01. 항암제 임상시험 승인 현황 02. General aspect of evaluation in cancer 03. Endpoint in Cancer Clinical Trial 04. Response Criteria 05. Conclusions  CONTENTS.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Accenture Life Sciences Rethink Reshape Restructure… for better patient outcomes CDISC Journey in Lymphoma using Cheson 2007 Kevin Lee CDISC NJ meeting.
Advertisements

Phase II Study of Temozolomide and Thalidomide in Patients With Metastatic Neuroendocrine Tumors J Clin Oncol Jan 20;24(3): Vs 劉俊煌 CR 周益聖 財團法人台灣癌症臨床研究發展基金會.
Moskowitz CH et al. Proc ASH 2014;Abstract 290.
A Proposal for BMS (Dasatinib) in GIST Jon Trent, MD, PhD Assistant Professor Dept. of Sarcoma Medical Oncology The University of Texas, M. D. Anderson.
Multi trial evaluation of longitudinal tumor measurement (TM)-based metrics for predicting overall survival (OS) using the RECIST 1.1 data warehouse Background:
The Need for Quantitative Imaging in Oncology Richard L. Schilsky, M.D. Professor of Medicine, Associate Dean for Clinical Research, University of Chicago.
Response Assessment Criteria for Clinical Trials Tumor Imaging Metrics Core January 29, 2008 Cheryl A. Sadow, MD Abdominal Imaging & Intervention Division.
LaCasce A et al. Proc ASH 2014;Abstract 293.
A Meta Analysis of Risk of Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC) Treated with Anti Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF)
Phase III Study Comparing Gemcitabine plus Cetuximab versus Gemcitabine in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Southwest.
November 2006 Phase II Study of Dasatinib in Advanced Sarcoma SARC 009 Coordinating site: University of Michigan.
1 Phase II trial of sequential gemcitabine and carboplatin followed by paclitaxel as first-line treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma Presented by.
Global Investigation of therapeutic DEcisions in hepatocellular carcinoma and Of its treatment with sorafeNib (GIDEON) study.
Cabozantinib (XL184) in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC): Results from a Phase II Randomized Discontinuation Trial Hussain M et.
COMBI RECIST 1.1 February Target Lesions: Selection at Baseline Perform baseline evaluations as close to treatment start as possible (no more than.
RECIST Overview.
1 SNDA Gemzar plus Carboplatin Treatment of Late Relapsing Ovarian Cancer.
Immune Related Response Criteria (irRC) Guidelines for the Evaluation of Immune Therapy Activity in Solid Tumors Training Presentation v3.0.
Phase I Study of PLX4032: Proof of Concept for V600E BRAF Mutation as a Therapeutic Target in Human Cancer Flaherty K et al. American Society of Clinical.
Anatomic and Functional Imaging Evaluation of a Clinical Trial of an IGFR Antibody in Patients (PTS) with Ewing Sarcoma (ES) Vadim Koshkin; Vanessa Bolejack;
Phase III Trial of Pazopanib in Locally Advanced and/or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Sternberg CN et al. ASCO 2009; Abstract (Oral Presentation)
Phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without irinotecan in the front-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in elderly patients. FFCD
CE-1 IRESSA ® Clinical Efficacy Ronald B. Natale, MD Director Cedars Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Center Ronald B. Natale, MD Director Cedars Sinai Comprehensive.
BASED ON PROTOCOL VERSION 1 SEPTEMBER 2012 A new study evaluating an investigational drug to treat patients with HER2-positive metastatic gastroesophageal.
Two Year Estimate of Overall Survival in COMBI-v, a Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 3 Study Comparing the Combination of Dabrafenib and Trametinib With Vemurafenib.
Rituximab maintenance for the treatment of indolent NHL Dr Christian Buske.
Bevacizumab continuation versus no continuation after first-line chemo-bevacizumab therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized.
A Randomized Phase II Study Comparing Consolidation with a Single Dose of 90 Y Ibritumomab Tiuxetan (Zevalin ® ) (Z) vs Maintenance with Rituximab (R)
MABEL – a large multinational study of cetuximab plus irinotecan in metastatic colorectal cancer progressing on irinotecan H Wilke, R Glynne-Jones, J Thaler,
Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy for Non small cell lung cancer
