PURPOSE:Sorafenib is an antiangiogenic agent with activity in renal cancer. We conducted a randomized trial to investigate dynamic contrast magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) as a pharmacodynamic biomarker. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to placebo or 200 or 400 mg twice per day of sorafenib. DCE-MRI was performed at baseline and 4 weeks. DCE-MRI parameters, area under the contrast concentration versus time curve 90 seconds after contrast injection (IAUC(90)), and volume transfer constant of contrast agent (K(trans)) were calculated for a metastatic site selected in a blinded manner. Primary end point was change in K(trans). RESULTS: Of the 56 assessable patients, 48 underwent two MRIs; 44 MRIs were assessable for study end points. Mean K(trans) log ratios were 0.131 (standard deviation [SD], 0.315), -0.148 (SD, 0.382), -0.271 (SD, 0.499) in placebo, 200- and 400-mg cohorts, respectively (P = .0077 for trend) corresponding to changes of +14%, -14%, and -24%. IAUC(90) log ratios were 0.041 (SD, 0.197), -0.040 (SD, 0.132), -0.356 (SD, 0.411), respectively (P = .0003 for trend), corresponding to changes of +4%, -4%, and -30%. Using a log-rank test, IAUC(90) and K(trans) changes were not associated with progression-free survival (PFS). Patients with high baseline K(trans) had a better PFS (P = .027). CONCLUSION:IAUC(90) and K(trans) are pharmacodynamic biomarkers for sorafenib, but variability is high and magnitude of effect is less than previously reported. Changes in DCE-MRI parameters after 4 weeks of sorafenib are not predictive of PFS, suggesting that these biomarkers are not surrogate end points. The value of baseline K(trans) as a prognostic or predictive biomarker requires additional study.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE:Sorafenib is an antiangiogenic agent with activity in renal cancer. We conducted a randomized trial to investigate dynamic contrast magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) as a pharmacodynamic biomarker. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to placebo or 200 or 400 mg twice per day of sorafenib. DCE-MRI was performed at baseline and 4 weeks. DCE-MRI parameters, area under the contrast concentration versus time curve 90 seconds after contrast injection (IAUC(90)), and volume transfer constant of contrast agent (K(trans)) were calculated for a metastatic site selected in a blinded manner. Primary end point was change in K(trans). RESULTS: Of the 56 assessable patients, 48 underwent two MRIs; 44 MRIs were assessable for study end points. Mean K(trans) log ratios were 0.131 (standard deviation [SD], 0.315), -0.148 (SD, 0.382), -0.271 (SD, 0.499) in placebo, 200- and 400-mg cohorts, respectively (P = .0077 for trend) corresponding to changes of +14%, -14%, and -24%. IAUC(90) log ratios were 0.041 (SD, 0.197), -0.040 (SD, 0.132), -0.356 (SD, 0.411), respectively (P = .0003 for trend), corresponding to changes of +4%, -4%, and -30%. Using a log-rank test, IAUC(90) and K(trans) changes were not associated with progression-free survival (PFS). Patients with high baseline K(trans) had a better PFS (P = .027). CONCLUSION: IAUC(90) and K(trans) are pharmacodynamic biomarkers for sorafenib, but variability is high and magnitude of effect is less than previously reported. Changes in DCE-MRI parameters after 4 weeks of sorafenib are not predictive of PFS, suggesting that these biomarkers are not surrogate end points. The value of baseline K(trans) as a prognostic or predictive biomarker requires additional study.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Bruno Morgan; Anne L Thomas; Joachim Drevs; Juergen Hennig; Martin Buchert; Asvina Jivan; Mark A Horsfield; Klaus Mross; Howard A Ball; Lucy Lee; William Mietlowski; Stefan Fuxuis; Clemens Unger; Ken O'Byrne; Andrew Henry; Graham R Cherryman; Dirk Laurent; Margaret Dugan; Dieter Marmé; William P Steward Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-09-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: James C Yang; Leah Haworth; Richard M Sherry; Patrick Hwu; Douglas J Schwartzentruber; Suzanne L Topalian; Seth M Steinberg; Helen X Chen; Steven A Rosenberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-07-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Milica Medved; Greg Karczmar; Cheng Yang; James Dignam; Thomas F Gajewski; Hedy Kindler; Everett Vokes; Peter MacEneany; Myrosia T Mitchell; Walter M Stadler Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: James P Stevenson; Mark Rosen; Weijing Sun; Maryann Gallagher; Daniel G Haller; David Vaughn; Bruce Giantonio; Ross Zimmer; William P Petros; Michael Stratford; David Chaplin; Scott L Young; Mitchell Schnall; Peter J O'Dwyer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: James P B O'Connor; Alan Jackson; Geoff J M Parker; Caleb Roberts; Gordon C Jayson Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Adam C Yopp; Lawrence H Schwartz; Nancy Kemeny; David H Gultekin; Mithat Gönen; Zubin Bamboat; Jinru Shia; Dana Haviland; Michael I D'Angelica; Yuman Fong; Ronald P DeMatteo; Peter J Allen; William R Jarnagin Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Peter A Jarzyna; Lisette H Deddens; Benjamin H Kann; Sarayu Ramachandran; Claudia Calcagno; Wei Chen; Anita Gianella; Rick M Dijkhuizen; Arjan W Griffioen; Zahi A Fayad; Willem J M Mulder Journal: Neoplasia Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 5.715