Assessment of the value of confirming responses in clinical trials in oncology

The requirement for a second assessment to confirm initial tumour response is required by all response guidelines. Its rationale, however, is not clear. We have conducted this study to compare validity of response rate assessment determined with and without secondary confirmation. Using specified cr...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of cancer (1990) 2005-07, Vol.41 (11), p.1528-1532
Hauptverfasser: Perez-Gracia, Jose Luis, Muñoz, Maria, Williams, Grant, Wu, Jun, Carrasco, Eva, Garcia-Ribas, Ignacio, Peiro, Ana, Lopez-Picazo, Jose Maria, Gurpide, Alfonso, Chopitea, Ana, Martín-Algarra, Salvador, García-Foncillas, Jesus, Blatter, Johannes
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1532
container_issue 11
container_start_page 1528
container_title European journal of cancer (1990)
container_volume 41
creator Perez-Gracia, Jose Luis
Muñoz, Maria
Williams, Grant
Wu, Jun
Carrasco, Eva
Garcia-Ribas, Ignacio
Peiro, Ana
Lopez-Picazo, Jose Maria
Gurpide, Alfonso
Chopitea, Ana
Martín-Algarra, Salvador
García-Foncillas, Jesus
Blatter, Johannes
description The requirement for a second assessment to confirm initial tumour response is required by all response guidelines. Its rationale, however, is not clear. We have conducted this study to compare validity of response rate assessment determined with and without secondary confirmation. Using specified criteria, nine trials of one single cytotoxic drug including 416 patients were selected from a pharmaceutical database. Objective response rates were determined by a single determination and by two separate determinations. 81 responses (19.5%, [15.8–23.6%]) were scored by the confirmation method and 97 responses (23.3% [19.3–27.7%]) by the no-confirmation method. The Kappa ( κ) coefficient of 0.89 indicates good agreement between both methods. This is the first study that systematically compares response rates calculated with and without performing response confirmation. Results show good agreement between both methods. We suggest that assessing response without confirmation may be the preferred method. These results should be confirmed by additional studies in a variety of cancer settings.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.ejca.2005.01.023
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68054688</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0959804905002108</els_id><sourcerecordid>68054688</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c354t-d9d71759f01be669da69e16481c6933c4ab9950575270f41b9e5f6832edcf1483</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1PwzAMhiMEYmPwBzignri1OG2TJhKXCfElTXCBc9Sm7sjUJiNpJ-3f07JJ3DhZth6_sh9CrikkFCi_2yS40WWSArAEaAJpdkLmVBQyBsHSUzIHyWQsIJczchHCBgAKkcM5mVEOKecS5uRtGQKG0KHtI9dE_RdGu7IdcGq0s43xnbHryGPYOjuSkbGRbo01umyj3puy_R05q13r1vtLctaMI7w61gX5fHr8eHiJV-_Prw_LVawzlvdxLeuCFkw2QCscD6lLLpHyXFDNZZbpvKykZMAKlhbQ5LSSyBoushRr3dBcZAtye8jdevc9YOhVZ4LGti0tuiEoLoDlXExgegC1dyF4bNTWm670e0VBTRbVRk0W1WRRAVWjxXHp5pg-VB3WfytHbSNwfwBw_HFn0KugDVqNtfGoe1U781_-DxVdgu0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>68054688</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assessment of the value of confirming responses in clinical trials in oncology</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Perez-Gracia, Jose Luis ; Muñoz, Maria ; Williams, Grant ; Wu, Jun ; Carrasco, Eva ; Garcia-Ribas, Ignacio ; Peiro, Ana ; Lopez-Picazo, Jose Maria ; Gurpide, Alfonso ; Chopitea, Ana ; Martín-Algarra, Salvador ; García-Foncillas, Jesus ; Blatter, Johannes</creator><creatorcontrib>Perez-Gracia, Jose Luis ; Muñoz, Maria ; Williams, Grant ; Wu, Jun ; Carrasco, Eva ; Garcia-Ribas, Ignacio ; Peiro, Ana ; Lopez-Picazo, Jose Maria ; Gurpide, Alfonso ; Chopitea, Ana ; Martín-Algarra, Salvador ; García-Foncillas, Jesus ; Blatter, Johannes</creatorcontrib><description>The requirement for a second assessment to confirm initial tumour response is required by all response guidelines. Its rationale, however, is not clear. We have conducted this study to compare validity of response rate assessment determined with and without secondary confirmation. Using specified criteria, nine trials of one single cytotoxic drug including 416 patients were selected from a pharmaceutical database. Objective response rates were determined by a single determination and by two separate determinations. 81 responses (19.5%, [15.8–23.6%]) were scored by the confirmation method and 97 responses (23.3% [19.3–27.7%]) by the no-confirmation method. The Kappa ( κ) coefficient of 0.89 indicates good agreement between both methods. This is the first study that systematically compares response rates calculated with and without performing response confirmation. Results show good agreement between both methods. We suggest that assessing response without confirmation may be the preferred method. These results should be confirmed by additional studies in a variety of cancer settings.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0959-8049</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-0852</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2005.01.023</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16026690</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Antineoplastic Agents - therapeutic use ; Clinical trials ; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Disease Progression ; Humans ; Neoplasms - drug therapy ; Response assessment ; Response guidelines ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>European journal of cancer (1990), 2005-07, Vol.41 (11), p.1528-1532</ispartof><rights>2005 Elsevier Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c354t-d9d71759f01be669da69e16481c6933c4ab9950575270f41b9e5f6832edcf1483</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c354t-d9d71759f01be669da69e16481c6933c4ab9950575270f41b9e5f6832edcf1483</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959804905002108$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16026690$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Perez-Gracia, Jose Luis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muñoz, Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williams, Grant</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carrasco, Eva</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garcia-Ribas, Ignacio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peiro, Ana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lopez-Picazo, Jose Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gurpide, Alfonso</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chopitea, Ana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martín-Algarra, Salvador</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>García-Foncillas, Jesus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blatter, Johannes</creatorcontrib><title>Assessment of the value of confirming responses in clinical trials in oncology</title><title>European journal of cancer (1990)</title><addtitle>Eur J Cancer</addtitle><description>The requirement for a second assessment to confirm initial tumour response is required by all response guidelines. Its rationale, however, is not clear. We have conducted this study to compare validity of response rate assessment determined with and without secondary confirmation. Using specified criteria, nine trials of one single cytotoxic drug including 416 patients were selected from a pharmaceutical database. Objective response rates were determined by a single determination and by two separate determinations. 81 responses (19.5%, [15.8–23.6%]) were scored by the confirmation method and 97 responses (23.3% [19.3–27.7%]) by the no-confirmation method. The Kappa ( κ) coefficient of 0.89 indicates good agreement between both methods. This is the first study that systematically compares response rates calculated with and without performing response confirmation. Results show good agreement between both methods. We suggest that assessing response without confirmation may be the preferred method. These results should be confirmed by additional studies in a variety of cancer settings.</description><subject>Antineoplastic Agents - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Disease Progression</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Neoplasms - drug therapy</subject><subject>Response assessment</subject><subject>Response guidelines</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0959-8049</issn><issn>1879-0852</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1PwzAMhiMEYmPwBzignri1OG2TJhKXCfElTXCBc9Sm7sjUJiNpJ-3f07JJ3DhZth6_sh9CrikkFCi_2yS40WWSArAEaAJpdkLmVBQyBsHSUzIHyWQsIJczchHCBgAKkcM5mVEOKecS5uRtGQKG0KHtI9dE_RdGu7IdcGq0s43xnbHryGPYOjuSkbGRbo01umyj3puy_R05q13r1vtLctaMI7w61gX5fHr8eHiJV-_Prw_LVawzlvdxLeuCFkw2QCscD6lLLpHyXFDNZZbpvKykZMAKlhbQ5LSSyBoushRr3dBcZAtye8jdevc9YOhVZ4LGti0tuiEoLoDlXExgegC1dyF4bNTWm670e0VBTRbVRk0W1WRRAVWjxXHp5pg-VB3WfytHbSNwfwBw_HFn0KugDVqNtfGoe1U781_-DxVdgu0</recordid><startdate>20050701</startdate><enddate>20050701</enddate><creator>Perez-Gracia, Jose Luis</creator><creator>Muñoz, Maria</creator><creator>Williams, Grant</creator><creator>Wu, Jun</creator><creator>Carrasco, Eva</creator><creator>Garcia-Ribas, Ignacio</creator><creator>Peiro, Ana</creator><creator>Lopez-Picazo, Jose Maria</creator><creator>Gurpide, Alfonso</creator><creator>Chopitea, Ana</creator><creator>Martín-Algarra, Salvador</creator><creator>García-Foncillas, Jesus</creator><creator>Blatter, Johannes</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20050701</creationdate><title>Assessment of the value of confirming responses in clinical trials in oncology</title><author>Perez-Gracia, Jose Luis ; Muñoz, Maria ; Williams, Grant ; Wu, Jun ; Carrasco, Eva ; Garcia-Ribas, Ignacio ; Peiro, Ana ; Lopez-Picazo, Jose Maria ; Gurpide, Alfonso ; Chopitea, Ana ; Martín-Algarra, Salvador ; García-Foncillas, Jesus ; Blatter, Johannes</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c354t-d9d71759f01be669da69e16481c6933c4ab9950575270f41b9e5f6832edcf1483</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Antineoplastic Agents - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Disease Progression</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Neoplasms - drug therapy</topic><topic>Response assessment</topic><topic>Response guidelines</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Perez-Gracia, Jose Luis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muñoz, Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williams, Grant</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carrasco, Eva</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garcia-Ribas, Ignacio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peiro, Ana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lopez-Picazo, Jose Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gurpide, Alfonso</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chopitea, Ana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martín-Algarra, Salvador</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>García-Foncillas, Jesus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blatter, Johannes</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European journal of cancer (1990)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Perez-Gracia, Jose Luis</au><au>Muñoz, Maria</au><au>Williams, Grant</au><au>Wu, Jun</au><au>Carrasco, Eva</au><au>Garcia-Ribas, Ignacio</au><au>Peiro, Ana</au><au>Lopez-Picazo, Jose Maria</au><au>Gurpide, Alfonso</au><au>Chopitea, Ana</au><au>Martín-Algarra, Salvador</au><au>García-Foncillas, Jesus</au><au>Blatter, Johannes</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Assessment of the value of confirming responses in clinical trials in oncology</atitle><jtitle>European journal of cancer (1990)</jtitle><addtitle>Eur J Cancer</addtitle><date>2005-07-01</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>41</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>1528</spage><epage>1532</epage><pages>1528-1532</pages><issn>0959-8049</issn><eissn>1879-0852</eissn><abstract>The requirement for a second assessment to confirm initial tumour response is required by all response guidelines. Its rationale, however, is not clear. We have conducted this study to compare validity of response rate assessment determined with and without secondary confirmation. Using specified criteria, nine trials of one single cytotoxic drug including 416 patients were selected from a pharmaceutical database. Objective response rates were determined by a single determination and by two separate determinations. 81 responses (19.5%, [15.8–23.6%]) were scored by the confirmation method and 97 responses (23.3% [19.3–27.7%]) by the no-confirmation method. The Kappa ( κ) coefficient of 0.89 indicates good agreement between both methods. This is the first study that systematically compares response rates calculated with and without performing response confirmation. Results show good agreement between both methods. We suggest that assessing response without confirmation may be the preferred method. These results should be confirmed by additional studies in a variety of cancer settings.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>16026690</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ejca.2005.01.023</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0959-8049
ispartof European journal of cancer (1990), 2005-07, Vol.41 (11), p.1528-1532
issn 0959-8049
1879-0852
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68054688
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Antineoplastic Agents - therapeutic use
Clinical trials
Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic - statistics & numerical data
Disease Progression
Humans
Neoplasms - drug therapy
Response assessment
Response guidelines
Treatment Outcome
title Assessment of the value of confirming responses in clinical trials in oncology
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T16%3A32%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assessment%20of%20the%20value%20of%20confirming%20responses%20in%20clinical%20trials%20in%20oncology&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20cancer%20(1990)&rft.au=Perez-Gracia,%20Jose%20Luis&rft.date=2005-07-01&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=1528&rft.epage=1532&rft.pages=1528-1532&rft.issn=0959-8049&rft.eissn=1879-0852&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ejca.2005.01.023&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E68054688%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=68054688&rft_id=info:pmid/16026690&rft_els_id=S0959804905002108&rfr_iscdi=true