Comparative Effects of CT Imaging Measurement on RECIST End Points and Tumor Growth Kinetics Modeling

Clinical and Translational Science

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 43-50

  Li, Ch ^a,b   Bies, Rr ^a,b,c   Wang, Y ^d   Sharma, Mr ^c,e   Karovic, S ^e   Werk, L ^c,f   Edelman, Mj ^c,g   Miller, Aa ^c,h   Vokes, Ee ^c,e   Oto, A ^c,e   Ratain, Mj ^c,e   Schwartz, Lh ^c,i   Maitland, Ml ^c,e  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (CTSI)   (United States)

^c Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology   (United States)

^d CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^f DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GREENEBAUM CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^h WAKE FOREST SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

ⁱ Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Antineoplastic agents pharmacology; Clinical trials; Humans; Lung neoplasms drug therapy; Models; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors; Statistical; Tomography; X ray computed

Indexed keywords

CARBOPLATIN; CELECOXIB; CISPLATIN; DIMESNA; DOCETAXEL; GEMCITABINE; NAVELBINE; PACLITAXEL; PLATINUM DERIVATIVE; ZILEUTON;

ARTICLE; CANCER STAGING; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; HUMAN; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; NON SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL; RADIOLOGIST; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SAMPLE SIZE; TUMOR GROWTH; TUMOR MODEL; TUMOR VOLUME; BIOASSAY; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CELL PROLIFERATION; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL; KINETICS; NEOPLASM; PATHOLOGY; QUALITY CONTROL; RESPONSE EVALUATION CRITERIA IN SOLID TUMORS; X-RAY COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY;

CELL PROLIFERATION; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; HUMANS; KINETICS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; NEOPLASMS; QUALITY CONTROL; RESPONSE EVALUATION CRITERIA IN SOLID TUMORS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; TUMOR BURDEN;

