Literature DB >> 35380705

Hypothetical generalized framework for a new imaging endpoint of therapeutic activity in early phase clinical trials in brain tumors.

Benjamin M Ellingson1, Elizabeth R Gerstner2, Andrew B Lassman3, Caroline Chung4, Howard Colman5, Patricia E Cole6, David Leung7, Joshua E Allen8, Manmeet S Ahluwalia9, Jerrold Boxerman10, Matthew Brown1, Jonathan Goldin1, Edjah Nduom11, Islam Hassan12, Mark R Gilbert11, Ingo K Mellinghoff13, Michael Weller14, Susan Chang15, David Arons16, Clair Meehan16, Wendy Selig17, Kirk Tanner16, W K Alfred Yung4, Martin van den Bent18, Patrick Y Wen19, Timothy F Cloughesy20.   

Abstract

Imaging response assessment is a cornerstone of patient care and drug development in oncology. Clinicians/clinical researchers rely on tumor imaging to estimate the impact of new treatments and guide decision making for patients and candidate therapies. This is important in brain cancer, where associations between tumor size/growth and emerging neurological deficits are strong. Accurately measuring the impact of a new therapy on tumor growth early in clinical development, where patient numbers are small, would be valuable for decision making regarding late-stage development activation. Current attempts to measure the impact of a new therapy have limited influence on clinical development, as determination of progression, stability or response does not currently account for individual tumor growth kinetics prior to the initiation of experimental therapies. Therefore, we posit that imaging-based response assessment, often used as a tool for estimating clinical effect, is incomplete as it does not adequately account for growth trajectories or biological characteristics of tumors prior to the introduction of an investigational agent. Here, we propose modifications to the existing framework for evaluating imaging assessment in primary brain tumors that will provide a more reliable understanding of treatment effects. Measuring tumor growth trajectories prior to a given intervention may allow us to more confidently conclude whether there is an anti-tumor effect. This updated approach to imaging-based tumor response assessment is intended to improve our ability to select candidate therapies for later-stage development, including those that may not meet currently sought thresholds for "response" and ultimately lead to identification of effective treatments.
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  brain tumors; clinical trials; growth rates; response assessment

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35380705      PMCID: PMC9340639          DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/noac086

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuro Oncol        ISSN: 1522-8517            Impact factor:   13.029


  55 in total

Review 1.  Consensus recommendations for a standardized Brain Tumor Imaging Protocol in clinical trials.

Authors:  Benjamin M Ellingson; Martin Bendszus; Jerrold Boxerman; Daniel Barboriak; Bradley J Erickson; Marion Smits; Sarah J Nelson; Elizabeth Gerstner; Brian Alexander; Gregory Goldmacher; Wolfgang Wick; Michael Vogelbaum; Michael Weller; Evanthia Galanis; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Lalitha Shankar; Paula Jacobs; Whitney B Pope; Dewen Yang; Caroline Chung; Michael V Knopp; Soonme Cha; Martin J van den Bent; Susan Chang; W K Al Yung; Timothy F Cloughesy; Patrick Y Wen; Mark R Gilbert
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2015-08-05       Impact factor: 12.300

2.  Improved survival time trends for glioblastoma using the SEER 17 population-based registries.

Authors:  Matthew Koshy; John L Villano; Therese A Dolecek; Andrew Howard; Usama Mahmood; Steven J Chmura; Ralph R Weichselbaum; Bridget J McCarthy
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2011-10-09       Impact factor: 4.130

3.  Baseline pretreatment contrast enhancing tumor volume including central necrosis is a prognostic factor in recurrent glioblastoma: evidence from single and multicenter trials.

Authors:  Benjamin M Ellingson; Robert J Harris; Davis C Woodworth; Kevin Leu; Okkar Zaw; Warren P Mason; Solmaz Sahebjam; Lauren E Abrey; Dana T Aftab; Gisela M Schwab; Colin Hessel; Albert Lai; Phioanh L Nghiemphu; Whitney B Pope; Patrick Y Wen; Timothy F Cloughesy
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2016-08-31       Impact factor: 12.300

Review 4.  Radiographic read paradigms and the roles of the central imaging laboratory in neuro-oncology clinical trials.

