BACKGROUND: Research biopsies are crucial for exploring the impact of novel agents on putative targets. The current study assesses the safety and success rate associated with performing such biopsies. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 155 consecutive patients who had one or more research biopsies as part of a phase I trial from September 2004 to October 2009. RESULTS: Of 281 research biopsies performed, 118 were paired before and after treatment biopsies (total = 236 biopsies). The most common sites of biopsy were superficial lymph node (19.9%), followed by liver (16.4%), and then soft tissue (15.7%). Ultrasound-guided biopsies were the most frequent type (53.7%). Among 142 patients who consented for mandatory biopsy, 86.6% had the biopsy performed, compared with 4.4% of 911 patients offered a biopsy on an optional basis (p < .0001). Biopsy was obtained most frequently on industry-sponsored trials; lack of funding on nonindustry trials was the most common reason that biopsies were not obtained. Of 281 single biopsies, only 4 (1.4%) had complications: pneumothorax requiring chest tube placement (n = 2), infection requiring admission (n = 1), and arrhythmia with hypotension (n = 1). All but one biopsy was successful in obtaining tissue. No deaths were attributable to biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience demonstrates that research biopsies in early phase clinical trials are safe (1.4% risk of serious complications), and a higher percentage of patients underwent mandatory biopsies (86.6%) compared with that of the patients with optional biopsies (4.4%).
BACKGROUND: Research biopsies are crucial for exploring the impact of novel agents on putative targets. The current study assesses the safety and success rate associated with performing such biopsies. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 155 consecutive patients who had one or more research biopsies as part of a phase I trial from September 2004 to October 2009. RESULTS: Of 281 research biopsies performed, 118 were paired before and after treatment biopsies (total = 236 biopsies). The most common sites of biopsy were superficial lymph node (19.9%), followed by liver (16.4%), and then soft tissue (15.7%). Ultrasound-guided biopsies were the most frequent type (53.7%). Among 142 patients who consented for mandatory biopsy, 86.6% had the biopsy performed, compared with 4.4% of 911 patients offered a biopsy on an optional basis (p < .0001). Biopsy was obtained most frequently on industry-sponsored trials; lack of funding on nonindustry trials was the most common reason that biopsies were not obtained. Of 281 single biopsies, only 4 (1.4%) had complications: pneumothorax requiring chest tube placement (n = 2), infection requiring admission (n = 1), and arrhythmia with hypotension (n = 1). All but one biopsy was successful in obtaining tissue. No deaths were attributable to biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience demonstrates that research biopsies in early phase clinical trials are safe (1.4% risk of serious complications), and a higher percentage of patients underwent mandatory biopsies (86.6%) compared with that of the patients with optional biopsies (4.4%).
Authors: A Dowlati; J Haaga; S C Remick; T P Spiro; S L Gerson; L Liu; S J Berger; N A Berger; J K Willson Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Elizabeth Horstmann; Mary S McCabe; Louise Grochow; Seiichiro Yamamoto; Larry Rubinstein; Troy Budd; Dale Shoemaker; Ezekiel J Emanuel; Christine Grady Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rodrigo B Interiano; Amos H P Loh; Nathan Hinkle; Fazal N Wahid; Alpin D Malkan; Armita Bahrami; Jesse J Jenkins; Shenghua Mao; Jianrong Wu; Kimberly Proctor; Victor M Santana; Alberto S Pappo; Robert E Gold; Andrew M Davidoff Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-12-18 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sander Bins; Geert A Cirkel; Christa G Gadellaa-Van Hooijdonk; Fleur Weeber; Isaac J Numan; Annette H Bruggink; Paul J van Diest; Stefan M Willems; Wouter B Veldhuis; Michel M van den Heuvel; Rob J de Knegt; Marco J Koudijs; Erik van Werkhoven; Ron H J Mathijssen; Edwin Cuppen; Stefan Sleijfer; Jan H M Schellens; Emile E Voest; Marlies H G Langenberg; Maja J A de Jonge; Neeltje Steeghs; Martijn P Lolkema Journal: Oncologist Date: 2016-09-23
Authors: David S Hong; Goldy C George; Eucharia C Iwuanyanwu; Bahareh Tavana; Gerald S Falchook; Sarina A Piha-Paul; Jennifer J Wheler; Reena H Mistry; Xiudong Lei; Razelle Kurzrock Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2013-03-02 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Jung-min Lee; John L Hays; Anne M Noonan; Jennifer Squires; Lori Minasian; Christina Annunziata; Bradford J Wood; Minshu Yu; Katherine R Calvo; Nicole Houston; Nilofer Azad; Elise C Kohn Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-12-20 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Michael J Overman; Janhavi Modak; Scott Kopetz; Ravi Murthy; James C Yao; Marshall E Hicks; James L Abbruzzese; Alda L Tam Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-11-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: I Garrido-Laguna; K A McGregor; M Wade; J Weis; W Gilcrease; L Burr; R Soldi; L Jakubowski; C Davidson; G Morrell; J D Olpin; K Boucher; D Jones; S Sharma Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2013-03-17 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: Davinia S Seah; Sarah Scott; Hao Guo; Julie Najita; Ruth Lederman; Elizabeth Frank; Jessica Sohl; Zsofia Stadler; Stuart Silverman; Jeffrey Peppercorn; Eric Winer; Steve Come; Nancy U Lin Journal: Oncologist Date: 2015-08-03