Considerations on the ASTM Standards 1789-04 and 1422-05 on the Forensic Examination of Ink

The ASTM standards on Writing Ink Identification (ASTM 1789-04) and on Writing Ink Comparison (ASTM 1422-05) are the most up-to-date guidelines that have been published on the forensic analysis of ink. The aim of these documents is to cover most aspects of the forensic analysis of ink evidence, from the analysis of ink samples, the comparison of the analytical profile of these samples (with the aim to differentiate them or not), through to the interpretation of the result of the examination of these samples in a forensic context. Significant evolutions in the technology available to forensic scientists, in the quality assurance requirements brought onto them, and in the understanding of frameworks to interpret forensic evidence have been made in recent years. This article reviews the two standards in the light of these evolutions and proposes some practical improvements in terms of the standardization of the analyses, the comparison of ink samples, and the interpretation of ink examination. Some of these suggestions have already been included in a DHS funded project aimed at creating a digital ink library for the United States Secret Service.

Achievement of at least very good partial response is a simple and robust prognostic factor in patients with multiple myeloma treated with high-dose therapy: long-term analysis of the IFM 99-02 and 99-04 Trials.

PURPOSE: The prognostic impact of complete response (CR) achievement in multiple myeloma (MM) has been shown mostly in the context of autologous stem-cell transplantation. Other levels of response have been defined because, even with high-dose therapy, CR is a relatively rare event. The purpose of this study was to analyze the prognostic impact of very good partial response (VGPR) in patients treated with high-dose therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients were included in the Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome 99-02 and 99-04 trials and treated with vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (VAD) induction therapy followed by double autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT). Best post-ASCT response assessment was available for 802 patients. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 67 months, median event-free survival (EFS) and 5-year EFS were 42 months and 34%, respectively, for 405 patients who achieved at least VGPR after ASCT versus 32 months and 26% in 288 patients who achieved only partial remission (P = .005). Five-year overall survival (OS) was significantly superior in patients achieving at least VGPR (74% v 61% P = .0017). In multivariate analysis, achievement of less than VGPR was an independent factor predicting shorter EFS and OS. Response to VAD had no impact on EFS and OS. The impact of VGPR achievement on EFS and OS was significant in patients with International Staging System stages 2 to 3 and for patients with poor-risk cytogenetics t(4;14) or del(17p). CONCLUSION: In the context of ASCT, achievement of at least VGPR is a simple prognostic factor that has importance in intermediate and high-risk MM and can be informative in more patients than CR.

Superiority of the Triple Combination of Bortezomib-Thalidomide-Dexamethasone Over the Dual Combination of Thalidomide-Dexamethasone in Patients With Multiple Myeloma Progressing or Relapsing After Autologous Transplantation: The MMVAR/IFM 2005-04 Randomized Phase III Trial From the Chronic Leukemia Working Party of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

PURPOSE This prospective multicenter phase III study compared the efficacy and safety of a triple combination (bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone [VTD]) versus a dual combination (thalidomide-dexamethasone [TD]) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) progressing or relapsing after autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT). PATIENTS AND METHODS Overall, 269 patients were randomly assigned to receive bortezomib (1.3 mg/m(2) intravenous bolus) or no bortezomib for 1 year, in combination with thalidomide (200 mg per day orally) and dexamethasone (40 mg orally once a day on 4 days once every 3 weeks). Bortezomib was administered on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 with a 10-day rest period (day 12 to day 21) for eight cycles (6 months), and then on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 with a 20-day rest period (day 23 to day 42) for four cycles (6 months). Results Median time to progression (primary end point) was significantly longer with VTD than TD (19.5 v 13.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.80; P = .001), the complete response plus near-complete response rate was higher (45% v 25%; P = .001), and the median duration of response was longer (17.2 v 13.4 months; P = .03). The 24-month survival rate was in favor of VTD (71% v 65%; P = .093). Grade 3 peripheral neuropathy was more frequent with VTD (29% v 12%; P = .001) as were the rates of grades 3 and 4 infection and thrombocytopenia. CONCLUSION VTD was more effective than TD in the treatment of patients with MM with progressive or relapsing disease post-ASCT but was associated with a higher incidence of grade 3 neurotoxicity.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) with or without hemithoracic radiotherapy: final results of the randomized multicenter phase II trial SAKK17/04.

