Advanced search
Publication Cover
Leukemia & Lymphoma Volume 58, 2017 - Issue 6
Submit an article Journal homepage
7,893
Views
2
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles: Clinical

Investigator and independent review committee exploratory assessment and verification of tumor response in a non-Hodgkin lymphoma study

Robert R. FordClinical Trials Imaging Consulting LLC, Belle Mead, NJ, USA; Correspondence[email protected]
,
Robert W. FordDepartment of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA;
,
Michael O’NealMedical Imaging and Cardiovascular Solutions Management, BioClinica Inc, Princeton, NJ, USA;
,
Brad S. KahlDivision of Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA;
,
Ling ChenTeva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D Inc, Frazer, PA, USA;
,
Mihaela MunteanuTeva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D Inc, Frazer, PA, USA;
&
Bruce D. ChesonDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
 show all
Pages 1332-1340 | Received 25 May 2016, Accepted 31 Aug 2016, Published online: 10 Oct 2016

References

  • Villaruz LC, Socinski MA. The clinical viewpoint: definitions, limitations of RECIST, practical considerations of measurement. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:2629–2636.
  • Ford R, Schwartz L, Dancey J, et al. Lessons learned from independent central review. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:268–274.
  • Petrick N, Kim HJ, Clunie D, et al. Evaluation of 1D, 2D and 3D nodule size estimation by radiologists for spherical and non-spherical nodules through CT thoracic phantom imaging. In: Summers RM, van Ginneken B, editors. Proceedings from the 2011 SPIE medical imaging conference; 2011 Feb 12–17; Lake Buena Vista, Florida: SPIE, The International Society for Optical Engineering; 2011.
  • Hopper KD, Kasales CJ, Van Slyke MA, et al. Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167:851–854.
  • Thiesse P, Ollivier L, Di Stefano-Louineau D, et al. Response rate accuracy in oncology trials: reasons for interobserver variability. Groupe Francais d'Immunotherapie of the Federation Nationale des Centers de Lutte Contre le Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:3507–3514.
  • Erasmus JJ, Gladish GW, Broemeling L, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2574–2582.
  • Dancey JE, Dodd LE, Ford R, et al. Recommendations for the assessment of progression in randomised cancer treatment trials. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:281–289.
  • Amit O, Mannino F, Stone AM, et al. Blinded independent central review of progression in cancer clinical trials: results from a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47:1772–1778.
  • Goldmacher GV, Raunig D. The imaging core lab perspective on glioblastoma imaging and response assessment in clinical trials. Neuro Oncol. 2014;16:vii48–vii50.
  • Hamilton TE, Barnhart D, Gow K, et al. Inter-rater reliability of surgical reviews for AREN03B2: a COG renal tumor committee study. J Pediatr Surg. 2014;49:154–158.
  • Tang PA, Pond GR, Chen EX. Influence of an independent review committee on assessment of response rate and progression-free survival in phase III clinical trials. Ann Oncol. 2010;21:19–26.
  • Zhang JJ, Zhang L, Chen H, et al. Assessment of audit methodologies for bias evaluation of tumor progression in oncology clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:2637–2645.
  • Zhang JJ, Chen H, He K, et al. Evaluation of blinded independent central review of tumor progression in oncology clinical trials: a meta-analysis. Drug Inf J. 2013;47:167–174.
  • Floquet A, Vergote I, Colombo N, et al. Progression-free survival by local investigator versus independent central review: comparative analysis of the AGO-OVAR16 Trial. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;136:37–42.
  • FDA Briefing Document. Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting: evaluation of radiologic review of progression-free survival in non-hematologic malignancies [Internet]. [cited 2012 Jul 24]. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/OncologicDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM311141.pdf.
  • Flinn IW, van der Jagt R, Kahl BS, et al. Randomized trial of bendamustine-rituximab or R-CHOP/R-CVP in first-line treatment of indolent NHL or MCL: the BRIGHT study. Blood. 2014;123:2944–2952.
  • Kahl BS, Bartlett NL, Leonard JP, et al. Bendamustine is effective therapy in patients with rituximab-refractory, indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma: results from a multicenter study. Cancer. 2010;116:106–114.
  • Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME, et al. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:579–586.
  • Solal-Celigny P, Roy P, Colombat P, et al. Follicular lymphoma international prognostic index. Blood. 2004;104:1258–1265.
  • Bhattacharya S, Fyfe G, Gray RJ, et al. Role of sensitivity analyses in assessing progression-free survival in late-stage oncology trials. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5958–5964.
  • Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF, et al. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3059–3068.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.