4.5 Article

Co-clinical quantitative tumor volume imaging in ALK-rearranged NSCLC treated with crizotinib

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
Volume 88, Issue -, Pages 15-20

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.12.028

Keywords

Non-small-cell lung cancer; Co-clinical trial; Anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitor; Tumor volume; Computed tomography; Targeted therapy

Funding

  1. NCI [5K23CA157631]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To evaluate and compare the volumetric tumor burden changes during crizotinib therapy in mice and human cohorts with ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Volumetric tumor burden was quantified on serial imaging studies in 8 bitransgenic mice with ALK-rearranged adenocarcinoma treated with crizotinib, and in 33 human subjects with ALK-rearranged NSCLC treated with crizotinib. The volumetric tumor burden changes and the time to maximal response were compared between mice and humans. Results: The median tumor volume decrease (%) at the maximal response was -40.4% (range: -79.5%-+11.7%) in mice, and -72.9% (range: -100%-+72%) in humans (Wilcoxon p = 0.03). The median time from the initiation of therapy to maximal response was 6 weeks in mice, and 15.7 weeks in humans. Overall volumetric response rate was 50% in mice and 97% in humans. Spider plots of tumor volume changes during therapy demonstrated durable responses in the human cohort, with a median time on therapy of 13.1 months. Conclusion: The present study described an initial attempt to evaluate quantitative tumor burden changes in co-clinical imaging studies of genomically-matched mice and human cohorts with ALK-rearranged NSCLC treated with crizotinib. Differences are noted in the degree of maximal volume response between the two cohorts in this well-established paradigm of targeted therapy, indicating a need for further studies to optimize co-clinical trial design and interpretation. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available