Tumor Status at 12 Weeks Predicts Survival in Advanced Colorectal Cancer: Findings from NCCTG N9741
- 31 May 2011
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in The Oncologist
- Vol. 16 (6) , 859-867
Abstract
Learning Objectives: After completing this course, the reader will be able to: Explain the difference in survival prediction between response criteria (WHO) when used as a two-level variable (CR/PR vs. other) and as a three-level variable (CR/PR vs. SD vs. PD).Describe the limited benefit of using actual tumor measurements over traditional criteria (as a three-level variable) in predicting survival in colorectal cancer. This article is available for continuing medical education credit at CME.TheOncologist.com Purpose.: We explored the prognostic value of actual tumor measurements (TM) versus World Health Organization (WHO) criteria as three-level (responder, stable, and progression) and two-level (responder and non-responder) variables at 12 and 24 weeks as predictors of survival in Intergroup Trial N9741, a phase III trial in metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods.: All patients with measurable disease (N = 1,188) were included. The percentage changes in TM from baseline to 12 and 24 weeks were calculated. The prognostic values of TM versus WHO criteria (as three- and two-level variables) at 12 and 24 weeks were compared, using Cox models for overall survival (OS) in a landmark analysis, adjusting for baseline tumor size, performance status, and treatment arm. Results.: Tumor status at 12 weeks by WHO criteria (three or two levels) or actual TM were all strongly associated with OS. Actual TM provided no meaningful additional benefit compared with the three-level WHO criteria. Tumor status at 24 weeks was also strongly associated with survival, but added no additional prognostic value compared with the 12-week assessment. At 12 weeks, actual TM improved prognostic characterization of patients with WHO status of response, but provided no additional value in patients with stable disease or progression. Conclusions.: In N9741, the use of actual TM, or following tumor status beyond 12 weeks, did not improve survival prediction compared with a single three-level response assessment at 12 weeks, suggesting that 12-week tumor status could be an appropriate phase II trial endpoint in metastatic CRC.Keywords
This publication has 34 references indexed in Scilit:
- Randomized Phase II Trials: Inevitable or Inadvisable?Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2010
- Disease-Free Survival Versus Overall Survival As a Primary End Point for Adjuvant Colon Cancer Studies: Individual Patient Data From 20,898 Patients on 18 Randomized TrialsJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2005
- Design Issues of Randomized Phase II Trials and a Proposal for Phase II Screening TrialsJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2005
- FDG-PET after two to three cycles of chemotherapy predicts progression-free and overall survival in high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphomaAnnals of Oncology, 2005
- [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in aggressive lymphoma: an early prognostic tool for predicting patient outcomeBlood, 2005
- Phase II Studies of Modern Drugs Directed Against New Targets: If You Are Fazed, Too, Then Resist RECISTJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2004
- A Randomized Controlled Trial of Fluorouracil Plus Leucovorin, Irinotecan, and Oxaliplatin Combinations in Patients With Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal CancerJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2004
- The Phase III Trial in the Era of Targeted Therapy: Unraveling the “Go or No Go” DecisionJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2003
- New Guidelines to Evaluate the Response to Treatment in Solid TumorsJNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2000
- Reporting results of cancer treatmentCancer, 1981