Improved nationwide survival of sarcoma patients with a network of reference centers.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the impact of the implementation of a network of reference centers for sarcomas (NETSARC) on the care and survival of sarcoma patients in France since 2010. PATIENTS AND METHODS: NETSARC (netsarc.org) is a network of 26 reference sarcoma centers with specialized multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTBs), funded by the French National Cancer Institute (INCa) since 2010. Its aims are to improve the quality of diagnosis and care of sarcoma patients. Patients' characteristics, treatments, and outcomes are collected in a nationwide database. The objective of this analysis was to compare the survival of patients in three periods: 2010-2012 (non-exhaustive), 2013-2015, and 2016-2020. RESULTS: A total of 43 975 patients with sarcomas, gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), or connective tissue tumors of intermediate malignancy were included in the NETSARC+ database since 2010 (n = 9266 before 2013, n = 12 274 between 2013 and 2015, n = 22 435 in 2016-2020). Median age was 56 years, 50.5% were women, and 13.2% had metastasis at diagnosis. Overall survival was significantly superior in the period 2016-2020 versus 2013-2015 versus 2010-2012 for the entire population, for patients >18 years of age, and for both metastatic and non-metastatic patients in univariate and multivariate analyses (P < 0.0001). Over the three periods, we observed a significantly improved compliance to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) nationwide: the proportion of patients biopsied before surgery increased from 62.9% to 72.6%; the percentage of patients presented to NETSARC MDTBs before first surgery increased from 31.7% to 44.4% (P < 0.0001). The proportion of patients with R0 resection on first surgery increased (from 36.1% to 46.6%), while R2 resection rate decreased (from 10.9% to 7.9%), with a better compliance and improvement in NETSARC centers. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the national reference network for sarcoma was associated with an improvement of overall survival and compliance to guidelines nationwide in sarcoma patients. Referral to expert networks for sarcoma patients should be encouraged, though a better compliance to CPGs can still be achieved.

Streamlining clinical research: an ESMO awareness call to improve sponsoring and monitoring of clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: During recent years, the burden of bureaucracy in clinical research has increased dramatically, adversely impacting the activity of investigators and clinical research teams. Although compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the guidelines for Good Clinical Practice (GCP), and other applicable regulations remains unquestionable, their overinterpretation and substitution by the internal operating procedures of sponsors and Contract Research Organizations (CROs) have increased the administrative burden. A survey conducted by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Research Observatory (ECRO) among 940 investigators confirmed that they considered that the administrative burden in clinical research is excessive; that administrative procedures could be reduced without affecting the safety and the rights of the patients and the quality of the data; and that bureaucracy represents an obstacle for clinical research. METHODS: A panel of physicians with extensive experience in clinical research, composed by members of the ECRO and the ESMO Scientific Medical and Public Policy divisions, analyzed clinical trial procedures related to administrative workflow, pharmacovigilance, and medical care. RESULTS: The panel identified situations that generate debate between investigators and sponsors/CROs and selected real clinical scenarios that exemplify such situations. The panel discussed and proposed specific recommendations for those situations, based on GCP. CONCLUSIONS: This initiative aspires to streamline clinical research procedures and to become a platform for discussion among all clinical trial stakeholders, with the aim of promoting the sustainability of clinical research and the care of cancer patients.

