Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Vol-PACT: A Foundation for the NIH Public-Private Partnership That Supports Sharing of Clinical Trial Data for the Development of Improved Imaging Biomarkers in Oncology

Vol-PACT: A Foundation for the NIH Public-Private Partnership That Supports Sharing of Clinical... Purpose: To develop a public-private partnership to study the feasibility of a new approach in collecting and analyzing clinically annotated imaging data from landmark phase III trials in advanced solid tumors. Patients and Methods: The collection of clinical trials fulfilled the following inclusion criteria: completed randomized trials of > 300 patients, highly measurable solid tumors (non-small-cell lung cancer, colorectal cancer, renal cell cancer, and melanoma), and required sponsor and institutional review board sign-offs. The new approach in analyzing computed tomography scans was to transfer to an academic image analysis laboratory, draw contours semi-automatically by using in-house-developed algorithms integrated into the open source imaging platform Weasis, and perform serial volumetric measurement. Results: The median duration of contracting with five sponsors was 12 months. Ten trials in 7,085 patients that covered 12 treatment regimens across 20 trial arms were collected. To date, four trials in 3,954 patients were analyzed. Source imaging data were transferred to the academic core from 97% of trial patients (n = 3,837). Tumor imaging measurements were extracted from 82% of transferred computed tomography scans (n = 3,162). Causes of extraction failure were nonmeasurable disease (n = 392), single imaging time point (n = 224), and secondary captured images (n = 59). Overall, clinically annotated imaging data were extracted in 79% of patients (n = 3,055), and the primary trial end point analysis in each trial remained representative of each original trial end point. Conclusion: The sharing and analysis of source imaging data from large randomized trials is feasible and offer a rich and reusable, but largely untapped, resource for future research on novel trial-level response and progression imaging metrics. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics Wolters Kluwer Health

Vol-PACT: A Foundation for the NIH Public-Private Partnership That Supports Sharing of Clinical Trial Data for the Development of Improved Imaging Biomarkers in Oncology

Download PDF
12 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wolters-kluwer-health/vol-pact-a-foundation-for-the-nih-public-private-partnership-that-sN4s7hNa54
Publisher
Wolters Kluwer Health
Copyright
(C) 2018 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
ISSN
2473-4276
DOI
10.1200/CCI.17.00137
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose: To develop a public-private partnership to study the feasibility of a new approach in collecting and analyzing clinically annotated imaging data from landmark phase III trials in advanced solid tumors. Patients and Methods: The collection of clinical trials fulfilled the following inclusion criteria: completed randomized trials of > 300 patients, highly measurable solid tumors (non-small-cell lung cancer, colorectal cancer, renal cell cancer, and melanoma), and required sponsor and institutional review board sign-offs. The new approach in analyzing computed tomography scans was to transfer to an academic image analysis laboratory, draw contours semi-automatically by using in-house-developed algorithms integrated into the open source imaging platform Weasis, and perform serial volumetric measurement. Results: The median duration of contracting with five sponsors was 12 months. Ten trials in 7,085 patients that covered 12 treatment regimens across 20 trial arms were collected. To date, four trials in 3,954 patients were analyzed. Source imaging data were transferred to the academic core from 97% of trial patients (n = 3,837). Tumor imaging measurements were extracted from 82% of transferred computed tomography scans (n = 3,162). Causes of extraction failure were nonmeasurable disease (n = 392), single imaging time point (n = 224), and secondary captured images (n = 59). Overall, clinically annotated imaging data were extracted in 79% of patients (n = 3,055), and the primary trial end point analysis in each trial remained representative of each original trial end point. Conclusion: The sharing and analysis of source imaging data from large randomized trials is feasible and offer a rich and reusable, but largely untapped, resource for future research on novel trial-level response and progression imaging metrics.

Journal

JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics – Wolters Kluwer Health

