Developing an objective marker to optimize patient selection and predict survival benefit in early-phase cancer trials

Cancer ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 120 (2) ◽  
pp. 262-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chara Stavraka ◽  
David J. Pinato ◽  
Samantha J. Turnbull ◽  
Michael J. Flynn ◽  
Martin D. Forster ◽  
...  
2008 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 57-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy Kass ◽  
Holly Taylor ◽  
Linda Fogarty ◽  
Jeremy Sugarman ◽  
Steven N. Goodman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

Neurosurgery ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 75 (5) ◽  
pp. 491-499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shawn L. Hervey-Jumper ◽  
Mitchel S. Berger

Abstract Optimal treatment for recurrent high-grade glioma continues to evolve. Currently, however, there is no consensus in the literature on the role of reoperation in the management of these patients. In this analysis, we reviewed the literature to examine the role of reoperation in patients with World Health Organization grade III or IV recurrent gliomas, focusing on how reoperation affects outcome, perioperative complications, and quality of life. An extensive literature review was performed through the use of the PubMed and Ovid Medline databases for January 1980 through August 2013. A total 31 studies were included in the final analysis. Of the 31 studies with significant data from single or multiple institutions, 29 demonstrated a survival benefit or improved functional status after reoperation for recurrent high-grade glioma. Indications for reoperation included new focal neurological deficits, tumor mass effect, signs of elevated intracranial pressure, headaches, increased seizure frequency, and radiographic evidence of tumor progression. Age was not a contraindication to reoperation. Time interval of at least 6 months between operations and favorable performance status (Karnofsky Performance Status score ≥70) were important predictors of benefit from reoperation. Extent of resection at reoperation improved survival, even in patients with subtotal resection at initial operation. Careful patient selection such as avoiding those individuals with poor performance status and bevacizumab within 4 weeks of surgery is important. Although limited to retrospective analysis and patient selection bias, mounting evidence suggests a survival benefit in patients receiving a reoperation at the time of high-grade glioma recurrence.


2021 ◽  
Vol 155 ◽  
pp. 168-178
Author(s):  
Ignacio Matos ◽  
Guillermo Villacampa ◽  
Cinta Hierro ◽  
Juan Martin-Liberal ◽  
Roger Berché ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. ix165
Author(s):  
A. Mohd Noor ◽  
S. Vizor ◽  
B. McLennan ◽  
D. Sarker ◽  
H. Moller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 224-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aisyah Mohd Noor ◽  
Debashis Sarker ◽  
Suzanne Vizor ◽  
Blair McLennan ◽  
Sarah Hunter ◽  
...  

Purpose Little is known about the influence of socioeconomic factors on patient access to cancer trials. Differences should be considered to ensure generalizability of trial results and equality of access. Methods Phase I trials unit referrals at our center over 5 years, from 2007 to 2012, were reviewed. Socioeconomic status was defined by the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD; 1, least deprived; 5, most deprived). Multivariate analysis was performed comparing incident cancer cases with referred patients and those ultimately enrolled onto a trial. Results Four hundred thirty patients were referred (median age, 62 years). Compared with 10,784 incident cases, referral was less likely for patients in the more-deprived quintiles compared with the least deprived (IMD 5: odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.74). Once reviewed in the unit, enrollment onto a trial was not affected (IMD 5: OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.63). Ethnicity analysis showed the nonwhite population was less likely to be recruited (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.88). This relationship was lost with adjustment for age, sex, cancer type, and deprivation index. Conclusion We show for the first time to our knowledge that socioeconomic status affects early-phase cancer trial referrals. The least-deprived patients are almost twice as likely to be referred compared with the most deprived. This may be because more-deprived patients are less suitable for a trial—as a result of comorbidities, for example—or because of inequalities that could be addressed by patient or referrer education. Once reviewed at the unit, enrollment onto a trial is not affected by deprivation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 38 (04) ◽  
pp. 438-444
Author(s):  
Joseph Ray Ness ◽  
Christopher Molvar

AbstractIntrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is the second most common primary hepatic malignancy and poses a therapeutic challenge owing to its late-stage presentation and treatment-resistant outcomes. Most patients are diagnosed with locally advanced, unresectable disease and are treated with a combination of systemic and local regional therapies. Transarterial radioembolization offers a survival benefit and a favorable side effect profile, with a growing body of evidence to support its use. Herein, we review patient selection and detail outcomes of radioembolization for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, together with mention of competing treatments.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document