Implementation of Oncology specific SDTM domains
Cmab might have therapeutic benefit in Japanese patients with KRAS p.G13D mutant colorectal cancer. Limitations of this study are its retrospective design.
MEASURING CLINICAL EFFICACY IN PHASE II TRIALS Response: Karnofsky, WHO, RECIST Event rate: progression free/survival Time to event: progression/survival.
. Background Paclitaxel and Irinotecan in Platinum Refractory or Resistant Small Cell Lung Cancer: a Galician Lung Cancer.
Cetuximab plus FOLFIRI in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: the influence of KRAS and BRAF biomarkers on outcome: updated data from the CRYSTAL.
EORTC Tumor response to pre-operative chemotherapy (CT) with FOLFOX-4 for resectable colorectal cancer liver metastases (LM) Interim results of the EORTC.
Raafat R. Abdel-Malek, MD, FRCR Ass. Prof Clinical Oncology Cairo University, Egypt Efficacy & Toxicity of Sunitinib in mRCC patients in Egypt.
Gemcitabine With or Without Cisplatin in Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Biliary Tract Cancer (ABC): Results of a Multicentre, Randomized Phase III.
A Phase 2 Study with a Daily Regimen of the Oral mTOR Inhibitor RAD001 (Everolimus) in Patients with Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Cancer Amato RJ et.
A Phase 2 Study of Single-Agent Brentuximab Vedotin for Front- Line Therapy of Hodgkin Lymphoma in Patients Age 60 Years and Above: Interim Results Yasenchak.
until tumour progression until tumour progression
P.A. Tang 1, S. J. Cohen 1, G. Bjarnason 1, C. Kollmannsberger 1, K. Virik 1, M. J. MacKenzie 1, J. Brown 1, L. Wang 1, A. Chen 2, M. J. Moore 1 1 Princess.
Agency Review of sNDA SE-006 DOXIL for Ovarian Cancer Division of Oncology Drug Products Office of Drug Evaluation 1 Center for Drug Evaluation.
Moskowitz CH et al. Proc ASH 2014;Abstract 673.
Brentuximab Vedotin in Combination with RCHOP as Front-Line Therapy in Patients with DLBCL: Interim Results from a Phase 2 Study Yasenchak CA et al. Proc.
Erlotinib plus Gemcitabine Compared with Gemcitabine Alone in Patients with Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Phase III Trial of the National Cancer Institute.
Results of a Phase 2, Multicenter, Single-Arm Study of Eribulin Mesylate as First-Line Therapy for Locally Recurrent or Metastatic HER2-Negative Breast.
Date of download: 6/23/2016 Copyright © 2016 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. From: Effect of Selumetinib vs Chemotherapy on Progression-Free.
CCO Independent Conference Coverage
Randomized phase III trial of gemcitabine and cisplatin vs. gemcitabine alone inpatients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and a performance status.
RECIST Training Workshop Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors
CCO Independent Conference Highlights
Alessandra Gennari, MD PhD
Shustov AR et al. Proc ASH 2010;Abstract 961.
Nivolumab in Patients (Pts) with Relapsed or Refractory Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma (R/R cHL): Clinical Outcomes from Extended Follow-up of a Phase 1 Study.
Vahdat L et al. Proc SABCS 2012;Abstract P
New Findings in Hematology: Independent Conference Coverage
KEYNOTE-012: Durable Efficacy With Pembrolizumab in PD-L1–Positive Gastric Cancer CCO Independent Conference Highlights of the 2015 ASCO Annual Meeting*
Audit Update LUNG-MAP Rose Ermete, Rn, bsn, ocn, ccrp
Intervista a Lucio Crinò
Intervista a Angelo Delmonte
Acquired EGFR TKI resistance: What are the current therapeutic strategies? Gregory J. Riely.
until tumour progression until tumour progression
Response to Carfilzomib Therapy
(A) Survival time. (A) Survival time. All patients. (a) PFS since the start of EGFR-TKI (groups A, B and C). (b) OS since the start of EGFR-TKI (groups.
Computed Tomography RECIST Assessment of Histopathologic Response and Prediction of Survival in Patients with Resectable Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer after.
RECIST 1.1 Paul O'Moore, M.D. Introduction to a Method of
Efficacy of nivolumab in Japanese patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (A) Kaplan-Meier curve for PFS, (B) Kaplan-Meier curve.
Survival, subsequent therapies, and response.
Presentation transcript:

