Maria Schwaederle1, Melissa Zhao2, J Jack Lee2, Alexander M Eggermont2, Richard L Schilsky2, John Mendelsohn2, Vladimir Lazar2, Razelle Kurzrock2. 1. Maria Schwaederle, Melissa Zhao, and Razelle Kurzrock, Center for Personalized Cancer Therapy, University of California, San Diego, Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, CA; J. Jack Lee and John Mendelsohn, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Richard L. Schilsky, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alexander M. Eggermont and Vladimir Lazar, Institut Gustave Roussy, University Paris-Sud; and Alexander M. Eggermont, Richard L. Schilsky, John Mendelsohn, Vladimir Lazar, and Razelle Kurzrock, Worldwide Innovative Network in Personalized Cancer Medicine, Villejuif, France. mschwaederle@ucsd.edu. 2. Maria Schwaederle, Melissa Zhao, and Razelle Kurzrock, Center for Personalized Cancer Therapy, University of California, San Diego, Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, CA; J. Jack Lee and John Mendelsohn, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Richard L. Schilsky, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alexander M. Eggermont and Vladimir Lazar, Institut Gustave Roussy, University Paris-Sud; and Alexander M. Eggermont, Richard L. Schilsky, John Mendelsohn, Vladimir Lazar, and Razelle Kurzrock, Worldwide Innovative Network in Personalized Cancer Medicine, Villejuif, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The impact of a personalized cancer treatment strategy (ie, matching patients with drugs based on specific biomarkers) is still a matter of debate. METHODS: We reviewed phase II single-agent studies (570 studies; 32,149 patients) published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2012 (PubMed search). Response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared for arms that used a personalized strategy versus those that did not. RESULTS: Multivariable analysis (both weighted multiple linear regression and random effects meta-regression) demonstrated that the personalized approach, compared with a nonpersonalized approach, consistently and independently correlated with higher median RR (31% v 10.5%, respectively; P < .001) and prolonged median PFS (5.9 v 2.7 months, respectively; P < .001) and OS (13.7 v 8.9 months, respectively; P < .001). Nonpersonalized targeted arms had poorer outcomes compared with either personalized targeted therapy or cytotoxics, with median RR of 4%, 30%, and 11.9%, respectively; median PFS of 2.6, 6.9, and 3.3 months, respectively (all P < .001); and median OS of 8.7, 15.9, and 9.4 months, respectively (all P < .05). Personalized arms using a genomic biomarker had higher median RR and prolonged median PFS and OS (all P ≤ .05) compared with personalized arms using a protein biomarker. A personalized strategy was associated with a lower treatment-related death rate than a nonpersonalized strategy (median, 1.5% v 2.3%, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Comprehensive analysis of phase II, single-agent arms revealed that, across malignancies, a personalized strategy was an independent predictor of better outcomes and fewer toxic deaths. In addition, nonpersonalized targeted therapies were associated with significantly poorer outcomes than cytotoxic agents, which in turn were worse than personalized targeted therapy.
PURPOSE: The impact of a personalized cancer treatment strategy (ie, matching patients with drugs based on specific biomarkers) is still a matter of debate. METHODS: We reviewed phase II single-agent studies (570 studies; 32,149 patients) published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2012 (PubMed search). Response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared for arms that used a personalized strategy versus those that did not. RESULTS: Multivariable analysis (both weighted multiple linear regression and random effects meta-regression) demonstrated that the personalized approach, compared with a nonpersonalized approach, consistently and independently correlated with higher median RR (31% v 10.5%, respectively; P < .001) and prolonged median PFS (5.9 v 2.7 months, respectively; P < .001) and OS (13.7 v 8.9 months, respectively; P < .001). Nonpersonalized targeted arms had poorer outcomes compared with either personalized targeted therapy or cytotoxics, with median RR of 4%, 30%, and 11.9%, respectively; median PFS of 2.6, 6.9, and 3.3 months, respectively (all P < .001); and median OS of 8.7, 15.9, and 9.4 months, respectively (all P < .05). Personalized arms using a genomic biomarker had higher median RR and prolonged median PFS and OS (all P ≤ .05) compared with personalized arms using a protein biomarker. A personalized strategy was associated with a lower treatment-related death rate than a nonpersonalized strategy (median, 1.5% v 2.3%, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Comprehensive analysis of phase II, single-agent arms revealed that, across malignancies, a personalized strategy was an independent predictor of better outcomes and fewer toxic deaths. In addition, nonpersonalized targeted therapies were associated with significantly poorer outcomes than cytotoxic agents, which in turn were worse than personalized targeted therapy.
Authors: Stefan Michiels; Pascal Piedbois; Sarah Burdett; Nathalie Syz; Lesley Stewart; Jean-Pierre Pignon Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2005 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: Filip Janku; Donald A Berry; Jing Gong; Henrique A Parsons; David J Stewart; Razelle Kurzrock Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-09-26 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Filip Janku; Jennifer J Wheler; Aung Naing; Gerald S Falchook; David S Hong; Vanda M Stepanek; Siqing Fu; Sarina A Piha-Paul; J Jack Lee; Rajyalakshmi Luthra; Apostolia M Tsimberidou; Razelle Kurzrock Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2012-10-12 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Apostolia-Maria Tsimberidou; Nancy G Iskander; David S Hong; Jennifer J Wheler; Gerald S Falchook; Siqing Fu; Sarina Piha-Paul; Aung Naing; Filip Janku; Rajyalakshmi Luthra; Yang Ye; Sijin Wen; Donald Berry; Razelle Kurzrock Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-09-10 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Amy E Kennedy; Muin J Khoury; John P A Ioannidis; Michelle Brotzman; Amy Miller; Crystal Lane; Gabriel Y Lai; Scott D Rogers; Chinonye Harvey; Joanne W Elena; Daniela Seminara Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-07-20 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Roman Groisberg; David S Hong; Jason Roszik; Filip Janku; Apostolia M Tsimberidou; Milind Javle; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Vivek Subbiah Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2018-04-13 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Seung Tae Kim; Kyoung-Mee Kim; Nayoung K D Kim; Joon Oh Park; Soomin Ahn; Jae-Won Yun; Kyu-Tae Kim; Se Hoon Park; Peter J Park; Hee Cheol Kim; Tae Sung Sohn; Dong Il Choi; Jong Ho Cho; Jin Seok Heo; Wooil Kwon; Hyuk Lee; Byung-Hoon Min; Sung No Hong; Young Suk Park; Ho Yeong Lim; Won Ki Kang; Woong-Yang Park; Jeeyun Lee Journal: Oncologist Date: 2017-07-12