Article

Six-month progression-free survival as an alternative primary efficacy endpoint to overall survival in newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients receiving temozolomide.

Brain Tumor Research Center, Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California-San Francisco, 400 Parnassus Avenue, Room A-808, Box 0372, San Francisco, California 94143-2167, USA.
Neuro-Oncology (Impact Factor: 5.29). 03/2010; 12(3):274-82. DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/nop034
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We assessed six-month progression-free survival (PFS) as an alternative primary efficacy endpoint to overall survival in newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) patients receiving temozolomide (TMZ). A total of 183 patients with newly diagnosed GBM enrolled in 3 phase II protocols at the University of California-San Francisco were included. Patients were treated with interventions based on the Stupp regimen, each with the added component of a second oral agent given concurrently with radiotherapy and TMZ, followed by its coadministration with adjuvant TMZ. We examined whether progression status at 2, 4, and 6 months predicted subsequent survival using the landmark analysis. The hazard ratios of death as a function of progression status were estimated based on the Cox proportional hazards model after adjustment for putative prognostic factors. Progression status at 2, 4, and 6 months were all consistently found to be strong predictors of subsequent survival in all studies. The study-specific hazard ratios associated with progression status at 6 months ranged from 2.03 to 3.39. The hazard ratios associated with the earlier time points (2- and 4-month progression) all exceeded 2 in magnitude, ranging from 2.29 to 4.73. P-values were statistically significant for all time points. In this report, we demonstrated a strong association between the endpoints of PFS at 2, 4, and 6 months and survival. Patients who showed the signs of early progression were at significantly higher risk of earlier death. Our analysis suggests that 6-month PFS may be an appropriate primary endpoint in the context of phase II upfront GBM trials in the TMZ era.

0 Followers
 · 
92 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Glioblastoma is the most common primary brain malignancy and is associated with poor prognosis despite aggressive local and systemic therapy, which is related to a paucity of viable treatment options in both the newly diagnosed and recurrent settings. Even so, the rapidly increasing number of targeted therapies being evaluated in oncology clinical trials offers hope for the future. Given the broad range of possibilities for future trials, the Brain Malignancy Steering Committee convened a clinical trials planning meeting that was held at the Udvar-Hazy Center in Chantilly, Virginia, on September 19 and 20, 2013. This manuscript reports the deliberations leading up to the event from the Targeted Therapies Working Group and the results of the meeting.
    Neuro-Oncology 08/2014; 17(2). DOI:10.1093/neuonc/nou154 · 5.29 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients with progressive glioblastoma (GBM) have a poor prognosis. Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), a host inflammatory marker, is prognostic in several solid tumors. The prognostic impact of either NLR, or time from first surgery for GBM to first progression (TTP), in patients undergoing second surgery, has not been assessed. Patients undergoing second surgery for GBM were retrospectively reviewed. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS) and Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the prognostic value of baseline characteristics including TTP and NLR. Univariable and multivariable analysis (MVA) of OS from second surgery were performed using accelerated failure time Weibull model. Of 584 patients with GBM, 107 (18 %) underwent second surgery between 01/04 and 12/11. Patients who underwent second surgery had longer OS versus those having primary surgery alone; 20.9 versus 9.9 months (P < 0.001). Median OS from second surgery in patients with NLR ≤ 4 versus NLR > 4 was 9.7 versus 5.9 months (log rank P = 0.02). The NLR retained its prognostic significance for survival on MVA (time ratio [TR] 1.65, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.15-2.35, P < 0.01). No chemotherapy post second surgery (TR 0.23, 95 % CI 0.16-0.33, P < 0.001) portended worse survival. In patients undergoing second surgery, when TTP was ≤12 months, 12-24 months, or >24 months, median OS from second surgery was 7.2, 7.0 and 6.3 months, respectively (P = 0.6). A NLR > 4 prior to second surgery is a poor prognostic factor in GBM and later progression is associated with longer survival in patients but not in longer survival after second surgery.
    Journal of Neuro-Oncology 01/2014; 117(1). DOI:10.1007/s11060-014-1366-9 · 2.79 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Object Robust methodology that allows objective, automated, and observer-independent measurements of brain tumor volume, especially after resection, is lacking. Thus, determination of tumor response and progression in neurooncology is unreliable. The objective of this study was to determine if a semi-automated volumetric method for quantifying enhancing tissue would perform with high reproducibility and low interobserver variability. Methods Fifty-seven MR images from 13 patients with glioblastoma were assessed using our method, by 2 neuroradiologists, 1 neurosurgeon, 1 neurosurgical resident, 1 nurse practitioner, and 1 medical student. The 2 neuroradiologists also performed traditional 1-dimensional (1D) and 2-dimensional (2D) measurements. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) assessed interobserver variability between measurements. Radiological response was determined using Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) guidelines and Macdonald criteria. Kappa statistics described interobserver variability of volumetric radiological response determinations. Results There was strong agreement for 1D (RECIST) and 2D (Macdonald) measurements between neuroradiologists (ICC = 0.42 and 0.61, respectively), but the agreement using the authors' novel automated approach was significantly stronger (ICC = 0.97). The volumetric method had the strongest agreement with regard to radiological response (κ = 0.96) when compared with 2D (κ = 0.54) or 1D (κ = 0.46) methods. Despite diverse levels of experience of the users of the volumetric method, measurements using the volumetric program remained remarkably consistent in all users (0.94). Conclusions Interobserver variability using this new semi-automated method is less than the variability with traditional methods of tumor measurement. This new method is objective, quick, and highly reproducible among operators with varying levels of expertise. This approach should be further evaluated as a potential standard for response assessment based on contrast enhancement in brain tumors.
    Journal of Neurosurgery 07/2014; 121(3):1-7. DOI:10.3171/2014.4.JNS121952 · 3.23 Impact Factor