Measuring the clinical response. What does it mean?

European Journal of Cancer

Volumn 38, Issue 14, 2002, Pages 1817-1823

  Therasse, P ^a  

^a EORTC DATA CENTER   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Clinical response; Clinical trials; RECIST; Surrogate endpoints

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; CYTOTOXIC AGENT; DOXORUBICIN; EPIRUBICIN; GRANULOCYTE COLONY STIMULATING FACTOR; PACLITAXEL;

ANTINEOPLASTIC ACTIVITY; ARTICLE; CANCER; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER SURVIVAL; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL PRACTICE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SOLID TUMOR; TREATMENT OUTCOME; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; CLINICAL TRIALS; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE II; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE III; EVALUATION STUDIES; HUMANS; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0036710115     PISSN: 09598049     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0959-8049(02)00182-X     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Zubrod C.G., Schneiderman S.M., Frei E. IIIet al. Appraisal of methods for the study of chemotherapy of cancer in man. comparative therapeutic trial of nitrogen mustard and thio phosphamide J. Chronic. Dis. 11:1960;7-33.
2. Hayward J.L., Carbone P.P., Heuson J.C.et al. Assessment of response to therapy in advanced breast cancer. a project of the Programme on Clinical Oncology of the International Union Against Cancer, Geneva, Switzerland Cancer. 39:1977;1289-1294.
3. Miller A.B., Hogestraeten B., Staquet M., Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer. 47:1981;207-214.
4. Green S., Weiss G.R. Southwest Oncology Group standard response criteria, endpoint definitions and toxicity criteria. Invest. New Drugs. 10:1992;239-253.
5. Tumor eligibility and response criteria for phase II and III studies. In EORTC Data Center Manuel. EORTC, Brussels, 1992 (monograph).
6. Warr D., McKinney S., Tannock I. Influence of measurement error on assessment of response to anticancer chemotherapy. proposal for new criteria of tumor response J. Clin. Oncol. 2:1984;1040-1046.
7. Kramar A., Potvin D., Hill C. Multistage designs for phase II clinical trials. statistical issues in cancer research Br. J. Cancer. 74:1996;1317-1320.
8. Gwyther S.J., AApro M.S., Hatty S.R., Postmus P.E., Smith I.E. Results of an independent oncology review board of pivotal clinical trials of gemcitabine in non-small cell lung cancer. Anticancer Drugs. 10:1999;693-698.
9. Biganzoli L, Lohrisch C, Paridaens R, Therasse P, Piccart M. Analysis of two EORTC trials in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) support the recommendation of external response review (ERR) in trials with response rate (RR) as primary endpoint. Eur J Cancer 36(Suppl. 5), S90 (abstr 227).
10. Thiesse P., Ollivier L., Di Stefano-Louineau D.et al. Response rate accuracy in oncology trials. reasons for interobserver variability J. Clin. Oncol. 15:1997;3507-3514.
11. Schrijvers D., Vermorken J.B. Update on the taxoids and other new agents in head and neck cancer therapy. Curr. Opin. Oncol. 10:1998;233-241.
12. Gianni L., Munzone E., Capri G.et al. Paclitaxel by 3-hour infusion in combination with bolus doxorubicin in women with untreated metastatic breast cancer. high antitumor efficacy and cardiac effects in a dose-finding and sequence-finding study J. Clin. Oncol. 13:1995;2688-2699.
13. Biganzoli L, Cufer T, Bruning P, et al. Doxorubicin (A)/Taxol (T) versus doxorubicin/Cyclophosphamide (C) as first line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer (MBC): a phase III study. Proceedings ASCO 2000 (abstr 282).
14. Piccart M.J., Bruning P., Wildiers J.et al. An EORTC pilot study of filgrastim (recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor) as support to a high dose-intensive epiadriamycin-cyclophosphamide regimen in chemotherapy-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Ann. Oncol. 6:1995;673-677.
15. Therasse P, Mauriac L, Welnicka M, et al. Neo-adjuvant dose intensive chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer (LABC): an EORTC-NCIC-SAKK randomized phase III study comparing FEC (5FU, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide) vs high dose intensity EC+G-CSF (Filgrastim). Proceedings ASCO 1998 (abstr 472).
16. James K., Eisenhauer E., Christian M.et al. Measuring response in solid tumors. unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 91:1999;523-528.
17. Cheson B.D., Horning S.J., Coiffier B.et al. Report of an international workshop to standardise response criteria for non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. J. Clin. Oncol. 17:1999;1244-1253.
18. Bubley G.J., Carducci M., Dahut W.et al. Eligibility and response guidelines for phase II clinical trials in androgen-independent prostate cancer. recommendations from the prostate-specific antigen working group J. Clin. Oncol. 17:1999;3461-3467.
19. Weiss G.B., Bunce H I.I.I., Hokanson J.A. Comparing survival of responders and nonresponders after treatment. a potential source of confusion in interpreting cancer clinical trials Controlled Clin. Trials. 4:1983;43-52.
20. Fleming T.R., DeMets D.L. Surrogate end points in clinical trials. are we being misled? Ann. Intern. Med. 125:1966;605-613.
21. Buyse M. On the relationship between response to treatment and survival time. Stat. Med. 15:1996;2797-2812.
22. A'Hern R.P., Ebbs S.R., Baum M.B. Does chemotherapy improve survival in advanced breast cancer? A statistical overview. Br. J. Cancer. 57:1988;615-618.
23. Torri V., Simon R., Russek-Cohen E., Midthune D., Friedman M. Statistical model to determine the relationship of response and survival in patients with advanced ovarian cancer treated with chemotherapy. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 84:1992;407-414.
24. Chen T.T., Chute J.P., Feigal E., Johnson B.E., Simon R. A model to select chemotherapy regimens for phase III trials for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 92:2000;1601-1607.
25. Buyse M., Thirion P., Carlson R.W., Burzykowski T., Molenberghs G., Piedbois P. Relation between tumor response to first-line chemotherapy and survival in advanced colorectal cancer. a meta-analysis Lancet. 356:2000;373-378.
26. Pazdur R. Response rates, survival, and chemotherapy trials. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 92:2000;1552-1553.
27. Buthiau D., Khayat D. New imaging techniques and clinical applications. visualizing pathology's course Helix. 3:2000;4-13.
28. Rowinsky E.K. The pursuit of optimal outcomes in cancer therapy in a new age of rationally designed target-based anticancer agents. Drugs. 60(Suppl. 1):2000;1-14.