Association of biomarker-based treatment strategies with response rates and progression-free survival in refractory malignant neoplasms a meta-Analysis

JAMA Oncology

Volumn 2, Issue 11, 2016, Pages 1452-1459

  Schwaederle, Maria ^a   Zhao, Melissa ^a   Jack Lee, J ^b   Lazar, Vladimir ^c   Leyland Jones, Brian ^d   Schilsky, Richard L ^c,e   Mendelsohn, John ^b,c   Kurzrock, Razelle ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^c Worldwide Innovative Network in Personalized Cancer Medicine   (France)

^d Avera Health   (United States)

^e AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; TUMOR MARKER;

DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL; DRUG RESISTANCE; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; METABOLISM; MORTALITY; NEOPLASMS; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; BIOMARKERS, TUMOR; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I AS TOPIC; DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL; DRUG RESISTANCE, NEOPLASM; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84992138510     PISSN: 23742437     EISSN: 23742445     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.2129     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Chapman PB, Hauschild A, Robert C, et al; BRIM-3 Study Group. Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(26):2507-2516.
2. Rosell R, Carcereny E, Gervais R, et al; Spanish Lung Cancer Group in collaboration with Groupe Français de Pneumo-Cancérologie and Associazione Italiana Oncologia Toracica. Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EURTAC): A multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(3):239-246.
3. Solomon BJ, Mok T, Kim D-W, et al; PROFILE 1014 Investigators. First-line crizotinib versus chemotherapy in ALK-positive lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(23):2167-2177.
4. Shaw AT, Ou S-HI, Bang Y-J, et al. Crizotinib in ROS1-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(21):1963-1971.
5. Heinrich MC, Joensuu H, Demetri GD, et al; Imatinib Target Exploration Consortium Study B2225. Phase II, open-label study evaluating the activity of imatinib in treating life-Threatening malignancies known to be associated with imatinib-sensitive tyrosine kinases. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(9):2717-2725.
6. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves imatinib mesylate (Gleevec) as a single agent for the treatment of multiple indications. http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDER/ucm094941.htm. Accessed January 25, 2016.
7. DerSimonian R, Kacker R. Random-effects model formeta-Analysis of clinical trials: An update. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;28(2):105-114.
8. Moreno SG, Sutton AJ, Thompson JR, Ades AE, Abrams KR, Cooper NJ. A generalized weighting regression-derived meta-Analysis estimator robust to small-study effects and heterogeneity. Stat Med. 2012;31(14):1407-1417.
9. Stanley TD, Doucouliagos H. Neither fixed nor random: weighted least squaresmeta-Analysis. Stat Med. 2015;34(13):2116-2127.
10. Schwaederle M, Zhao M, Lee JJ, et al. Impact of precision medicine in diverse cancers: Ameta-Analysis of phase II clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(32):3817-3825.
11. Jardim DL, Schwaederle M, Wei C, et al. Impact of a Biomarker-Based Strategy on Oncology Drug Development: AMeta-Analysis of Clinical Trials Leading to FDA Approval. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015; 107(11):djv253.
12. Henary H, Hong DS, Falchook GS, et al. Melanoma patients in a phase I clinic: molecular aberrations, targeted therapy and outcomes. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(8):2158-2165.
13. Janku F, Berry DA, Gong J, Parsons HA, Stewart DJ, Kurzrock R. Outcomes of phase II clinical trials with single-Agent therapies in advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer published between 2000 and 2009. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(22): 6356-6363.
14. Von Hoff DD, Stephenson JJ Jr, Rosen P, et al. Pilot study using molecular profiling of patients tumors to find potential targets and select treatments for their refractory cancers. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(33):4877-4883.
15. Weiss GJ, LiangWS, Demeure MJ, et al. A pilot study using next-generation sequencing in advanced cancers: feasibility and challenges. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e76438.
16. Tsimberidou A-M, Iskander NG, Hong DS, et al. Personalized medicine in a phase I clinical trials program: The MD Anderson Cancer Center initiative. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(22):6373-6383.
17. Tsimberidou AM, Wen S, Hong DS, et al. Personalized medicine for patients with advanced cancer in the phase I program at MD Anderson: validation and landmark analyses. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20(18):4827-4836.
18. Kim ES, Herbst RS, Wistuba II, et al. The BATTLE trial: personalizing therapy for lung cancer. Cancer Discov. 2011;1(1):44-53.
19. Wheler JJ, Yelensky R, Stephen B, et al. Prospective study comparing outcomes in patients with advanced malignancies on molecular alteration-matched vs non-matched therapy. ASCO Meeting Abstracts. 33:11019, 2015.
20. Kris MG, Johnson BE, Berry LD, et al. Using multiplexed assays of oncogenic drivers in lung cancers to select targeted drugs. JAMA. 2014;311 (19):1998-2006.
21. Brower V. NCI-MATCH pairs tumor mutations with matching drugs. Nat Biotechnol. 2015;33(8): 790-791.
22. Conley BA, Doroshow JH. Molecular analysis for therapy choice: NCI MATCH. Semin Oncol. 2014; 41(3):297-299.
23. Do K, OSullivan Coyne G, Chen AP. An overview of the NCI precision medicine trials-NCI MATCH and MPACT. Chin Clin Oncol. 2015;4(3):31.
24. McNeil C. NCI-MATCH launch highlights new trial design in precision-medicine era. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(7):107.
25. Mullard A. NCI-MATCH trial pushes cancer umbrella trial paradigm. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2015; 14(8):513-515.
26. Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study. ASCO.org. https://www.asco.org/research-progress/clinical-Trials/targeted-Agent-profiling-utilization-registry-study. Accessed January 25, 2016.
27. Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study. TAPUR website. http://www.tapur.org/. Accessed January 29, 2016.
28. Le Tourneau C, Delord J-P, Gonçalves A, et al; SHIVA investigators. Molecularly targeted therapy based on tumour molecular profiling versus conventional therapy for advanced cancer (SHIVA): A multicentre, open-label, proof-of-concept, randomised, controlled phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(13):1324-1334.
29. Tsimberidou AM, Kurzrock R. Precision medicine: lessons learned from the SHIVA trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(16):e579-e580.
30. Wong KM, Capasso A, Eckhardt SG. The changing landscape of phase I trials in oncology. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016;13(2):106-117.
31. Tan DSW, Thomas GV, Garrett MD, et al. Biomarker-driven early clinical trials in oncology: A paradigm shift in drug development. Cancer J. 2009;15(5):406-420.
32. Jain RK, Lee JJ, Hong D, et al. Phase I oncology studies: evidence that in the era of targeted therapies patients on lower doses do not fare worse. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16(4):1289-1297.
33. Gupta S, Hunsberger S, Boerner SA, et al. Meta-Analysis of the relationship between dose and benefit in phase I targeted agent trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104(24):1860-1866.
34. Moreno García V, Olmos D, Gomez-Roca C, et al. Dose-response relationship in phase 1 clinical trials: A European Drug Development Network (EDDN) Collaboration Study. Clin Cancer Res. 2014; 20(22):5663-5671.
35. Michiels S, Piedbois P, Burdett S, Syz N, Stewart L, Pignon JP.Meta-Analysis when only the median survival times are known: A comparison with individual patient data results. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(1):119-125.
36. Shyr D, Liu Q. Next generation sequencing in cancer research and clinical application. Biol Proced Online. 2013;15(1):4.