4.7 Article

The prognostic significance of left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with advanced cancer treated in phase I clinical trials

Journal

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Volume 25, Issue 1, Pages 276-282

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdt524

Keywords

biomarker; cardiac dysfunction; malignancy and phase I trial

Categories

Funding

  1. Alberto Barretto Donor Funds
  2. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [P30CA016672] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NATIONAL CENTER FOR ADVANCING TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCES [UL1TR000371] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: New targeted agents may cause acute cardiac events. The purpose of our study was to investigate the incidence and the prognostic significance of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in phase I trials. Patients and methods: Between October 2008 and September 2011, the records of 1166 consecutive patients with advanced cancer treated in the Phase I Clinic who underwent echocardiography were retrospectively reviewed. Results: Most of the patients were White (78%), and the most common tumor types were colorectal cancer and melanoma. Of 1166 patients, 177 (15.2%) patients had an LVEF of < 50%. No difference in overall survival (OS) between patients with LVEF >= 50% and patients with LVEF < 50% was seen (median OS 7.4 versus 7.0 months, P = 0.84). Patients with LVEF <= 35% had shorter survival compared with those with LVEF between 35% and 50% (median 4.2 versus 8.0 months; P = 0.005). In multivariate analysis of patients with LVEF < 50%, independent factors predicting longer survival were LVEF > 35%, <= 2 prior systemic therapies, <= 2 metastatic sites, and normal lactate dehydrogenase and albumin levels. Conclusion: Echocardiography would improve patient selection for enrollment in phase I clinical trials. These data suggest that it is safe to treat patients with LVEF between 35% and 50%.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available