Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 24, 2025

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Cancer Drug Sensitization In Vitro and In Vivo
Published on: February 6, 2015
Treatment Efficacy Score-continuous residual cancer burden-based metric to compare neoadjuvant chemotherapy efficacy
1Department of Data Mining and Engineering, Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland; Department of Breast Medical Oncology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, USA.
Background:
Difference in pathologic complete response (pCR) rate after neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not capture the impact of treatment on downstaging of residual cancer in the experimental arm. We developed a method to compare the entire distribution of residual cancer burden (RCB) values between clinical trial arms to better quantify the differences in cytotoxic efficacy of treatments.
Patients And Methods:
The Treatment Efficacy Score (TES) reflects the area between the weighted cumulative distribution functions of RCB values from two trial arms. TES is based on a modified Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with added weight function to capture the importance of high RCB values and uses the area under the difference between two distribution functions as a statistical metric. The higher the TES the greater the shift to lower RCB values in the experimental arm. We developed TES from the durvalumab + olaparib arm (n = 72) and corresponding controls (n = 282) of the I-SPY2 trial. The 11 other experimental arms and control cohorts (n = 947) were used as validation sets to assess the performance of TES. We compared TES to Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Mann-Whitney, and Fisher's exact tests to identify trial arms with higher cytotoxic efficacy and assessed associations with trial arm level survival differences. Significance was assessed with a permutation test.
Results:
In the validation set, TES identified arms with a higher pCR rate but was more accurate to identify regimens as less effective if treatment did not reduce the frequency of high RCB values, even if the pCR rate improved. The correlation between TES and survival was higher than the correlation between the pCR rate difference and survival.
Conclusions:
TES quantifies the difference between the entire distribution of pathologic responses observed in trial arms and could serve as a better early surrogate to predict trial arm level survival differences than pCR rate difference alone.
More Related Videos
04:09Predicting Treatment Response to Image-Guided Therapies Using Machine Learning: An Example for Trans-Arterial Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Published on: October 10, 2018
06:46Competing-Risk Nomogram for Predicting Cancer-Specific Survival in Multiple Primary Colorectal Cancer Patients after Surgery
Published on: September 27, 2024
Related Concept Videos
Cancer Survival Analysis
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Treatment Resistant Cancers
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial...