预测转移性结直肠癌患者从 FOLFOXIRI 加贝伐单抗治疗中获益的可能性

IF 3.3 Q2 ONCOLOGY JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1200/CCI.24.00037
Marinde J G Bond, Maarten van Smeden, Koen Degeling, Chiara Cremolini, Hans-Joachim Schmoll, Carlotta Antoniotti, Sara Lonardi, Sabina Murgioni, Daniele Rossini, Stefan Ibach, Miriam Koopman, Rutger-Jan Swijnenburg, Cornelis J A Punt, Anne M May, Johannes J M Kwakman
{"title":"预测转移性结直肠癌患者从 FOLFOXIRI 加贝伐单抗治疗中获益的可能性","authors":"Marinde J G Bond, Maarten van Smeden, Koen Degeling, Chiara Cremolini, Hans-Joachim Schmoll, Carlotta Antoniotti, Sara Lonardi, Sabina Murgioni, Daniele Rossini, Stefan Ibach, Miriam Koopman, Rutger-Jan Swijnenburg, Cornelis J A Punt, Anne M May, Johannes J M Kwakman","doi":"10.1200/CCI.24.00037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Patient outcomes may differ from randomized trial averages. We aimed to predict benefit from FOLFOXIRI versus infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin/fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI), both plus bevacizumab, in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A Cox model with prespecified clinical, molecular, and laboratory variables was developed in 639 patients from the TRIBE2 trial for predicting 2-year mortality. Data from the CHARTA (n = 232), TRIBE1 (n = 504), and CAIRO5 (liver-only mCRC, n = 287) trials were used for external validation and heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) analysis. This involves categorizing patients into risk groups and assessing treatment effects across these groups. Performance was assessed by the C-index and calibration plots. The C-for-benefit was calculated to assess evidence for HTE. The c-for-benefit is specifically designed for HTE analysis. Like the commonly known c-statistic, it summarizes the discrimination of a model. Values over 0.5 indicate evidence for HTE.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In TRIBE2, the overoptimism-corrected C-index was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.69). At external validation, the C-index was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.75), 0.68 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.72), and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.66), in CHARTA, TRIBE1, and CAIRO5, respectively. Calibration plots indicated slight underestimation of mortality. The c-for-benefit indicated evidence for HTE in CHARTA (0.56, 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.65), but not in TRIBE1 (0.49, 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.55) and CAIRO5 (0.40, 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.48).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although 2-year mortality could be reasonably estimated, the HTE analysis showed that clinically available variables did not reliably identify which patients with mCRC benefit from FOLFOXIRI versus FOLFOX/FOLFIRI, both plus bevacizumab, across the three studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":51626,"journal":{"name":"JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Predicting Benefit From FOLFOXIRI Plus Bevacizumab in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.\",\"authors\":\"Marinde J G Bond, Maarten van Smeden, Koen Degeling, Chiara Cremolini, Hans-Joachim Schmoll, Carlotta Antoniotti, Sara Lonardi, Sabina Murgioni, Daniele Rossini, Stefan Ibach, Miriam Koopman, Rutger-Jan Swijnenburg, Cornelis J A Punt, Anne M May, Johannes J M Kwakman\",\"doi\":\"10.1200/CCI.24.00037\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Patient outcomes may differ from randomized trial averages. We aimed to predict benefit from FOLFOXIRI versus infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin/fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI), both plus bevacizumab, in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A Cox model with prespecified clinical, molecular, and laboratory variables was developed in 639 patients from the TRIBE2 trial for predicting 2-year mortality. Data from the CHARTA (n = 232), TRIBE1 (n = 504), and CAIRO5 (liver-only mCRC, n = 287) trials were used for external validation and heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) analysis. This involves categorizing patients into risk groups and assessing treatment effects across these groups. Performance was assessed by the C-index and calibration plots. The C-for-benefit was calculated to assess evidence for HTE. The c-for-benefit is specifically designed for HTE analysis. Like the commonly known c-statistic, it summarizes the discrimination of a model. Values over 0.5 indicate evidence for HTE.