The AAPS Journal

, 21:22 | Cite as

Predicting Overall Survival and Progression-Free Survival Using Tumor Dynamics in Advanced Breast Cancer Patients

  • Hyeong-Seok Lim
  • Wan Sun
  • Kourosh Parivar
  • Diane WangEmail author
Research Article


Prediction of survival endpoints, e.g., overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), based on early observations, i.e., tumor size, may facilitate early decision making in oncology drug development. In this paper, using data from six randomized trials for first- or second-line advanced breast cancer (ABC) treatments with various mechanisms of action, tumor size change from baseline at different observation time points was evaluated as a predictor for survival endpoints using different modeling approaches. The aim is to establish a predictive model where tumor size change from baseline can be used as a treatment independent predictive marker for PFS and OS in first- and second-line ABC. The results showed that tumor size change at single time point (TSP) or up to certain time points as a time-varying covariate (TSTVC) were significant predictors for OS and PFS in the survival models along with other covariates identified for each line of treatment. TSP and TSTVC models performed similarly for first-line treatments; TSTVC performed significantly better for second-line treatments. Eight weeks was selected as the recommended early evaluation time of tumor size change to predict OS and PFS in both first- and second-line treatment, while better prediction can be achieved for first-line OS by using 16 weeks tumor size change. The result of this study is treatment independent and can be used to predict the outcome of the clinical trials using early readout of tumor size change for the classes of drugs that have been evaluated in this study.


breast cancer OS PFS time-varying tumor size 



This study was sponsored by Pfizer. Editorial support was provided by Complete Healthcare Communications, LLC (West Chester, PA), a CHC Group company, and was funded by Pfizer.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

K.P. and D.W. are employees of and shareholders of Pfizer Inc. W.S. was a former employee of Pfizer and a current shareholder of Pfizer Inc. H.-S.L. was a research fellow with Pfizer when this research was conducted.

Supplementary material

12248_2018_290_Fig6_ESM.png (984 kb)
Figure S1

Diagnostic plots for tumor size model (Gompertz growth with exponential decay model): time course of observed (shown as circles) and predicted tumor size (shown as broken lines) up to 8 weeks (A), 16 weeks (C) and for all available data (E) of some randomly selected patients; comparison of observed and predicted tumor size up to 8 weeks (B), 16 weeks (D) and for all available data (F) of all included patients. Circle points represent individual data points; solid and broken lines represent the reference line (diagonal line) and linear regression line based on individual data points. (PNG 983 kb)

12248_2018_290_MOESM1_ESM.tif (1.6 mb)
High resolution image (TIF 1684 kb)


