Literature DB >> 22211140

Progression-free Survival Decreases with Each Subsequent Therapy in Patients Presenting for Phase I Clinical Trials.

Christopher H Bailey1, Gayle Jameson, Chao Sima, Sharon Fleck, Erica White, Daniel D Von Hoff, Glen J Weiss.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is often a finite progression-free interval of time between one systemic therapy and the next when treating patients with advanced cancer. While it appears that progression-free survival (PFS) between systemic therapies tends to get shorter for a number of factors, there has not been a formal evaluation of diverse tumor types in an advanced cancer population treated with commercially-available systemic therapies.
METHODS: In an attempt to clarify the relationship between PFS between subsequent systemic therapies, we analyzed the records of 165 advanced cancer patients coming to our clinic for consideration for participation in six different phase I clinical trials requiring detailed and extensive past medical treatment history documentation.
RESULTS: There were 77 men and 65 women meeting inclusion criteria with a median age at diagnosis of 55.3 years (range 9.4-81.6). The most common cancer types were colorectal (13.9%), other gastrointestinal (11.8%), prostate (11.8%). A median of 3 (range 1-11) systemic therapies were received prior to phase I evaluation. There was a significant decrease in PFS in systemic therapy for advanced disease from treatment 1 to treatment 2 to treatment 3 (p = 0.002), as well as, from treatment 1 through treatment 5 (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: In an advanced cancer population of diverse tumor types, we observe a statistically significant decrease in PFS with each successive standard therapy. Identification of new therapies that reverse this trend of decreasing PFS may lead to improved clinical outcomes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Progression-free survival; advanced cancer; chemotherapy; phase I clinical trials; systemic therapy

Year:  2011        PMID: 22211140      PMCID: PMC3245603          DOI: 10.7150/jca.3.7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cancer        ISSN: 1837-9664            Impact factor:   4.207


Introduction

The treatment of advanced/metastatic cancer often involves systemic chemotherapy. The most robust responses and lengthiest interval of time before disease progression is usually observed with first-line therapy1,2,3. Often, when progression occurs on first-line therapy, subsequent systemic therapies are offered in patients who are eligible for additional therapy based on clinical attributes such as performance status and acceptable laboratory parameters. Subsequent therapies are selected based on tumor type and treatment guidelines, availability of approved agents or off-label use of approved agents, or when feasible, eligibility to participate in a clinical trial involving systemic therapy of an investigational agent. It has been noted that the interval of time between subsequent therapies in advanced/metastatic cancer is reduced after each treatment. For example, progression-free survival (PFS) shortens such that Treatment A > Treatment B > Treatment C > Treatment D, and so on1,2,3. Examination of the relationship between PFS and its impact on disease progression in advanced/metastatic cancer patients leading up to evaluation for participation in a phase I clinical trial has been limited. Clinical factors that may affect the length of survival during phase I clinical trials for patients with advanced cancers have been identified. Patients receiving more than five prior treatments had a trend toward shorter survival4. A longer median PFS has been observed in lung cancer patients treated on phase I studies that had received two or less prior therapies compared to lung cancer patients treated with more than two prior therapies5. While it appears that PFS tends to get shorter for a number of factors (e.g. tumor progression, toxicity, or patient wishes), there has not been a formal evaluation in an advanced cancer population of diverse tumor types treated with commercially-available systemic therapies. We examined PFS between systemic therapies of commercially available agents prior to presenting for a phase I clinical trial evaluation at our institution.

Materials and Methods

Participants were all adults with a diagnosis of advanced/metastatic cancer at the time of signed informed consent for screening for a Phase I clinical trial at our center. All patients were selected for inclusion in this analysis because they consented for at least one of six of our phase I trials which require detailed past medical treatment histories, including prior treatment start and stop dates, past surgeries and radiotherapy treatment dates, as part of screening. Clinical characteristics collected include: subject diagnosis, histology, age, gender, stage at diagnosis, prior chemotherapy, prior surgery and radiation therapy, and PFS on systemic therapy for advanced/metastatic cancer was calculated from start of the first systemic therapy regimen for advanced/metastatic cancer (txn) to the start of the next subsequent systemic therapy (txn+1), then txn+1 and txn+2, and so on. PFS between consecutive systemic therapies were calculated using the Jonckheere-Terpstra test. NOTE: if there was a palliative surgical or radiation intervention between one type of systemic therapy (e.g. txn+2 and txn+3 ), then additional PFS calculations were resumed from the starting point txn+3 to the start of txn+4, such that PFS was not calculated between start of txn+2 and txn+3. Each patient's medical history was reviewed from the time of cancer diagnosis to presentation at our institution for clinical trial evaluation to determine the PFS for each line of therapy. Surgery, radiotherapy, herbal supplements, and investigational therapies were censored. Standard therapies given to patients subsequent to investigational therapies were censored from the data set. Progression dates were defined by the start date of the next chemotherapy agent given. When the exact day of the month for start or stop of a therapy was not provided, the 15th of the month was assigned. When start and progression dates lacked information about the specific month or year, the treatment information was censored.

