Search

Background: We sought to develop and validate clinically relevant, early assessment continuous tumor measurement-based metrics for predicting overall survival (OS) using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 data warehouse.Methods: Data from 13 trials representing 2096 patients with breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), or colorectal cancer were used in a complete case analysis. Tumor measurements from weeks 0-6-12 assessments were used to evaluate the ability of slope (absolute change in tumor size from 0-6 and 6-12 weeks) and percent change (relative change in tumor size from 0-6 and 6-12 weeks) metrics to predict OS using Cox models, adjusted for average baseline tumor size. Metrics were evaluated by discrimination (via concordance or c-index), calibration (goodness-of-fit type statistics), association (hazard ratios), and likelihood (Bayesian Information Criteria), with primary focus on the c-index. All statistical tests were two-sided.Results: Comparison of c-indices suggests slight improvement in predictive ability for the continuous tumor measurement-based metrics vs categorical RECIST response metrics, with slope metrics performing better than percent change metrics for breast cancer and NSCLC. However, these differences were not statistically significant. The goodness-of-fit statistics for the RECIST metrics were as good as or better than those for the continuous metrics. In general, all the metrics performed poorly in breast cancer, compared with NSCLC and colorectal cancer.Conclusion: Absolute and relative change in tumor measurements do not demonstrate convincingly improved overall survival predictive ability over the RECIST model. Continued work is necessary to address issues of missing tumor measurements and model selection in identifying improved tumor measurement-based metrics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To better understand the relationship between tumor-host interactions and the efficacy of chemotherapy, we have developed an analytical approach to quantify several biological processes observed in gene expression data sets. We tested the approach on tumor biopsies from individuals with estrogen receptor–negative breast cancer treated with chemotherapy. We report that increased stromal gene expression predicts resistance to preoperative chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (FEC) in subjects in the EORTC 10994/BIG 00-01 trial. The predictive value of the stromal signature was successfully validated in two independent cohorts of subjects who received chemotherapy but not in an untreated control group, indicating that the signature is predictive rather than prognostic. The genes in the signature are expressed in reactive stroma, according to reanalysis of data from microdissected breast tumor samples. These findings identify a previously undescribed resistance mechanism to FEC treatment and suggest that antistromal agents may offer new ways to overcome resistance to chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The aim of this randomized phase II study was to evaluate the anti-tumor activity and safety of capecitabine and vinorelbine in patients with metastatic breast cancer pretreated with taxanes and anthracyclines. We planned to randomize 72 patients to capecitabine 1250mg/m2 orally bid days 1–14 or vinorelbine 30mg/m2 i.v. days 1 and 8, both given every 3 weeks. The study was stopped due to poor accrual with 47 patients enrolled. Responses were seen in 2/23 patients treated with capecitabine (8.7%; 95% CI 1.1–29.0) and 3/24 patients treated with vinorelbine (12.5%; 95% CI 2.7–32.4). Median progression-free survival was 2.8 and 2.6 months, and median overall survival was 9.3 and 11.0 months, in the capecitabine and vinorelbine arms, respectively. There was more hematologic toxicity, neurotoxicity, and nausea/vomiting with vinorelbine and more diarrhea and hand-foot syndrome with capecitabine. The anti-tumor activity of capecitabine and vinorelbine seems to be comparable, but the toxicity profiles are different. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

To describe the attitudes of healthcare professionals and drug regulators about progression-free survival (PFS) as efficacy endpoint in clinical trials with patients with advanced cancer and to explore to what extent these attitudes influence the willingness to trade between PFS and toxicity. Cross-sectional survey with regulators from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and healthcare professionals (HCP) from the "Stichting Hemato-Oncologie voor Volwassenen Nederland" (HOVON) collaborative group and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Attitudes towards PFS were elicited using 5-point Likert items. The respondents' willingness to trade between PFS and grade 3 or 4 (G34) toxicity was assessed using the threshold technique and quantified in terms of their maximum acceptable risk (MAR). Responses were collected from 287 HCPs and 64 regulators with mainly clinical expertise. Attitudes towards PFS were often spread out in both groups and related to beliefs about PFS being a likely surrogate for clinical benefit, being an intrinsic benefit to be distinguished from OS, or on the importance given to OS. Being a regulator or holding stronger beliefs about PFS being a likely surrogate or an intrinsic benefit were associated with a higher MAR. Presence of a supportive trend in OS was stated as important but was not associated with MAR. There was agreement on the need to address bias in the adjudication of PFS and the need for improving communication to patients about meaning, strengths, and limitations of improvements in PFS. Attitudes towards PFS were spread out and were associated with individual differences in the willingness to trade between toxicity and PFS. There was agreement on the need to address bias in the adjudication of PFS and improving communication to patients. • Varied views about PFS among healthcare professionals and regulators impact toxicity trade-offs. • Views about PFS related to beliefs about surrogacy and intrinsic benefit of PFS. • Concerns about bias and communication raised for PFS by healthcare professionals and regulators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Radiologic imaging of disease sites plays a pivotal role in the management of patients with cancer. