Cargando…

Optimal frequency of scans for patients on cancer therapies: A population kinetics assessment

BACKGROUND: Optimal frequency of follow‐up scans for patients receiving systemic therapies is poorly defined. Progression‐free survival (PFS) generally follows first‐order kinetics. We used exponential decay nonlinear regression analysis to calculate half‐lives for 887 published PFS curves. METHOD:...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stewart, David J., Macdonald, David B., Awan, Arif A., Thavorn, Kednapa
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6853816/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31560842
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.2571
_version_ 1783470104525144064
author Stewart, David J.
Macdonald, David B.
Awan, Arif A.
Thavorn, Kednapa
author_facet Stewart, David J.
Macdonald, David B.
Awan, Arif A.
Thavorn, Kednapa
author_sort Stewart, David J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Optimal frequency of follow‐up scans for patients receiving systemic therapies is poorly defined. Progression‐free survival (PFS) generally follows first‐order kinetics. We used exponential decay nonlinear regression analysis to calculate half‐lives for 887 published PFS curves. METHOD: We used the Excel formula x = EXP(‐t (n)*0.693/t (1/2)) to calculate proportion of residual patients remaining progression‐free at different times, where t (n) is the interval in weeks between scans (eg, 6 weeks), * indicates multiplication, 0.693 is the natural logarithm of 2, and t (1/2) is the PFS half‐life in weeks. RESULTS: Proportion of residual patients predicted to remain progression‐free at each subsequent scan varied with scan intervals and regimen PFS half‐life. For example, with a 4‐month half‐life (17.3 weeks) and scans every 6 weeks, 21% of patients would progress by the first scan, 21% of the remaining patients would progress by the second scan at 12 weeks, etc With 2, 6‐ and 12‐month half‐lives (for example), the proportion of remaining patients progressing at each subsequent scan if repeated every 3 weeks would be 21%, 8% and 4%, respectively, while with scans every 12 weeks it would be 62%, 27% and 15%, respectively. Furthermore, optimal scan frequency can be calculated for populations comprised of distinct rapidly and slowly progressing subpopulations, as well as with convex curves arising from treatment breaks, where optimal scan frequency may differ during therapy administration vs during more rapid progression after therapy interruption. CONCLUSIONS: A population kinetics approach permits a regimen‐ and tumor‐specific determination of optimal scan frequency for patients on systemic therapies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6853816
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68538162019-12-16 Optimal frequency of scans for patients on cancer therapies: A population kinetics assessment Stewart, David J. Macdonald, David B. Awan, Arif A. Thavorn, Kednapa Cancer Med Clinical Cancer Research BACKGROUND: Optimal frequency of follow‐up scans for patients receiving systemic therapies is poorly defined. Progression‐free survival (PFS) generally follows first‐order kinetics. We used exponential decay nonlinear regression analysis to calculate half‐lives for 887 published PFS curves. METHOD: We used the Excel formula x = EXP(‐t (n)*0.693/t (1/2)) to calculate proportion of residual patients remaining progression‐free at different times, where t (n) is the interval in weeks between scans (eg, 6 weeks), * indicates multiplication, 0.693 is the natural logarithm of 2, and t (1/2) is the PFS half‐life in weeks. RESULTS: Proportion of residual patients predicted to remain progression‐free at each subsequent scan varied with scan intervals and regimen PFS half‐life. For example, with a 4‐month half‐life (17.3 weeks) and scans every 6 weeks, 21% of patients would progress by the first scan, 21% of the remaining patients would progress by the second scan at 12 weeks, etc With 2, 6‐ and 12‐month half‐lives (for example), the proportion of remaining patients progressing at each subsequent scan if repeated every 3 weeks would be 21%, 8% and 4%, respectively, while with scans every 12 weeks it would be 62%, 27% and 15%, respectively. Furthermore, optimal scan frequency can be calculated for populations comprised of distinct rapidly and slowly progressing subpopulations, as well as with convex curves arising from treatment breaks, where optimal scan frequency may differ during therapy administration vs during more rapid progression after therapy interruption. CONCLUSIONS: A population kinetics approach permits a regimen‐ and tumor‐specific determination of optimal scan frequency for patients on systemic therapies. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-09-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6853816/ /pubmed/31560842 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.2571 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Cancer Research
Stewart, David J.
Macdonald, David B.
Awan, Arif A.
Thavorn, Kednapa
Optimal frequency of scans for patients on cancer therapies: A population kinetics assessment
title Optimal frequency of scans for patients on cancer therapies: A population kinetics assessment
title_full Optimal frequency of scans for patients on cancer therapies: A population kinetics assessment
title_fullStr Optimal frequency of scans for patients on cancer therapies: A population kinetics assessment
title_full_unstemmed Optimal frequency of scans for patients on cancer therapies: A population kinetics assessment
title_short Optimal frequency of scans for patients on cancer therapies: A population kinetics assessment
title_sort optimal frequency of scans for patients on cancer therapies: a population kinetics assessment
topic Clinical Cancer Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6853816/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31560842
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.2571
work_keys_str_mv AT stewartdavidj optimalfrequencyofscansforpatientsoncancertherapiesapopulationkineticsassessment
AT macdonalddavidb optimalfrequencyofscansforpatientsoncancertherapiesapopulationkineticsassessment
AT awanarifa optimalfrequencyofscansforpatientsoncancertherapiesapopulationkineticsassessment
AT thavornkednapa optimalfrequencyofscansforpatientsoncancertherapiesapopulationkineticsassessment