog Scale assessing back pain, the Oswestry Disability Index questionnaire, and the SF-36 Health Survey. RESULTS: Patients in both groups improved significantly following surgery. Patients in the CHARITE artificial disc group recovered faster than patients in the control group. Patients in the CHARITE artificial disc group had lower levels of disability at every time interval from 6 weeks to 24 months, compared with the control group, with statistically lower pain and disability scores at all but the 24 month follow-up (P < 0.05). At the 24-month follow-up period, a significantly greater percentage of patients in the CHARITE artificial disc group expressed satisfaction with their treatment and would have the same treatment again, compared with the fusion group (P < 0.05). The hospital stay was significantly shorter in the CHARITE artificial disc group (P < 0.05). The complication rate was similar between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective, randomized, multicenter study demonstrated that quantitative clinical outcome measures following lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc are at least equivalent to clinical outcomes with anterior lumbar interbody fusion. These results support earlier reports in the literature that total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc is a safe and effective alternative to fusion for the surgical treatment of symptomatic disc degeneration in properly indicated patients. The CHARITE artificial disc group demonstrated statistically significant superiority in two major economic areas, a 1-day shorter hospitalization, and a lower rate of reoperations (5.4% compared with 9.1%). At 24 months, the investigational group had a significantly higher rate of satisfaction (73.7%) than the 53.1% rate of satisfaction in the control group (P = 0.0011). This prospective randomized multicenter study also demonstrated an increase in employment of 9.1% in the investigational group and 7.2% in the control group.

The prescribed dose of anticancer agents is most commonly calculated using body surface area as the only independent variable, and it has been shown that this approach still results in large interpatient variability in drug exposure. Here, we retrospectively assessed the pharmacokinetics of 33 investigational agents tested in phase I trials from 1991 through 2001, as a function of body surface area in 1650 adult cancer patients. Twelve of the drugs were administered orally, 19 were administered intravenously, and two were administered by both routes. Body surface area-based dosing was statistically significantly associated with a reduction in interpatient variability in drug clearance for only five of the 33 agents: docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)-paclitaxel, 5-fluorouracil/eniluracil, paclitaxel, temozolomide, and troxacitabine. These results do not support the use of body surface area in dose calculations and suggest that alternate dosing strategies should be evaluated. We conclude that body surface area should not be used to determine starting doses of investigational agents in future phase I studies.

One hundred forty-four patients and 68 physicians at three cancer centers were studied for their perceptions of the consent procedure, in which they participated one to three weeks earlier, for chemotherapy by one of 65 investigational protocols. Patients recalled the procedure positively and relied heavily on physician's advice. They felt most physicians wanted them to accept; 29% felt their participation in the decision was not encouraged. Primary reasons for accepting were trust in the physician, belief the treatment would help, and fear the disease (viewed as highly serious) would get worse without it. Nearly a fourth did not recall the information given that treatment was investigational. The consent form played no role in decision-making for 69%. Physicians believed therapeutic benefits would exceed potential problems for most patients; they viewed 41% of the patients as less than eager for details of treatment, a third as avoiding the seriousness of the discussion, and a third as passive in decision-making. The perceptual set of both parties places inadvertent constraint on patients' autonomy in decision making.

Clinical trial eligibility criteria are necessary to define the patient population under study and improve trial safety. However, there are concerns that eligibility criteria for cancer clinical trials are too restrictive and limit patient enrollment in clinical trials. Recently, there have been initiatives to re-examine and modernize eligibility criteria for oncology clinical trials. To assess current eligibility requirements for cancer clinical trials, we have conducted a comprehensive review of eligibility criteria for commercial investigational new drug clinical trial applications submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration Office of Hematology and Oncology Products in 2015. Our findings suggest that eligibility criteria for current cancer clinical trials tend to narrowly define the study population and limit the study to lower-risk patients, which may not be reflective of the greater patient population outside of the study. We discuss potential areas for expanding eligibility criteria to include more patients in clinical trials and design options for clinical trials incorporating expanded eligibility criteria. The broadening of clinical trial eligibility criteria can be considered to better reflect the real-world patient population, improve clinical trial participation, and increase patient access to new investigational treatments.

