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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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