01. 항암제 임상시험 승인 현황 02. General aspect of evaluation in cancer 03. Endpoint in Cancer Clinical Trial 04. Response Criteria 05. Conclusions  CONTENTS

구분종양심혈관계내분비계중추 신경계 소화기계기타 효능군 계 2010 년 년 년 년

건 /439 건 25.5 % 22.3 % 27.5 % 25.9 % 건 /503 건 건 /670 건 건 /607 건

1. Patient evaluation 2. Tumor evaluation by staging 3. Treatment response evaluation

1. Patient evaluation  평가기준 - ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) PS - KPS (Karnofsky Performance Status)  항암치료의 원칙 - ECOG 0, 1, 2 - KPS ≧ 70 환자의 일반적 건강상태 및 운동능력평가

2. Tumor evaluation by staging 병기 결정을 통해 치료 방침 결정, 환자 예후 예측, 치료 결과분석 및 상호 정보교환  TNM 법 Tumor_ 원발종양의 크기, 침윤 정도 Node_ 주변 림프절 침범 정도 Metastasis_ 다른 장기로 전이 여부 ▷ TNM 법이 가장 많이 사용되나, 암의 종류에 따라 세부적인 차이 있으며 독립적인 분류법에 따라 진행단계를 결정하는 경우도 있음 TN.M.M

3. Treatment response evaluation  After anti-cancer therapy Response after variable agents Selection of proper agent Residual disease status Toxicities ETC

 Time-to-Event outcomes 1) Time between the day of registration/randomization to the date of a event 2) Includes overall survival(OS), progression-free survival(PFS) or time-to- progression(TTP), disease-free survival(DFS) or relapse-free survival(RFS), or other event-free survivals  Tumor shrinkage or stabilization 1) Response rate 2) Clinical benefit  Safety 1) Toxicity (adverse events) √ OS(Overall survival, 전체생존 ): 무작위배정 ~ 사망 √ PFS(Progression free survival, 무진행생존 ): 무작위배정 ~ 종양진행 or 사망 √ TTP(Time to tumor progression, 종양 진행까지의 시간 ): 무작위배정 ~ 종양진행 ※ PFS 와 TTP 의 차이 ; TTP 는 종양진행 없는 사망은 제외

 Time-to-Event outcomes 1) Time between the day of registration/randomization to the date of a event 2) Includes overall survival(OS), progression-free survival(PFS) or time-to- progression(TTP), disease-free survival(DFS) or relapse-free survival(RFS), or other event-free survivals  Tumor shrinkage or stabilization 1) Response rate 2) Clinical benefit  Safety 1) Toxicity (adverse events)

RECIST Response Criteria 2000년 RECIST Response Criteria 2000년 WHO Response Criteria 1979년 WHO Response Criteria 1979년 Issue in WHO response criteria 1) Complexity - Needs bi-dimensional measurements - No minimum lesion size & number - Results may vary among research groups 2) New technologies 3) No longer regarded

WHORECIST Measurability - Measurable, bi-dimensional (product of LD and greatest perpendicular diameter) - Non-measurable/evaluable - Measurable,uni-dimensional (LD only, size with conventional techniques ≥ 20mm; spiral computed tomography ≥ 10mm) - Non-measurable: all other lesions, including small lesions. Evaluable is not recommended Measurability of lesion at baseline

Measurable Target lesion Non-target lesion { 병변의 반응 기준 } Target lesion CR PR SD PD Non-target lesion Present=non-CR/non-PD Absent=CR Unequivocal progression=PD New lesion Present Absent Baseline 에 선정된 Target lesion 은 연구 종료시점까지 동 일하게 유지

Objective response Measurable disease / Target lesions WHORECIST Change in sum of products of LDs and greatest perpendicular diameters, no maximum No. of lesions specified Change in sum of LDs, maximum of 5 per organ up to 10 total, more than one organ CR Complete response Disappearance of all known disease, confirmed at ≥ 4 week PR Partial response ≥50% decrease from baseline, confirmed at ≥ 4 week ≥30% decrease from baseline, confirmed at ≥ 4 week SD Stable disease Neither PR or PD criteria met PD Progressive disease ≥25% increase of one or more lesions, or appearance of new lesions ≥20% increase over smallest sum observed, or appearance of new lesions

Objective response Measurable disease / Target lesions WHORECIST Change in sum of products of LDs and greatest perpendicular diameters, no maximum No. of lesions specified Change in sum of LDs, maximum of 5 per organ up to 10 total, more than one organ Maximal 5 lesions (2 per organ) CR Complete response Disappearance of all known disease, confirmed at ≥ 4 week Disappearance of all known disease, confirmed at ≥ 4 week(Required when response rate is primary endpoint) PR Partial response ≥50% decrease from baseline, confirmed at ≥ 4 week ≥30% decrease from baseline, confirmed at ≥ 4 week(Required when response rate is primary endpoint) SD Stable disease Neither PR or PD criteria met PD Progressive disease ≥25% increase of one or more lesions, or appearance of new lesions ≥20% increase over smallest sum observed[+at least 5mm increase] or appearance of new lesions { Lymph nodes } Measuring short axis - ≥15mm: target node - <10mm: normal node

Objective response Non-measurable disease / Non-target lesions WHORECIST CR Complete response Disappearance of all known disease, confirmed at ≥ 4 week Disappearance of all non-target lesions and normalization of tumor markers, confirmed at ≥ 4 week PR Partial response estimated decrease of ≥ 50%- SD Stable disease Neither PR or PD criteria met [ non-CR/non-PD ] Persistence of one or more non- target lesions and/or tumor markers above normal limits PD Progressive disease ≥25% increase of one or more lesions, or appearance of new lesions unequivocal progression of non- target lesions, or appearance of new lesions

Target lesion 반응 평가의 예 Baseline1 차 평가 2 차 평가 3 차 평가 4 차 평가 Sum Baseline 대비 100%75%67.5%75%90% Nadir 대비 100%111%133% Baseline 대비반응 SDPRSD Nadir 대비반응 SDPD 치료제 변경 시점

Overall Response Time point response: A response assessment occurs at each protocol specified time point. Target, Non-target, New lesion 의 모두 합한 반응 평가

Overall Response TargetNon-targetNew lesionsOverall response CR NoCR Non-CR/Non-PDNoPR Non-PDNoPR SD Non-PDNoSD PD Any PD Any PDAnyPD Any YesPD

BEST Overall Response The best overall response is the best response recorded from the start of treatment until disease progression/recurrence(taking as reference for progressive disease the smallest measurements recorded since the treatment started).

Best overall response For CR and PR criteria must be met again 4 weeks after initial documentation(this requirement ONLY for non-randomized trials with primary endpoint of response) When SD is believed to be best response, it must also meet the protocol specified minimum time from baseline. If the minimum time is not met when SD is otherwise the best time point response, the patient’s best response depends on the subsequent assessments.

Best overall response For example, 1. A patient who has "SD" at first assessment, "PR" at second assessment, and "PD" on last assessment has a best overall response of "PR". 2. A patient who has “SD” at first assessment, “PD” at second and does not meet minimum duration for SD, will have a best response of “PD”. The same patient lost to follow-up after the first SD assessment would be considered inevaluable.

반응 평가는 치료제의 변경 결정 및 효과 판정 근거가 되므로 중요 반응 평가를 위한 영상검사는 반드시 계획된 일정한 시기에 시행 Baseline 시 영상검사는 follow-up 때 동일한 방법으로 시행 RECIST 1.1 에도 남아 있는 문제점이 있으므로 개정을 통해 보완