BACKGROUND: Small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC) is an aggressive, recalcitrant cancer, often metastatic at diagnosis and unresponsive to chemotherapy upon recurrence, thus it is challenging to treat. METHODS: Sixty-three human SCLC lines and three NSCLC lines were screened for response to 103 US Food and Drug Administration-approved oncology agents and 423 investigational agents. The investigational agents library was a diverse set of small molecules that included multiple compounds targeting the same molecular entity. The compounds were screened in triplicate at nine concentrations with a 96-hour exposure time using an ATP Lite endpoint. Gene expression was assessed by exon array, and microRNA expression was derived by direct digital detection. Activity across the SCLC lines was associated with molecular characteristics using pair-wise Pearson correlations. RESULTS: Results are presented for inhibitors of targets: BCL2, PARP1, mTOR, IGF1R, KSP/Eg5, PLK-1, AURK, and FGFR1. A relational map identified compounds with similar patterns of response. Unsupervised microRNA clustering resulted in three distinct SCLC subgroups. Associating drug response with micro-RNA expression indicated that lines most sensitive to etoposide and topotecan expressed high miR-200c-3p and low miR-140-5p and miR-9-5p. The BCL-2/BCL-XL inhibitors produced similar response patterns. Sensitivity to ABT-737 correlated with higher ASCL1 and BCL2. Several classes of compounds targeting nuclear proteins regulating mitosis produced a response pattern distinct from the etoposide response pattern. CONCLUSIONS: Agents targeting nuclear kinases appear to be effective in SCLC lines. Confirmation of SCLC line findings in xenografts is needed. The drug and compound response, gene expression, and microRNA expression data are publicly available at http://sclccelllines.cancer.gov.

This study utilizes both public and private data sources to estimate clinical phase transition and clinical approval probabilities for drugs in the development pipelines of the 50 largest pharmaceutical firms (by sales). The study examined the development histories of these investigational compounds from the time point at which they first entered clinical testing (1993-2004) through June 2009. The clinical approval success rate in the United States was 16% for self-originated drugs (originating from the pharmaceutical company itself) during both the 1993-1998 and the 1999-2004 subperiods. For all compounds (including licensed-in and licensed-out drugs in addition to self-originated drugs), the clinical approval success rate for the entire study period was 19%. The estimated clinical approval success rates and phase transition probabilities differed significantly by therapeutic class. The estimated clinical approval success rate for self-originated compounds over the entire study period was 32% for large molecules and 13% for small molecules. The estimated transition probabilities were also higher for all clinical phases with respect to large molecules.

暂无摘要（点击查看原文获取完整内容）

OBJECT: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement (TDR) as part of an FDA-mandated postmarket approval study. This report summarizes the clinical findings after 5 years of follow-up. METHODS: Two hundred thirty-six patients were treated and followed up for 5 years; 161 TDRs and 75 fusions had been performed in these patients. The primary outcome was a 10-component success end point. Secondary outcome measures included neurological status, secondary surgery, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), visual analog scale (VAS) assessing pain and satisfaction, radiographic data, narcotic use, activity, and recreation status. Patients were monitored through their 5-year postoperative visits under the FDA postmarket surveillance provisions in the original investigational device exemption approval. RESULTS: The overall follow-up rate at 5 years was 81.8%. Study success demonstrated that TDR was noninferior to fusion with a 12.5% margin (p = 0.0099). Both TDR and fusion treatment groups maintained significant improvement on the ODI at 5 years compared with baseline (p < 0.0001). Secondary surgeries at the index level were performed in 12% of fusion patients and 8% of TDR patients. Radiographically, none of the TDRs developed spontaneous fusion. The segmental range of motion following TDR remained within normal range, although it decreased by approximately 0.5° in years 3 to 5. The VAS pain scores decreased from preoperative values by 48% in both treatment groups at 5 years. Patient satisfaction remained high in both groups (77%), while the percentage of patients indicating that they would have the surgery again was higher in TDR patients (82.5%) than in fusion patients (68.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients in both groups maintained significant improvement during the 5-year follow-up. The TDR group had significantly better improvement on some scales. Although TDR patients avoid the stiffness of fusion and are more satisfied than fusion patients, both fusion and TDR are reasonable surgical options in this specific patient population.

ADVERTISEMENT RETURN TO ISSUEPerspectiveNEXTLessons Learned from Marketed and Investigational ProdrugsPeter Ettmayer, Gordon L. Amidon, Bernd Clement, and Bernard TestaView Author Information Novartis Institute for BioMedical Research, Brunnerstrasse 59, A-1235 Vienna, Austria, College of Pharmacy, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1065, Pharmaceutical Institute, University of Kiel, D-24118 Kiel, Germany, and Department of Pharmacy, University Hospital Centre (CHUV), CH-1011 Lausanne, Switzerland Cite this: J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 10, 2393–2404Publication Date (Web):April 13, 2004Publication History Received7 August 2003Published online13 April 2004Published inissue 1 May 2004https://doi.org/10.1021/jm0303812Copyright © 2004 American Chemical SocietyRIGHTS & PERMISSIONSArticle Views6980Altmetric-Citations282LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICSArticle Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated. Share Add toView InAdd Full Text with ReferenceAdd Description ExportRISCitationCitation and abstractCitation and referencesMore Options Share onFacebookTwitterWechatLinked InReddit Read OnlinePDF (231 KB) Get e-AlertsSUBJECTS:Cells,Metabolism,Peptides and proteins,Pharmaceuticals,Targeting Get e-Alerts

BACKGROUND: Early results of the Micra Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) study and Micra Post-Approval Registry (PAR) demonstrated excellent safety and efficacy performance; however, intermediate-term results across a large patient population in the real-world setting have not been evaluated. OBJECTIVES: We report updated performance of the Micra transcatheter pacemaker from a worldwide PAR and compare it with the IDE study as well as a transvenous historical control. METHODS: The safety objective of the analysis was system- or procedure-related major complications through 12 months postimplantation. We compared the major complication rate with that of the 726 patients from the IDE and with a reference data set of 2667 patients with transvenous pacemakers by using a Fine-Gray competing risk model. RESULTS: The Micra device was successfully implanted in 1801 of 1817 patients (99.1%). The mean follow-up period was 6.8 ± 6.9 months. Through 12 months, the major complication rate was 2.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.0%-3.7%). The risk of major complications for Micra PAR patients was 63% lower than that for patients with transvenous pacemakers through 12 months postimplantation (hazard ratio 0.37; 95% CI 0.27-0.52; P < .001). The major complication rate trended lower in the PAR than in the IDE study (hazard ratio 0.71; 95% CI 0.44-1.1; P = .160), driven by the lower pericardial effusion rate in the PAR. There were 3 cases of infection associated with the procedure, but none required device removal and there were no battery or telemetry issues. Pacing thresholds were low and stable through 12 months postimplantation. CONCLUSION: Performance of the Micra transcatheter pacemaker in international clinical practice remains consistent with previously reported data. Major complications were infrequent and occurred 63% less often compared to transvenous systems. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Post-Approval Registry ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02536118; Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02004873.

BACKGROUND: Studies of transcatheter pulmonary valve (TPV) replacement with the Melody valve have demonstrated good short-term outcomes, but there are no published long-term follow-up data. METHODS AND RESULTS: The US Investigational Device Exemption trial prospectively enrolled 171 pediatric and adult patients (median age, 19 years) with right ventricular outflow tract conduit obstruction or regurgitation. The 148 patients who received and were discharged with a TPV were followed up annually according to a standardized protocol. During a median follow-up of 4.5 years (range, 0.4-7 years), 32 patients underwent right ventricular outflow tract reintervention for obstruction (n=27, with stent fracture in 22), endocarditis (n=3, 2 with stenosis and 1 with pulmonary regurgitation), or right ventricular dysfunction (n=2). Eleven patients had the TPV explanted as an initial or second reintervention. Five-year freedom from reintervention and explantation was 76±4% and 92±3%, respectively. A conduit prestent and lower discharge right ventricular outflow tract gradient were associated with longer freedom from reintervention. In the 113 patients who were alive and reintervention free, the follow-up gradient (median, 4.5 years after implantation) was unchanged from early post-TPV replacement, and all but 1 patient had mild or less pulmonary regurgitation. Almost all patients were in New York Heart Association class I or II. More severely impaired baseline spirometry was associated with a lower likelihood of improvement in exercise function after TPV replacement. CONCLUSIONS: TPV replacement with the Melody valve provided good hemodynamic and clinical outcomes up to 7 years after implantation. Primary valve failure was rare. The main cause of TPV dysfunction was stenosis related to stent fracture, which was uncommon once prestenting became more widely adopted. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00740870.

BACKGROUND: An Investigational New Drug (IND) treatment program allows patients access to a drug that has shown activity against a serious or life-threatening disease prior to full Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review and approval. This treatment IND program, in which patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic carcinoma were treated with gemcitabine, began in 1995. METHODS: Eligibility criteria were < or =1 prior chemotherapy regimen; a Karnofsky performance status (KPS) of > or =50; and adequate bone marrow, liver, and renal function. Gemcitabine was given at a dose of 1000 mg/m2 weekly x 7 followed by a week of rest, then weekly x 3 every 4 weeks thereafter. In this program, disease-related symptom improvement (DRSI) was defined retrospectively as 1) improvement in pain (on a 7-point scale) and/or analgesic class (e.g., morphine improving to codeine) and/or KPS (> or =20 points), or 2) stability of these three parameters with a 7% increase in weight from baseline. RESULTS: A total of 3023 patients enrolled. At baseline, 80% of them had Stage IV disease, and 84% had a baseline KPS > or = 70. The median age was 65 years, and 56% of the patients were male. The cumulative DRSI response rate after the fourth cycle was 18.4%. Of 982 patients with tumor response data, there were 14 with complete response and 104 with partial response, for an overall response rate of 12.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.0-14.0%). For 2380 patients with survival data, the median survival was 4.8 months (95% CI, 4.5-5.1 months) and the 12-month survival was 15%. Gemcitabine was well tolerated; only 4.6% of discontinuations were due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Notable disease-related symptom improvement and survival were seen with gemcitabine in this large, compassionate-use setting, and these findings were in agreement with those of earlier registration trials.

