4.7 Article

VeriStrat® has prognostic value in advanced stage NSCLC patients treated with erlotinib and sorafenib

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 107, Issue 11, Pages 1820-1825

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2012.470

Keywords

lung cancer; proteomics; erlotinib; sorafenib; serum biomarker; personalised therapy

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: The serum proteomic test VeriStrat has been shown to be able to classify advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients for overall survival (OS) after treatment with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). In this study, VeriStrat was evaluated as a pre-treatment stratification tool in patients with advanced stage NSCLC for treatment with the combination of erlotinib and sorafenib, considering both OS and progression-free survival (PFS) as end points. METHODS: Serum samples from 50 patients treated within the context of a phase II trial of first-line erlotinib and sorafenib were analysed with VeriStrat, a fully locked mass spectrometry-based test that identifies patients likely to have good or poor outcome on EGFR therapy based on eight distinct features in mass spectra. Analysis was performed fully blinded to all clinical data, and then the outcome data were analysed with respect to the obtained serum classifications. RESULTS: VeriStrat classified pre-treatment samples into two groups, VeriStrat Good and VeriStrat Poor, which were significantly different in OS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.30, log-rank P = 0.009) and in PFS (HR 0.40, log-rank P = 0.035). CONCLUSION: VeriStrat has shown its potential for stratification of unselected, advanced stage NSCLC patients treated in first line with a combination of erlotinib and sorafenib. British Journal of Cancer (2012) 107, 1820-1825. doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.470 www.bjcancer.com Published online 18 October 2012 (C) 2012 Cancer Research UK

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available