Display options
Cite
Richard S, Wells A, Connor J, et al. Use of ChemoFx® for Identification of Effective Treatments in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. PLoS Curr. 2015;7doi: 10.1371/currents.eogt.8b0b6fffc7b999b34bc4c8152edbf237.
Richard, S., Wells, A., Connor, J., & Price, F. (2015). Use of ChemoFx® for Identification of Effective Treatments in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. PLoS currents, 7. https://doi.org/10.1371/currents.eogt.8b0b6fffc7b999b34bc4c8152edbf237
Richard, Scott, et al. "Use of ChemoFx® for Identification of Effective Treatments in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer." PLoS currents vol. 7 (2015). doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/currents.eogt.8b0b6fffc7b999b34bc4c8152edbf237
Richard S, Wells A, Connor J, Price F. Use of ChemoFx® for Identification of Effective Treatments in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. PLoS Curr. 2015 Jul 13;7. doi: 10.1371/currents.eogt.8b0b6fffc7b999b34bc4c8152edbf237. PMID: 26213638; PMCID: PMC4506277.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

PLoS Curr. 2015 Jul 13;7. doi: 10.1371/currents.eogt.8b0b6fffc7b999b34bc4c8152edbf237.

Use of ChemoFx® for Identification of Effective Treatments in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer.

PLoS currents

Scott Richard, Alan Wells, Joseph Connor, Fredric Price

Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hahnemann University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
  2. Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh; and Pittsburgh VA Health System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
  3. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.
  4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

PMID: 26213638 PMCID: PMC4506277 DOI: 10.1371/currents.eogt.8b0b6fffc7b999b34bc4c8152edbf237

Abstract

Selection of appropriate chemotherapy, including identification of platinum resistance, is critical to effective management of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). ChemoFx®, a multiple treatment marker (chemoresponse assay), has been developed to address this challenge and to improve outcomes in patients with advanced EOC. While much work has been done that has demonstrated the analytical validity of this assay, more recent studies have highlighted the unique clinical benefits offered by the assay. A prospective, multicenter trial has shown an increase in overall survival (OS) of 14 months and an increase in progression-free survival (PFS) by 3 months in patients with recurrent EOS treated by a "sensitive" therapy based on ChemoFx results. Along with other studies showing similar gains in OS and PFS, ChemoFx has been shown to be both a prognostic and predictive marker in patients with recurrent EOC where current treatment options are sorely lacking. In addition to these clinical benefits, economic analyses have shown that ChemoFx is a cost-effective intervention. Current guidelines and technology assessments relating to ChemoFx are largely outdated and refer primarily to metrics of analytical validity. Thus, in addition to analytical validity, the clinical validity, clinical utility and economic impact of ChemoFx are reviewed herein, including published literature, technology assessments by independent parties, and regulatory approvals of this marker.

References

  1. J Thorac Oncol. 2013 Apr;8(4):443-51 - PubMed
  2. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001 Mar;69(3):89-95 - PubMed
  3. BMC Med Genomics. 2012 Nov 16;5:51 - PubMed
  4. Methods Mol Biol. 2008;414:57-78 - PubMed
  5. J Thorac Oncol. 2012 Nov;7(11):1653-60 - PubMed
  6. Anticancer Res. 2008 May-Jun;28(3B):1733-40 - PubMed
  7. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Apr 1;26(10 ):1626-34 - PubMed
  8. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Jul;211(1):68.e1-8 - PubMed
  9. Br J Cancer. 2014 Aug 26;111(5):843-50 - PubMed
  10. Anticancer Res. 2014 Dec;34(12):7191-6 - PubMed
  11. Clin Transl Oncol. 2014 Sep;16(9):761-9 - PubMed
  12. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Jun;15(7):713-21 - PubMed
  13. J Clin Oncol. 2004 Sep 1;22(17):3631-8 - PubMed
  14. N Engl J Med. 2008 Oct 23;359(17):1757-65 - PubMed
  15. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Aug;203(2):160.e1-7 - PubMed
  16. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Mar;55(1):114-30 - PubMed
  17. Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Jan;136(1):94-8 - PubMed
  18. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 20;29(24):3328-30 - PubMed
  19. J Clin Oncol. 2006 Aug 10;24(23):3726-34 - PubMed
  20. N Engl J Med. 2004 Dec 30;351(27):2817-26 - PubMed
  21. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015 Jan-Feb;65(1):5-29 - PubMed
  22. Gynecol Oncol. 2013 Nov;131(2):362-7 - PubMed
  23. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Jul;203(1):68.e1-6 - PubMed
  24. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006 Jan-Feb;16(1):194-201 - PubMed
  25. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2013 Apr;10(4):211-24 - PubMed
  26. Pathology. 2007 Oct;39(5):491-4 - PubMed
  27. PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e40900 - PubMed
  28. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e49529 - PubMed
  29. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010 Feb 3;102(3):152-60 - PubMed
  30. Lancet Oncol. 2011 Nov;12(12):1169-74 - PubMed
  31. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Mar 20;27(9):1419-25 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support