ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2023
Model-based prediction of progression-free survival for combination therapies in oncology.
Article in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Model-Informed Dosing Strategies for Epcoritamab Monotherapy in Relapsed or Refractory Large B-Cell Lymphoma.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Modeling hepatitis D virus kinetics during bulevirtide monotherapy: challenges and solutions.ArXiv · 2026Article
- Novel Drug-Disease Modeling Framework for Oncology Benefit-Risk Evaluation: Application to Tusamitamab Ravtansine.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026Article
- A novel Bayesian generative approach for estimating tumor dynamics from published studies.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2024Article
- Model-based prediction of progression-free survival for combination therapies in oncology.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Progression-free survival (PFS) is an important clinical metric for comparing and evaluating similar treatments for the same disease within oncology. After the completion of a clinical trial, a descriptive analysis of the patients' PFS is often performed post hoc using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. However, to perform predictions, more sophisticated quantitative methods are needed. Tumor growth inhibition models are commonly used to describe and predict the dynamics of preclinical and clinical tumor size data. Moreover, frameworks also exist for describing the probability of different types of events, such as tumor metastasis or patient dropout. Combining these two types of models into a so-called joint model enables model-based prediction of PFS. In this paper, we have constructed a joint model from clinical data comparing the efficacy of FOLFOX against FOLFOX + panitumumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. The nonlinear mixed effects framework was used to quantify interindividual variability (IIV). The model describes tumor size and PFS data well, and showed good predictive capabilities using truncated as well as external data. A machine-learning guided analysis was performed to reduce unexplained IIV by incorporating patient covariates. The model-based approach illustrated in this paper could be useful to help design clinical trials or to determine new promising drug candidates for combination therapy trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.