Optimal frequency of scans for patients on cancer therapies: A population kinetics assessment
Open Access
- 27 September 2019
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Cancer Medicine
- Vol. 8 (16) , 6871-6886
Abstract
Background: Optimal frequency of follow‐up scans for patients receiving systemic therapies is poorly defined. Progression‐free survival (PFS) generally follows first‐order kinetics. We used exponential decay nonlinear regression analysis to calculate half‐lives for 887 published PFS curves.Method: We used the Excel formula x = EXP(‐tn*0.693/t1/2) to calculate proportion of residual patients remaining progression‐free at different times, where tn is the interval in weeks between scans (eg, 6 weeks), * indicates multiplication, 0.693 is the natural logarithm of 2, and t1/2 is the PFS half‐life in weeks.Results: Proportion of residual patients predicted to remain progression‐free at each subsequent scan varied with scan intervals and regimen PFS half‐life. For example, with a 4‐month half‐life (17.3 weeks) and scans every 6 weeks, 21% of patients would progress by the first scan, 21% of the remaining patients would progress by the second scan at 12 weeks, etc With 2, 6‐ and 12‐month half‐lives (for example), the proportion of remaining patients progressing at each subsequent scan if repeated every 3 weeks would be 21%, 8% and 4%, respectively, while with scans every 12 weeks it would be 62%, 27% and 15%, respectively. Furthermore, optimal scan frequency can be calculated for populations comprised of distinct rapidly and slowly progressing subpopulations, as well as with convex curves arising from treatment breaks, where optimal scan frequency may differ during therapy administration vs during more rapid progression after therapy interruption.Conclusions: A population kinetics approach permits a regimen‐ and tumor‐specific determination of optimal scan frequency for patients on systemic therapies.Keywords
This publication has 31 references indexed in Scilit:
- Controversies in monitoring metastatic breast cancer during systemic treatment. Results of a GIM (Gruppo Italiano Mammella) surveyThe Breast, 2018
- Use and Costs of Disease Monitoring in Women With Metastatic Breast CancerJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2016
- Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice GuidelineJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2016
- International guidelines for management of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) from the European School of Oncology (ESO)–MBC Task Force: Surveillance, staging, and evaluation of patients with early-stage and metastatic breast cancerThe Breast, 2013
- Fool’s gold, lost treasures, and the randomized clinical trialBMC Cancer, 2013
- Variability of Lung Tumor Measurements on Repeat Computed Tomography Scans Taken Within 15 MinutesJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2011
- Imaging Studies in Metastatic Urogenital Cancer Patients Undergoing Systemic Therapy: Recommendations of a Multidisciplinary Consensus Meeting of the Association of Urological Oncology of the German Cancer SocietyUrologia Internationalis, 2010
- Projected Cancer Risks From Computed Tomographic Scans Performed in the United States in 2007Archives of internal medicine (1960), 2009
- Contrast agent-associated nephrotoxicityProgress in Cardiovascular Diseases, 2003
- Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media. A report from the Japanese Committee on the Safety of Contrast Media.Radiology, 1990