Association of Biomarker-Based Treatment Strategies With Response Rates and Progression-Free Survival in Refractory Malignant Neoplasms: A Meta-analysis.
JAMA Oncol
; 2(11): 1452-1459, 2016 Nov 01.
Article
em En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-27273579
ABSTRACT
IMPORTANCE The impact of a biomarker-based (personalized) cancer treatment strategy in the setting of phase 1 clinical trials was analyzed. OBJECTIVE:
To compare patient outcomes in phase 1 studies that used a biomarker selection strategy with those that did not. DATA SOURCES PubMed search of phase 1 cancer drug trials (January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2013). STUDY SELECTION Studies included trials that evaluated single agents, and reported efficacy end points (at least response rate [RR]). DATA EXTRACTION ANDSYNTHESIS:
Data were extracted independently by 2 investigators. MAIN OUTCOMES ANDMEASURES:
Response rate and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared for arms that used a personalized strategy (biomarker selection) vs those that did not. Overall survival was not analyzed owing to insufficient data.RESULTS:
A total of 346 studies published in the designated 3-year time period were included in the analysis. Multivariable analysis (meta-regression and weighted multiple regression models) demonstrated that the personalized approach independently correlated with a significantly higher median RR (30.6% [95% CI, 25.0%-36.9%] vs 4.9% [95% CI, 4.2%-5.7%]; P < .001) and a longer median PFS (5.7 [95% CI, 2.6-13.8] vs 2.95 [95% CI, 2.3-3.7] months; P < .001). Targeted therapy arms that used a biomarker-based selection strategy (n = 57 trials) were associated with statistically improved RR compared with targeted therapy arms (n = 177 arms) that did not (31.1% [95% CI, 25.4%-37.4%] vs 5.1% [95% CI, 4.3%-6.0%]; P < .001). Nonpersonalized targeted arms had outcomes comparable with those that tested a cytotoxic agent (median RR, 5.1% [95% CI, 4.3%-6.0%] vs 4.7% [95% CI, 3.6%-6.2%]; P = .63; respectively; median PFS, 3.3 [95% CI, 2.6-4.0] months vs 2.5 [95% CI, 2.0-3.7] months; P = .22). Personalized arms using a "genomic (DNA) biomarker" had higher median RR than those using a "protein biomarker" (42.0% [95% CI, 33.7%-50.9%] vs 22.4% [95% CI, 15.6%-30.9%]; P = .001). The median treatment-related mortality was not statistically different for arms that used a personalized strategy vs not (1.89% [95% CI, 1.36%-2.61%] vs 2.27% [95% CI, 1.97%-2.62%]; P = .31). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this meta-analysis, most phase 1 trials of targeted agents did not use a biomarker-based selection strategy. However, use of a biomarker-based approach was associated with significantly improved outcomes (RR and PFS). Response rates were significantly higher with genomic vs protein biomarkers. Studies that used targeted agents without a biomarker had negligible response rates.
Texto completo:
1
Coleções:
01-internacional
Base de dados:
MEDLINE
Assunto principal:
Biomarcadores Tumorais
/
Neoplasias
/
Antineoplásicos
Tipo de estudo:
Risk_factors_studies
/
Systematic_reviews
Limite:
Humans
Idioma:
En
Revista:
JAMA Oncol
Ano de publicação:
2016
Tipo de documento:
Article