Authors:  Benjamin M Ellingson; Matthew S Brown; Jerrold L Boxerman; Elizabeth R Gerstner; Timothy J Kaufmann; Patricia E Cole; Jeffrey A Bacha; David Leung; Amy Barone; Howard Colman; Martin J van den Bent; Patrick Y Wen; W K Alfred Yung; Timothy F Cloughesy; Jonathan G Goldin
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2021-02-25       Impact factor: 12.300

Review 5.  Evidence and context of use for contrast enhancement as a surrogate of disease burden and treatment response in malignant glioma.

Authors:  Benjamin M Ellingson; Patrick Y Wen; Timothy F Cloughesy
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 12.300

6.  MGMT gene silencing and benefit from temozolomide in glioblastoma.

Authors:  Monika E Hegi; Annie-Claire Diserens; Thierry Gorlia; Marie-France Hamou; Nicolas de Tribolet; Michael Weller; Johan M Kros; Johannes A Hainfellner; Warren Mason; Luigi Mariani; Jacoline E C Bromberg; Peter Hau; René O Mirimanoff; J Gregory Cairncross; Robert C Janzer; Roger Stupp
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-03-10       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 7.  Immunotherapy response assessment in neuro-oncology: a report of the RANO working group.

Authors:  Hideho Okada; Michael Weller; Raymond Huang; Gaetano Finocchiaro; Mark R Gilbert; Wolfgang Wick; Benjamin M Ellingson; Naoya Hashimoto; Ian F Pollack; Alba A Brandes; Enrico Franceschi; Christel Herold-Mende; Lakshmi Nayak; Ashok Panigrahy; Whitney B Pope; Robert Prins; John H Sampson; Patrick Y Wen; David A Reardon
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 41.316

8.  Tumor growth rate is an early indicator of antitumor drug activity in phase I clinical trials.

Authors:  Charles Ferté; Marianna Fernandez; Antoine Hollebecque; Serge Koscielny; Antonin Levy; Christophe Massard; Rastislav Balheda; Brian Bot; Carlos Gomez-Roca; Clarisse Dromain; Samy Ammari; Jean-Charles Soria
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2013-11-15       Impact factor: 12.531

9.  Glioma Groups Based on 1p/19q, IDH, and TERT Promoter Mutations in Tumors.

Authors:  Jeanette E Eckel-Passow; Daniel H Lachance; Annette M Molinaro; Kyle M Walsh; Paul A Decker; Hugues Sicotte; Melike Pekmezci; Terri Rice; Matt L Kosel; Ivan V Smirnov; Gobinda Sarkar; Alissa A Caron; Thomas M Kollmeyer; Corinne E Praska; Anisha R Chada; Chandralekha Halder; Helen M Hansen; Lucie S McCoy; Paige M Bracci; Roxanne Marshall; Shichun Zheng; Gerald F Reis; Alexander R Pico; Brian P O'Neill; Jan C Buckner; Caterina Giannini; Jason T Huse; Arie Perry; Tarik Tihan; Mitchell S Berger; Susan M Chang; Michael D Prados; Joseph Wiemels; John K Wiencke; Margaret R Wrensch; Robert B Jenkins
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-06-10       Impact factor: 176.079

10.  Diffusion MRI quality control and functional diffusion map results in ACRIN 6677/RTOG 0625: a multicenter, randomized, phase II trial of bevacizumab and chemotherapy in recurrent glioblastoma.

Authors:  Benjamin M Ellingson; Eunhee Kim; Davis C Woodworth; Helga Marques; Jerrold L Boxerman; Yair Safriel; Robert C McKinstry; Felix Bokstein; Rajan Jain; T Linda Chi; A Gregory Sorensen; Mark R Gilbert; Daniel P Barboriak
Journal:  Int J Oncol       Date:  2015-02-11       Impact factor: 5.650

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.