Endpoints for clinical trials and revised assessment in neuro-oncology

Current Opinion in Neurology

Volumn 25, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 780-785

  Butowski, Nicholas ^a   Chang, Susan M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

brain tumors; clinical trials; endpoint; glioma

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; BEVACIZUMAB; CORTICOSTEROID; VASCULOTROPIN INHIBITOR;

ANTINEOPLASTIC ACTIVITY; BRAIN TUMOR; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER SURVIVAL; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COGNITION; CORTICOSTEROID THERAPY; GLIOBLASTOMA; GLIOMA; HUMAN; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; RECURRENT CANCER; REVIEW; TREATMENT RESPONSE; TUMOR VOLUME;

BRAIN NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COGNITION; DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; GLIOMA; HUMANS; NEUROIMAGING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); QUALITY OF LIFE;

EID: 84870063125     PISSN: 13507540     EISSN: 14736551     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/WCO.0b013e328359b45e     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Farley J, Rose PG. Trial design for evaluation of novel targeted therapies. Gynecol Oncol 2010; 116:173-176.
2. Junck L. Clinical trials in neuro-oncology. Handbook Clin Neurol 2012; 104:417-434.
3. Weller M, Stupp R. Clinical trials in neuro-oncology: one step forward, two steps back? Curr Opin Neurol 2011; 24:597-598.
4. Macdonald DR, Cascino TL, Schold SC Jr, Cairncross JG. Response criteria for phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol 1990; 8:1277-1280. (Pubitemid 20195640)
5. Saad ED, Buyse M. Overall survival: patient outcome, therapeutic objective, clinical trial end point, or public health measure? J Clin Oncol 2012; 30:1750-1754.
6. Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA, et al. Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:1963-1972.
7. Galanis E, Wu W, Cloughesy T, et al. Phase 2 trial design in neuro-oncology revisited: a report from the RANO group. Lancet Oncol 2012; 13:e196-e204.
8. van den Bent MJ, Wefel JS, Schiff D, et al. Response assessment in neurooncology (a report of the RANO group): assessment of outcome in trials of diffuse low-grade gliomas. Lancet Oncol 2011; 12:583-593.
9. Vogelbaum MA, Jost S, Aghi MK, et al. Application of novel response/ progression measures for surgically delivered therapies for gliomas: Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) Working Group. Neurosurgery 2012; 70:234-243.
10. Meyers CA, Rock EP, Fine HA. Refining endpoints in brain tumor clinical trials. J Neurooncol 2012; 108:227-230.
11. Wu W, Shi Q, Sargent DJ. Statistical considerations for the next generation of clinical trials. Semin Oncol 2011; 38:598-604.
12. Driscoll JJ, Rixe O. Overall survival: still the gold standard: why overall survival remains the definitive end point in cancer clinical trials. Cancer J 2009; 15:401-405.
13. Grossman SA, Ye X, Piantadosi S, et al. Survival of patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma treated with radiation and temozolomide in research studies in the United States. Clin Cancer Res 2010; 16:2443-2449.
14. Polley MY, Lamborn KR, Chang SM, et al. Six-month progression-free survival as an alternative primary efficacy endpoint to overall survival in newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients receiving temozolomide. Neurooncology 2010; 12:274-282.
15. Galanis E, Buckner JC, Maurer MJ, et al. Validation of neuroradiologic response assessment in gliomas: measurement by RECIST, two-dimensional, computer-assisted tumor area, and computer-assisted tumor volume methods. Neurooncology 2006; 8:156-165. (Pubitemid 46542660)
16. Quant EC, Wen PY. Response assessment in neuro-oncology. Curr Oncol Rep 2011; 13:50-56.
17. Cairncross JG, Macdonald DR. Successful chemotherapy for recurrent malignant oligodendroglioma. Ann Neurol 1988; 23:360-364. (Pubitemid 18098242)
18. Reardon DA, Galanis E, DeGroot JF, et al. Clinical trial end points for highgrade glioma: the evolving landscape. Neurooncology 2011; 13:353-361.
