Format

Send to

Choose Destination

See 1 citation found using an alternative search:

J Clin Oncol. 2015 Nov 10;33(32):3817-25. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.61.5997. Epub 2015 Aug 24.

Impact of Precision Medicine in Diverse Cancers: A Meta-Analysis of Phase II Clinical Trials.

Author information

1
Maria Schwaederle, Melissa Zhao, and Razelle Kurzrock, Center for Personalized Cancer Therapy, University of California, San Diego, Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, CA; J. Jack Lee and John Mendelsohn, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Richard L. Schilsky, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alexander M. Eggermont and Vladimir Lazar, Institut Gustave Roussy, University Paris-Sud; and Alexander M. Eggermont, Richard L. Schilsky, John Mendelsohn, Vladimir Lazar, and Razelle Kurzrock, Worldwide Innovative Network in Personalized Cancer Medicine, Villejuif, France. mschwaederle@ucsd.edu.
2
Maria Schwaederle, Melissa Zhao, and Razelle Kurzrock, Center for Personalized Cancer Therapy, University of California, San Diego, Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, CA; J. Jack Lee and John Mendelsohn, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Richard L. Schilsky, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alexander M. Eggermont and Vladimir Lazar, Institut Gustave Roussy, University Paris-Sud; and Alexander M. Eggermont, Richard L. Schilsky, John Mendelsohn, Vladimir Lazar, and Razelle Kurzrock, Worldwide Innovative Network in Personalized Cancer Medicine, Villejuif, France.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

The impact of a personalized cancer treatment strategy (ie, matching patients with drugs based on specific biomarkers) is still a matter of debate.

METHODS:

We reviewed phase II single-agent studies (570 studies; 32,149 patients) published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2012 (PubMed search). Response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared for arms that used a personalized strategy versus those that did not.

RESULTS:

Multivariable analysis (both weighted multiple linear regression and random effects meta-regression) demonstrated that the personalized approach, compared with a nonpersonalized approach, consistently and independently correlated with higher median RR (31% v 10.5%, respectively; P < .001) and prolonged median PFS (5.9 v 2.7 months, respectively; P < .001) and OS (13.7 v 8.9 months, respectively; P < .001). Nonpersonalized targeted arms had poorer outcomes compared with either personalized targeted therapy or cytotoxics, with median RR of 4%, 30%, and 11.9%, respectively; median PFS of 2.6, 6.9, and 3.3 months, respectively (all P < .001); and median OS of 8.7, 15.9, and 9.4 months, respectively (all P < .05). Personalized arms using a genomic biomarker had higher median RR and prolonged median PFS and OS (all P ≤ .05) compared with personalized arms using a protein biomarker. A personalized strategy was associated with a lower treatment-related death rate than a nonpersonalized strategy (median, 1.5% v 2.3%, respectively; P < .001).

CONCLUSION:

Comprehensive analysis of phase II, single-agent arms revealed that, across malignancies, a personalized strategy was an independent predictor of better outcomes and fewer toxic deaths. In addition, nonpersonalized targeted therapies were associated with significantly poorer outcomes than cytotoxic agents, which in turn were worse than personalized targeted therapy.

PMID:
26304871
PMCID:
PMC4737863
DOI:
10.1200/JCO.2015.61.5997
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Atypon Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center