scholarly journals Challenges of Patient Selection for Phase I Oncology Trials

10.5772/59712 ◽  
2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Voskoboynik ◽  
Hendrik-Tobias Arkenau
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Patient Selection ◽  
Selection For

scholarly journals Phase I prognostic online (PIPO): A web tool to improve patient selection for oncology early phase clinical trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 155 ◽  
pp. 168-178
Author(s):  
Ignacio Matos ◽  
Guillermo Villacampa ◽  
Cinta Hierro ◽  
Juan Martin-Liberal ◽  
Roger Berché ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Patient Selection ◽  
Early Phase ◽  
Web Tool ◽  
Improve Patient Selection ◽  
Selection For ◽  
Early Phase Clinical Trials ◽  
Improve Patient

scholarly journals Can we improve patient selection for phase I clinical trials (phI1) based on immuno-oncology score prognostic index (VIO)?

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. v42
Author(s):  
I. Matos Garcia ◽  
C. Hierro ◽  
J. Martin-Liberal ◽  
C. VIAPLANA ◽  
A. Azaro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Patient Selection ◽  
Prognostic Index ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Improve Patient Selection ◽  
Selection For ◽  
Improve Patient

scholarly journals Pharmacogenetically driven patient selection for a first-in-human phase I trial of batracylin in patients with advanced solid tumors and lymphomas

2013 ◽  
Vol 72 (4) ◽  
pp. 917-923 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shivaani Kummar ◽  
Martin E. Gutierrez ◽  
Lawrence W. Anderson ◽  
Raymond W. Klecker ◽  
Alice Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Solid Tumors ◽  
Patient Selection ◽  
Phase I Trial ◽  
Advanced Solid Tumors ◽  
Selection For

Improving patient selection for oncology phase I trials: Predictors of 90-day mortality and overall survival.

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2588-2588
Author(s):  
N. G. Chau ◽  
A. Florescu ◽  
K. K. Chan ◽  
L. Wang ◽  
E. X. Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Patient Selection ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Selection For

scholarly journals Improving patient selection for immuno-oncology phase I trials: An external validation of five prognostic scores at Claudius Regaud Institute of Toulouse, Oncopôle (IUCT-O)

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. v186
Author(s):  
G Al Darazi ◽  
E. Martin ◽  
J.-P. Delord ◽  
I. Korakis ◽  
S. Betrian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Patient Selection ◽  
External Validation ◽  
Prognostic Scores ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Selection For

scholarly journals Patient selection for targeting integrin with abituzumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): A retrospective analysis of the randomized phase I/II Poseidon study

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. viii164
Author(s):  
R. Laeufle ◽  
D. Arnold ◽  
S. Kopetz ◽  
J. Straub ◽  
R. Bruns ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Retrospective Analysis ◽  
Patient Selection ◽  
Selection For

Prospective Validation of a Prognostic Score to Improve Patient Selection for Oncology Phase I Trials

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (16) ◽  
pp. 2692-2696 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hendrik-Tobias Arkenau ◽  
Jorge Barriuso ◽  
David Olmos ◽  
Joo Ern Ang ◽  
Johann de Bono ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Patient Selection ◽  
Prognostic Score ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Trial Entry ◽  
Improve Patient Selection ◽  
Selection For ◽  
Independent Marker

Purpose With the aim of improving patient selection for phase I trials, we previously performed a retrospective analysis of 212 phase I oncology patients where we were able to develop a prognostic score predicting overall survival (OS). This prospective study was performed to test the validity of the prognostic score. Patients and Methods On the basis of our retrospective multivariate analysis, three factors were associated with poor survival (albumin < 35 g/L, lactate dehydrogenase [LDH] > upper limit of normal [ULN], and > two sites of metastases). We integrated these into a prognostic score ranging from 0 to 3 and analyzed this score in a prospectively selected cohort of 78 patients enrolled onto phase I trials. Results All patients had progressive disease before study entry. The median age was 56 years (range, 18 to 79 years). After a median follow-up time of 27.3 weeks, patients with a prognostic score of 0 to 1 (n = 43) had superior OS (33.0 weeks; 95% CI, 24 to 42 weeks) compared with patients with a score of 2 to 3 (n = 35; 15.7 weeks; 95% CI, 11 to 21 weeks). Our multivariate analysis confirmed that our prognostic score was an independent marker for OS, with a hazard ratio of 1.4 (95% CI, 1.02 to 1.9; P = .036). Conclusion This is the first prospective analysis confirming that a prognostic score based on objective markers, including albumin less than 35 g/L, LDH more than ULN, and more than two sites of metastasis, is a helpful tool in the process of patient selection for phase I trial entry.

Improving Patient Selection for Phase I Oncology Trials

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (28) ◽  
pp. 3198-3199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Voskoboynik ◽  
Hendrik-Tobias Arkenau
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Patient Selection ◽  
Selection For

Prospective validation of a prognostic score to improve patient selection for phase I trials

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2508-2508 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Arkenau ◽  
J. Barriuso ◽  
D. Olmos ◽  
C. Barlow ◽  
J. S. De Bono ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Patient Selection ◽  
Prognostic Score ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Improve Patient Selection ◽  
Selection For ◽  
Improve Patient

Patient selection for Port-Access? multi vessel revascularization

1999 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. S43-S47 ◽  
Author(s):  
G WIMMERGREINECKER
Keyword(s):  
Patient Selection ◽  
Port Access ◽  
Selection For
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document