Search This Blog

1

Labels

Cancer (150) Breast (38) Study (38) Health (32) Patients (31) Treatment (27) Could (23) Therapy (19) Research (17) Against (12) Blood (11) Disease (11) linked (11) Diabetes (10) Early (10) Prevent (10) Survival (10) Treatments (7) higher (7) surgery (7) Might (6) Prostate (6) Tumors (6) During (5) Effects (5) Growth (5) Chemotherapy (4) Drinking (4) Prevention (4) Obama (3) Obesity (3) Without (3) associated (3) Experts (2) Important (2) Infection (2) About (1) Analysis (1) Causes (1) Eliminate (1) stroke (1)

AD

Showing posts with label trial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trial. Show all posts

Friday, September 13, 2013

First randomized trial of targeted cancer medicine in all tumor types

Sep. 11, 2013 — A further step along the road to the personalisation of cancer medicine, where treatment is based on the individual molecular characteristics of tumours rather than their primary site, will be presented at the 2013 European Cancer Congress (ECC2013), which starts on Friday 27 September in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Dr Christophe Le Tourneau, Head of the Phase I Programme at the Institut Curie, Paris, France, will tell the congress that the SHIVA trial is the first randomised trial to look at patient outcomes after treatments were chosen according to the individual molecular profiles of each person's tumour. It is also the first trial to do this for all tumour types. About 40% of all those taking part in the trial have molecular abnormalities that can be targeted by existing drugs, he will say.

To date, 320 patients from seven comprehensive cancer centres across France have been included in this phase II trial, of whom 60 have been randomised. In the standard arm, the patients received the chemotherapy they would have received if they had not been participating in the trial. All patients had recurrent or metastatic cancer that was unresponsive to standard treatment for their disease.

"Our goal is to have 200 randomised patients," says Dr Le Tourneau. "Although 40% of the 320 patients have a tumour for which targeted drugs are available, some are still on the chemotherapy that was started at the time of the biopsy and therefore we will have to randomise them later. Because we are looking for an effect in different kinds of tumours, we have ruled out the inclusion of any particular type of tumour if this brings the number of randomised patients with this type to over 20% of the total. We have also allowed the inclusion of patients with rare tumours."

Preliminary results of the feasibility study, to be presented at the congress, show that this approach works, the researchers say. The ultimate goal of the phase II trial is to see whether the selection of drugs that target the specific molecular profiles of tumours will improve outcomes for patients.

Once the first 100 patients were included, the researchers looked at the feasibility of a biopsy of a metastasis, since the molecular profile of the primary tumour, if tissue is available, may not be the same as that found in a metastasis. They also investigated the quality of available tumour samples, the proportion of the patients for which the necessary analyses could be undertaken, the proportion for which a molecular abnormality can be identified and for which a targeted therapy exists, and the timeframe needed to establish the tumour profile.

"Recent advances in diagnostics have enabled us to ascertain the molecular profile of tumours in a timeframe which is compatible with good clinical care, but we needed to verify this in our study," says Dr Le Tourneau.

Unlike conventional chemotherapy, molecular targeted agents only work in the presence of their targets. Side-effects are lessened and, in principle, efficacy heightened. One of the problems to date, however, is that such drugs have principally been developed based on the primary location and histology (cellular make-up) of the tumour. This has meant that many potentially promising targeted drugs have failed in early clinical trials simply because they have not induced a response in a sufficient number of patients.

"The history of breast cancer changed beyond recognition with the discovery of the role played by the ErB2/HER2 gene, which is amplified in up to 20% of breast cancers. And we now know that trastuzumab (Herceptin), one of the most widely-used targeted cancer therapies, which targets that gene, is effective in several tumour types and not just in breast when the ERBB2/HER2 gene is amplified or even mutated," says Dr Le Tourneau. "We also know that patient outcomes in the few trials to date where the choice of treatment is based on a molecular abnormality are better than those where the treatment is not matched to the abnormality. What was missing to date is a histology-independent randomised trial comparing molecular targeted treatment with conventional therapy, and this is why I decided to set up the SHIVA trial."

Even today, the researchers say, molecularly targeted therapy for cancer patients is initially prescribed according to the location of the primary tumour. At the end of the trial, analysis of progression-free survival will show whether this practice needs to be changed.

A positive finding would imply the need to make major changes in the way cancer drugs are developed and tested in patients. But this would represent a new and difficult challenge.

"At present we have no data on the efficacy of drugs in patients with the same molecular abnormality but different tumour types, and we also suspect that a treatment effect would not depend on the presence of a single molecular abnormality, but, more likely, on several. However, we believe that it is most likely that, in future, tumour location and histology will no longer be the primary criteria for the prescription of molecularly targeted agents; rather, tumour biology will be the deciding factor," says Dr Le Tourneau. "A positive result from our trial would be an important step forward on the road to personalised medicine."

Professor Cornelis van de Velde, President of ECCO, said: "This ground-breaking randomised trial is very exciting since this is the way to individualise therapy. We have already moved from empirical to stratified treatment, and now we can offer patients personalised treatment based on the understanding of the particular molecular profiles of their tumours in order to select drugs that target a specific profile. The means to determine the individual molecular profiles of tumours will be readily available at low cost in the years to come, and the integration of biopsy-based molecular profiles with individual patient characteristics will enable precision diagnosis to be translated into precision personalised therapies. ECCO will have an important role to play in ensuring the incorporation of molecular biology genetics into clinical multidisciplinary meetings."


