A Systematic Comparative Analysis of Tumor Size Models Based on Erlotinib Clinical Data in Advanced NSCLC.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Anna Mishina, Kirill Zhudenkov, Gabriel Helmlinger, Kirill Peskov
{"title":"A Systematic Comparative Analysis of Tumor Size Models Based on Erlotinib Clinical Data in Advanced NSCLC.","authors":"Anna Mishina, Kirill Zhudenkov, Gabriel Helmlinger, Kirill Peskov","doi":"10.1002/psp4.70095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Early assessment of efficacy and dose optimization remain critical challenges in the development of anticancer therapies. Empirical models of solid tumor size dynamics-a key prognostic biomarker-have played a central role in addressing these challenges. However, a systematic comparison of commonly used tumor size models, in terms of descriptive and predictive performance as well as generalizability within a population framework, has not been conducted to date. The present research sought to develop a methodological framework for the optimization of tumor models, offering a basis for more accurate predictions of tumor dynamics. The corresponding modeling workflow was practically tested against clinical data of erlotinib, a treatment administered to patients with advanced NSCLC. Five widely used tumor size models were evaluated, of which only three-the Bi-Exponential (BiExp), the Linear-Exponential (LExp), and Claret's Tumor Growth Inhibition (TGI) model-demonstrated reproducibility of the base model during a repeated cross-validation approach. Among these, the TGI model exhibited superior descriptive and predictive performance. However, a thorough literature search showed that erlotinib clinical data in NSCLC have been analyzed using only the BiExp and LExp models. Furthermore, extrapolation from 3 to 16 months revealed outlier predictions for the BiExp and TGI models, while the LExp model showed higher consistency, suggesting that models utilizing an exponential growth function may have a more limited extrapolation range than those assuming linear growth. Despite a clear ranking of models based on descriptive and predictive performance, no hierarchy emerged with respect to discriminatory ability. All three models showed high accuracy in distinguishing RECIST-based objective responders, while accuracy in predicting the emergence of acquired resistance remained uniformly low. Trial Registration: Clinical trial number: NCT00364351.</p>","PeriodicalId":10774,"journal":{"name":"CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/psp4.70095","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Early assessment of efficacy and dose optimization remain critical challenges in the development of anticancer therapies. Empirical models of solid tumor size dynamics-a key prognostic biomarker-have played a central role in addressing these challenges. However, a systematic comparison of commonly used tumor size models, in terms of descriptive and predictive performance as well as generalizability within a population framework, has not been conducted to date. The present research sought to develop a methodological framework for the optimization of tumor models, offering a basis for more accurate predictions of tumor dynamics. The corresponding modeling workflow was practically tested against clinical data of erlotinib, a treatment administered to patients with advanced NSCLC. Five widely used tumor size models were evaluated, of which only three-the Bi-Exponential (BiExp), the Linear-Exponential (LExp), and Claret's Tumor Growth Inhibition (TGI) model-demonstrated reproducibility of the base model during a repeated cross-validation approach. Among these, the TGI model exhibited superior descriptive and predictive performance. However, a thorough literature search showed that erlotinib clinical data in NSCLC have been analyzed using only the BiExp and LExp models. Furthermore, extrapolation from 3 to 16 months revealed outlier predictions for the BiExp and TGI models, while the LExp model showed higher consistency, suggesting that models utilizing an exponential growth function may have a more limited extrapolation range than those assuming linear growth. Despite a clear ranking of models based on descriptive and predictive performance, no hierarchy emerged with respect to discriminatory ability. All three models showed high accuracy in distinguishing RECIST-based objective responders, while accuracy in predicting the emergence of acquired resistance remained uniformly low. Trial Registration: Clinical trial number: NCT00364351.

基于厄洛替尼的晚期非小细胞肺癌肿瘤大小模型临床数据的系统比较分析。
早期疗效评估和剂量优化仍然是抗癌治疗发展的关键挑战。实体肿瘤大小动态的经验模型(一种关键的预后生物标志物)在解决这些挑战方面发挥了核心作用。然而,迄今为止,还没有对常用的肿瘤大小模型进行系统的比较,包括描述性和预测性的表现以及在人群框架内的普遍性。本研究旨在建立一个优化肿瘤模型的方法学框架,为更准确地预测肿瘤动力学提供基础。根据厄洛替尼的临床数据对相应的建模工作流进行了实际测试,厄洛替尼是一种用于晚期NSCLC患者的治疗方法。评估了五种广泛使用的肿瘤大小模型,其中只有三种-双指数(BiExp),线性指数(LExp)和Claret的肿瘤生长抑制(TGI)模型-在重复交叉验证方法中证明了基础模型的可重复性。其中,TGI模型具有较好的描述性和预测性。然而,深入的文献检索显示,厄洛替尼在NSCLC中的临床数据仅使用BiExp和LExp模型进行分析。此外,从3个月到16个月的外推结果显示,BiExp和TGI模型的预测异常,而LExp模型的一致性更高,这表明使用指数增长函数的模型可能比假设线性增长的模型具有更有限的外推范围。尽管基于描述和预测性能的模型有明确的排名,但在歧视能力方面没有出现等级。所有三种模型在区分基于recist的客观反应方面都显示出很高的准确性,而预测获得性耐药出现的准确性仍然很低。试验注册:临床试验号:NCT00364351。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
11.40%
发文量
146
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信