Literature DB >> 9422557

Validation and predictive power of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) recursive partitioning analysis classes for malignant glioma patients: a report using RTOG 90-06.

C B Scott1, C Scarantino, R Urtasun, B Movsas, C U Jones, J R Simpson, A J Fischbach, W J Curran.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) classes for malignant glioma patients were previously established using data on over 1500 patients entered on Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) clinical trials. The purpose of the current analysis was to validate the RPA classes with a new dataset (RTOG 90-06), determine the predictive power of the RPA classes, and establish the usefulness of the database norms for the RPA classes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: There are six RPA classes for malignant glioma patients that comprise distinct groups of patients with significantly different survival outcome. RTOG 90-06 is a randomized Phase III study of 712 patients accrued from 1990 to 1994. The minimum potential follow-up is 18 months. The treatment arms were combined for the purpose of this analysis. There were 84, 13, 105, 240, 150, and 23 patients in the RPA Classes I-VI from RTOG 90-06, respectively.
RESULTS: The median survival times (MST) and 2-year survival rates for the six RPA classes in RTOG 90-06 are compared to those previously published. The MST and 2-year survival rates for the RTOG RPA classes were within 95% confidence intervals of the 90-06 estimates for Classes I, III, IV, and V. The RPA classes explained 43% of the variation (squared error loss). By comparison, a Cox model explains 30% of the variation. The RPA classes within RTOG 90-06 are statistically distinct with all comparisons exceeding 0.0001, except those involving Class II. A survival analysis from a prior RTOG study indicated that 72.0 Gy had superior outcome to literature controls; analysis of this data by RPA classes indicates the survival results were not superior to the RTOG database norms.
CONCLUSION: The validity of the model is verified by the reliability of the RPA classes to define distinct groups with respect to survival. Further evidence is given by prediction of MST and 2-year survival for all classes except Class II. The RPA classes explained a good portion of the variation in survival outcome in the data. Lack of correlation in RPA Class II between datasets may be an artifact of the small sample size or an indication that this class is not distinct. The validation of the RPA classes attests to their usefulness as historical controls for the comparison of future Phase II results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9422557     DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(97)00485-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  100 in total

Review 1.  Brain tumor clinical trials: pitfalls and promise for the future.

Authors:  M R Gilbert
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 5.075

2.  Impact of antiepileptic drugs on thrombocytopenia in glioblastoma patients treated with standard chemoradiotherapy.

Authors:  Marta Simó; Roser Velasco; Francesc Graus; Eugenia Verger; Miguel Gil; Estela Pineda; Jaume Blasco; Jordi Bruna
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2012-03-10       Impact factor: 4.130

Review 3.  Novel delivery strategies for glioblastoma.

Authors:  Jiangbing Zhou; Kofi-Buaku Atsina; Benjamin T Himes; Garth W Strohbehn; W Mark Saltzman
Journal:  Cancer J       Date:  2012 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.360

4.  Hypofractionated radiation therapy versus chemotherapy with temozolomide in patients affected by RPA class V and VI glioblastoma: a randomized phase II trial.

Authors:  Sara Pedretti; Laura Masini; Enrico Turco; Luca Triggiani; Marco Krengli; Bruno Meduri; Luigi Pirtoli; Paolo Borghetti; Ludovica Pegurri; Nada Riva; Roberto Gatta; Vincenzo Fusco; Silvia Scoccianti; Alessio Bruni; Umberto Ricardi; Riccardo Santoni; Stefano M Magrini; Michela Buglione
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2019-05-04       Impact factor: 4.130

5.  Identification and biological evaluation of a novel and potent small molecule radiation sensitizer via an unbiased screen of a chemical library.

Authors:  Brian E Lally; Geoffrey A Geiger; Steven Kridel; Alice E Arcury-Quandt; Michael E Robbins; Nancy D Kock; Kenneth Wheeler; Prakash Peddi; Alexandros Georgakilas; Gary D Kao; Constantinos Koumenis
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2007-09-15       Impact factor: 12.701

6.  Radiosurgical boost for primary high-grade gliomas.

Authors:  Flavio E Prisco; Eduardo Weltman; Rodrigo M de Hanriot; Reynaldo A Brandt
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 4.130

7.  Outcome of radiosurgery for recurrent malignant gliomas: assessment of treatment response using relative cerebral blood volume.

Authors:  Hong Rye Kim; Se-Hwan Kim; Jung-Il Lee; Ho Jun Seol; Do-Hyun Nam; Sung Tae Kim; Kwan Park; Jong Hyun Kim; Doo-Sik Kong
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 4.130

8.  Serum GFAP autoantibody as an ELISA-detectable glioma marker.

Authors:  Ping Wei; Wei Zhang; Liu-Song Yang; Hai-Shi Zhang; Xiao-En Xu; Ying-Hua Jiang; Feng-Ping Huang; Qian Shi
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2013-04-16

9.  Resection and survival in glioblastoma multiforme: an RTOG recursive partitioning analysis of ALA study patients.

Authors:  Uwe Pichlmeier; Andrea Bink; Gabriele Schackert; Walter Stummer
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2008-07-30       Impact factor: 12.300

10.  Diffusion imaging for therapy response assessment of brain tumor.

Authors:  Thomas L Chenevert; Brian D Ross
Journal:  Neuroimaging Clin N Am       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 2.264

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.