EID: 84958655385     PISSN: 17528054     EISSN: 17528062     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cts.12384     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Claret, L., Lu, J.F., Bruno, R., Hsu, C.P., Hei, Y.J. & Sun, Y.N. Simulations using a drug-disease modeling framework and phase II data predict phase III survival outcome in first-line non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 92, 631-634 (2012).
2. Houk, B. Predictive capability of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) overall survival model in non-small cell lung cancer in two phase II trials utilizing different anti-cancer agents. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 85, abstract. (2009).
3. Wang, Y. et al. Elucidation of relationship between tumor size and survival in non-small-cell lung cancer patients can aid early decision making in clinical drug development. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 86, 167-174 (2009).
4. Fridlyand, J., Kaiser, L.D. & Fyfe, G. Analysis of tumor burden versus progression-free survival for phase II decision making. Contemp. Clin. Trials. 32, 446-452 (2011).
5. Moertel, C.G. & Hanley, J.A. The effect of measuring error on the results of therapeutic trials in advanced cancer. Cancer 38, 388-394 (1976).
6. Barrett, J.S., Gupta, M. & Mondick, J.T. Model-based drug development applied to oncology. Expert. Opin. Drug. Discov. 2, 185-209 (2007).
7. Bruno, R. & Claret, L. On the use of change in tumor size to predict survival in clinical oncology studies: toward a new paradigm to design and evaluate phase II studies. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 86, 136-138 (2009).
8. Bruno, R., Lu, J.F., Sun, Y.N. & Claret, L. A modeling and simulation framework to support early clinical drug development decisions in oncology. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 51, 6-8 (2010).
9. Ribba, B. et al. A review of mixed-effects models of tumor growth and effects of anticancer drug treatment used in population analysis. CPT Pharmacom. Syst. Pharmacol. 3, e113 (2014).
10. Siegel, R.L., Miller, K.D. & Jemal, A. CA Cancer J. Clin. Jan-Feb;65, 5-29 (2015). doi: 10.3322/caac.21254. Epub 2015 Jan 5. PMID:25559415
11. Adjei, A.A., Christian, M. & Ivy, P. Novel designs and end points for phase II clinical trials. Clin. Cancer Res. 15, 1866-1872 (2009).
12. Dhani, N., Tu, D., Sargent, D.J., Seymour, L. & Moore, M.J. Alternate endpoints for screening phase II studies. Clin. Cancer Res. 15, 1873-1882 (2009).
13. Maitland, M.L., Bies, R.R. & Barrett, J.S. A time to keep and a time to cast away categories of tumor response. J. Clin. Oncol. 29, 3109-3111 (2011).
14. Maitland, M.L. & Schilsky, R.L. Clinical trials in the era of personalized oncology. CA Cancer J. Clin. 61, 365-381 (2011).
15. Mandrekar, S.J. & Sargent, D.J. Randomized phase II trials: time for a new era in clinical trial design. J. Thorac. Oncol. 5, 932-934 (2010).
16. Stein, W.D. et al. Tumor regression and growth rates determined in five intramural NCI prostate cancer trials: the growth rate constant as an indicator of therapeutic efficacy. Clin. Cancer Res. 17, 907-917 (2011).
17. Yap, T.A., Sandhu, S.K., Workman, P. & de Bono, J.S. Envisioning the future of early anticancer drug development. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 10, 514-523 (2010).
18. Lavin, P.T. An alternative model for the evaluation of antitumor activity. Cancer Clin. Trials. 4, 451-457 (1981).
19. Karrison, T.G., Maitland, M.L., Stadler, W.M. & Ratain, M.J. Design of phase II cancer trials using a continuous endpoint of change in tumor size: application to a study of sorafenib and erlotinib in non small-cell lung cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 99, 1455-1461 (2007).
20. Lara, P.N Jr et al. Southwest Oncology Group. Disease control rate at 8 weeks predicts clinical benefit in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results from Southwest Oncology Group randomized trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 463-467 (2008).
21. An, M.W. et al. Comparison of continuous versus categorical tumor measurement-based metrics to predict overall survival in cancer treatment trials. Clin. Cancer Res. 17, 6592-6599 (2011).
22. Kaiser, L.D. Tumor burden modeling versus progression-free survival for phase II decision making. Clin. Cancer Res. 19, 314-319 (2013).
23. Claret, L. et al. Evaluation of tumor-size response metrics to predict overall survival in Western and Chinese patients with first-line metastatic colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 31, 2110-2114 (2013).
24. Lilenbaum, R.C. et al. Single-agent versus combination chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the cancer and leukemia group B (study 9730). J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 190-196 (2005).
25. Edelman, M.J. et al. Eicosanoid modulation in advanced lung cancer: cyclooxygenase-2 expression is a positive predictive factor for celecoxib + chemotherapy-Cancer and Leukemia Group B Trial 30203. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 848-855 (2008).
26. Miller, A.A. et al. Phase II randomized study of dose-dense docetaxel and cisplatin every 2 weeks with pegfilgrastim and darbepoetin alfa with and without the chemoprotector BNP7787 in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (CALGB 30303). J. Thorac. Oncol. 3, 1159-1165 (2008).
27. Miller, A.B., Hoogstraten, B., Staquet, M. & Winkler, A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 47, 207-214 (1981).
28. Therasse, P. et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 92, 205-216 (2000).
29. Holford, N.H. Wings for NONMEM. (2012).
30. D'Agostino, R.B Jr. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat. Med. 17, 2265-2281 (1998).
31. Stein, W.D. et al. Analyzing the pivotal trial that compared sunitinib and IFN-α in renal cell carcinoma, using a method that assesses tumor regression and growth. Clin. Cancer Res. 18, 2374-2381 (2012).
32. Claret, L., Bruno, R., Lu, J.F., Sun, Y.N. & Hsu, C.P. Exploratory modeling and simulation to support development of motesanib in Asian patients with non-small cell lung cancer based on MONET1 study results. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 95, 446-451 (2014).
33. Maitland, M.L. et al. Estimation of renal cell carcinoma treatment effects from disease progression modeling. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 93, 345-351 (2013).
34. Eisenhauer, E.A. et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur. J. Cancer 45, 228-247 (2009).
35. Sharma, M.R., Maitland, M.L. & Ratain, M.J. RECIST: no longer the sharpest tool in the oncology clinical trials toolbox-point. Cancer Res. 72, 5145-5149; discussion 5150 (2012).
36. Fojo, A.T. & Noonan, A. Why RECIST works and why it should stay-counterpoint. Cancer Res. 72, 5151-5157; discussion 5158 (2012).
37. Hay, M., Thomas, D.W., Craighead, J.L., Economides, C. & Rosenthal, J. Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 40-51 (2014).
38. Kola, I. & Landis, J. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nat. Rev. Drug. Discov. 3, 711-715 (2004).
39. Pietanza, M.C. et al. Harnessing technology to improve clinical trials: study of real-time informatics to collect data, toxicities, image response assessments, and patient-reported outcomes in a phase II clinical trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 31, 2004-2009 (2013).