19. Pope WB, Hessel C. Response assessment in neuro-oncology criteria: implementation challenges in multicenter neuro-oncology trials. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011; 32:794-797.
20. Pope WB, Young JR, Ellingson BM. Advances in MRI assessment of gliomas and response to anti-VEGF therapy. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 2011; 11:336-344.
21. Brandes AA, Tosoni A, Spagnolli F, et al. Disease progression or pseudoprogression after concomitant radiochemotherapy treatment: pitfalls in neurooncology. Neurooncology 2008; 10:361-367.
22. Hygino da Cruz LC Jr, Rodriguez I, Domingues RC, et al. Pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse: imaging challenges in the assessment of posttreatment glioma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011; 32:1978-1985.
23. Booth CM, Eisenhauer EA. Progression-free survival: meaningful or simply measurable? J Clin Oncol 2012; 30:1030-1033.
24. Ballman KV, Buckner JC, Brown PD, et al. The relationship between six-month progression-free survival and 12-month overall survival end points for phase II trials in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Neurooncology 2007; 9:29-38. (Pubitemid 46543486)
25. Lamborn KR, Yung WK, Chang SM, et al. Progression-free survival: an important end point in evaluating therapy for recurrent high-grade gliomas. Neurooncology 2008; 10:162-170.
26. Levin VA, Ictech S, Hess KR. Impact of phase II trials with progression-free survival as end-points on survival-based phase III studies in patients with anaplastic gliomas. BMC cancer 2007; 7:106.
27. Brandsma D, van den Bent MJ. Pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse in the treatment of gliomas. Curr Opin Neurol 2009; 22:633-638.
28. Sargent DJ, Rubinstein L, Schwartz L, et al. Validation of novel imaging methodologies for use as cancer clinical trial end-points. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45:290-299.
29. Ellingson BM, Cloughesy TF, Lai A, et al. Quantitative volumetric analysis of conventional MRI response in recurrent glioblastoma treated with bevacizumab. Neurooncology 2011; 13:401-409.
30. Kubben PL, Postma AA, Kessels AG, et al. Intraobserver and interobserver agreement in volumetric assessment of glioblastoma multiforme resection. Neurosurgery 2010; 67:1329-1334.
31. Kawai N, Maeda Y, Kudomi N, et al. Correlation of biological aggressiveness assessed by 11C-methionine PET and hypoxic burden assessed by 18Ffluoromisonidazole PET in newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011; 38:441-450.
32. Galban S, Lemasson B, Williams TM, et al. DW-MRI as a biomarker to compare therapeutic outcomes in radiotherapy regimens incorporating temozolomide or gemcitabine in glioblastoma. PloS One 2012; 7:e35857.
33. Colonnese C, Romanelli P. Advanced neuroimaging techniques in the management of glioblastoma multiforme. Curr Radiopharm 2012. [Epub ahead of print]
34. Barajas RF Jr, Phillips JJ, Parvataneni R, et al. Regional variation in histopathologic features of tumor specimens from treatment-naive glioblastoma correlates with anatomic and physiologic MR Imaging. Neurooncology 2012; 14:942-954
35. Wilson JT. Lessons from traumatic head injury for assessing functional status after brain tumour. J Neurooncology 2012; 108:239-246.
36. Efficace F, Taphoorn M. Methodological issues in designing and reporting health-related quality of life in cancer clinical trials: the challenge of brain cancer studies. J Neurooncology 2012; 108:221-226.
37. Giovagnoli AR. Investigation of cognitive impairments in people with brain tumors. J Neurooncology 2012; 108:277-283.
38. Talacchi A, Taphoorn M, Miceli G. Reconsidering outcomes that matter to patients. J Neurooncology 2012; 108:219-220.
39. Gallego Perez-Larraya J, Lahutte M, Petrirena G, et al. Response assessment in recurrent glioblastoma treated with irinotecan-bevacizumab: comparative analysis of the Macdonald, RECIST, RANO, and RECISTpF criteria. Neurooncology 2012; 14:667-673.
40. Zheng S, Chheda MG, Verhaak RG. Studying a complex tumor: potential and pitfalls. Cancer J 2012; 18:107-114.