Results

Patient Characteristics

We reviewed the patient records of 165 unique patients that were evaluated for participation in six phase I trials. Due to a lack of specific start/stop dates, 25 patients had at least one treatment censored for analysis; with one of these patients not having PFS that could be calculated for this study. Seventeen of these twenty-five patients were diagnosed as having less than stage IV disease, with the majority of censored treatments (radiation, surgery, or neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy) occurring in the non-advanced/metastatic setting. One hundred forty-four patients met criteria for receiving at least one prior non-investigational systemic therapy for advanced/metastatic cancer prior to coming for a phase I treatment evaluation. There were 77 men and 65 women; median age at cancer diagnosis was 55.3 years (range, 9.4 - 81.6 years). The most common types were: colorectal cancer (n=20 (13.9%)), other gastrointestinal cancer (n=17 (11.8%)), adenocarcinoma of the prostate (n=17 (11.8%)), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (n=13 (9.0%)), breast cancer (n=12 (8.3%)), ovarian cancer (n=11 (7.6%)), and adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (n=9 (6.3%)) (Table I). Patients had a median of three chemotherapy or hormonal treatments (mean, 3.32 treatments; range, 1 - 11 treatments).
Table I

Patient Diagnoses, Gender, Median Age at Diagnosis and Median Number of Therapies

Number of Patients*MaleFemaleMedian Age at Diagnosis (range) (in years)Median Therapies (range) (in years)
Total142776555.7 (9.4-81.6)3 (1-11)
Colorectal2011955.3 (33.1-79.9)4 (2-9)
Other Gastrointestinal1712554.0 (9.4-72.9)2 (1-10)
Prostate1717060.3 (52.0-75.2)3 (2-8)
Breast1211144.9 (28.0-57.3)7 (3-11)
Non-small-cell Lung139463.9 (41.6-81.6)3 (1-4)
Ovarian1101159.8 (44.2-75.3)4 (2-9)
Pancreatic96361.0 (31.7-79.6)1 (1-4)
Gynecological80839.6 (24.4-69.7)1.5 (1-3)
Head and Neck86251.9 (45.3-72.3)2 (1-8)
Skin76148.2 (32.0-73.3)2 (1-3)
Other61552.4 (39.5-62.7)2 (1-5)
Small-cell Lung40455.9 (50.0-66.2)2.5 (2-3)
Genitourinary33053.2 (19.5-66.6)3 (2-4)
Sarcoma32166.7 (29.9-78.0)2 (1-3)
Thoracic32137.9 (19.6-60.1)1 (1-4)
Adrenal11054.0 (54.0-54.0)1 (1-1)

"Other" include: unknown primary (n=2), carcinoma (n=1), eccrine sweat gland (n=1), leiomyosarcoma (n=1), occular melanoma (n=1).

*Does not include patients that were censored from analysis.

Two of the 144 patients did not receive a second systemic therapy prior to evaluation at our center, so PFS could be calculated for the remaining 142 patients. The PFS from txn to txn+3 was significantly decreased (p = 0.001850) (Figure 1). Few advanced cancers have more than four lines of FDA-approved or consensus guidelines recommendations for systemic therapy, thus we examined the time to progression of the first five treatments (p = 2.938e-07) (Figure 2).
Figure 1

PFS in days from first systemic therapy to third systemic therapy. Boxplot detail showing significant decrease in PFS calculated for first systemic therapy (TX1), second systemic therapy (TX2), and third systemic therapy (TX3) in days.

Figure 2

PFS in days from first systemic therapy to fifth systemic therapy. Boxplot detail showing significant decrease in PFS calculated for first systemic therapy (TX1), second systemic therapy (TX2), third systemic therapy (TX3), fourth systemic therapy (TX4), and fifth systemic therapy (TX5) in days.

Discussion

Statistical analyses revealed that there was a significant downward trend in PFS for patients on three standard therapies (p = 0.001850) (Figure 1). Most patients with advanced cancers have no more than four lines of approved treatment, we also examined the PFS of the first five treatments, again finding a significant downward trend (p = 2.938e-07) (Figure 2). Other reports support these findings of decreased PFS with subsequent therapies. In colorectal cancer, the median PFS is 6-10.6 months6-15, 2.3-7.3 months16-20, and 5.3-5.4 months21,22 for first-, second-, and third-line systemic therapies; respectively. In NSCLC, the median PFS is 4.2-13.1 months23-33 and 1.7-4.6 months34-43 for first- and second line-treatment; respectively. In gastro-esophageal cancer, the median PFS is 3.9-7.0 months44-49 and 1.8-4.1 months50-52 for first- and second-line therapy; respectively. The least favorable results are in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, where the median PFS is 3.3-6.4 months53,54 and 1.4-4.1 months55-59 for first- and second-line treatment; respectively (Table II).
Table II

Progression-free Survival for Successive Treatments in Supporting Articles. KEY: TX 1 - PFS for first-line systemic therapy, TX 2- PFS for second-line systemic therapy, TX 3- PFS for third-line systemic therapy.

