Literature DB >> 21632455

Tumor status at 12 weeks predicts survival in advanced colorectal cancer: findings from NCCTG N9741.

James M Heun1, Axel Grothey, Megan E Branda, Richard M Goldberg, Daniel J Sargent.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21632455      PMCID: PMC3228205          DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0064

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncologist        ISSN: 1083-7159


  33 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

2.  The phase III trial in the era of targeted therapy: unraveling the "go or no go" decision.

Authors:  Thomas G Roberts; Thomas J Lynch; Bruce A Chabner
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-10-01       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Randomized phase II trials: inevitable or inadvisable?

Authors:  Hui K Gan; Axel Grothey; Gregory R Pond; Malcolm J Moore; Lillian L Siu; Daniel Sargent
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-04-20       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Phase II studies of modern drugs directed against new targets: if you are fazed, too, then resist RECIST.

Authors:  Mark J Ratain; S Gail Eckhardt
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2004-10-13       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Design issues of randomized phase II trials and a proposal for phase II screening trials.

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

6.  [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in aggressive lymphoma: an early prognostic tool for predicting patient outcome.

Authors:  Corinne Haioun; Emmanuel Itti; Alain Rahmouni; Pauline Brice; Jean-Didier Rain; Karim Belhadj; Philippe Gaulard; Laurent Garderet; Eric Lepage; Felix Reyes; Michel Meignan
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2005-04-28       Impact factor: 22.113

7.  Disease-free survival versus overall survival as a primary end point for adjuvant colon cancer studies: individual patient data from 20,898 patients on 18 randomized trials.

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

8.  FDG-PET after two to three cycles of chemotherapy predicts progression-free and overall survival in high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Authors:  N G Mikhaeel; M Hutchings; P A Fields; M J O'Doherty; A R Timothy
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2005-06-24       Impact factor: 32.976

9.  Reporting results of cancer treatment.

Authors:  A B Miller; B Hoogstraten; M Staquet; A Winkler
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1981-01-01       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  A randomized controlled trial of fluorouracil plus leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin combinations in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer.

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

View more
  7 in total

1.  Resampling the N9741 trial to compare tumor dynamic versus conventional end points in randomized phase II trials.

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

2.  The power of phase II end-points for different possible mechanisms of action of an experimental treatment.

Authors:  J M S Wason; A Dentamaro; T G Eisen
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2015-03-31       Impact factor: 9.162

3.  Impact of the first tumor response at eight weeks on overall survival in metastatic breast cancer patients treated with first-line combination chemotherapy.

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

4.  Evaluation of alternate categorical tumor metrics and cut points for response categorization using the RECIST 1.1 data warehouse.

Authors:  Sumithra J Mandrekar; Ming-Wen An; Jeffrey Meyers; Axel Grothey; Jan Bogaerts; Daniel J Sargent
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-02-10       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Tumour shrinkage at 6 weeks predicts favorable clinical outcomes in a phase III study of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin with or without erlotinib for advanced biliary tract cancer.

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

6.  Evaluation of RECIST in chemotherapy-treated lung cancer: the Pharmacogenoscan Study.

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

7.  Exploration of time points and cut-off values for early tumour shrinkage to predict survival outcomes of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with first-line chemotherapy using a biexponential model for change in tumour size.

Authors:  Kentaro Sakamaki; Yosuke Kito; Kentaro Yamazaki; Naoki Izawa; Takashi Tsuda; Satoshi Morita; Narikazu Boku
Journal:  ESMO Open       Date:  2017-11-14
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.