Literature DB >> 19091547

Validation of novel imaging methodologies for use as cancer clinical trial end-points.

D J Sargent1, L Rubinstein, L Schwartz, J E Dancey, C Gatsonis, L E Dodd, L K Shankar.   

Abstract

The success or failure of a clinical trial, of any phase, depends critically on the choice of an appropriate primary end-point. In the setting of phases II and III cancer clinical trials, imaging end-points have historically, and continue presently to play a major role in determining therapeutic efficacy. The primary goal of this paper is to discuss the validation of imaging-based markers as end-points for phase II clinical trials of cancer therapy. Specifically, we outline the issues that must be considered, and the criteria that would need to be satisfied, for an imaging end-point to supplement or potentially replace RECIST- defined tumour status as a phase II clinical trial end-point. The key criteria proposed to judge the utility of a new end-point primarily relate to its ability to accurately and reproducibly predict the eventual phase III end-point for treatment effect, which is usually assessed by a difference between two arms on progression free or overall survival, both at the patient and more importantly at the trial level. As will be demonstrated, the level of evidence required to formally and fully validate a new imaging marker as an appropriate end-point for phase II trials is substantial. In many cases, this level of evidence will only become available by conducting a series of coordinated prospectively designed multicentre clinical trials culminating in a formal meta-analysis. We also include a discussion of situations where flexibility may be required, relative to the ideal rigorous evaluation, to accommodate inevitable real-world feasibility constraints.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19091547      PMCID: PMC2802223          DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer        ISSN: 0959-8049            Impact factor:   9.162


  38 in total

1.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada.

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

Review 2.  Objective responses in patients with malignant melanoma or renal cell cancer in early clinical studies do not predict regulatory approval.

Authors:  John Goffin; Stefan Baral; Dongsheng Tu; Dora Nomikos; Lesley Seymour
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2005-08-15       Impact factor: 12.531

3.  Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases.

Authors:  L S Freedman; B I Graubard; A Schatzkin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1992-01-30       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 4.  The progress and promise of molecular imaging probes in oncologic drug development.

Authors:  Gary J Kelloff; Kenneth A Krohn; Steven M Larson; Ralph Weissleder; David A Mankoff; John M Hoffman; Jeanne M Link; Kathryn Z Guyton; William C Eckelman; Howard I Scher; Joyce O'Shaughnessy; Bruce D Cheson; Caroline C Sigman; James L Tatum; George Q Mills; Daniel C Sullivan; Janet Woodcock
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2005-11-15       Impact factor: 12.531

5.  Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria.

Authors:  R L Prentice
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1989-04       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Relation between tumour response to first-line chemotherapy and survival in advanced colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Meta-Analysis Group in Cancer.

Authors:  M Buyse; P Thirion; R W Carlson; T Burzykowski; G Molenberghs; P Piedbois
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2000-07-29       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group.

Authors:  H Young; R Baum; U Cremerius; K Herholz; O Hoekstra; A A Lammertsma; J Pruim; P Price
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 9.162

8.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as a biomarker for the pharmacological response of PTK787/ZK 222584, an inhibitor of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinases, in patients with advanced colorectal cancer and liver metastases: results from two phase I studies.

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

9.  Modified RECIST criteria for assessment of response in malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Authors:  M J Byrne; A K Nowak
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 32.976

Review 10.  Use of positron emission tomography in oncology and its potential role to assess response to imatinib mesylate therapy in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs).

Authors:  Annick D Van den Abbeele; Ramsey D Badawi
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 9.162

View more
  40 in total

1.  Differential microstructure and physiology of brain and bone metastases in a rat breast cancer model by diffusion and dynamic contrast enhanced MRI.

Authors:  Matthew D Budde; Eric Gold; E Kay Jordan; Joseph A Frank
Journal:  Clin Exp Metastasis       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 5.150

2.  Treatment planning and volumetric response assessment for Yttrium-90 radioembolization: semiautomated determination of liver volume and volume of tumor necrosis in patients with hepatic malignancy.

Authors:  Wayne L Monsky; Armando S Garza; Isaac Kim; Shaun Loh; Tzu-Chun Lin; Chin-Shang Li; Jerron Fisher; Parmbir Sandhu; Vishal Sidhar; Abhijit J Chaudhari; Frank Lin; Larry-Stuart Deutsch; Ramsey D Badawi
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2010-08-04       Impact factor: 2.740

3.  More randomization in phase II trials: necessary but not sufficient.

Authors:  Lawrence Rubinstein; Michael Leblanc; Malcolm A Smith
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2011-06-27       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Quantitative imaging test approval and biomarker qualification: interrelated but distinct activities.

Authors:  Andrew J Buckler; Linda Bresolin; N Reed Dunnick; Daniel C Sullivan; Hugo J W L Aerts; Bernard Bendriem; Claus Bendtsen; Ronald Boellaard; John M Boone; Patricia E Cole; James J Conklin; Gary S Dorfman; Pamela S Douglas; Willy Eidsaunet; Cathy Elsinger; Richard A Frank; Constantine Gatsonis; Maryellen L Giger; Sandeep N Gupta; David Gustafson; Otto S Hoekstra; Edward F Jackson; Lisa Karam; Gary J Kelloff; Paul E Kinahan; Geoffrey McLennan; Colin G Miller; P David Mozley; Keith E Muller; Rick Patt; David Raunig; Mark Rosen; Haren Rupani; Lawrence H Schwartz; Barry A Siegel; A Gregory Sorensen; Richard L Wahl; John C Waterton; Walter Wolf; Gudrun Zahlmann; Brian Zimmerman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-02-15       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 5.  Current and future trends in imaging informatics for oncology.

Authors:  Mia A Levy; Daniel L Rubin
Journal:  Cancer J       Date:  2011 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.360

Review 6.  Monitoring cancer therapy with PET: probably effective, but more research is needed.

Authors:  Giovanni Lucignani
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 7.  Methods and challenges in quantitative imaging biomarker development.

Authors:  Richard G Abramson; Kirsteen R Burton; John-Paul J Yu; Ernest M Scalzetti; Thomas E Yankeelov; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Mishal Mendiratta-Lala; Brian J Bartholmai; Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan; Leon Lenchik; Rathan M Subramaniam
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 3.173

8.  [Imaging in oncology: terms and definitions].

Authors:  P Brader; Y Menu; S Kreuzer; S Polanec; M Mayerhoefer; C J Herold
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 0.635

9.  Early MRI response monitoring of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma under treatment with the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib.

Authors:  Marius Horger; Ulrich M Lauer; Christina Schraml; Christoph P Berg; Ursula Koppenhöfer; Claus D Claussen; Michael Gregor; Michael Bitzer
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2009-06-28       Impact factor: 4.430

Review 10.  RECIST revised: implications for the radiologist. A review article on the modified RECIST guideline.

Authors:  Els L van Persijn van Meerten; Hans Gelderblom; Johan L Bloem
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-12-22       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.