PURPOSE: We explored the prognostic value of actual tumor measurements (TM) versus World Health Organization (WHO) criteria as three-level (responder, stable, and progression) and two-level (responder and non-responder) variables at 12 and 24 weeks as predictors of survival in Intergroup Trial N9741, a phase III trial in metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS:All patients with measurable disease (N = 1,188) were included. The percentage changes in TM from baseline to 12 and 24 weeks were calculated. The prognostic values of TM versus WHO criteria (as three- and two-level variables) at 12 and 24 weeks were compared, using Cox models for overall survival (OS) in a landmark analysis, adjusting for baseline tumor size, performance status, and treatment arm. RESULTS: Tumor status at 12 weeks by WHO criteria (three or two levels) or actual TM were all strongly associated with OS. Actual TM provided no meaningful additional benefit compared with the three-level WHO criteria. Tumor status at 24 weeks was also strongly associated with survival, but added no additional prognostic value compared with the 12-week assessment. At 12 weeks, actual TM improved prognostic characterization of patients with WHO status of response, but provided no additional value in patients with stable disease or progression. CONCLUSIONS: In N9741, the use of actual TM, or following tumor status beyond 12 weeks, did not improve survival prediction compared with a single three-level response assessment at 12 weeks, suggesting that 12-week tumor status could be an appropriate phase II trial endpoint in metastatic CRC.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: We explored the prognostic value of actual tumor measurements (TM) versus World Health Organization (WHO) criteria as three-level (responder, stable, and progression) and two-level (responder and non-responder) variables at 12 and 24 weeks as predictors of survival in Intergroup Trial N9741, a phase III trial in metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: All patients with measurable disease (N = 1,188) were included. The percentage changes in TM from baseline to 12 and 24 weeks were calculated. The prognostic values of TM versus WHO criteria (as three- and two-level variables) at 12 and 24 weeks were compared, using Cox models for overall survival (OS) in a landmark analysis, adjusting for baseline tumor size, performance status, and treatment arm. RESULTS:Tumor status at 12 weeks by WHO criteria (three or two levels) or actual TM were all strongly associated with OS. Actual TM provided no meaningful additional benefit compared with the three-level WHO criteria. Tumor status at 24 weeks was also strongly associated with survival, but added no additional prognostic value compared with the 12-week assessment. At 12 weeks, actual TM improved prognostic characterization of patients with WHO status of response, but provided no additional value in patients with stable disease or progression. CONCLUSIONS: In N9741, the use of actual TM, or following tumor status beyond 12 weeks, did not improve survival prediction compared with a single three-level response assessment at 12 weeks, suggesting that 12-week tumor status could be an appropriate phase II trial endpoint in metastatic CRC.
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: Lawrence V Rubinstein; Edward L Korn; Boris Freidlin; Sally Hunsberger; S Percy Ivy; Malcolm A Smith Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Daniel J Sargent; Harry S Wieand; Daniel G Haller; Richard Gray; Jacqueline K Benedetti; Marc Buyse; Roberto Labianca; Jean Francois Seitz; Christopher J O'Callaghan; Guido Francini; Axel Grothey; Michael O'Connell; Paul J Catalano; Charles D Blanke; David Kerr; Erin Green; Norman Wolmark; Thierry Andre; Richard M Goldberg; Aimery De Gramont Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Richard M Goldberg; Daniel J Sargent; Roscoe F Morton; Charles S Fuchs; Ramesh K Ramanathan; Stephen K Williamson; Brian P Findlay; Henry C Pitot; Steven R Alberts Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-12-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Manish R Sharma; Elizabeth Gray; Richard M Goldberg; Daniel J Sargent; Theodore G Karrison Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-10-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Chikako Suzuki; Lennart Blomqvist; Thomas Hatschek; Lena Carlsson; Zakaria Einbeigi; Barbro Linderholm; Birgitta Lindh; Niklas Loman; Martin Malmberg; Samuel Rotstein; Martin Söderberg; Marie Sundqvist; Thomas M Walz; Gunnar Aström; Hirofumi Fujii; Hans Jacobsson; Bengt Glimelius Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2013-01-16 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Seung Tae Kim; Kee-Taek Jang; Su Jin Lee; Hye-Lim Jang; Jeeyun Lee; Se Hoon Park; Young Suk Park; Ho Yeong Lim; Won Ki Kang; Joon Oh Park Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-07-21 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Anne-Claire Toffart; Denis Moro-Sibilot; Sébastien Couraud; Patrick Merle; Maurice Perol; Nicolas Girard; Pierre-Jean Souquet; Bénédicte Mastroianni; Gilbert R Ferretti; Philippe Romand; Patrick Chatellain; Aurélien Vesin; Elisabeth Brambilla; Christian Brambilla; Jean-François Timsit Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2014-12-20 Impact factor: 4.430