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In TRIBE2, the overoptimism-corrected C-index was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.69). At external validation, the C-index was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.75), 0.68 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.72), and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.66), in CHARTA, TRIBE1, and CAIRO5, respectively. Calibration plots indicated slight underestimation of mortality. The c-for-benefit indicated evidence for HTE in CHARTA (0.56, 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.65), but not in TRIBE1 (0.49, 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.55) and CAIRO5 (0.40, 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.48).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although 2-year mortality could be reasonably estimated, the HTE analysis showed that clinically available variables did not reliably identify which patients with mCRC benefit from FOLFOXIRI versus FOLFOX/FOLFIRI, both plus bevacizumab, across the three studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51626,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1200/CCI.24.00037\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/CCI.24.00037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:患者的治疗结果可能与随机试验的平均值不同。我们旨在预测转移性结直肠癌(mCRC)患者从 FOLFOXIRI 和输注氟尿嘧啶、白佐维林、奥沙利铂/氟尿嘧啶、白佐维林和伊立替康(FOLFOX/FOLFIRI)(均加贝伐单抗)中获益的情况:在 TRIBE2 试验的 639 名患者中建立了一个包含预设临床、分子和实验室变量的 Cox 模型,用于预测 2 年死亡率。来自CHARTA(n = 232)、TRIBE1(n = 504)和CAIRO5(纯肝mCRC,n = 287)试验的数据被用于外部验证和治疗效果异质性(HTE)分析。这包括将患者分为风险组,并评估这些组别的治疗效果。通过 C 指数和校准图评估疗效。计算 C-收益以评估 HTE 的证据。C-for-benefit 专为 HTE 分析而设计。与常见的 c 统计量一样,它总结了模型的区分度。数值超过 0.5 则表明存在 HTE 证据:在 TRIBE2 中,过度乐观校正后的 C 指数为 0.66(95% CI,0.63 至 0.69)。在外部验证中,CHARTA、TRIBE1 和 CAIRO5 的 C 指数分别为 0.69(95% CI,0.64 至 0.75)、0.68(95% CI,0.64 至 0.72)和 0.65(95% CI,0.65 至 0.66)。校准图显示死亡率略有低估。CHARTA(0.56,95% CI,0.48 至 0.65)的 c-for-benefit 显示有证据表明存在 HTE,但 TRIBE1(0.49,95% CI,0.44 至 0.55)和 CAIRO5(0.40,95% CI,0.32 至 0.48)则没有:尽管可以合理估计2年死亡率,但HTE分析表明,在三项研究中,临床可用变量并不能可靠地确定哪些mCRC患者可从FOLFOXIRI与FOLFOX/FOLFIRI(均加贝伐单抗)中获益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Predicting Benefit From FOLFOXIRI Plus Bevacizumab in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Purpose: Patient outcomes may differ from randomized trial averages. We aimed to predict benefit from FOLFOXIRI versus infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin/fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI), both plus bevacizumab, in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Methods: A Cox model with prespecified clinical, molecular, and laboratory variables was developed in 639 patients from the TRIBE2 trial for predicting 2-year mortality. Data from the CHARTA (n = 232), TRIBE1 (n = 504), and CAIRO5 (liver-only mCRC, n = 287) trials were used for external validation and heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) analysis. This involves categorizing patients into risk groups and assessing treatment effects across these groups. Performance was assessed by the C-index and calibration plots. The C-for-benefit was calculated to assess evidence for HTE. The c-for-benefit is specifically designed for HTE analysis. Like the commonly known c-statistic, it summarizes the discrimination of a model. Values over 0.5 indicate evidence for HTE.

Results: In TRIBE2, the overoptimism-corrected C-index was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.69). At external validation, the C-index was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.75), 0.68 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.72), and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.66), in CHARTA, TRIBE1, and CAIRO5, respectively. Calibration plots indicated slight underestimation of mortality. The c-for-benefit indicated evidence for HTE in CHARTA (0.56, 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.65), but not in TRIBE1 (0.49, 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.55) and CAIRO5 (0.40, 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.48).

Conclusion: Although 2-year mortality could be reasonably estimated, the HTE analysis showed that clinically available variables did not reliably identify which patients with mCRC benefit from FOLFOXIRI versus FOLFOX/FOLFIRI, both plus bevacizumab, across the three studies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.80%
发文量
190
期刊最新文献
Increasing Power in Phase III Oncology Trials With Multivariable Regression: An Empirical Assessment of 535 Primary End Point Analyses. Validation of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Clinical Insights Using a Generalized Oncology Natural Language Processing Model. Interinstitutional Approach to Advancing Geospatial Technologies for US Cancer Centers. Classification and Regression Trees to Predict for Survival for Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated With Atezolizumab and Bevacizumab. Cureit: An End-to-End Pipeline for Implementing Mixture Cure Models With an Application to Liposarcoma Data.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1