Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Effect of Weekly Paclitaxel With or Without Bevacizumab on Progression-Free Rate Among Patients With Relapsed Ovarian Sex Cord-Stromal Tumors : The ALIENOR/ENGOT-ov7 Randomized Clinical Trial

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond.

          Identification of key factors associated with the risk of developing cardiovascular disease and quantification of this risk using multivariable prediction algorithms are among the major advances made in preventive cardiology and cardiovascular epidemiology in the 20th century. The ongoing discovery of new risk markers by scientists presents opportunities and challenges for statisticians and clinicians to evaluate these biomarkers and to develop new risk formulations that incorporate them. One of the key questions is how best to assess and quantify the improvement in risk prediction offered by these new models. Demonstration of a statistically significant association of a new biomarker with cardiovascular risk is not enough. Some researchers have advanced that the improvement in the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC) should be the main criterion, whereas others argue that better measures of performance of prediction models are needed. In this paper, we address this question by introducing two new measures, one based on integrated sensitivity and specificity and the other on reclassification tables. These new measures offer incremental information over the AUC. We discuss the properties of these new measures and contrast them with the AUC. We also develop simple asymptotic tests of significance. We illustrate the use of these measures with an example from the Framingham Heart Study. We propose that scientists consider these types of measures in addition to the AUC when assessing the performance of newer biomarkers.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy for platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer: The AURELIA open-label randomized phase III trial.

            In platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (OC), single-agent chemotherapy is standard. Bevacizumab is active alone and in combination. AURELIA is the first randomized phase III trial to our knowledge combining bevacizumab with chemotherapy in platinum-resistant OC. Eligible patients had measurable/assessable OC that had progressed two prior anticancer regimens were ineligible. After investigators selected chemotherapy (pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, weekly paclitaxel, or topotecan), patients were randomly assigned to single-agent chemotherapy alone or with bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks) until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. Crossover to single-agent bevacizumab was permitted after progression with chemotherapy alone. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST. Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), safety, and patient-reported outcomes. The PFS hazard ratio (HR) after PFS events in 301 of 361 patients was 0.48 (95% CI, 0.38 to 0.60; unstratified log-rank P < .001). Median PFS was 3.4 months with chemotherapy alone versus 6.7 months with bevacizumab-containing therapy. RECIST ORR was 11.8% versus 27.3%, respectively (P = .001). The OS HR was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.08; P < .174; median OS, 13.3 v 16.6 months, respectively). Grade ≥ 2 hypertension and proteinuria were more common with bevacizumab. GI perforation occurred in 2.2% of bevacizumab-treated patients. Adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy statistically significantly improved PFS and ORR; the OS trend was not significant. No new safety signals were observed.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Bayesian clinical trials.

              Bayesian statistical methods are being used increasingly in clinical research because the Bayesian approach is ideally suited to adapting to information that accrues during a trial, potentially allowing for smaller more informative trials and for patients to receive better treatment. Accumulating results can be assessed at any time, including continually, with the possibility of modifying the design of the trial, for example, by slowing (or stopping) or expanding accrual, imbalancing randomization to favour better-performing therapies, dropping or adding treatment arms, and changing the trial population to focus on patient subsets that are responding better to the experimental therapies. Bayesian analyses use available patient-outcome information, including biomarkers that accumulating data indicate might be related to clinical outcome. They also allow for the use of historical information and for synthesizing results of relevant trials. Here, I explain the rationale underlying Bayesian clinical trials, and discuss the potential of such trials to improve the effectiveness of drug development.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Oncology
                JAMA Oncol
                American Medical Association (AMA)
                2374-2437
                December 01 2020
                December 01 2020
                : 6
                : 12
                : 1923
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GINECO and Centre Léon Bérard, University Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Lyon, France
                [2 ]AGO Study Group and Ev Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany
                [3 ]MITO and Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy
                [4 ]GINECO and Department of Clinical Research and Innovation, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France
                [5 ]BGOG and University Hospital Leuven, Leuven Cancer Institute, Leuven, Belgium
                [6 ]GOTIC and Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Hidaka, Japan
                [7 ]GINECO and Institut Claudius Regaud, IUCT-Oncopole, Toulouse, France
                [8 ]AGO Study Group and Gyneco-Oncological Practice, Hannover, Germany
                [9 ]GINECO and Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France
                [10 ]GINECO and Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France
                [11 ]AGO Study Group and Frauenklinik Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany
                [12 ]Current, RoMed Klinikum Rosenheim, Rosenheim, Germany
                [13 ]MITO and Department of Urology and Gynecology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale, Napoli, Italy
                [14 ]GINECO and Groupe Hospitalier Diaconesses Croix Saint-Simon, Paris, France
                [15 ]AGO Study Group and Medical University of Berlin, Charité–CVK, Berlin, Germany
                [16 ]GINECO and Centre Oncologie de Gentilly, Nancy, France
                [17 ]MITO and Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
                [18 ]GINECO and Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
                [19 ]MITO and Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori IRST IRCCS, Meldola, Italy
                [20 ]GINECO and Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille, France
                [21 ]GINECO and Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France
                Article
                10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.4574
                33030515
                556c81b9-e715-48ad-a804-f997bd4db360
                © 2020
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content1,501

                Cited by18

                Most referenced authors470