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST), introduced in 2000, and modified in 2009, has become the de facto standard for assessment of response in solid tumours in patients on clinical trials. The RECIST Working Group considers the ability of the global oncology community to implement and adopt updates to RECIST in a timely manner to be critical. Updates to RECIST must be tested, validated and implemented in a standardised, methodical manner in response to therapeutic and imaging technology advances as well as experience gained by users. This was the case with the development of RECIST 1.1, where an expanded data warehouse was developed to test and validate modifications. Similar initiatives are ongoing, testing RECIST in the evaluation of response to non-cytotoxic agents, immunotherapies, as well as in specific diseases. The RECIST Working Group has previously outlined the level of evidence considered necessary to formally and fully validate new imaging markers as an appropriate end-point for clinical trials. Achieving the optimal level of evidence desired is a difficult feat for phase III trials; this involves a meta-analysis of multiple prospective, randomised multicentre clinical trials. The rationale for modifications should also be considered; the modifications may be proposed to improve surrogacy, to provide a more mechanistic imaging technique, or be designed to improve reproducibility of the imaging biomarker. Here, we present the commonly described modifications of RECIST, each of which is associated with different levels of evidence and validation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Purpose: With the increasing use of novel targeted agents and the development of high imaging techniques, response evaluation criteria in solid tumour (RECIST) 1.1 developed primarily for cytotoxic agents and anatomic imaging, has demonstrated limitations. A survey was conducted of RECIST users to identify concerns and their suggestions for future RECIST criteria. Methods: 140 key partners of the RECIST collaboration were asked to complete a questionnaire. The 49 questions concerned (a) satisfaction and concerns with RECIST 1.1; (b) use of modified RECIST criteria and (c) suggestions for the next RECIST Version. Results: Sixty-five replies were received. 52.3% responders were satisfied with RECIST 1.1, while 10.8% indicated dissatisfaction. Areas of potential weakness included: (a) lack of incorporation of potential early indicators of response such as functional imaging, (b) lack of validation in rarer tumour types and (c) lack of validation for novel (targeted) agents. Suggestions were multiple, with highest numbers on two points: developing sub-criteria for certain disease types and including advanced imaging techniques for the evaluation. Conclusions: Constructive suggestions were received for optimising the next version. Ongoing data collection will make it possible to investigate the possible utilisation of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) imaging in tumour assessment, to verify whether RECIST is/can still be applicable in novel targeted therapy and to consider the need for criteria for specific disease types. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: The contribution of adjuvant tamoxifen in breast cancer patients after receiving adjuvant chemotherapy is not fully established. We investigated the impact of tamoxifen, given sequentially after completion of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer. Patients and methods: Between March 1991 and June 1999, 1863 women with stages I–IIIA operable breast cancer who had undergone surgery and completed six cycles of adjuvant combination chemotherapy with either CMF, CAF, CEF, FAC or FEC were randomised to receive either tamoxifen 20mg daily for 3 years or no further treatment. Irrespective of menstrual status and hormone receptor content of the primary tumour, patients were stratified by institute, chemotherapy scheme and age (above 50 years or younger). The main end-point was to detect a 5% increase in the 5 year survival (from 80% to 85%) in favour of antioestrogen therapy. Secondary end-points were relapse free survival (RFS), local control, incidence of second primary breast cancer and correlation of results with hormone receptor content. Results: After exclusion of all patients from three sites because of inadequate documentation, a total of 1724 patients (93%) were analysed (Tam 861 and Control 863). At a median follow-up of 6.5 years, 5-year RFS on tamoxifen was 73% versus 67% in controls (p =0.035). No difference was seen in overall survival. The benefit of tamoxifen therapy was mainly seen in the subgroup of patients with histologically documented positive axillary nodes (5-year RFS on tamoxifen 71% versus 64% in the control group, p =0.044) and in patients with tumours expressing the ER and PR positive phenotype (5-year RFS on tamoxifen 77% versus 70% in the control group, p =0.014). Conclusions: Tamoxifen administered for 3 years after completion of adjuvant chemotherapy in this otherwise unselected group of patients for endocrine sensitivity had a limited impact on relapse and had no detectable effect on overall survival. The beneficial effect of tamoxifen is mainly confined to the subgroup of patients with node-positive disease and to patients with tumours expressing the ER and PR positive phenotype. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]