Pembrolizumab in microsatellite instability high or mismatch repair deficient cancers: updated analysis from the phase II KEYNOTE-158 study.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab demonstrated durable antitumor activity in 233 patients with previously treated advanced microsatellite instability high (MSI-H) or mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) advanced solid tumors in the phase II multicohort KEYNOTE-158 (NCT02628067) study. Herein, we report safety and efficacy outcomes with longer follow-up for more patients with previously treated advanced MSI-H/dMMR noncolorectal cancers who were included in cohort K of the KEYNOTE-158 (NCT02628067) study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with previously treated advanced noncolorectal MSI-H/dMMR solid tumors, measurable disease as per RECIST v1.1, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 received pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for 35 cycles or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) as per RECIST v1.1 by independent central radiologic review. RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-one patients with various tumor types were enrolled in KEYNOTE-158 cohort K. The most common tumor types were endometrial (22.5%), gastric (14.5%), and small intestine (7.4%). Median time from first dose to database cut-off (5 October 2020) was 37.5 months (range, 0.2-55.6 months). ORR among 321 patients in the efficacy population (patients who received ≥1 dose of pembrolizumab enrolled ≥6 months before the data cut-off date) was 30.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 25.8% to 36.2%]. Median duration of response was 47.5 months (range, 2.1+ to 51.1+ months; '+' indicates no progressive disease by the time of last disease assessment). Median progression-free survival was 3.5 months (95% CI 2.3-4.2 months) and median overall survival was 20.1 months (95% CI 14.1-27.1 months). Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 227 patients (64.7%). Grade 3-4 treatment-related AEs occurred in 39 patients (11.1%); 3 (0.9%) had grade 5 treatment-related AEs (myocarditis, pneumonia, and Guillain-Barre syndrome, n = 1 each). CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab demonstrated clinically meaningful and durable benefit, with a high ORR of 30.8%, long median duration of response of 47.5 months, and manageable safety across a range of heavily pretreated, advanced MSI-H/dMMR noncolorectal cancers, providing support for use of pembrolizumab in this setting.

Final analysis of the randomized trial on imatinib as an adjuvant in localized gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) from the EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (STBSG), the Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group (AGITG), UNICANCER, French Sarcoma Group (FSG), Italian Sarcoma Group (ISG), and Spanish Group for Research on Sarcomas (GEIS)☆.

BACKGROUND: In 2004, we started an intergroup randomized trial of adjuvant imatinib versus no further therapy after R0-R1 surgery in localized, high/intermediate-risk gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) patients. Interim analysis results were published in 2015 upon recommendation from an independent data review committee. We report the final outcome of the study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a randomized, open-label, multicenter phase III trial carried out at 112 hospitals in 12 countries. Patients were randomized to 2 years of imatinib, 400 mg daily, or no further therapy after surgery. The primary endpoint was imatinib failure-free survival (IFFS), while relapse-free survival (RFS), relapse-free interval (RFI), overall survival (OS) and toxicity were secondary endpoints. Adjusting for the interim analyses, results on IFFS were assessed on a 4.3% significance level; for the other endpoints, 5% was used. RESULTS: Nine hundred and eight patients were randomized between January 2005 and October 2008: 454 to imatinib and 454 to observation; 835 patients were eligible. With a median follow-up of 9.1 years, 5 (10)-year IFFS was 87% (75%) in the imatinib arm versus 83% (74%) in the control arm [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.87, 95.7% confidence interval (CI) (0.65; 1.15), P = 0.31]; RFS was 70% versus 63% at 5 years and 63% versus 61% at 10 years, [HR = 0.71, 95% CI (0.57; 0.89), P = 0.002]; OS was 93% versus 92% at 5 years and 80% versus 78% at 10 years [HR = 0.88, 95% CI (0.65; 1.21), P = 0.43]. Among 526 patients with high-risk GIST by local pathology, 10-year IFFS and RFS were 69% versus 61%, and 48% versus 43%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: With 9.1 years of follow-up, a trend toward better long-term IFFS in imatinib-treated patients was observed in the high-risk subgroup. Although the difference was not statistically significant and the surrogacy value of such an endpoint is not validated, this may be seen as supporting the results reported by the Scandinavian/German trial, showing a sustained small but significant long-term OS benefit in high-risk GIST patients treated with 3 years of adjuvant imatinib.

A randomized phase III trial comparing trabectedin to best supportive care in patients with pre-treated soft tissue sarcoma: T-SAR, a French Sarcoma Group trial.

