2014
DOI: 10.1038/clpt.2014.111
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Use of Model-Based Tumor-Size Metrics to Predict Survival

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

4
22
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
4
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…developing new lesions. ECOG performance status also had a strong influence on survival (Figure S3), as reported by others for other indications . Additional significant covariates for OS were the SLD at enrolment and the predicted TSR ( t ) (Figures S3), in line with what has been reported previously .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…developing new lesions. ECOG performance status also had a strong influence on survival (Figure S3), as reported by others for other indications . Additional significant covariates for OS were the SLD at enrolment and the predicted TSR ( t ) (Figures S3), in line with what has been reported previously .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…The model captured the pronounced reduction in life expectancy once new lesions appeared ( Figure S3) with median OS of 21 vs. 12 months, for patients not developing any new lesion vs. developing new lesions. ECOG performance status also had a strong influence on survival ( Figure S3), as reported by others for other indications [8,11,16,37,38]. Additional significant covariates for OS were the SLD at enrolment and the predicted TSR(t) ( Figures S3), in line with what has been reported previously [8,[11][12][13].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…For these reasons, TTG was not tested on OS here. Instead, the tumor timecourse was identified to be the best predictor for OS, as previously suggested …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…In addition, such static early predictors are unlikely to predict PFS and OS outcomes in treatments that involve different timeframes for the onset of effect, such as immune modulators. Therefore, the validity of these predictors needs to be evaluated further in such cases.The use of a predictor's full-time course to dynamically predict the disease time course and therefore outcome, shown recently for gastrointestinal stromal tumors [34], gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors [75], and metastatic prostate cancer [76], has been recommended to overcome some of these limitations and also to enable simulations of different scenarios [74]. However, as discussed in previous sections, the optimal incorporation of the course of time variant predictors into this quantitative framework requires a joint modeling exercise.…”
Section: Clinical Endpoint Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most reported studies used variables based on predefined time points as predictors, such as the change in tumor size after 6-8 weeks of treatment or the time to tumor growth. However, such predictors have some limitations in their ability to accurately predict outcome, as previously discussed by others [36,74]. In addition, such static early predictors are unlikely to predict PFS and OS outcomes in treatments that involve different timeframes for the onset of effect, such as immune modulators.…”
Section: Clinical Endpoint Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%