Abstract Background Randomized controlled trials with a survival endpoint are the gold standard for clinical research, but have failed to achieve cures for most advanced malignancies. The high costs of randomized clinical trials slow progress (thereby causing avoidable loss of life) and increase health care costs. Discussion A malignancy may be caused by several different mutations. Therapies effective vs one mutation may be discarded due to lack of statistical significance across the entire population. Conversely, expensive large randomized trials may have sufficient statistical power to demonstrate benefit despite the therapy only working in subgroups. Non-cost-effective therapy is then applied to all patients (including subgroups it cannot help). Randomized trials comparing therapies with different mechanisms of action are misleading since they may conclude the therapies are “equivalent” despite benefitting different subpopulations, or may erroneously conclude that one therapy is superior simply because it targets a larger subpopulation. Furthermore, minor variances in patient selection may determine study outcome, a therapy may be discarded as ineffective despite substantial benefit in one subpopulation if harmful in another, randomized trials may more effectively detect therapies with minor benefit in most patients vs marked benefit in subpopulations, and randomized trials in unselected patients may erroneously conclude that “shot-gun” combinations are superior to single agents when sequential administration of personalized single agents might work better and spare patients treatment with drugs that cannot help them. We must identify predictive biomarkers early by comparing responding to progressing patients in phase I-II trials. Enriching randomized trials for biomarker-positive patients can markedly reduce required patient numbers and costs despite expensive screening for biomarker-positive patients. Available data support approval of new drugs without randomized trials if they yield single-agent sustained responses in patients refractory to standard therapies. Conversely, new approaches are needed to guide development of drug combinations since both standard phase II approaches and phase II-III randomized trials have a high risk of misleading. Summary Traditional randomized clinical trials approaches are often inefficient, wasteful, and unreliable. New clinical research paradigms are needed. The primary outcome of clinical research should be “Who (if anyone) benefits?” rather than “Does the overall group benefit?”

Genomics is a disruptive technology, having revealed that cancers are tremendously complex and differ from patient to patient. Therefore, conventional treatment approaches fit poorly with genomic reality. Furthermore, it is likely that this type of complexity will also be observed in other illnesses. Precision medicine has been posited as a way to better target disease-related aberrations, but developing drugs and tailoring therapy to each patient's complicated problem is a major challenge. One solution would be to match patients to existing compounds based on in silico modeling. However, optimization of complex therapy will eventually require designing compounds for patients using computer modeling and just-in-time production, perhaps achievable in the future by three-dimensional (3D) printing. Indeed, 3D printing is potentially transformative by virtue of its ability to rapidly generate almost limitless numbers of objects that previously required manufacturing facilities. Companies are already endeavoring to develop affordable 3D printers for home use. An attractive, but as yet scantily explored, application is to place chemical design and production under digital control. This could be accomplished by utilizing a 3D printer to initiate chemical reactions, and print the reagents and/or the final compounds directly. Of interest, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently approved a 3D printed drug-levetiracetam-indicated for seizures. Further, it is now increasingly clear that biologic materials-tissues, and eventually organs-can also be "printed." In the near future, it is plausible that high-throughput computing may be deployed to design customized drugs, which will reshape medicine.

We hypothesized that aberrations activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) via dimerization would be more sensitive to anti-dimerization agents (e.g., cetuximab). EGFR exon 19 abnormalities (L747_A750del; deletes amino acids LREA) respond to reversible EGFR kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Exon 20 in-frame insertions and/or duplications (codons 767 to 774) and T790M mutations are clinically resistant to reversible/some irreversible TKIs. Their impact on protein function/therapeutic actionability are not fully elucidated.In our study, the index patient with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbored EGFR D770_P772del_insKG (exon 20). A twenty patient trial (NSCLC cohort) (cetuximab-based regimen) included two participants with EGFR TKI-resistant mutations ((i) exon 20 D770>GY; and (ii) exon 19 LREA plus exon 20 T790M mutations). Structural modeling predicted that EGFR exon 20 anomalies (D770_P772del_insKG and D770>GY), but not T790M mutations, stabilize the active dimer configuration by increasing the interaction between the kinase domains, hence sensitizing to an agent preventing dimerization. Consistent with predictions, the two patients harboring D770_P772del_insKG and D770>GY, respectively, responded to an EGFR antibody (cetuximab)-based regimen; the T790M-bearing patient showed no response to cetuximab combined with erlotinib. In silico modeling merits investigation of its ability to optimize therapeutic selection based on structural/functional implications of different aberrations within the same gene.

