Sumithra J Mandrekar1, Ming-Wen An, Jeffrey Meyers, Axel Grothey, Jan Bogaerts, Daniel J Sargent. 1. Sumithra J. Mandrekar, Jeffrey Meyers, Axel Grothey, and Daniel J. Sargent, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Ming-Wen An, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, NY; and Jan Bogaerts, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We sought to test and validate the predictive utility of trichotomous tumor response (TriTR; complete response [CR] or partial response [PR] v stable disease [SD] v progressive disease [PD]), disease control rate (DCR; CR/PR/SD v PD), and dichotomous tumor response (DiTR; CR/PR v others) metrics using alternate cut points for PR and PD. The data warehouse assembled to guide the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 was used. METHODS: Data from 13 trials (5,480 patients with metastatic breast cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer, or colorectal cancer) were randomly split (60:40) into training and validation data sets. In all, 27 pairs of cut points for PR and PD were considered: PR (10% to 50% decrease by 5% increments) and PD (10% to 20% increase by 5% increments), for which 30% and 20% correspond to the RECIST categorization. Cox proportional hazards models with landmark analyses at 12 and 24 weeks stratified by study and number of lesions (fewer than three v three or more) and adjusted for average baseline tumor size were used to assess the impact of each metric on overall survival (OS). Model discrimination was assessed by using the concordance index (c-index). RESULTS: Standard RECIST cut points demonstrated predictive ability similar to the alternate PR and PD cut points. Regardless of tumor type, the TriTR, DiTR, and DCR metrics had similar predictive performance. The 24-week metrics (albeit with higher c-index point estimate) were not meaningfully better than the 12-week metrics. None of the metrics did particularly well for breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Alternative cut points to RECIST standards provided no meaningful improvement in OS prediction. Metrics assessed at 12 weeks have good predictive performance.
PURPOSE: We sought to test and validate the predictive utility of trichotomous tumor response (TriTR; complete response [CR] or partial response [PR] v stable disease [SD] v progressive disease [PD]), disease control rate (DCR; CR/PR/SD v PD), and dichotomous tumor response (DiTR; CR/PR v others) metrics using alternate cut points for PR and PD. The data warehouse assembled to guide the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 was used. METHODS: Data from 13 trials (5,480 patients with metastatic breast cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer, or colorectal cancer) were randomly split (60:40) into training and validation data sets. In all, 27 pairs of cut points for PR and PD were considered: PR (10% to 50% decrease by 5% increments) and PD (10% to 20% increase by 5% increments), for which 30% and 20% correspond to the RECIST categorization. Cox proportional hazards models with landmark analyses at 12 and 24 weeks stratified by study and number of lesions (fewer than three v three or more) and adjusted for average baseline tumor size were used to assess the impact of each metric on overall survival (OS). Model discrimination was assessed by using the concordance index (c-index). RESULTS: Standard RECIST cut points demonstrated predictive ability similar to the alternate PR and PD cut points. Regardless of tumor type, the TriTR, DiTR, and DCR metrics had similar predictive performance. The 24-week metrics (albeit with higher c-index point estimate) were not meaningfully better than the 12-week metrics. None of the metrics did particularly well for breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Alternative cut points to RECIST standards provided no meaningful improvement in OS prediction. Metrics assessed at 12 weeks have good predictive performance.
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
Authors: Primo N Lara; Mary W Redman; Karen Kelly; Martin J Edelman; Stephen K Williamson; John J Crowley; David R Gandara Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-01-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jan Bogaerts; Robert Ford; Dan Sargent; Lawrence H Schwartz; Larry Rubinstein; Denis Lacombe; Elizabeth Eisenhauer; Jaap Verweij; Patrick Therasse Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2008-12-16 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Shauna L Hillman; Ming-Wen An; Michael J O'Connell; Richard M Goldberg; Paul Schaefer; Jan C Buckner; Daniel J Sargent Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kathleen Ruchalski; Marta Braschi-Amirfarzan; Michael Douek; Victor Sai; Antonio Gutierrez; Rohit Dewan; Jonathan Goldin Journal: Radiol Imaging Cancer Date: 2021-05
Authors: Saskia Litière; Sandra Collette; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Lesley Seymour; Jan Bogaerts Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2016-12-20 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Jesse L Berry; Francis L Munier; Brenda L Gallie; Ashley Polski; Sona Shah; Carol L Shields; Dan S Gombos; Kathleen Ruchalski; Christina Stathopoulos; Rachana Shah; Rima Jubran; Jonathan W Kim; Prithvi Mruthyunjaya; Brian P Marr; Matthew W Wilson; Rachel C Brennan; Guillermo L Chantada; Murali M Chintagumpala; A Linn Murphree Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2021-02-23 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Michael L Maitland; Julia Wilkerson; Sanja Karovic; Binsheng Zhao; Jessica Flynn; Mengxi Zhou; Patrick Hilden; Firas S Ahmed; Laurent Dercle; Chaya S Moskowitz; Ying Tang; Dana E Connors; Stacey J Adam; Gary Kelloff; Mithat Gonen; Tito Fojo; Lawrence H Schwartz; Geoffrey R Oxnard Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 12.531