Cancer TypeTX 1 (months)TX 2 (months)TX 3 (months)
Colorectal6-10.72.3-7.35.3-5.4
Non-small cell Lung4.2-13.11.7-4.6-
Gastro-esophageal3.9-7.01.8-4.1-
Pancreatic3.3-6.41.4-4.1-
A reversal of decreasing PFS with therapy may suggest a change in the expected course of the disease. Recent examples of new therapies that have dramatically changed the disease course for patients with advanced cancer include targeted cancer therapies such as imatinib for chronic myelogenous leukemia and gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) and erlotinib for NSCLC. In GIST patients treated with imatinib, a specific exon mutation in the tumor correlates with a higher response rate, PFS, and overall survival (OS)60-62. In NSCLC, it is the activating tyrosine kinase mutation in the tumor's EGFR gene that dramatically sensitizes this cancer to erlotinib and gefitinib63-67. These mutations had first been observed in clinical subgroups of NSCLC patients, primarily, Asian never-smoker women with adenocarcinoma60,68-71. Potential “therapeutic efficacy” subgroups may be recognized when a reversal in the expected decreasing PFS during therapy is observed.
  71 in total

Review 1.  How long have I got? Estimating typical, best-case, and worst-case scenarios for patients starting first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review of recent randomized trials.

Authors:  Belinda E Kiely; Yu Yang Soon; Martin H N Tattersall; Martin R Stockler
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-12-28       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 2.  Pooled survival and response data from phase III randomized controlled trials for gemcitabine-based regimes in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Ali Arshad; Dhya Al-Leswas; Omer Al-Taan; James Stephenson; Matthew Metcalfe; William P Steward; Ashley R Dennison
Journal:  Am J Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 2.339

3.  Gefitinib or chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer with mutated EGFR.

Authors:  Makoto Maemondo; Akira Inoue; Kunihiko Kobayashi; Shunichi Sugawara; Satoshi Oizumi; Hiroshi Isobe; Akihiko Gemma; Masao Harada; Hirohisa Yoshizawa; Ichiro Kinoshita; Yuka Fujita; Shoji Okinaga; Haruto Hirano; Kozo Yoshimori; Toshiyuki Harada; Takashi Ogura; Masahiro Ando; Hitoshi Miyazawa; Tomoaki Tanaka; Yasuo Saijo; Koichi Hagiwara; Satoshi Morita; Toshihiro Nukiwa
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-06-24       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Irinotecan plus S-1 (IRIS) versus fluorouracil and folinic acid plus irinotecan (FOLFIRI) as second-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomised phase 2/3 non-inferiority study (FIRIS study).

Authors:  Kei Muro; Narikazu Boku; Yasuhiro Shimada; Akihito Tsuji; Shinichi Sameshima; Hideo Baba; Taroh Satoh; Tadamichi Denda; Kenji Ina; Tomohiro Nishina; Kensei Yamaguchi; Hiroya Takiuchi; Taito Esaki; Shinya Tokunaga; Hiroyuki Kuwano; Yoshito Komatsu; Masahiko Watanabe; Ichinosuke Hyodo; Satoshi Morita; Kenichi Sugihara
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2010-08-12       Impact factor: 41.316

5.  Capecitabine, bevacizumab, and mitomycin in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: results of the Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group Randomized Phase III MAX Study.

Authors:  Niall C Tebbutt; Kate Wilson; Val J Gebski; Michelle M Cummins; Diana Zannino; Guy A van Hazel; Bridget Robinson; Adam Broad; Vinod Ganju; Stephen P Ackland; Garry Forgeson; David Cunningham; Mark P Saunders; Martin R Stockler; Yujo Chua; John R Zalcberg; R John Simes; Timothy J Price
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-06-01       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Phase III study of docetaxel and cisplatin plus fluorouracil compared with cisplatin and fluorouracil as first-line therapy for advanced gastric cancer: a report of the V325 Study Group.