Background

In 31 solid tumor patients treated with the demethylating agent decitabine, we performed tumor biopsies before and after the first cycle of decitabine and used immunohistochemistry (IHC) to assess whether decitabine increased expression of various membrane transporters. Resistance to chemotherapy may arise due to promoter methylation/downregulation of expression of transporters required for drug uptake, and decitabine can reverse resistance in vitro. The endocytosis regulator RhoA, the folate carriers FOLR1 and RFC1, and the glucose transporter GLUT4 were assessed.

Results

Pre-decitabine RhoA was higher in patients who had received their last therapy >3 months previously than in patients with more recent prior therapy (P = 0.02), and varied inversely with global DNA methylation as assessed by LINE1 methylation (r = -0.58, P = 0.006). Tumor RhoA scores increased with decitabine (P = 0.03), and RFC1 also increased in patients with pre-decitabine scores ≤150 (P = 0.004). Change in LINE1 methylation with decitabine did not correlate significantly with change in IHC scores for any transporter assessed. We also assessed methylation of the RFC1 gene (alias SLC19A1). SLC19A1 methylation correlated with tumor LINE1 methylation (r = 0.45, P = 0.02). There was a small (statistically insignificant) decrease in SLC19A1 methylation with decitabine, and there was a trend towards change in SLC19A1 methylation with decitabine correlating with change in LINE1 methylation (r = 0.47, P <0.15). While SLC19A1 methylation did not correlate with RFC1 scores, there was a trend towards an inverse correlation between change in SLC19A1 methylation and change in RFC1 expression (r = -0.45, P = 0.19).

Conclusions

In conclusion, after decitabine administration, there was increased expression of some (but not other) transporters that may play a role in chemotherapy uptake. Larger patient numbers will be needed to define the extent to which this increased expression is associated with changes in DNA methylation.

It takes on average 6-12 years to develop new anticancer drugs from discovery to approval. Effective new agents prolong survival. To demonstrate the importance of rapid drug approval, we calculated life-years potentially saved if selected agents were approved more rapidly. As illustrative examples, we used 27 trials documenting improvements in survival. We multiplied improvement in median survival by numbers of patients dying annually and multiplied this by number of years from drug discovery until approval. For every year by which time to drug approval could have been shortened, there would have been a median number of life-years potentially saved of 79,920 worldwide per drug. Median number of life-years lost between time of drug discovery and approval was 1,020,900 per example. If we were able to use available opportunities to decrease the time required to take a drug from discovery to approval to 5 years, the median number of life-years saved per example would have been 523,890 worldwide. Various publications have identified opportunities to speed drug development without sacrificing patient safety. While many investigational drugs prove to be ineffective, some significantly prolong survival and/or reduce suffering. These illustrative examples suggest that a substantial number of life-years could potentially be saved by increasing the efficiency of development of new drugs for advanced malignancies.

Background

Since tumor suppressor gene function may be lost through hypermethylation, we assessed whether the demethylating agent decitabine could increase tumor suppressor gene expression clinically. For fragile histidine triad (FHIT), WW domain-containing oxidoreductase (WWOX), fused in sarcoma-1 (FUS1) and phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN), immunohistochemistry scores from pre- and post-decitabine tumor biopsies (25 patients) were correlated with methylation of the long interspersed nuclear element-1 (LINE-1) repetitive DNA element (as a surrogate for global DNA methylation) and with tumor regression.

Results

With negative staining pre-decitabine (score = 0), the number of patients converting to positive staining post-decitabine was 1 of 1 for FHIT, 3 of 6 for WWOX, 2 of 3 for FUS1 and 1 of 10 for PTEN. In tumors with low pre-decitabine tumor suppressor gene scores (≤150), expression was higher post-treatment in 8 of 8 cases for FHIT (P = 0.014), 7 of 17 for WWOX (P = 0.0547), 7 of 12 for FUS1 (P = 0.0726), and 1 of 16 for PTEN (P = 0.2034). If FHIT, WWOX and FUS1 were considered together, median pre- versus post-decitabine scores were 60 versus 100 (P = 0.0002). Overall, tumor suppressor gene expression change did not correlate with LINE-1 demethylation, although tumors converting from negative to positive had a median decrease in LINE-1 methylation of 24%, compared to 6% in those not converting (P = 0.069). Five of 15 fully evaluable patients had reductions in tumor diameter (range 0.2% to 33.4%). Of these, three had simultaneous increases in three tumor suppressor genes (including the two patients with the greatest tumor regression) compared to 2 of 10 with tumor growth (P = 0.25).

