PURPOSE: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) evaluation does not take into account the pretreatment tumor kinetics and may provide incomplete information about experimental drug activity. Tumor growth rate (TGR) allows for a dynamic and quantitative assessment of the tumor kinetics. How TGR varies along the introduction of experimental therapeutics and is associated with outcome in phase I patients remains unknown. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Medical records from all patients (N = 253) prospectively treated in 20 phase I trials were analyzed. TGR was computed during the pretreatment period (reference) and the experimental period. Associations between TGR, standard prognostic scores [Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) score], and outcome [progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)] were computed (multivariate analysis). RESULTS: We observed a reduction of TGR between the reference versus experimental periods (38% vs. 4.4%; P < 0.00001). Although most patients were classified as stable disease (65%) or progressive disease (25%) by RECIST at the first evaluation, 82% and 65% of them exhibited a decrease in TGR, respectively. In a multivariate analysis, only the decrease of TGR was associated with PFS (P = 0.004), whereas the RMH score was the only variable associated with OS (P = 0.0008). Only the investigated regimens delivered were associated with a decrease of TGR (P < 0.00001, multivariate analysis). Computing TGR profiles across different clinical trials reveals specific patterns of antitumor activity. CONCLUSIONS: Exploring TGR in phase I patients is simple and provides clinically relevant information: (i) an early and subtle assessment of signs of antitumor activity; (ii) independent association with PFS; and (iii) it reveals drug-specific profiles, suggesting potential utility for guiding the further development of the investigational drugs.
PURPOSE: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) evaluation does not take into account the pretreatment tumor kinetics and may provide incomplete information about experimental drug activity. Tumor growth rate (TGR) allows for a dynamic and quantitative assessment of the tumor kinetics. How TGR varies along the introduction of experimental therapeutics and is associated with outcome in phase I patients remains unknown. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Medical records from all patients (N = 253) prospectively treated in 20 phase I trials were analyzed. TGR was computed during the pretreatment period (reference) and the experimental period. Associations between TGR, standard prognostic scores [Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) score], and outcome [progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)] were computed (multivariate analysis). RESULTS: We observed a reduction of TGR between the reference versus experimental periods (38% vs. 4.4%; P < 0.00001). Although most patients were classified as stable disease (65%) or progressive disease (25%) by RECIST at the first evaluation, 82% and 65% of them exhibited a decrease in TGR, respectively. In a multivariate analysis, only the decrease of TGR was associated with PFS (P = 0.004), whereas the RMH score was the only variable associated with OS (P = 0.0008). Only the investigated regimens delivered were associated with a decrease of TGR (P < 0.00001, multivariate analysis). Computing TGR profiles across different clinical trials reveals specific patterns of antitumor activity. CONCLUSIONS: Exploring TGR in phase I patients is simple and provides clinically relevant information: (i) an early and subtle assessment of signs of antitumor activity; (ii) independent association with PFS; and (iii) it reveals drug-specific profiles, suggesting potential utility for guiding the further development of the investigational drugs.
Authors: Wilfred D Stein; Julia Wilkerson; Sindy T Kim; Xin Huang; Robert J Motzer; Antonio Tito Fojo; Susan E Bates Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-02-17 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Carlos Gomez-Roca; Serge Koscielny; Vincent Ribrag; Clarisse Dromain; Inès Marzouk; François Bidault; Ratislav Bahleda; Charles Ferté; Christophe Massard; Jean-Charles Soria Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2011-07-15 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Jedd D Wolchok; Axel Hoos; Steven O'Day; Jeffrey S Weber; Omid Hamid; Celeste Lebbé; Michele Maio; Michael Binder; Oliver Bohnsack; Geoffrey Nichol; Rachel Humphrey; F Stephen Hodi Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-11-24 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Corbin A Rayfield; Fillan Grady; Gustavo De Leon; Russell Rockne; Eduardo Carrasco; Pamela Jackson; Mayur Vora; Sandra K Johnston; Andrea Hawkins-Daarud; Kamala R Clark-Swanson; Scott Whitmire; Mauricio E Gamez; Alyx Porter; Leland Hu; Luis Gonzalez-Cuyar; Bernard Bendok; Sujay Vora; Kristin R Swanson Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2018-12
Authors: Patrick M Dillon; Gina R Petroni; Bethany J Horton; Christopher A Moskaluk; Paula M Fracasso; Michael G Douvas; Nikole Varhegyi; Snjezana Zaja-Milatovic; Christopher Y Thomas Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-04-04 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Lillian L Siu; S Percy Ivy; Erica L Dixon; Amy E Gravell; Steven A Reeves; Gary L Rosner Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Mizuki Nishino; Suzanne E Dahlberg; Linnea E Fulton; Subba R Digumarthy; Hiroto Hatabu; Bruce E Johnson; Lecia V Sequist Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2016-01-08 Impact factor: 3.173