Literature DB >> 19332724

Prospective validation of a prognostic score to improve patient selection for oncology phase I trials.

Hendrik-Tobias Arkenau1, Jorge Barriuso, David Olmos, Joo Ern Ang, Johann de Bono, Ian Judson, Stan Kaye.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: With the aim of improving patient selection for phase I trials, we previously performed a retrospective analysis of 212 phase I oncology patients where we were able to develop a prognostic score predicting overall survival (OS). This prospective study was performed to test the validity of the prognostic score. PATIENTS AND METHODS: On the basis of our retrospective multivariate analysis, three factors were associated with poor survival (albumin < 35 g/L, lactate dehydrogenase [LDH] > upper limit of normal [ULN], and > two sites of metastases). We integrated these into a prognostic score ranging from 0 to 3 and analyzed this score in a prospectively selected cohort of 78 patients enrolled onto phase I trials.
RESULTS: All patients had progressive disease before study entry. The median age was 56 years (range, 18 to 79 years). After a median follow-up time of 27.3 weeks, patients with a prognostic score of 0 to 1 (n = 43) had superior OS (33.0 weeks; 95% CI, 24 to 42 weeks) compared with patients with a score of 2 to 3 (n = 35; 15.7 weeks; 95% CI, 11 to 21 weeks). Our multivariate analysis confirmed that our prognostic score was an independent marker for OS, with a hazard ratio of 1.4 (95% CI, 1.02 to 1.9; P = .036).
CONCLUSION: This is the first prospective analysis confirming that a prognostic score based on objective markers, including albumin less than 35 g/L, LDH more than ULN, and more than two sites of metastasis, is a helpful tool in the process of patient selection for phase I trial entry.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19332724     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.19.5081

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


  67 in total

1.  Referrals to a Phase I Clinic and Trial Enrollment in the Molecular Screening Era.

Authors:  Tira Tan; Michael Rheaume; Lisa Wang; Helen Chow; Anna Spreafico; Aaron R Hansen; Albiruni R A Razak; Lillian L Siu; Philippe L Bedard
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2019-03-04

2.  The role of age on dose-limiting toxicities in phase I dose-escalation trials.

Authors:  A Schwandt; P J Harris; S Hunsberger; A Deleporte; G L Smith; D Vulih; B D Anderson; S P Ivy
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2014-07-15       Impact factor: 12.531

3.  Nomogram to predict cycle-one serious drug-related toxicity in phase I oncology trials.

Authors:  David M Hyman; Anne A Eaton; Mrinal M Gounder; Gary L Smith; Erika G Pamer; Martee L Hensley; David R Spriggs; Percy Ivy; Alexia Iasonos
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-01-13       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  The prognostic significance of left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with advanced cancer treated in phase I clinical trials.

Authors:  R Said; J Banchs; J Wheler; K R Hess; G Falchook; S Fu; A Naing; D Hong; S Piha-Paul; Y Ye; E Yeh; R A Wolff; A M Tsimberidou
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 32.976

5.  Development and Validation of an Ultradeep Next-Generation Sequencing Assay for Testing of Plasma Cell-Free DNA from Patients with Advanced Cancer.

Authors:  Filip Janku; Shile Zhang; Jill Waters; Li Liu; Helen J Huang; Vivek Subbiah; David S Hong; Daniel D Karp; Siqing Fu; Xuyu Cai; Nishma M Ramzanali; Kiran Madwani; Goran Cabrilo; Debra L Andrews; Yue Zhao; Milind Javle; E Scott Kopetz; Rajyalakshmi Luthra; Hyunsung J Kim; Sante Gnerre; Ravi Vijaya Satya; Han-Yu Chuang; Kristina M Kruglyak; Jonathan Toung; Chen Zhao; Richard Shen; John V Heymach; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Gordon B Mills; Jian-Bing Fan; Neeraj S Salathia
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2017-05-23       Impact factor: 12.531

6.  Treatment with methylnaltrexone is associated with increased survival in patients with advanced cancer.

Authors:  F Janku; L K Johnson; D D Karp; J T Atkins; P A Singleton; J Moss
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2016-08-29       Impact factor: 32.976

7.  Megestrol acetate versus metronomic cyclophosphamide in patients having exhausted all effective therapies under standard care.

Authors:  N Penel; S Clisant; E Dansin; C Desauw; M Dégardin; L Mortier; M Vanhuyse; F Bonodeau; C Fournier; J-L Cazin; A Adenis
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  A retrospective analysis of clinical outcome of patients with chemo-refractory metastatic breast cancer treated in a single institution phase I unit.

Authors:  A T Brunetto; D Sarker; D Papadatos-Pastos; R Fehrmann; S B Kaye; S Johnston; M Allen; J S De Bono; C Swanton
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2010-07-27       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  To Treat or Not to Treat Metastatic Cancer Patients with Poor Performance Status: a Prospective Experience.

Authors:  Tamás Kullmann; Hélène Gauthier; Camille Serrate; Damien Pouessel; Christine le Maignan; Jean-Louis Misset; Stéphane Culine
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2016-09-07       Impact factor: 3.201

10.  Clinical benefit in Phase-I trials of novel molecularly targeted agents: does dose matter?

Authors:  S Postel-Vinay; H-T Arkenau; D Olmos; J Ang; J Barriuso; S Ashley; U Banerji; J De-Bono; I Judson; S Kaye
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-05-05       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.