  1. 1.
    Wang Y, Sung C, Dartois C, Ramchandani R, Booth BP, Rock E, et al. Elucidation of relationship between tumor size and survival in non-small-cell lung cancer patients can aid early decision making in clinical drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009;86:167–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Claret L, Girard P, Hoff PM, van Cutsem E, Zuideveld KP, Jorga K, et al. Model-based prediction of phase III overall survival in colorectal cancer on the basis of phase II tumor dynamics. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4103–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lu JF, Claret L, Sutjandra L, Kuchimanchi M, Melara R, Bruno R, et al. Population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling for the time course of tumor shrinkage by motesanib in thyroid cancer patients. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2010;66:1151–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Claret L, Lu JF, Sun YN, Bruno R. Development of a modeling framework to simulate efficacy endpoints for motesanib in patients with thyroid cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2010;66:1141–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stein WD, Gulley JL, Schlom J, Madan RA, Dahut W, Figg WD, et al. Tumor regression and growth rates determined in five intramural NCI prostate cancer trials: the growth rate constant as an indicator of therapeutic efficacy. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:907–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bruno R, et al. Simulations to assess phase II noninferiority trials of different doses of capecitabine in combination with docetaxel for metastatic breast cancer. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2012;1(1):6.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Claret L, Bruno R, Lu JF, Sun YN, Hsu CP. Exploratory modeling and simulation to support development of motesanib in Asian patients with non-small cell lung cancer based on MONET1 study results. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2014;95:446–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tate SC, Andre V, Enas N, Ribba B, Gueorguieval I. Early change in tumor size predicts overall survival in patients with first-line metastatic breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2016;66:95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    US Food and Drug Administration. Innovation or stagnation: challenge and opportunity on the critical path to new medicinal products. Silver Spring, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, US Food and Drug Administration; 2004.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    European Medicines Agency. Road map to 2015. London, UK: European Medicines Agency; 2010.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rugo HS, Stopeck AT, Joy AA, Chan S, Verma S, Lluch A, et al. Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase II study of axitinib plus docetaxel versus docetaxel plus placebo in patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2459–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bergh J, Bondarenko IM, Lichinitser MR, Liljegren A, Greil R, Voytko NL, et al. First-line treatment of advanced breast cancer with sunitinib in combination with docetaxel versus docetaxel alone: results of a prospective, randomized phase III study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:921–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Robert NJ, Saleh MN, Paul D, Generali D, Gressot L, Copur MS, et al. Sunitinib plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel for first-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer: a phase III, randomized, open-label trial. Clin Breast Cancer. 2011;11:82–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Curigliano G, Pivot X, Cortés J, Elias A, Cesari R, Khosravan R, et al. Randomized phase II study of sunitinib versus standard of care for patients with previously treated advanced triple-negative breast cancer. Breast. 2013;22:650–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Crown JP, Diéras V, Staroslawska E, Yardley DA, Bachelot T, Davidson N, et al. Phase III trial of sunitinib in combination with capecitabine versus capecitabine monotherapy for the treatment of patients with pretreated metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:2870–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Martin M, Bonneterre J, Geyer CE Jr, Ito Y, Ro J, Lang I, et al. A phase two randomised trial of neratinib monotherapy versus lapatinib plus capecitabine combination therapy in patients with HER2+ advanced breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49:3763–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bradburn MJ, Clark TG, Love SB, Altman DG. Survival analysis part II: multivariate data analysis—an introduction to concepts and methods. Br J Cancer. 2003;89:431–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Patel K, Kay R, Rowell L. Comparing proportional hazards and accelerated failure time models: an application in influenza. Pharm Stat. 2006;5:213–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Keiding N, Andersen PK, Klein JP. The role of frailty models and accelerated failure time models in describing heterogeneity due to omitted covariates. Stat Med. 1997;16:215–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hougaard P. Fundamentals of survival data. Biometrics. 1999;55:13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hougaard P, Myglegaard P, Borch-Johnsen K. Heterogeneity models of disease susceptibility, with application to diabetic nephropathy. Biometrics. 1994;50:1178–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Laird AK. Dynamics of tumor growth. Br J Cancer. 1964;13:490–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Efficace F, Biganzoli L, Piccart M, Coens C, van Steen K, Cufer T, et al. Baseline health-related quality-of-life data as prognostic factors in a phase III multicentre study of women with metastatic breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2004;40:1021–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fisher B, Redmond C, Fisher ER, Caplan R. Relative worth of estrogen or progesterone receptor and pathologic characteristics of differentiation as indicators of prognosis in node negative breast cancer patients: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-06. 6, 1076–1087 (1988).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Samaan NA, Buzdar AU, Aldinger KA, Schultz PN, Yang KP, Romsdahl MM, et al. Estrogen receptor: a prognostic factor in breast cancer. Cancer. 1981;47:554–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Swenerton KD, Legha SS, Smith T, Hortobagyi GN, Gehan EA, Yap HY, et al. Prognostic factors in metastatic breast cancer treated with combination chemotherapy. Cancer Res. 1979;39:1552–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Carter CL, Allen C, Henson DE. Relation of tumor size, lymph node status, and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases. Cancer. 1989;63:181–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bruno R, Claret L. On the use of change in tumor size to predict survival in clinical oncology studies: toward a new paradigm to design and evaluate phase II studies. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009;86:136–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bruno R, Lu JF, Sun YN, Claret L. A modeling and simulation framework to support early clinical drug development decisions in oncology. J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;51:6–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang E, Kang D, Bae KS, Marshall MA, Pavlov D, Parivar K. Population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis of tremelimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;54:1108–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ahn SG, Lee HM, Cho SH, Lee SA, Hwang SH, Jeong J, et al. Prognostic factors for patients with bone-only metastasis in breast cancer. Yonsei Med J. 2013;54:1168–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hyeong-Seok Lim
    • 1
  • Wan Sun
    • 2
  • Kourosh Parivar
    • 2
  • Diane Wang
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Asan Medical CenterUniversity of UlsanSeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Clinical Pharmacology, Global Product DevelopmentPfizerCaliforniaUSA

Personalised recommendations