An integrated approach to the prediction of chemotherapeutic response in patients with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: A major challenge in oncology is the selection of the most effective chemotherapeutic agents for individual patients, while the administration of ineffective chemotherapy increases mortality and decreases quality of life in cancer patients. This emphasizes the need to evaluate every patient's probability of responding to each chemotherapeutic agent and limiting the agents used to those most likely to be effective. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using gene expression data on the NCI-60 and corresponding drug sensitivity, mRNA and microRNA profiles were developed representing sensitivity to individual chemotherapeutic agents. The mRNA signatures were tested in an independent cohort of 133 breast cancer patients treated with the TFAC (paclitaxel, 5-fluorouracil, adriamycin, and cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy regimen. To further dissect the biology of resistance, we applied signatures of oncogenic pathway activation and performed hierarchical clustering. We then used mRNA signatures of chemotherapy sensitivity to identify alternative therapeutics for patients resistant to TFAC. Profiles from mRNA and microRNA expression data represent distinct biologic mechanisms of resistance to common cytotoxic agents. The individual mRNA signatures were validated in an independent dataset of breast tumors (P = 0.002, NPV = 82%). When the accuracy of the signatures was analyzed based on molecular variables, the predictive ability was found to be greater in basal-like than non basal-like patients (P = 0.03 and P = 0.06). Samples from patients with co-activated Myc and E2F represented the cohort with the lowest percentage (8%) of responders. Using mRNA signatures of sensitivity to other cytotoxic agents, we predict that TFAC non-responders are more likely to be sensitive to docetaxel (P = 0.04), representing a viable alternative therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the optimal strategy for chemotherapy sensitivity prediction integrates molecular variables such as ER and HER2 status with corresponding microRNA and mRNA expression profiles. Importantly, we also present evidence to support the concept that analysis of molecular variables can present a rational strategy to identifying alternative therapeutic opportunities.

Returns to R&D on new drug introductions in the 1980s.

This study finds that the mean IRR for 1980-84 U.S. new drug introductions is 11.1%, and the mean NPV is 22 million (1990 dollars). The distribution of returns is highly skewed. The results are robust to plausible changes in the baseline assumptions. Our work is also compared with a 1993 study by the OTA. Despite some important differences in assumptions, both studies imply that returns for the average NCE are within one percentage point of the industry's cost of capital. This is much less than what is typically observed in analyses based on accounting data.

Assessment of Two Diabetes Point-of-Care Analyzers Measuring Hemoglobin A1c in the Peruvian Amazon

Aims: Measurement of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is an important indicator of glucose control over time. Point-of-care (POC) devices allow for rapid and convenient measurement of HbA1c, greatly facilitating diabetes care. We assessed two POC analyzers in the Peruvian Amazon where laboratory-based HbA1c testing is not available.

Methods: Venous blood samples were collected from 203 individuals from six different Amazonian communities with a wide range of HbA1c, 4.4-9.0% (25-75 mmol/mol). The results of the Afinion AS100 and the DCA Vantage POC analyzers were compared to a central laboratory using the Premier Hb9210 high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method. Imprecision was assessed by performing 14 successive tests of a single blood sample.

Results: The correlation coefficient r for POC and HPLC results was 0.92 for the Afinion and 0.93 for the DCA Vantage. The Afinion generated higher HbA1c results than the HPLC (mean difference = +0.56% [+6 mmol/mol]; p < 0.001), as did the DCA Vantage (mean difference = +0.32% [4 mmol/mol]). The bias observed between POC and HPLC did not vary by HbA1c level for the DCA Vantage (p = 0.190), but it did for the Afinion (p < 0.001). Imprecision results were: CV = 1.75% for the Afinion, CV = 4.01% for the DCA Vantage. Sensitivity was 100% for both devices, specificity was 48.3% for the Afinion and 85.1% for the DCA Vantage, positive predictive value (PPV) was 14.4% for the Afinion and 34.9% for the DCA Vantage, and negative predictive value (NPV) for both devices was 100%. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.966 for the Afinion and 0.982 for the DCA Vantage. Agreement between HPLC and POC in classifying diabetes and prediabetes status was slight for the Afinion (Kappa = 0.12) and significantly different (McNemar’s statistic = 89; p < 0.001), and moderate for the DCA Vantage (Kappa = 0.45) and significantly different (McNemar’s statistic = 28; p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Despite significant variation of HbA1c results between the Afinion and DCA Vantage analyzers compared to HPLC, we conclude that both analyzers should be considered in health clinics in the Peruvian Amazon for therapeutic adjustments if healthcare workers are aware of the differences relative to testing in a clinical laboratory. However, imprecision and bias were not low enough to recommend either device for screening purposes, and the local prevalence of anemia and malaria may interfere with diagnostic determinations for a substantial portion of the population.