BACKGROUND: The French Sarcoma Group assessed the efficacy, safety, and quality of life (QoL) of trabectedin versus best supportive care (BSC) in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase III study included adults with STS who progressed after 1-3 prior treatment lines. Patients were randomized (1 : 1) to receive trabectedin 1.5 mg/m2 every 3 weeks or BSC, stratified into L-STS (liposarcoma/leiomyosarcoma) and non-L-STS groups (other histotypes). Patients from the BSC arm were allowed to cross over to trabectedin at progression. The primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) confirmed by blinded central review and analyzed in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Between 26 January 2015 and 5 November 2015, 103 heavily pre-treated patients (60.2% with L-STS) from 16 French centers were allocated to receive trabectedin (n = 52) or BSC (n = 51). Median PFS was 3.1 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8-5.9 months] in the trabectedin arm versus 1.5 months (0.9-2.6 months) in the BSC arm (hazard ratio = 0.39, 95% CI 0.24-0.64, P < 0.001) with benefits observed across almost all analyzed subgroups, but particularly in patients with L-STS (5.1 versus 1.4 months, P = 0.0001). Seven patients (13.7%) in the trabectedin arm (all with L-STS) achieved a partial response, while no objective responses were observed in the BSC arm (P = 0.004). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (44.2% of patients), leukopenia (34.6%), and transaminase increase (32.7%). Health-related 30-item core European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire evidenced no statistical differences between the arms for any domain and at any time point. After progression, 91.8% of patients crossed over from BSC to trabectedin. CONCLUSION: Trabectedin demonstrates superior disease control to BSC without impairing QoL in patients with recurrent STS of multiple histologies, with greater impact in patients with L-STS.

The use of olanzapine as an antiemetic in palliative medicine: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic that has affinity for many central nervous system receptors. Its efficacy is supported by several studies in the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. No recommendations exist on the antiemetic use of olanzapine in the palliative care setting. The aim of this work is to complete the initial work of Fonte et al. published in 2015, to determine whether the literature supports the use of olanzapine as an antiemetic in palliative situations and, in practice, to propose a therapeutic schema adapted to the palliative setting. METHODS: Systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA criteria. We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, RefDoc, EMBase databases and the gray literature databases. The bibliographic search was conducted between November 2016 and August 2017. RESULTS: Thirteen articles were included: 2 case studies, 3 case series, 3 retrospective studies, 2 prospective studies, 2 literature reviews. All studies concluded on the efficacy of olanzapine as an antiemetic in the palliative care setting. No serious adverse effects were reported. Based on the data from the literature review, we propose a therapeutic scheme adapted to the palliative care context. CONCLUSION: Action of olanzapine on many receptors and its tolerance profile make it an interesting antiemetic treatment in palliative medicine. But to date, studies are scarce and have a low statistical power. Further investigation is therefore needed to determine the benefit of this treatment in palliative care patients, compared to usual treatments.

Meta-analysis in metastatic uveal melanoma to determine progression free and overall survival benchmarks: an international rare cancers initiative (IRCI) ocular melanoma study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the completion of numerous phase II studies, a standard of care treatment has yet to be defined for metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM). To determine benchmarks of progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), we carried out a meta-analysis using individual patient level trial data. METHODS: Individual patient variables and survival outcomes were requested from 29 trials published from 2000 to 2016. Univariable and multivariable analysis were carried out for prognostic factors. The variability between trial arms and between therapeutic agents on PFS and OS was investigated. RESULTS: OS data were available for 912 patients. The median PFS was 3.3 months (95% CI 2.9-3.6) and 6-month PFS rate was 27% (95% CI 24-30). Univariable analysis showed male sex, elevated (i.e. > versus ≤ upper limit of normal) lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), elevated alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and diameter of the largest liver metastasis (≥3 cm versus <3 cm) to be substantially associated with shorter PFS. Multivariable analysis showed male sex, elevated LDH and elevated ALP were substantially associated with shorter PFS. The most substantial factors associated with 6-month PFS rate, on both univariable and multivariable analysis were elevated LDH and ALP. The median OS was 10.2 months (95% CI 9.5-11.0) and 1 year OS was 43% (95% CI 40-47). The most substantial prognostic factors for shorter OS by univariable and multivariable analysis were elevated LDH and elevated ALP. Patients treated with liver directed treatments had statistically significant longer PFS and OS. CONCLUSION: Benchmarks of 6-month PFS and 1-year OS rates were determined accounting for prognostic factors. These may be used to facilitate future trial design and stratification in mUM.

The importance of jointly analyzing treatment administration and toxicity associated with targeted therapies: a case study of regorafenib in soft tissue sarcoma patients.

