Variation over time and interdependence between disease progression and death among patients with glioblastoma on RTOG 0525

Neuro-Oncology

Volumn 17, Issue 7, 2015, Pages 999-1006

  Wang, Meihua ^a   Dignam, James J ^a,b   Won, Minhee ^a   Curran, Walter ^c   Mehta, Minesh ^d   Gilbert, Mark R ^e  

^a RADIATION THERAPY ONCOLOGY GROUP   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^c EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS   (United States)

Author keywords

Glioblastoma; hazard of death; hazard of failure (progression or death)

Indexed keywords

METHYLATED DNA PROTEIN CYSTEINE METHYLTRANSFERASE; TEMOZOLOMIDE; ALKYLATING AGENT; DACARBAZINE; DNA LIGASE; DNA METHYLTRANSFERASE; MGMT PROTEIN, HUMAN; TUMOR SUPPRESSOR PROTEIN;

ARTICLE; CANCER GROWTH; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER SURVIVAL; CHEMORADIOTHERAPY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DNA METHYLATION; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG DOSE COMPARISON; DRUG TREATMENT FAILURE; GLIOBLASTOMA; HUMAN; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MGMT GENE; MULTIPLE CYCLE TREATMENT; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL; PROMOTER REGION; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; TIME; ANALOGS AND DERIVATIVES; BRAIN NEOPLASMS; DISEASE COURSE; GENETICS; MORTALITY; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS, ALKYLATING; BRAIN NEOPLASMS; DACARBAZINE; DISEASE PROGRESSION; DNA METHYLATION; DNA MODIFICATION METHYLASES; DNA REPAIR ENZYMES; GLIOBLASTOMA; HUMANS; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; TUMOR SUPPRESSOR PROTEINS;

EID: 84936757453     PISSN: 15228517     EISSN: 15235866     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/nov009     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. CBTRUS Statistical Report: Primary Brain and Central Nervous System Tumors Diagnosed in the United States in 2004-2007. Source: Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States, Hinsdale, IL. website: Www.cbtrus.org; 2011.
2. Wen PY, Kesari S. Malignant gliomas in adults. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359(5):492-507.
3. Gilbert M, Wang M, Aldape K, et al. Dose dense temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma: A randomized phase III clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(32):4085-4091.
4. Lawless J. Statistical Models and Methods for Lifetime Data. New York: Wiley; 1982.
5. Aalen O, Gjessing H. Understanding the shape of the hazard rate: A process point of view. Stat Sci. 2011;16(1):1-22.
6. Andersen PK, Borgan O, Gill RD, et al. Statistical Models Based on Counting Processes. New York: Springer Verlag; 1993.
7. Klein J, Moeschberger M. Survival Analysis: Techniques for Censored and Truncated Data. 2nd ed. New York: Springer Verlag; 2003.
8. Muller HG, Wang JL. Locally adaptive hazard smoothing. Probab Theory Relat Fields. 1990;85(4):523-538.
9. Muller HG, Wang JL. Hazard rate estimation under random censoring with varying kernels and bandwidths. Biometrics. 1994;50:61-76.
10. Muller HG, Wang JL, Capra WB. From life tables to hazard rates: The transformation approach. Biometrika. 1997;84:881-892.
11. Silverman BW. Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis. London: Chapman and Hall; 1986.
12. Singpurwalla ND, Wong MY. Estimation of the failure rate-a survey of nonparametric methods. Part I: Non-Bayesian methods. Commun Statist-Theor Meth. 1983;12:559-588.
13. Gray R. Flexible methods for analyzing survival data using splines, with applications to breast cancer prognosis. J Am Statist Assoc. 1992;87:942-951.
14. Gray R. Hazard regression using ordinary nonparametric regression smoothers. J Comput and Graphical Statist. 1996;5: 190-207.
15. Cox DR. Regression models and life tables. J R Stat Soc B. 1972;34: 187-220.
16. Sargent DA. Flexible approach to time-varying coefficients in the Cox regression setting. Lifetime Data Anal. 1997;3:13-25.
17. Hess KR. Assessing time-by-covariate interactions in proportional hazards regression models using cubic spline functions. Stat Med. 1994;13:1045-1062.
18. Ballman K, Buckner J, Brown P, et al. The relationship between six-month progression-free survival and 12-month overall survival endpoints for phase II trials in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Neuro Oncol. 2007;9:29-38.
19. Stupp R, Hegi ME, Mason WP, et al. Effects of radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide versus radiotherapy alone on survival in glioblastoma in a randomised phase III study: 5-year analysis of the EORTC-NCIC trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(5): 459-466.
20. Lamborn K, Yung WKA, Chang S, et al. Progression-free survival: An important endpoint in evaluating therapy for recurrent high-grade gliomas. Neuro Oncol. 2008;10:162-170.
21. Sargent DF, Wieand S, Haller DG, et al. Disease-free survival versus overall survival as a primary end point for adjuvant colon cancer studies: Individual patient data from 20, 898 patients on 18 randomized trials. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8664-8670.
22. Molenberghs G, Buyse M, Geys H, et al. Statistical challenges in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in randomized trials. Control Clin Trials. 2002;23:607-625.
23. Buyse M, Molenberghs G. Criteria for the validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments. Biometrics. 1998;54: 1014-1029.