4.7 Article

Outcomes of Research Biopsies in Phase I Clinical Trials: The MD Anderson Cancer Center Experience

期刊

ONCOLOGIST
卷 16, 期 9, 页码 1292-1298

出版社

ALPHAMED PRESS
DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0043

关键词

Drug development; Mandatory biopsy; Optional biopsy; Phase I clinical trial; Research biopsy

类别

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health
  2. National Center for Research Resources [RR024148]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Research biopsies are crucial for exploring the impact of novel agents on putative targets. The current study assesses the safety and success rate associated with performing such biopsies. Methods. We reviewed the medical records of 155 consecutive patients who had one or more research biopsies as part of a phase I trial from September 2004 to October 2009. Results. Of 281 research biopsies performed, 118 were paired before and after treatment biopsies (total = 236 biopsies). The most common sites of biopsy were superficial lymph node (19.9%), followed by liver (16.4%), and then soft tissue (15.7%). Ultrasound-guided biopsies were the most frequent type (53.7%). Among 142 patients who consented for mandatory biopsy, 86.6% had the biopsy performed, compared with 4.4% of 911 patients offered a biopsy on an optional basis (p < .0001). Biopsy was obtained most frequently on industry-sponsored trials; lack of funding on nonindustry trials was the most common reason that biopsies were not obtained. Of 281 single biopsies, only 4 (1.4%) had complications: pneumothorax requiring chest tube placement (n = 2), infection requiring admission (n = 1), and arrhythmia with hypotension (n = 1). All but one biopsy was successful in obtaining tissue. No deaths were attributable to biopsy. Conclusions. Our experience demonstrates that research biopsies in early phase clinical trials are safe (1.4% risk of serious complications), and a higher percentage of patients underwent mandatory biopsies (86.6%) compared with that of the patients with optional biopsies (4.4%). The Oncologist 2011;16:1292-1298

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据