Background: Different methods have been proposed to analyze adverse events (AEs) associated with targeted therapies. While these AEs lead to dose adjustments for many patients, conventional reporting methods do not take drug administration into consideration. This paper underlines the importance of jointly reporting AEs and drug administration using prevalence, and proposes a complementary approach to reporting. Patients and methods: The prevalence method estimates the probability of progression-free patients being in a particular health state (state 1: AEs with full dose; state 2: AEs with reduced dose; state 3: no AEs with reduced dose) at different time points. To take into account the impact of dose adjustments on efficacy, the weighted prevalence method can be used by assigning utility weights to the different health states. The benefit of these methods was illustrated using data from a phase II trial of regorafenib. Results: Only 4.6% of progression-free patients developed mucositis/stomatitis (grade ≥2) at 3 months. The prevalence of patients not experiencing this AE but whose dose was reduced or treatment interrupted was 58.1%. The weighted prevalence of the regorafenib toxicity profile and dose reduction was higher in the control arm. Conclusion: This case study confirms the importance of jointly analyzing AEs and drug administration. The weighted prevalence approach is an average score that incorporates the dimension of drug administration into AE assessment. This can be helpful for regulatory agencies as well as for clinicians to evaluate the benefit-risk ratio of therapies in their treatment choice. Clinical trial: NCT01900743.

An update on the management of sporadic desmoid-type fibromatosis: a European Consensus Initiative between Sarcoma PAtients EuroNet (SPAEN) and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)/Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (STBSG).

Desmoid-type fibromatosis is a rare and locally aggressive monoclonal, fibroblastic proliferation characterized by a variable and often unpredictable clinical course. Currently, there is no established or evidence-based treatment approach available for this disease. Therefore, in 2015 the European Desmoid Working Group published a position paper giving recommendations on the treatment of this intriguing disease. Here, we present an update of this consensus approach based on professionals' AND patients' expertise following a round table meeting bringing together sarcoma experts from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group with patients and patient advocates from Sarcoma PAtients EuroNet. In this paper, we focus on new findings regarding the prognostic value of mutational analysis in desmoid-type fibromatosis patients and new systemic treatment options.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study of maintenance therapy with tasquinimod in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer responsive to or stabilized during first-line docetaxel chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: This phase II study was conducted to assess clinical efficacy of tasquinimod maintenance therapy in patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer not progressing during first-line docetaxel-based therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to receive tasquinimod (0.25-1.0 mg/day orally) or placebo. The primary end point was radiologic progression-free survival (rPFS); secondary efficacy end points included: overall survival (OS); PFS on next-line therapy (PFS 2) and symptomatic PFS, assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) questionnaire and analgesic use. Quality of life was measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire and by the EuroQol-5 Dimension Quality of Life Instrument (EQ-5D). Adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 219 patients were screened and 144 patients randomized. The median duration of treatment was 18.7 weeks (range 0.6-102.7 weeks) for the tasquinimod arm and 19.2 weeks (range 0.4-80.0 weeks) for the placebo arm. Median (90% CI) rPFS was 31.7 (24.3-53.7) and 22.7 (16.1-25.9) weeks in the tasquinimod and placebo arms, respectively [HR (90% CI) 0.6 (0.4-0.9), P = 0.0162]. The median OS was not reached because only 14 deaths occurred by the cut-off date. No statistically significant differences between treatment arms were noted for symptomatic PFS, PFS 2, BPI score, FACT-P score, or EQ-5D. The incidence of any treatment emergent adverse event (TEAE) was similar in the tasquinimod and placebo arms (97.2% versus 94.3%, respectively), whereas severe TEAEs (NCI-CTC Grade 3-5) incidence was higher in the tasquinimod group (50.7% versus 27.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Randomized trials testing new drugs as maintenance can be successfully conducted after chemotherapy in castrate-resistant prostate cancer. Maintenance tasquinimod therapy significantly reduced the risk of rPFS by 40%. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier NCT01732549.

Improved survival using specialized multidisciplinary board in sarcoma patients.

BACKGROUND: Sarcomas are rare but aggressive diseases. Specialized multidisciplinary management is not implemented for all patients in most countries. We investigated the impact of a multidisciplinary tumor board (MDTB) presentation before treatment in a nationwide study over 5 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: NETSARC (netsarc.org) is a network of 26 reference sarcoma centers with specialized MDTB, funded by the French National Cancer Institute to improve the outcome of sarcoma patients. Since 2010, presentation to an MDTB and second pathological review are mandatory for sarcoma patients in France. Patients' characteristics and follow-up are collected in a database regularly monitored and updated. The management and survival of patients presented to these MDTB before versus after initial treatment were analyzed. RESULTS: Out of the 12 528 patients aged ≥15 years, with a first diagnosis of soft tissue and visceral sarcoma obtained between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2014, 5281 (42.2%) and 7247 (57.8%) were presented to the MDTB before and after the initiation of treatment, respectively. The former group had generally worse prognostic characteristics. Presentation to a MDTB before treatment was associated with a better compliance to clinical practice guidelines, for example, biopsy before surgery, imaging, quality of initial surgery, and less reoperations (all P < 0.001). Local relapse-free survival and relapse-free survival were significantly better in patients presented to a MDTB before initiation of treatment, both in univariate and multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: The compliance to clinical practice guidelines and relapse-free survival of sarcoma patients are significantly better when the initial treatment is guided by a pre-therapeutic specialized MDTB.

Prediction of local and metastatic recurrence in solitary fibrous tumor: construction of a risk calculator in a multicenter cohort from the French Sarcoma Group (FSG) database.

BACKGROUND: Solitary fibrous tumors (SFT) are rare unusual ubiquitous soft tissue tumors that are presumed to be of fibroblastic differentiation. At present, the challenge is to establish accurate prognostic factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 214 consecutive patients with SFT diagnosed in 24 participating cancer centers were entered into the European database (www.conticabase.org) to perform univariate and multivariate analysis for overall survival (OS), local recurrence incidence (LRI) and metastatic recurrence incidence (MRI) by taking competing risks into account. A prognostic model was constructed for LRI and MRI. Internal and external validations of the prognostic models were carried out. An individual risk calculator was carried out to quantify the risk of both local and metastatic recurrence. RESULTS: We restricted our analysis to 162 patients with local disease. Twenty patients (12.3%) were deceased at the time of analysis and the median OS was not reached. The LRI rates at 10 and 20 years were 19.2% and 38.6%, respectively. The MRI rates at 10 and 20 years were 31.4% and 49.8%, respectively. Multivariate analysis retained age and mitotic count tended to significance for predicting OS. The factors influencing LRI were viscera localization, radiotherapy and age. Mitotic count, tumor localization other than limb and age had independent values for MRI. Three prognostic groups for OS were defined based on the number of unfavorable prognostic factors and calculations were carried out to predict the risk of local and metastatic recurrence for individual patients. CONCLUSION: LRI and MRI rates increased between 10 and 20 years so relapses were delayed, suggesting that long-term monitoring is useful. This study also shows that different prognostic SFT sub-groups could benefit from different therapeutic strategies and that use of a survival calculator could become standard practice in SFTs to individualize treatment based on the clinical situation.

Best practices for the management of local-regional recurrent chordoma: a position paper by the Chordoma Global Consensus Group.

Chordomas are rare, malignant bone tumors of the skull-base and axial skeleton. Until recently, there was no consensus among experts regarding appropriate clinical management of chordoma, resulting in inconsistent care and suboptimal outcomes for many patients. To address this shortcoming, the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the Chordoma Foundation, the global chordoma patient advocacy group, convened a multi-disciplinary group of chordoma specialists to define by consensus evidence-based best practices for the optimal approach to chordoma. In January 2015, the first recommendations of this group were published, covering the management of primary and metastatic chordomas. Additional evidence and further discussion were needed to develop recommendations about the management of local-regional failures. Thus, ESMO and CF convened a second consensus group meeting in November 2015 to address the treatment of locally relapsed chordoma. This meeting involved over 60 specialists from Europe, the United States and Japan with expertise in treatment of patients with chordoma. The consensus achieved during that meeting is the subject of the present publication and complements the recommendations of the first position paper.

Sorafenib in metastatic uveal melanoma: efficacy, toxicity and health-related quality of life in a multicentre phase II study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to analyse efficacy, safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for sorafenib treatment in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. METHODS: A multicentre, single-arm phase II trial was conducted. The primary objective was to determine the non-progression rate (RECIST) at 24 weeks for patients receiving sorafenib at a dose of 800 mg per day. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), toxicity, and HRQoL. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were included. Ten patients showed non-progression at 24 weeks (31.2%) without objective tumour responses. The estimated 24-week PFS was 31.2% (95% CI: 14.8%-47.6%) and the estimated 24-week OS was 62.5% (95% CI: 45.4%-79.6%). Ten patients (34.3%) had at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse reaction and 12 patients (41.4%) required dose modifications due to toxicity. At 24 weeks, no patient had an improvement in global HRQoL and 87.5% experienced a permanent increase in physical fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Sorafenib demonstrated non-progression at 24 weeks in 31.2% of patients. However, 41.4% of patients required dose modifications due to toxicity and no improvement in HRQoL was demonstrated.

Statistical controversies in clinical research: should schedules of tumor size assessments be changed?

BACKGROUND: Time to progression (TTP) is often used as a primary end point in phase II clinical trials. Since the actual date of nadir and progression is never known, most calculated TTP are overestimated. This study evaluates the imprecision on the estimate of TTP under two hypothetical tumor kinetic settings and various assessment schedules. DESIGN: A two-component tumor growth model was used to account for treatment effect assuming exponential decay for tumor shrinkage and linear growth for progression. Evolution of tumor burden (TB) was modelized according to two scenarios using either a cytotoxic or a cytostatic agent and several assessment schedules. TB, nadir, progression and TTP were simulated for each visit schedule. RESULTS: For cytotoxic agents, our model predicted response at 1.5 weeks, a TB at nadir of 40.2 mm (starting from 100 mm) occurring at 6.7 weeks and true progression at 11.2 weeks with a TB of 48.2 mm. For cytostatic agents, our model predicted no response, a TB at nadir of 77 mm occurring at 9.2 weeks and true progression at 19.4 weeks with a TB of 92 mm. Depending on the assessment schedule, estimated TTP was increased from 0.8 to 36.8 weeks and from 0.6 to 28.6 weeks when compared with the true TTP and varied from 5.2% to 298% and from 1.66 to 109.58% when compared with the true TB at progression for cytotoxic and cytostatic agents, respectively. Our model further shows that for cytotoxic agents, evaluation of TB every 6 weeks is optimal to capture the true nadir, the time to nadir, the true progression and the true TTP, whereas for cytostatic agents, this evaluation is optimal every 10 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Our results emphasize the importance to estimate the effects of tested drugs on tumor shrinkage before design any phase II clinical trials to choose optimal TB evaluation's timing.

How to report toxicity associated with targeted therapies?

BACKGROUND: In the era of personalized medicine, molecularly targeted therapies (MTT) have modified the outcome of some cancer types. The price of tumor control needs to be balanced with toxicity since these new therapies are administered continuously for several months or sometimes for several years. For cytotoxic drugs, the incidence of adverse event (AE) was traditionally reported as frequency and intensity. This simple measure is not sufficient to capture the recurrent nature and duration of AE. This paper presents two methods to better describe the toxicity burden across the time: prevalence and Q-TWiST. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Limitation of worst-grade method and advantages of prevalence and Q-TWiST in the analysis of toxicity were illustrated using data from a phase II trial and a hypothetically simulated clinical trial. RESULTS: Prevalence integrates the recurrent nature of AE. Using prevalence, it is possible to obtain a time profile of AE. Q-TWiST method evaluates the weighted time spent in each health state and also considers the recurrent nature of side-effects in order to assess the 'risk-benefit' ratio of a treatment. When interpreting Q-TWiST results, it is necessary to take into account overall survival and progression-free survival and to define a clinically relevant difference according to the setting. CONCLUSION: The two methods presented here capture different effects. They are helpful for physicians in their treatment choice (balance benefit risk), to counsel patients and to optimize supportive care. In order to ensure consistency and provide critical information required for medical decision-making, it is important to encourage the use of alternative statistical methods in the analysis of toxicities associated with MTT. CLINICAL TRIAL: NCT00541008.