An, Ming‐Wen

Abstract Purpose: The categorical definition of response assessed via the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors has documented limitations. We sought to identify alternative metrics for tumor response that improve prediction of overall survival. Experimental Design: Individual patient data from three North Central Cancer Treatment Group trials (N0026, n = 117; N9741, n = 1,109; and N9841, n = 332) were used. Continuous metrics of tumor size based on longitudinal tumor measurements were considered in addition to a trichotomized response [TriTR: response (complete or partial) vs. stable disease vs. progression). Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for treatment arm and baseline tumor burden, were used to assess the impact of the metrics on subsequent overall survival, using a landmark analysis approach at 12, 16, and 24 weeks postbaseline. Model discrimination was evaluated by the concordance (c) index. Results: The overall best response rates for the three trials were 26%, 45%, and 25%, respectively. Although nearly all metrics were statistically significantly associated with overall survival at the different landmark time points, the concordance indices (c-index) for the traditional response metrics ranged from 0.59 to 0.65; for the continuous metrics from 0.60 to 0.66; and for the TriTR metrics from 0.64 to 0.69. The c-indices for TriTR at 12 weeks were comparable with those at 16 and 24 weeks. Conclusions: Continuous tumor measurement–based metrics provided no predictive improvement over traditional response–based metrics or TriTR; TriTR had better predictive ability than best TriTR or confirmed response. If confirmed, TriTR represents a promising endpoint for future phase II trials. Clin Cancer Res; 17(20); 6592–9. ©2011 AACR.

Purpose In February 2000, the criteria for measuring tumor shrinkage as an indicator of antitumor activity were redefined by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). This resulted in simplifying bidimensional to unidimensional measurement of lesions. Under RECIST, all lesions, up to 10, must be measured. Scanning and measuring multiple lesions is costly, time-consuming, and a disincentive to participation in clinical trials. We investigated whether fewer than 10 lesions can be measured without compromising the accuracy of assessing a regimen's activity. Patients and Methods Thirty-two North Central Cancer Treatment Group trials including 2,374 patients were analyzed. Twelve studies were conducted before RECIST; 20 were conducted post-RECIST. Agreement between objective status by cycle, confirmed response, overall response rate, and time to progression (TTP) was evaluated based on all 10 versus the largest one through five lesions. Results The median number of lesions reported on RECIST trials did not differ from pre-RECIST trials (median = 2.0). One lesion at baseline was reported in 49% of patients, two lesions in 28% of patients, three lesions in 12% of patients, four lesions in 6% of patients, and five lesions in 5% of patients in post-RECIST trials. Utilizing the largest two lesions produced excellent concordance with that using all lesions for all end points. In no trial did the overall response rate differ by more than 3% when two versus all lesions were considered. Evaluating more than two lesions did not significantly improve agreement. Conclusion Based on these trials, the assessment of more than two lesions did not alter the conclusions regarding a treatment's efficacy as judged by response rate or TTP.