Investigational new drugs · 2014
Evaluation of a novel blood pressure scoring method and its association with clinical response in cancer patients treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bilen Mehmet Asim, Durand Jean-Bernard, McQuinn Lacey, Hess Kenneth R, Fu Siqing, Falchook Gerald S, Hong David S, Wheler Jennifer J, Said Rabih, Ewer Michael S, Kurzrock Razelle, Naing Aung
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The purposes of this study were to establish a novel blood pressure (BP) scoring method and to correlate it with clinical response in advanced cancer patients treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapies.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data for 368 patients from 23 clinical trials that included at least one anti-VEGF agent. We determined BP scores using the traditional Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0 and our novel method that considers both BP readings and number of anti-hypertensive medications the patient received. BP scores were categorized at baseline and four months. Logistic regression analysis correlated elevated scores with clinical response. Agreement between the CTCAE and the new method was assessed.
RESULTS: Under the new BP scoring method, partial response rates were 20 % in patients with an elevated score at four months versus 6 % in patients without elevated score (P < 0.001). When adjusted for tumor type, age, sex, history of anti-VEGF treatment, and number of anti-VEGF treatments, elevated BP under the new scoring method had an odds ratio of 3.8 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 1.8, 8.2; P < 0.001). The kappa statistic for agreement between the CTCAE and new scoring methods was 0.57 (95 % CI: 0.47, 0.67; P < 0.001), indicating significant concordance.
CONCLUSION: Using the novel scoring method, an increase in BP scores was a marker for favorable clinical response in patients who received anti-VEGF treatment. This new method ultimately provides information with regard to clinical tumor response over and above that provided by the CTCAE scoring method.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data for 368 patients from 23 clinical trials that included at least one anti-VEGF agent. We determined BP scores using the traditional Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0 and our novel method that considers both BP readings and number of anti-hypertensive medications the patient received. BP scores were categorized at baseline and four months. Logistic regression analysis correlated elevated scores with clinical response. Agreement between the CTCAE and the new method was assessed.
RESULTS: Under the new BP scoring method, partial response rates were 20 % in patients with an elevated score at four months versus 6 % in patients without elevated score (P < 0.001). When adjusted for tumor type, age, sex, history of anti-VEGF treatment, and number of anti-VEGF treatments, elevated BP under the new scoring method had an odds ratio of 3.8 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 1.8, 8.2; P < 0.001). The kappa statistic for agreement between the CTCAE and new scoring methods was 0.57 (95 % CI: 0.47, 0.67; P < 0.001), indicating significant concordance.
CONCLUSION: Using the novel scoring method, an increase in BP scores was a marker for favorable clinical response in patients who received anti-VEGF treatment. This new method ultimately provides information with regard to clinical tumor response over and above that provided by the CTCAE scoring method.