Conclusions

In tumors with low tumor suppressor gene expression, decitabine may be associated with increased expression of the tumor suppressor genes FHIT, FUS1, and WWOX, but not PTEN.

This paper is based on alkyl nitrate measurements made over the North Atlantic as part of the International Consortium for Research on Atmospheric Transport and Transformation (ICARTT). The focus is on the analysis of air samples collected on the UK BAe-146 aircraft during the Intercontinental Transport of Ozone and Precursors (ITOP) project, but air samples collected on board the NASA DC-8 and NOAA WP-3D aircraft as part of a Lagrangian experiment are also used. The ratios between the alkyl nitrates and their parent hydrocarbons are compared with those expected from chemical theory. Further, a box model is run to investigate the temporal evolution of the alkyl. nitrates in three Lagrangian case studies and compared to observations. The air samples collected during ITOP do not appear to be strongly influenced by oceanic sources, but rather are influenced by emissions from the N.E. United States and from Alaskan fires. There also appears to be a widespread common source of ethyl nitrate and 1-propyl nitrate other than from their parent hydrocarbons. The general agreement between the alkyl nitrate data and photochemical theory suggests that during the first few days of transport from the source region, photochemical production of alkyl nitrates, and thus ozone, had taken place. The observations in the more photochemically processed air masses are consistent with the alkyl nitrate production reactions no longer dominating the peroxy radical self/cross reactions. Further, the results also suggest that the rates of photochemical processing in the Alaskan smoke plumes were small. Copyright 2007 by the American Geophysical Union.

Accurate prognostic prediction is challenging for patients with advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We systematically investigated genetic variants within inflammation pathways as potential prognostic markers for advanced-stage NSCLC patients treated with first-line chemotherapy. A discovery phase in 502 patients and an internal validation phase in 335 patients were completed at the MD Anderson Cancer Center. External validation was performed in 371 patients at Harvard University. A missense single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the gene encoding the major histocompatibility complex class II, DO-β chain (HLA-DOB:rs2071554), predicted to influence protein function, was significantly associated with poor survival in the discovery (hazard ratio (HR): 1.46; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-2.09), internal validation (HR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.02-2.25), and external validation (HR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.01-2.29) populations. KLRK1:rs2900420 was associated with reduced risk in the discovery (HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.60-0.96), internal validation (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.61-0.99), and external validation (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.63-1.02) populations. A strong cumulative effect on overall survival was observed for these SNPs. Genetic variations in inflammation-related genes could have potential to complement prediction of prognosis.

Background

Demethylation process is necessary for the expression of various factors involved in chemotherapy cytotoxicity or resistance. Platinum-resistant cells may have reduced expression of the copper/platinum transporter CTR1. We hypothesized that azacitidine and oxaliplatin combination therapy may restore platinum sensitivity. We treated patients with cancer relapsed/refractory to any platinum compounds (3 + 3 study design) with azacitidine (20 to 50 mg/m(2)/day intravenously (IV) over 15 to 30 min, D1 to 5) and oxaliplatin (15 to 30 mg/m(2)/day, IV over 2 h, D2 to 5) (maximum, six cycles). Platinum content, LINE1 methylation (surrogate of global DNA methylation), and CTR1 expression changes (pre- vs. post-treatment) were assessed. Drug pharmacokinetics were analyzed.

Results

Thirty-seven patients were treated. No dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was noted at the maximum dose. The most common adverse events were anemia and fatigue. Two (5.4%) patients had stable disease and completed six cycles of therapy. Oxaliplatin (D2) and azacitidine (D1 and 5) mean systemic exposure based on plasma AUCall showed dose-dependent interaction whereby increasing the dose of oxaliplatin reduced the mean azacitidine exposure and vice versa; however, no significant differences in other non-compartmental modeled parameters were observed. Blood samples showed universal reduction in global DNA methylation. In tumor samples, hypomethylation was only observed in four out of seven patients. No correlation between blood and tumor demethylation was seen. The mean cytoplasmic CTR1 score decreased. The pre-dose tumor oxaliplatin levels ranged from <0.25 to 5.8 μg/g tumor. The platinum concentration increased 3- to 18-fold. No correlation was found between CTR1 score and oxaliplatin level, which was found to have a trend toward correlation with progression-free survival.

Conclusions

Oxaliplatin and azacitidine combination therapy was safe. CTR1 expression was not correlated with methylation status or tissue platinum concentration.