Literature DB >> 15625372

Statistical validation of the EORTC prognostic model for malignant pleural mesothelioma based on three consecutive phase II trials.

Dean A Fennell1, Amit Parmar, Jonathan Shamash, Marie T Evans, Michael T Sheaff, Richard Sylvester, Kevin Dhaliwal, Nicole Gower, Jeremy Steele, Robin Rudd.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) carries a poor prognosis due to chemoresistance. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) prognostic model was reported to predict survival in MPM. Our retrospective analysis set out to test the validity of the model as a prognostic tool in patients treated in three phase II trials at St Bartholomew's Hospital (London, United Kingdom) between 1999 and 2003. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 145 patients were treated in three phase II trials; vinorelbine (VIN; 70 patients), vinorelbine/oxaliplatin (VO; 26 patients), and irinotecan/cisplatin/mitomycin C (IPM; 49 patients). Two subgroups, high-risk and low-risk, were defined by EORTC prognostic score (EPS). EPS was determined by a five-parameter model incorporating age, sex, histology, probability of diagnosis, and leukocyte count. An EPS cutoff of less than 1.27 (low risk) or more than 1.27 (high risk) was used to stratify Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Each of the EPS variables exhibited either trends or significant stratification of overall survival (OS).
RESULTS: Multivariate analysis confirmed leukocyte count, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and sarcomatous histology as independent prognostic variables. EPS stratified OS in both individual and pooled trial datasets. No association between objective tumor response and EPS classification was identified by multinomial logistic regression. EPS stratified progression-free survival for the VO and IPM cohorts, but not for VIN.
CONCLUSION: This study validates the EPS system as a robust tool for stratifying small trials into low- and high-risk subgroups. EPS should facilitate patient selection and analysis in randomized clinical trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15625372     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.07.050

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  27 in total

1.  Clinical role of a new prognostic score using platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma undergoing extrapleural pneumonectomy.

Authors:  Tetsuzo Tagawa; Masaki Anraku; Yosuke Morodomi; Tomoyoshi Takenaka; Tatsuro Okamoto; Mitsuhiro Takenoyama; Yukito Ichinose; Yoshihiko Maehara; B C John Cho; Ronald Feld; Ming-Sound Tsao; Natasha Leighl; Andrea Bezjak; Shaf Keshavjee; Marc de Perrot
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  Brain metastases in malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Authors:  Tomoko Yamagishi; Nobukazu Fujimoto; Yosuke Miyamoto; Michiko Asano; Yasuko Fuchimoto; Sae Wada; Kenichi Kitamura; Shinji Ozaki; Hideyuki Nishi; Takumi Kishimoto
Journal:  Clin Exp Metastasis       Date:  2015-11-30       Impact factor: 5.150

Review 3.  Malignant pleural mesothelioma: predictors and staging.

Authors:  William G Richards
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2017-06

4.  Is Pleurectomy/Decortication Superior to Extrapleural Pneumonectomy for Patients with Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma? A Single-Institutional Experience.

Authors:  Takuro Miyazaki; Naoya Yamasaki; Tomoshi Tsuchiya; Keitaro Matsumoto; Ryotaro Kamohara; Go Hatachi; Takeshi Nagayasu
Journal:  Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2018-01-23       Impact factor: 1.520

5.  Phase II clinical trial of amatuximab, a chimeric antimesothelin antibody with pemetrexed and cisplatin in advanced unresectable pleural mesothelioma.

Authors:  Raffit Hassan; Hedy L Kindler; Thierry Jahan; Lyudmila Bazhenova; Martin Reck; Anish Thomas; Ira Pastan; Jeff Parno; Daniel J O'Shannessy; Penny Fatato; Julia D Maltzman; Bruce A Wallin
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2014-09-17       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 6.  Novel insights into mesothelioma biology and implications for therapy.

Authors:  Timothy A Yap; Joachim G Aerts; Sanjay Popat; Dean A Fennell
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2017-07-25       Impact factor: 60.716

7.  Validation of EORTC and CALGB prognostic models in surgical patients submitted to diagnostic, palliative or curative surgery for malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Authors:  Alberto Sandri; Francesco Guerrera; Matteo Roffinella; Stefania Olivetti; Lorena Costardi; Alberto Oliaro; Pier Luigi Filosso; Paolo Olivo Lausi; Enrico Ruffini
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 8.  Biomarkers for malignant pleural mesothelioma: current status.

Authors:  Laurent Greillier; Paul Baas; John J Welch; Baktiar Hasan; Alexandre Passioukov
Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.074

9.  Stratification of malignant pleural mesothelioma prognosis using recursive partitioning analysis.

Authors:  Hidekazu Suzuki; Kazuhiro Asami; Tomonori Hirashima; Norio Okamoto; Tadahiro Yamadori; Motohiro Tamiya; Naoko Morishita; Takayuki Shiroyama; Sawa Takeoka; Akio Osa; Yuichiro Azuma; Kyoichi Okishio; Tomoya Kawaguchi; Shinji Atagi; Ichiro Kawase
Journal:  Lung       Date:  2013-10-20       Impact factor: 2.584

Review 10.  Malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Authors:  Anne S Tsao; Ignacio Wistuba; Jack A Roth; Hedy Lee Kindler
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-03-02       Impact factor: 44.544

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.