C A Gomez-Roca1, L Lacroix2, C Massard1, T De Baere3, F Deschamps3, R Pramod3, R Bahleda1, E Deutsch1, C Bourgier1, E Angevin1, V Lazar4, V Ribrag1, S Koscielny5, L Chami6, N Lassau6, C Dromain6, C Robert7, E Routier7, J P Armand8, J-C Soria9. 1. Department of Medicine, SITEP. 2. Department of Biopathology. 3. Department of Medical Imaging-Interventional Radiology. 4. Department of Translational Research Laboratory. 5. Department of Biostatistics. 6. Department of Medical Imaging-Echography; Department of Medicine, Dermatology Unit. 7. Department of Medical Imaging-CT-scan/MRI, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif. 8. Department of Medicine, Centre Claudius Regaud, Toulouse, France. 9. Department of Medicine, SITEP. Electronic address: soria@igr.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sequential tumour biopsies are of potential interest for the rational development of molecular targeted therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From June 2004 to July 2009, 186 patients participated in 14 phase I clinical trials in which sequential tumour biopsies (13 trials) and/or sequential normal skin biopsies (6 trials) were optional. All patients had to sign an independent informed consent for the biopsies. RESULTS: Tumour biopsies were proposed to 155 patients and 130 (84%) signed the consent while normal skin biopsies were proposed to 70 patients and 57 (81%) signed the consent. Tumour biopsies could not be carried out in 41 (31%) of the 130 consenting patients. Tumour biopsies were collected at baseline in 33 patients, at baseline and under treatment in 56 patients. Tumour biopsies were obtained using an 18-gauge needle, under ultrasound or computed tomography guidance. Only nine minor complications were recorded. Most tumour biopsy samples collected were intended for ancillary molecular studies including protein or gene expression analysis, comparative genomic hybridization array or DNA sequencing. According to the results available, 70% of the biopsy samples met the quality criteria of each study and were suitable for ancillary studies. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, the majority of the patients accepted skin biopsies as well as tumour biopsies. Sequential tumour and skin biopsies are feasible and safe during early-phase clinical trials, even when patients are exposed to anti-angiogenic agents. The real scientific value of such biopsies for dose selection in phase I trials has yet to be established.
BACKGROUND: Sequential tumour biopsies are of potential interest for the rational development of molecular targeted therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From June 2004 to July 2009, 186 patients participated in 14 phase I clinical trials in which sequential tumour biopsies (13 trials) and/or sequential normal skin biopsies (6 trials) were optional. All patients had to sign an independent informed consent for the biopsies. RESULTS:Tumour biopsies were proposed to 155 patients and 130 (84%) signed the consent while normal skin biopsies were proposed to 70 patients and 57 (81%) signed the consent. Tumour biopsies could not be carried out in 41 (31%) of the 130 consenting patients. Tumour biopsies were collected at baseline in 33 patients, at baseline and under treatment in 56 patients. Tumour biopsies were obtained using an 18-gauge needle, under ultrasound or computed tomography guidance. Only nine minor complications were recorded. Most tumour biopsy samples collected were intended for ancillary molecular studies including protein or gene expression analysis, comparative genomic hybridization array or DNA sequencing. According to the results available, 70% of the biopsy samples met the quality criteria of each study and were suitable for ancillary studies. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, the majority of the patients accepted skin biopsies as well as tumour biopsies. Sequential tumour and skin biopsies are feasible and safe during early-phase clinical trials, even when patients are exposed to anti-angiogenic agents. The real scientific value of such biopsies for dose selection in phase I trials has yet to be established.
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: 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: 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