View the original article here

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Amgen drug Sensipar fails to meet trial goal

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

(Reuters) - Amgen Inc said on Friday a late-stage trial of its drug Sensipar failed to reduce the risk of death and cardiovascular problems in patients with a complication of kidney disease.

The goal of the study was to show a reduction in the risk of death, heart attack, unstable angina or heart failure in patients with chronic kidney disease who were receiving dialysis.

Although patients taking Sensipar experienced fewer events, the results were not statistically significant and the trial did not meet its goal, Amgen said in a statement.

Sensipar is approved to treat secondary hyperparathyroidism, a condition in which the body produces too much parathyroid hormone, a natural substance needed to control the amount of calcium in the blood. It can be a consequence of kidney failure.

Sensipar has been shown to lower calcium levels in the blood of patients who are on long-term dialysis for kidney disease. Amgen hoped to show it reduced death and heart risks.

Amgen's shares fell 22 cents, or 0.3 percent, to $68.88 in early trading on Nasdaq.

(Reporting By Toni Clarke; editing by M.D. Golan)

Alzheimer's research fraud case set for trial

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

BOSTON (Reuters) - Two Harvard teaching hospitals and a prominent Alzheimer's disease researcher accused of using falsified data to obtain a government research grant are set to stand trial after a federal appeals court said this week that a lower court erred when it dismissed the case.

The lawsuit accuses Marilyn Albert, a former professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), where she was conducting research, of submitting a grant application based on manipulated data.

The data showed results from a trial were scientifically significant when in fact they were not, according to the lawsuit.

Brigham and Women's Hospital, which collaborated on the research, is also a defendant in the case. The lawsuit was brought in 2006 under the False Claims Act, a 150-year-old federal law designed to recover government funds appropriated through fraud.

This is the first time a lawsuit dealing with alleged scientific fraud has been allowed to progress to trial under the False Claims Act, according to Michael Kohn, a lawyer with Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto in Washington, D.C.

Kohn represents the whistle-blower in the case, Kenneth Jones, a former statistician at Massachusetts General Hospital, who filed suit in 2006 claiming the defendants violated the act by including false statements in a $15 million grant application to the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

The case was dismissed in the lower court three days before it was due to go to trial. Barring settlement, a new trial could begin later this year in U.S. District Court in Boston, Kohn said.

If the defendants are found guilty, they could pay as much as $45 million to the U.S. government. By law, whistle-blowers in such cases receive 15 percent to 30 percent of funds recovered.

Albert, who is now director of the Division of Cognitive Neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, declined to comment except to say in an email: "I am confident that there was no misconduct involved."

Both hospitals said they are confident the researchers acted appropriately and according to the highest standards of scientific integrity.

"While it is disappointing that additional time and resources will have to be devoted to defending the institution and its investigators, the MGH remains confident that the resolution of the case will show that the allegations are without merit," Massachusetts General said in a statement.

Brigham and Women's responded with an identical statement.

INFLUENTIAL RESEARCH

Albert's research was part of an ongoing investigation into the structure of the brain as it progresses toward Alzheimer's disease. She specifically hoped to show that it might be possible to predict, years in advance, who might be destined to develop the disease, based on measurements taken over time of certain regions of the brain.

The results of the trial were published in the scientific journal Annals of Neurology in April 2000 and, according to Jones, proved extremely influential.

"The data appeared to confirm what had been suspected by some very prominent scientists, which is that Alzheimer's disease is associated with decreased blood flow to the brain," Jones said in an interview on Thursday. "The MRIs showed the volume of certain parts of the brain was decreasing in the people who were sick."

There are multiple theories about the cause of Alzheimer's disease.

In March 2001, Jones discovered what he believed to be anomalies in the research, specifically in data produced by one of the researchers, Ronald Killiany. The lawsuit alleges that Killiany revised his initial MRI measurements to prove the hypothesis of the trial.

Killiany, now an associate professor at Boston University School of Medicine, did not return a phone call or email seeking comment. Kohn said he was not named as a defendant. In retrospect, Kohn said, "He probably should have been."

Jones took his concerns to Albert, who authorized an investigation into the matter by Killiany's boss, Mark Moss. She declined to appoint an independent investigator, as requested by Jones, according to the lawsuit.

Moss concluded that Killiany's second set of measurements was more accurate than the initial set. Albert accepted Moss's conclusion and proceeded to apply for an NIH grant in November 2001, according to the lawsuit.

The defense argued before the appeals court that it would not have been unusual or inappropriate for Killiany to re-measure patient brain scans as long as he remained blind to the clinical status of the participants, and that this was a matter for scientific debate.

This argument was accepted when the case was initially heard by the lower court in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On that basis, it dismissed the case in October 2010. Kohn said the court ruled that scientific fraud could not be brought under the False Claims Act, since the case related to a scientific dispute, not fraud.

The appeals court, however, rejected the argument, saying, "We disagree that the creation of the data in question was necessarily a matter of scientific judgment."

The court noted that the lower court's determination "misses the point that the various results produced in this case were obtained by one scientist purportedly using the same protocol."

The government's Office of Research Integrity declined to say whether it is investigating the case.

Jones said he hopes the trial will shed light on the issue of scientific misconduct.

"My interest is in correcting the science and bringing this academic cheating to light," he said, "and maybe sending a message saying, 'You're being watched, and you shouldn't do it.'"

The case is: U.S. ex rel. Jones v. Brigham and Women's Hospital, et al, 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No: 10-2301.

(Editing by Michele Gershberg and Douglas Royalty)