Authors:  Eric Van Cutsem; Vladimir M Moiseyenko; Sergei Tjulandin; Alejandro Majlis; Manuel Constenla; Corrado Boni; Adriano Rodrigues; Miguel Fodor; Yee Chao; Edouard Voznyi; Marie-Laure Risse; Jaffer A Ajani
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-11-01       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  A randomized phase III trial comparing standard and high-dose pemetrexed as second-line treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  M H Cullen; P Zatloukal; S Sörenson; S Novello; J R Fischer; A A Joy; M Zereu; P Peterson; C M Visseren-Grul; N Iscoe
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2008-02-17       Impact factor: 32.976

8.  Capecitabine and oxaliplatin for advanced esophagogastric cancer.

Authors:  David Cunningham; Naureen Starling; Sheela Rao; Timothy Iveson; Marianne Nicolson; Fareeda Coxon; Gary Middleton; Francis Daniel; Jacqueline Oates; Andrew Richard Norman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-01-03       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI or FOLFOX as third-line or later treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer after failure of 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin: a retrospective analysis.

Authors:  Byung Woog Kang; Tae Won Kim; Jae-Lyun Lee; Min-Hee Ryu; Heung Moon Chang; Chang Sik Yu; Jin Cheon Kim; Jong Hoon Kim; Yoon-Koo Kang; Jung Shin Lee
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2008-05-22       Impact factor: 3.064

10.  Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in Chinese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III ARTIST trial.

Authors:  Zhong-Zhen Guan; Jian-Ming Xu; Rong-Cheng Luo; Feng-Yi Feng; Li-Wei Wang; Lin Shen; Shi-Ying Yu; Yi Ba; Jun Liang; Dong Wang; Shu-Kui Qin; Jie-Jun Wang; Jing He; Chuan Qi; Rui-Hua Xu
Journal:  Chin J Cancer       Date:  2011-10
View more
  11 in total

1.  Use of comprehensive genomic profiling to direct point-of-care management of patients with gynecologic cancers.

Authors:  Lorna Rodriguez-Rodriguez; Kim M Hirshfield; Veronica Rojas; Robert S DiPaola; Darlene Gibbon; Mira Hellmann; Sara Isani; Aliza Leiser; Gregory M Riedlinger; Allison Wagreich; Siraj M Ali; Julia A Elvin; Vincent A Miller; Shridar Ganesan
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 5.482

2.  The Pros and Cons of Incorporating Transcriptomics in the Age of Precision Oncology.

Authors:  Victor T G Lin; Eddy S Yang
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Prognostic factors modifying the treatment-free interval in recurrent ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Kevin H Eng; Bret M Hanlon; William H Bradley; J Brian Szender
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2015-09-14       Impact factor: 5.482

4.  Clinical Outcomes of Molecular Tumor Boards: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Kara L Larson; Bin Huang; Heidi L Weiss; Pam Hull; Philip M Westgate; Rachel W Miller; Susanne M Arnold; Jill M Kolesar
Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol       Date:  2021-07-09

5.  Evaluation and comparison of two commercially available targeted next-generation sequencing platforms to assist oncology decision making.

Authors:  Glen J Weiss; Brandi R Hoff; Robert P Whitehead; Ashish Sangal; Susan A Gingrich; Robert J Penny; David W Mallery; Scott M Morris; Eric J Thompson; David M Loesch; Vivek Khemka
Journal:  Onco Targets Ther       Date:  2015-04-24       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Academic Cancer Center Phase I Program Development.

Authors:  Arthur E Frankel; Keith T Flaherty; George J Weiner; Robert Chen; Nilofer S Azad; Michael J Pishvaian; John A Thompson; Matthew H Taylor; Daruka Mahadevan; A Craig Lockhart; Ulka N Vaishampayan; Jordan D Berlin; David C Smith; John Sarantopoulos; Matthew Riese; Mansoor N Saleh; Chul Ahn; Eugene P Frenkel
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2017-03-17

7.  Performance of next-generation sequencing on small tumor specimens and/or low tumor content samples using a commercially available platform.

Authors:  Scott M Morris; Janakiraman Subramanian; Esma S Gel; George C Runger; Eric J Thompson; David W Mallery; Glen J Weiss
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-04-27       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Strategy for Assessing New Drug Value in Orphan Diseases: An International Case Match Control Analysis of the PROPEL Study.

Authors:  Owen A O'Connor; Enrica Marchi; Weining Volinn; Jin Shi; Thomas Mehrling; Won Seog Kim
Journal:  JNCI Cancer Spectr       Date:  2018-12-01

9.  Intrapatient comparisons of efficacy in a single-arm trial of entrectinib in tumour-agnostic indications.

Authors:  M G Krebs; J-Y Blay; C Le Tourneau; D Hong; L Veronese; M Antoniou; I Bennett
Journal:  ESMO Open       Date:  2021-03-04

10.  Use of the metastatic breast cancer progression (MBC-P) questionnaire to assess the value of progression-free survival for women with metastatic breast cancer.

Authors:  Sara A Hurvitz; Deepa Lalla; Ross D Crosby; Susan D Mathias
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2013-11-12       Impact factor: 4.872

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.