Originally published as JCO Early Release 10.1200/JCO.2004.04.077 on August 2 2004

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Save to my personal folders Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Samson, D. J. Articles by Aronson, N. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Samson, D. J. Articles by Aronson, N. Social Bookmarking                            What's this?

Chemotherapy Sensitivity and Resistance Assays: A Systematic Review

From the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center, Washington, DC

Address reprint requests to David J. Samson, Technology Evaluation Center, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, 1310 G St NW, Washington, DC 20005; e-mail: david.samson{at}wro.bcbsa.com

PURPOSE: This systematic review evaluates evidence comparing therapy guided by chemotherapy sensitivity and resistance assays with empiric chemotherapy, emphasizing survival outcomes.

METHODS: Prospective studies were sought comparing patients treated contemporaneously by assay-guided chemotherapy and empiric therapy. An initial MEDLINE search and a search performed by a Working Group of the American Society of Clinical Oncology were reviewed with attention to prespecified study selection criteria.

RESULTS: This review identified 10 studies meeting selection criteria, plus one retrospective study, using seven different assays. Only two studies randomly assigned patients to assay-guided treatment or empiric treatment. Five of nine nonrandomized studies found significantly higher response rates for patients who received assay-guided therapy compared with those treated empirically. One of the two randomized trials found a significantly higher response rate in the assay-guided group. Four additional studies found response rates favoring assay-guided therapy, but comparisons did not achieve statistical significance. Two nonrandomized studies found overall survival to be significantly improved with assay-guided therapy. One randomized study used a cross-over design that made it difficult to determine whether survival differed between groups, while the other randomized trial found no difference in survival. Six studies provided no comparison of groups on baseline patient characteristics. Only one study reported adverse events data.

CONCLUSION: While higher response rates for assay-guided therapy have been observed, differences may be attributable to bias or confounding. Little evidence on survival is available. These results do not establish the relative effectiveness of assay-guided treatment and empiric treatment. Randomized trials are needed.

This work was developed under contract with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Presented in an earlier form, available online at http://www.bcbs.com/tec/vol17/17_12.pdf.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Hendifar, D. Yang, F. Lenz, G. Lurje, A. Pohl, C. Lenz, Y. Ning, W. Zhang, and H.-J. Lenz Gender Disparities in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Survival Clin. Cancer Res., October 15, 2009; 15(20): 6391 - 6397. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. C. KIM, E. S. SHIN, C. W. KIM, S. A. ROH, D. H. CHO, Y. S. NA, T. W. KIM, M. B. KIM, Y. L. HYUN, S. RO, et al. In Vitro Evaluation of Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors as Combination Agents for Colorectal Cancer Anticancer Res, August 1, 2009; 29(8): 3027 - 3034. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. R. Somerfield, K. Einhaus, K. L. Hagerty, M. C. Brouwers, J. Seidenfeld, and G. H. Lyman American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines: Opportunities and Challenges J. Clin. Oncol., August 20, 2008; 26(24): 4022 - 4026. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Quartino, M. O. Karlsson, A. Freijs, N. Jonsson, P. Nygren, J. Kristensen, E. Lindhagen, and R. Larsson Modeling of In Vitro Drug Activity and Prediction of Clinical Outcome in Acute Myeloid Leukemia J. Clin. Pharmacol., August 1, 2007; 47(8): 1014 - 1021. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. D. Aletti, M. M. Gallenberg, W. A. Cliby, A. Jatoi, and L. C. Hartmann Current Management Strategies for Ovarian Cancer Mayo Clin. Proc., June 1, 2007; 82(6): 751 - 770. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. A. d'Amato, R. J. Landreneau, W. Ricketts, W. Huang, R. Parker, E. Mechetner, I.-R. Yu, and J. D. Luketich Chemotherapy resistance and oncogene expression in non-small cell lung cancer J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., February 1, 2007; 133(2): 352 - 363. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Ugurel, D. Schadendorf, C. Pfohler, K. Neuber, A. Thoelke, J. Ulrich, A. Hauschild, K. Spieth, M. Kaatz, W. Rittgen, et al. In vitro Drug Sensitivity Predicts Response and Survival after Individualized Sensitivity-Directed Chemotherapy in Metastatic Melanoma: A Multicenter Phase II Trial of the Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group. Clin. Cancer Res., September 15, 2006; 12(18): 5454 - 5463. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Jimeno, P. Kulesza, E. Kincaid, N. Bouaroud, A. Chan, A. Forastiere, J. Brahmer, D. P. Clark, and M. Hidalgo C-fos Assessment as a Marker of Anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Effect Cancer Res., February 15, 2006; 66(4): 2385 - 2390. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Nagourney Chemosensitivity and Resistance Assays: A Systematic Review? J. Clin. Oncol., May 20, 2005; 23(15): 3640 - 3641. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Castro Resisting a Fundamentalist Policy J. Clin. Oncol., May 20, 2005; 23(15): 3645 - 3646. [Full Text] [PDF]