The mechanism of action of the combination therapy, naltrexone/bupropion (NB), for obesity has not been fully described to date. Weight loss attempts rarely result in long-term success. This is likely a result of complex interactions among multiple peripheral and CNS systems that defend against weight loss, and may explain the overwhelming lack of effective obesity treatments. NB is an investigational combination therapy for obesity that was developed based on evidence that obesity involves alterations in the hypothalamic melanocortin system as well as brain reward systems that influence food craving and mood. Naltrexone and bupropion both have actions in these brain regions that may cause them to influence food intake, food craving, and other aspects of eating behavior that affect body weight. We review the individual actions of naltrexone and bupropion in brain hypothalamic and reward systems, and describe the current in vitro, in vivo, and clinical evidence for how NB influences food intake and produces weight loss.

Public health efforts and current antiobesity agents have not controlled the increasing epidemic of obesity. Investigational antiobesity agents consist of 1) central nervous system agents that affect neurotransmitters or neural ion channels, including antidepressants (bupropion), selective serotonin 2c receptor agonists, antiseizure agents (topiramate, zonisamide), some dopamine antagonists, and cannabinoid-1 receptor antagonists (rimonabant); 2) leptin/insulin/central nervous system pathway agents, including leptin analogues, leptin transport and/or leptin receptor promoters, ciliary neurotrophic factor (Axokine), neuropeptide Y and agouti-related peptide antagonists, proopiomelanocortin and cocaine and amphetamine regulated transcript promoters, alpha-melanocyte-stimulating hormone analogues, melanocortin-4 receptor agonists, and agents that affect insulin metabolism/activity, which include protein-tyrosine phosphatase-1B inhibitors, peroxisome proliferator activated receptor-gamma receptor antagonists, short-acting bromocriptine (ergoset), somatostatin agonists (octreotide), and adiponectin; 3) gastrointestinal-neural pathway agents, including those that increase cholecystokinin activity, increase glucagon-like peptide-1 activity (extendin 4, liraglutide, dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors), and increase protein YY3-36 activity and those that decrease ghrelin activity, as well as amylin analogues (pramlintide); 4) agents that may increase resting metabolic rate ("selective" beta-3 stimulators/agonist, uncoupling protein homologues, and thyroid receptor agonists); and 5) other more diverse agents, including melanin concentrating hormone antagonists, phytostanol analogues, functional oils, P57, amylase inhibitors, growth hormone fragments, synthetic analogues of dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate, antagonists of adipocyte 11B-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 activity, corticotropin-releasing hormone agonists, inhibitors of fatty acid synthesis, carboxypeptidase inhibitors, indanones/indanols, aminosterols, and other gastrointestinal lipase inhibitors (ATL962). Finally, an emerging concept is that the development of antiobesity agents must not only reduce fat mass (adiposity) but must also correct fat dysfunction (adiposopathy).

Microtubules are among the most strategic subcellular targets of anticancer chemotherapeutics. Despite this fact, new antimicrotubule agents that possess unique mechanisms of cytotoxic action and have broader antineoplastic spectra than the vinca alkaloids have not been introduced over the last several decades--until the recent development of taxol. Unlike classical antimicrotubule agents like colchicine and the vinca alkaloids, which induce depolymerization of microtubules, taxol induces tubulin polymerization and forms extremely stable and nonfunctional microtubules. Taxol has demonstrated broad activity in preclinical screening studies, and antineoplastic activity has been observed in several classically refractory tumors. These tumors include cisplatin-resistant ovarian carcinoma in phase II trials and malignant melanoma and non-small cell lung carcinoma in phase I studies. Taxol's structural complexity has hampered the development of feasible processes for synthesis, and its extreme scarcity has limited the use of a conventional, broad-scale screening approach for evaluation of clinical antitumor activity. However, taxol's unique mechanism of action, its spectrum of preclinical antitumor activity, and tumor responses in early clinical trials have generated renewed interest in pursuing its development.