A randomised assessment of adding the kinase inhibitor lestaurtinib to 1st-line chemotherapy for FLT3-mutated AML.

The clinical benefit of adding FLT3-directed small molecule therapy to standard first-line treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has not yet been established. As part of the UK AML15 and 17 trials, patients with previously-untreated AML and confirmed FLT3-activating mutations, mostly aged 85% FLT3 inhibition. In conclusion, combining Lestaurtinib with intensive chemotherapy proved feasible in younger patients with newly-diagnosed FLT3-mutated AML but yielded no overall clinical benefit. The improved clinical outcomes seen in patients achieving sustained FLT3 inhibition encourage continued evaluation of FLT3-directed therapy alongside front-line AML treatment. The UK AML15 and AML17 trials are registered at www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN17161961 and www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN55675535 respectively

How to Simplify the Evaluation of Newly Introduced Chemotherapeutic Interventions in Myeloma

When the bortezomib [PS341], adriamycin and dexamethasone (PAD) regimen was first evaluated, the response rate in untreated patients was much superior to that elicited by conventional chemotherapeutic agents. We demonstrated the efficacy of PAD in relapsed or refractory patients by comparing the response rate obtained in 53 patients who received vincristine, adriamycin and dexamethasone (VAD) or equivalent regimen as induction therapy, using a comparative design in which each patient acted as their own control. Whereas 25 patients had a positive response to VAD, 37 patients had a response to PAD ≤ partial remission (PR) (p = 0.023). Using the more stringent response level of very good PR (VGPR) the results favored the PAD regimen very significantly (p = 0.006) (McNemars test). Similar results were seen using paired M-protein levels from individual patient comparisons. As the PAD regimen was subsequently adopted as the re-induction therapy in the British Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation/United Kingdom Myeloma Forum Myeloma X (Intensive) trial, now concluded, we have retrospectively analyzed the findings from both studies. Comparison of response rates and adverse effects of patients having had previous autologous transplantation (Cohort 1) with the corresponding data from Myeloma X showed close correlation. These findings provide evidence that rapid results may be obtained in the evaluation of newly introduced, and potentially highly effective, anti-tumour agents by direct comparison to the response to the immediately preceding standard regimen, particularly in relatively resistant tumours

Criteria for the use of omics-based predictors in clinical trials: Explanation and elaboration

High-throughput 'omics' technologies that generate molecular profiles for biospecimens have been extensively used in preclinical studies to reveal molecular subtypes and elucidate the biological mechanisms of disease, and in retrospective studies on clinical specimens to develop mathematical models to predict clinical endpoints. Nevertheless, the translation of these technologies into clinical tests that are useful for guiding management decisions for patients has been relatively slow. It can be difficult to determine when the body of evidence for an omics-based test is sufficiently comprehensive and reliable to support claims that it is ready for clinical use, or even that it is ready for definitive evaluation in a clinical trial in which it may be used to direct patient therapy. Reasons for this difficulty include the exploratory and retrospective nature of many of these studies, the complexity of these assays and their application to clinical specimens, and the many potential pitfalls inherent in the development of mathematical predictor models from the very high-dimensional data generated by these omics technologies. Here we present a checklist of criteria to consider when evaluating the body of evidence supporting the clinical use of a predictor to guide patient therapy. Included are issues pertaining to specimen and assay requirements, the soundness of the process for developing predictor models, expectations regarding clinical study design and conduct, and attention to regulatory, ethical, and legal issues. The proposed checklist should serve as a useful guide to investigators preparing proposals for studies involving the use of omics-based tests. The US National Cancer Institute plans to refer to these guidelines for review of proposals for studies involving omics tests, and it is hoped that other sponsors will adopt the checklist as well. © 2013 McShane et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd