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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European journal of cancer (1990) 2005-07, Vol.41 (11), p.1528-1532 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 |