Aim: We have previously documented the feasibility of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and EPP in a multicenter trial of MPM (Weder, Ann Oncol 18: 1196, 2007). The objectives of the trimodality trial SAKK17/04 (NCT00334594) were to evaluate the time to loco-regional relapse with or without high dose hemithoracic radiotherapy in a prospective multicenter randomized phase II trial in patients with R0 and R1 resection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and EPP. Methods: Eligible patients had pathologically confirmed MPM, surgically resectable TNM stage (T1-3 N0-2 M0), PS0-1, ages 18-70 years. Part 1 had a phase II design, and included neoadjuvant chemotherapy with 3 cycles of cisplatin and pemetrexed, followed by restaging and EPP. The primary endpoint of part 1 was complete macroscopic resection (R0-1). Part 2 randomized consenting patients with R0-1 resection into two parallel phase II arms (control arm A and radiotherapy arm B). The primary endpoint for part 2 was loco-regional relapse-free survival (RFS). To detect a 1 year increase with 80% power and 10% alpha, 37 patients were needed for arm B. Secondary endpoints included operability, tolerability of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, survival, and translational research Results: Because accrual of part 2 was slower than planned, the trial was stopped in 2013. Overall, 153 patients entered the trial, of whom 125 underwent surgery and 99 had a complete macroscopic resection (primary endpoint part 1). Of the later patients, 54 could be randomized 1:1 into each arm. Reasons for non-randomization included patient refusal in 24 and ineligibility or protocol deviations in 21. Of the 27 patients randomized to hemithoracic radiotherapy, 25 completed the treatment as planned. For part 1 the median RFS was 8.8 (95%CI: 7.3-10.7) and median OS was 15.0 (95% CI: 12.1-19.3) months. For part 2 the median local RFS for group A was 7.6 (95%CI: 5.5-10.7) and for group B 9.4 (95%CI: 6.5-11.9) months (primary endpoint part 2), while the overall RFS and OS for group A were 5.7 (95%CI: 3.5-8.8) and 16.9 (95%CI: 10.7-23.6) months and for group B 7.6 (95% CI:5.2-10.6) and 14.9 (95%CI: 7.0-17.6) months. Conclusions: This study did not reach the primary endpoint which was defined as one-year increase in loco-regional relapse-free survival and thus does not support the routine use of hemithoracic RT after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and EPP. Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and extrapleural pneumonectomy of malignant pleural mesothelioma with or without hemithoracic radiotherapy (SAKK 17/04): a randomised, international, multicentre phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative hemithoracic radiotherapy has been used to treat malignant pleural mesothelioma, but it has not been assessed in a randomised trial. We assessed high-dose hemithoracic radiotherapy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and extrapleural pneumonectomy in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. METHODS: We did this phase 2 trial in two parts at 14 hospitals in Switzerland, Belgium, and Germany. We enrolled patients with pathologically confirmed malignant pleural mesothelioma; resectable TNM stages T1-3 N0-2, M0; WHO performance status 0-1; age 18-70 years. In part 1, patients were given three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) and pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1 given every 3 weeks) and extrapleural pneumonectomy; the primary endpoint was complete macroscopic resection (R0-1). In part 2, participants with complete macroscopic resection were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive high-dose radiotherapy or not. The target volume for radiotherapy encompassed the entire hemithorax, the thoracotomy channel, and mediastinal nodal stations if affected by the disease or violated surgically. A boost was given to areas at high risk for locoregional relapse. The allocation was stratified by centre, histology (sarcomatoid vs epithelioid or mixed), mediastinal lymph node involvement (N0-1 vs N2), and T stage (T1-2 vs T3). The primary endpoint of part 1 was the proportion of patients achieving complete macroscopic resection (R0 and R1). The primary endpoint in part 2 was locoregional relapse-free survival, analysed by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00334594. FINDINGS: We enrolled patients between Dec 7, 2005, and Oct 17, 2012. Overall, we analysed 151 patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, of whom 113 (75%) had extrapleural pneumonectomy. Median follow-up was 54·2 months (IQR 32-66). 52 (34%) of 151 patients achieved an objective response. The most common grade 3 or 4 toxic effects were neutropenia (21 [14%] of 151 patients), anaemia (11 [7%]), and nausea or vomiting (eight [5%]). 113 patients had extrapleural pneumonectomy, with complete macroscopic resection achieved in 96 (64%) of 151 patients. We enrolled 54 patients in part 2; 27 in each group. The main reasons for exclusion were patient refusal (n=20) and ineligibility (n=10). 25 of 27 patients completed radiotherapy. Median total radiotherapy dose was 55·9 Gy (IQR 46·8-56·0). Median locoregional relapse-free survival from surgery, was 7·6 months (95% CI 4·5-10·7) in the no radiotherapy group and 9·4 months (6·5-11·9) in the radiotherapy group. The most common grade 3 or higher toxic effects related to radiotherapy were nausea or vomiting (three [11%] of 27 patients), oesophagitis (two [7%]), and pneumonitis (two [7%]). One patient died of pneumonitis. We recorded no toxic effects data for the control group. INTERPRETATION: Our findings do not support the routine use of hemithoracic radiotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and extrapleural pneumonectomy. FUNDING: Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation, Eli Lilly.