Originally published as JCO Early Release 10.1200/JCO.2005.02.106 on June 13 2005

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 Bruzzi, P. Articles by Venturini, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bruzzi, P. Articles by Venturini, M. Related Articles Related Editorial Social Bookmarking                            What's this?

Objective Response to Chemotherapy As a Potential Surrogate End Point of Survival in Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients

From the Units of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Oncology, National Institute for Cancer Research, Genoa; Department of Medical Oncology, University and Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy; Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Department of Oncology, CHC Clinique Saint Joseph, Liege, Belgium; Department of Medical Oncology, Papageorgiou Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece; and CRUK Trials Unit, Beatson Oncology Centre, Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom

Address reprint requests to Paolo Bruzzi MD, MPH, PhD, Unit of Clinical Epidemiology, National Institute for Cancer Research, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132 Genoa, Italy; e-mail: paolo.bruzzi{at}istge.it

PURPOSE: To assess the validity of objective response to chemotherapy as a surrogate end point for survival in metastatic breast cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: We carried out a meta-analysis on individual data from 2,126 metastatic breast cancer patients who were enrolled onto 10 randomized trials comparing standard versus intensified epirubicin-containing chemotherapy.

RESULTS: The intensified chemotherapy was associated with a significantly higher tumor response rate compared with standard chemotherapy (pooled odds ratio for nonresponse, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.72). The intensified regimens also led to better (although not significant) survival (pooled odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.04; P = .22). Tumor response was a highly significant predictor of survival (P < .0001). When tumor response was introduced in the Cox model, the hazard ratio in favor of experimental treatment changed from 0.94 to 1.005 (95% CI, 0.91 to 1.11; P = .92), indicating that no residual effect of the experimental treatment on survival was present once tumor response was adjusted for. This suggests that the overall survival benefit of intensified epirubicin was a result of the increase in response rate. The median survival time of patients with complete response and partial response was 28.8 months (95% CI, 25.4 to 45.3 months) and 21.3 months (95% CI, 19.2 to 22.4 months), respectively; whereas, the median survival time of patients with no response was 14.6 months (95% CI, 13.9 to 15.4 months).

CONCLUSION: These results support the hypothesis that the achievement of an objective response to chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer is associated with a true survival benefit. The potential role of objective response as a surrogate end point for survival in chemotherapy trials of metastatic breast cancer warrants further investigation.

Supported by grants from the Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (grant No. 0301) and from the Ministero della Salute (Ricerca Corrente 2002-2004).

Presented at the IV Congresso Nazionale di Oncologia Medica, Torino, Italy, September 28-October 1, 2002 and at The 26th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, Antonio, TX, December 3-6, 2003.

Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest are found at the end of this article.

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

Related Editorial

• Objective Response Rate As a Surrogate End Point: A Commentary
  Thomas R. Fleming
  JCO 2005 23: 4845-4846 [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. D. Saad, A. Katz, P. M. Hoff, and M. Buyse Progression-free survival as surrogate and as true end point: insights from the breast and colorectal cancer literature Ann. Onc., November 9, 2009; (2009) mdp523v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Ferraldeschi and P. Lorigan Extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer--moving beyond response rate? Ann. Onc., May 1, 2009; 20(5): 801 - 802. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Allen-Auerbach and W. A. Weber Measuring Response with FDG-PET: Methodological Aspects Oncologist, April 1, 2009; 14(4): 369 - 377. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. G Miller and S. Joffe Benefit in phase 1 oncology trials: therapeutic misconception or reasonable treatment option? Clinical Trials, December 1, 2008; 5(6): 617 - 623. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Berruti, M. P. Brizzi, D. Generali, M. Ardine, L. Dogliotti, P. Bruzzi, and A. Bottini Presurgical Systemic Treatment of Nonmetastatic Breast Cancer: Facts and Open Questions Oncologist, November 1, 2008; 13(11): 1137 - 1148. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. R. Anderson, K. C. Cain, and R. D. Gelber Analysis of Survival by Tumor Response and Other Comparisons of Time-to-Event by Outcome Variables J. Clin. Oncol., August 20, 2008; 26(24): 3913 - 3915. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. J. Sargent and D. F. Hayes Assessing the Measure of a New Drug: Is Survival the Only Thing That Matters? J. Clin. Oncol., April 20, 2008; 26(12): 1922 - 1923. [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Burzykowski, M. Buyse, M. J. Piccart-Gebhart, G. Sledge, J. Carmichael, H.-J. Luck, J. R. Mackey, J.-M. Nabholtz, R. Paridaens, L. Biganzoli, et al. Evaluation of Tumor Response, Disease Control, Progression-Free Survival, and Time to Progression As Potential Surrogate End Points in Metastatic Breast Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., April 20, 2008; 26(12): 1987 - 1992. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Suzuki, H. Jacobsson, T. Hatschek, M. R. Torkzad, K. Boden, Y. Eriksson-Alm, E. Berg, H. Fujii, A. Kubo, and L. Blomqvist Radiologic Measurements of Tumor Response to Treatment: Practical Approaches and Limitations RadioGraphics, March 1, 2008; 28(2): 329 - 344. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Colozza, E. de Azambuja, N. Personeni, F. Lebrun, M. J. Piccart, and F. Cardoso Achievements in Systemic Therapies in the Pregenomic Era in Metastatic Breast Cancer Oncologist, March 1, 2007; 12(3): 253 - 270. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. L. George Response Rate as an Endpoint in Clinical Trials J Natl Cancer Inst, January 17, 2007; 99(2): 98 - 99. [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. A. Weber and R. Figlin Monitoring Cancer Treatment with PET/CT: Does It Make a Difference? J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2007; 48(1_suppl): 36S - 44S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W Ichikawa and Y Sasaki Correlation between tumor response to first-line chemotherapy and prognosis in advanced gastric cancer patients Ann. Onc., November 1, 2006; 17(11): 1665 - 1672. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. O'Shaughnessy Extending Survival with Chemotherapy in Metastatic Breast Cancer Oncologist, October 1, 2005; 10(suppl_3): 20 - 29. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]