Match!

Association of Biomarker-Based Treatment Strategies With Response Rates and Progression-Free Survival in Refractory Malignant Neoplasms: A Meta-analysis.

Published on Nov 1, 2016in JAMA Oncology22.42
· DOI :10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.2129
Maria Schwaederle18
Estimated H-index: 18
(UCSD: University of California, San Diego),
Melissa Zhao2
Estimated H-index: 2
(UCSD: University of California, San Diego)
+ 5 AuthorsRazelle Kurzrock99
Estimated H-index: 99
(UCSD: University of California, San Diego)
View in Source
Abstract
Importance The impact of a biomarker-based (personalized) cancer treatment strategy in the setting of phase 1 clinical trials was analyzed. Objective To compare patient outcomes in phase 1 studies that used a biomarker selection strategy with those that did not. Data Sources PubMed search of phase 1 cancer drug trials (January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2013). Study Selection Studies included trials that evaluated single agents, and reported efficacy end points (at least response rate [RR]). Data Extraction and Synthesis Data were extracted independently by 2 investigators. Main Outcomes and Measures Response rate and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared for arms that used a personalized strategy (biomarker selection) vs those that did not. Overall survival was not analyzed owing to insufficient data. Results A total of 346 studies published in the designated 3-year time period were included in the analysis. Multivariable analysis (meta-regression and weighted multiple regression models) demonstrated that the personalized approach independently correlated with a significantly higher median RR (30.6% [95% CI, 25.0%-36.9%] vs 4.9% [95% CI, 4.2%-5.7%]; P P P P  = .63; respectively; median PFS, 3.3 [95% CI, 2.6-4.0] months vs 2.5 [95% CI, 2.0-3.7] months; P  = .22). Personalized arms using a “genomic (DNA) biomarker” had higher median RR than those using a “protein biomarker” (42.0% [95% CI, 33.7%-50.9%] vs 22.4% [95% CI, 15.6%-30.9%]; P  = .001). The median treatment-related mortality was not statistically different for arms that used a personalized strategy vs not (1.89% [95% CI, 1.36%-2.61%] vs 2.27% [95% CI, 1.97%-2.62%]; P  = .31). Conclusions and Relevance In this meta-analysis, most phase 1 trials of targeted agents did not use a biomarker-based selection strategy. However, use of a biomarker-based approach was associated with significantly improved outcomes (RR and PFS). Response rates were significantly higher with genomic vs protein biomarkers. Studies that used targeted agents without a biomarker had negligible response rates.
  • References (32)
  • Citations (74)
References32
Newest
#1Kit Man Wong (University of Colorado Denver)H-Index: 9
#2Anna CapassoH-Index: 12
Last.S. Gail Eckhardt (Livestrong Foundation)H-Index: 51
view all 3 authors...
31 CitationsSource
#1Apostolia Maria Tsimberidou (University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center)H-Index: 50
#2Razelle Kurzrock (UCSD: University of California, San Diego)H-Index: 99
25 CitationsSource
#1Maria Schwaederle (UCSD: University of California, San Diego)H-Index: 18
#2Melissa Zhao (UCSD: University of California, San Diego)H-Index: 2
Last.Razelle Kurzrock (UCSD: University of California, San Diego)H-Index: 99
view all 8 authors...
136 CitationsSource
#1Denis L. Fontes Jardim (State University of Campinas)H-Index: 12
#2Maria Schwaederle (UCSD: University of California, San Diego)H-Index: 18
Last.Razelle Kurzrock (UCSD: University of California, San Diego)H-Index: 99
view all 10 authors...
56 CitationsSource
#1Christophe Le Tourneau (Curie Institute)H-Index: 25
#2Jean-Pierre DelordH-Index: 31
Last.Xavier Paoletti (Curie Institute)H-Index: 32
view all 23 authors...
374 CitationsSource
48 CitationsSource
22 CitationsSource
#1Khanh Do (NIH: National Institutes of Health)H-Index: 16
Last.Alice P. ChenH-Index: 21
view all 3 authors...
35 CitationsSource
62 CitationsSource
#1Tommy Stanley (Hendrix College)H-Index: 32
#2Hristos Doucouliagos (Deakin University)H-Index: 30
88 CitationsSource
Cited By74
Newest
#1Quanxue Li (ECUST: East China University of Science and Technology)H-Index: 1
#2Wentao DaiH-Index: 1
Last.Yuan-Yuan LiH-Index: 10
view all 5 authors...
1 CitationsSource
#1C. Benedikt Westphalen (LMU: Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich)H-Index: 9
#2Moritz Jesinghaus (TUM: Technische Universität München)H-Index: 11
Last.Wilko Weichert (TUM: Technische Universität München)H-Index: 52
view all 9 authors...
Source
#1Rob Saunders (UCL: University College London)H-Index: 4
#2Joshua E.J. Buckman (UCL: University College London)H-Index: 3
Last.Stephen Pilling (UCL: University College London)H-Index: 37
view all 3 authors...
Source
#1Jacob J. Adashek (USF: University of South Florida)
#2Patricia LoRusso (Yale Cancer Center)H-Index: 60
Last.Razelle Kurzrock (UCSD: University of California, San Diego)H-Index: 99
view all 4 authors...
Source
#1Mary Ellen Urick (NIH: National Institutes of Health)H-Index: 9
#2Daphne W. Bell (NIH: National Institutes of Health)H-Index: 37
Source
#1Karl PayneH-Index: 1
#2Jill BrooksH-Index: 20
Last.Hisham M. MehannaH-Index: 32
view all 7 authors...
Source
#1C. Benedikt Westphalen (LMU: Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich)H-Index: 9
#2Kathrin Heinrich (LMU: Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich)
Last.V. Heineman (LMU: Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich)H-Index: 57
view all 4 authors...
Source
#1Siew-Kee Low (JFCR: Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research)H-Index: 1
#2Yoshio Nakamura (JFCR: Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research)H-Index: 164
Source
#1Alexander Christakis (Brigham and Women's Hospital)H-Index: 2
#2David Papke (Brigham and Women's Hospital)H-Index: 6
Last.Fei Dong (Brigham and Women's Hospital)H-Index: 18
view all 9 authors...
Source
#1Ida Viller Tuxen (UCPH: University of Copenhagen)H-Index: 3
#2Lise Barlebo Ahlborn (UCPH: University of Copenhagen)H-Index: 6
Last.Ulrik Lassen (UCPH: University of Copenhagen)H-Index: 28
view all 9 authors...
1 CitationsSource