ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2025
A Systematic Comparative Analysis of Tumor Size Models Based on Erlotinib Clinical Data in Advanced NSCLC.
Article in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00364351 (A Phase III, International, Randomised, Double Blind, Parallel-Group Study to Assess the Efficacy of Zactima™ Versus Tarceva® in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer After Failure of at Least One Prior Chemotherapy), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
A Phase III, International, Randomised, Double Blind, Parallel-Group Study to Assess the Efficacy of Zactima™ Versus Tarceva® in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer After Failure of at Least One Prior Chemotherapy
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Quantitative Lesion-Level Modeling Reveals Organ-Dependent Therapeutic Response.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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.
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.