Published: Mar 2, 2018

References

  • Aflibercept versus placebo in combination with fluorouracil, leucovorin and irinotecan in the treatment of previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer: Prespecified subgroup analyses from the VELOUR trial
    Tabernero J; Van Cutsem E; Lakomy R
  • Pazopanib in locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results of a randomized phase III trial
    Sternberg CN; Davis ID; Mardiak J
  • Pazopanib versus sunitinib in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma
    Motzer RJ; Hutson TE; Cella D
  • Final results from PRIME: Randomized phase III study of panitumumab with FOLFOX4 for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer
    Douillard JY; Siena S; Cassidy J
  • Mutant KRAS codon 12 and 13 alleles in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Assessment as prognostic and predictive biomarkers of response to panitumumab
    Peeters M; Douillard J-Y; Van Cutsem E
  • Afatinib versus placebo for patients with advanced, metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer after failure of erlotinib, gefitinib, or both, and one or two lines of chemotherapy (LUX-Lung 1): A phase 2b/3 randomised trial
    Miller VA; Hirsh V; Cadranel J
  • LUX-Lung 3: A randomized, open-label, phase III study of afatinib versus pemetrexed and cisplatin as first-line treatment for patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the lung harboring EGFR-activating mutations
    Yang JC-H; Schuler MH; Yamamoto N
  • LUX-Lung 6: A randomized, open-label, phase III study of afatinib (A) versus gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC) as first-line treatment for Asian patients (pts) with EGFR mutation-positive (EGFR M+) advanced adenocarcinoma of the lung
    Wu YL; Zhou C; Hu C-P
  • Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma
    Robert C; Schachter J; Long GV
  • Pembrolizumab versus investigator-choice chemotherapy for ipilimumab-refractory melanoma (KEYNOTE-002): A randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial
    Ribas A; Puzanov I; Dummer R
  • Economics of new oncology drug development
    DiMasi JA; Grabowski HG
  • Assumptions of expected benefits in randomized phase III trials evaluating systemic treatments for cancer
    Gan HK; You B; Pond GR
  • Estimating the cost of new drug development: Is it really 802 million dollars
    Adams CP; Brantner VV
  • When progressive disease does not mean treatment failure: Reconsidering the criteria for progression
    Oxnard GR; Morris MJ; Hodi FS
  • Variability in response assessment in solid tumors: Effect of number of lesions chosen for measurement
    Schwartz LH; Mazumdar M; Brown W
  • Exploring intra- and inter-reader variability in uni-dimensional, bi-dimensional, and volumetric measurements of solid tumors on CT scans reconstructed at different slice intervals
    Zhao B; Tan Y; Bell DJ
  • Variability of lung tumor measurements on repeat computed tomography scans taken within 15 minutes
    Oxnard GR; Zhao B; Sima CS
  • Evaluating variability in tumor measurements from same-day repeat CT scans of patients with non-small cell lung cancer
    Zhao B; James LP; Moskowitz CS
  • Comparative effects of CT imaging measurement on RECIST end points and tumor growth kinetics modeling
    Li CH; Bies RR; Wang Y
  • We should desist using RECIST, at least in GIST
    Benjamin RS; Choi H; Macapinlac HA
  • Pseudoprogression and immune-related response in solid tumors
    Chiou VL; Burotto M
  • A time to keep and a time to cast away categories of tumor response
    Maitland ML; Bies RR; Barrett JS
  • Clinical trials in the era of personalized oncology
    Maitland ML; Schilsky RL
  • Volumes to learn: Advancing therapeutics with innovative computed tomography image data analysis
    Maitland ML
  • Reproducibility of radiomics for deciphering tumor phenotype with imaging
    Zhao B; Tan Y; Tsai WY
  • A response assessment platform for development and validation of imaging biomarkers in oncology
    Yang H; Schwartz LH; Zhao B
  • Segmentation of lung lesions on CT scans using watershed, active contours, and Markov random field
    Tan Y; Schwartz LH; Zhao B
  • Semiautomatic segmentation of liver metastases on volumetric CT images
    Yan J; Schwartz LH; Zhao B
  • Randomized, phase III trial of panitumumab with infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) versus FOLFOX4 alone as first-line treatment in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: The PRIME study
    Douillard JY; Siena S; Cassidy J
  • Change in tumor size by RECIST correlates linearly with overall survival in phase I oncology studies
    Jain RK; Lee JJ; Ng C
  • Analyzing the pivotal trial that compared sunitinib and IFN-[alpha] in renal cell carcinoma, using a method that assesses tumor regression and growth
    Stein WD; Wilkerson J; Kim ST
  • Analyzing the pivotal trial that compared sunitinib and IFN-[alpha] in renal cell carcinoma, using a method that assesses tumor regression and growth
    Stein WD; Wilkerson J; Kim ST
  • Response phenotype as a predictive biomarker to guide treatment with targeted therapies
    Oxnard GR; Schwartz LH
  • iRECIST: Guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics
    Seymour L; Bogaerts J; Perrone A
  • Response rate as a regulatory end point in single-arm studies of advanced solid tumors
    Oxnard GR; Wilcox KH; Gonen M