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.

How quickly should we titrate antihypertensive medication? Systematic review modelling blood pressure response from trial data.

Context There are no evidence syntheses available to guide clinicians on when to titrate antihypertensive medication after initiation. Objective To model the blood pressure (BP) response after initiating antihypertensive medication. Data sources electronic databases including Medline, Embase, Cochrane Register and reference lists up to December 2009. Study selection Trials that initiated antihypertensive medication as single therapy in hypertensive patients who were either drug naive or had a placebo washout from previous drugs. Data extraction Office BP measurements at a minimum of two weekly intervals for a minimum of 4 weeks. An asymptotic approach model of BP response was assumed and non-linear mixed effects modelling used to calculate model parameters. Results and conclusions Eighteen trials that recruited 4168 patients met inclusion criteria. The time to reach 50% of the maximum estimated BP lowering effect was 1 week (systolic 0.91 weeks, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.10; diastolic 0.95, 0.75 to 1.15). Models incorporating drug class as a source of variability did not improve fit of the data. Incorporating the presence of a titration schedule improved model fit for both systolic and diastolic pressure. Titration increased both the predicted maximum effect and the time taken to reach 50% of the maximum (systolic 1.2 vs 0.7 weeks; diastolic 1.4 vs 0.7 weeks). Conclusions Estimates of the maximum efficacy of antihypertensive agents can be made early after starting therapy. This knowledge will guide clinicians in deciding when a newly started antihypertensive agent is likely to be effective or not at controlling BP.

A randomized crossover study to compare efavirenz and etravirine treatment.

BACKGROUND: Efavirenz (EFV) causes neuropsychiatric side-effects and an unfavourable blood lipid profile. We investigated the effect of replacing EFV with etravirine (ETR) on patient preference, sleep, anxiety and lipid levels. METHOD: Study participants did not complain of side-effects, had tolerated EFV for at least 3 months, with less than 50 copies/ml HIV-RNA. After randomization, the ETR-first group started with ETR (400 mg daily) [DOSAGE ERROR CORRECTED] with EFV-placebo and the EFV-first group with EFV with ETR-placebo. After 6 weeks, both groups switched to the alternate regimen. Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors were continued without any change. The primary end point was patient preference for the first or the second regimen, assessed after 12 weeks. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were enrolled with a median CD4 cell count of 589 cells/μl and the duration of previous EFV therapy was 3.9 years. Fifty-five patients completed the study. When asked about treatment preference after 12 weeks, 16 preferred EFV and 22 preferred ETR, whereas 17 did not express a preference (P = NS). Patients who continued EFV during the first phase of the trial preferred EFV (15/21, 71%), whereas patients who started with ETR were more likely to prefer ETR (n = 16/17, 94%). This order effect was strongly significant (P < 0.0001). Quality of sleep, depression, anxiety and stress scores did not differ significantly between groups. Median plasma cholesterol levels decreased by 0.7 mmol (29 mg/100 ml) after replacing EFV with ETR (P < 0.002). CONCLUSION: After substitution of EFV by ETR, patients did not express a significant preference for ETR. There was no measurable effect on neuropsychiatric symptoms and sleep. Cholesterol decreased.

MGMT promoter methylation in malignant gliomas: ready for personalized medicine?

The DNA repair enzyme O(6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) antagonizes the genotoxic effects of alkylating agents. MGMT promoter methylation is the key mechanism of MGMT gene silencing and predicts a favorable outcome in patients with glioblastoma who are exposed to alkylating agent chemotherapy. This biomarker is on the verge of entering clinical decision-making and is currently used to stratify or even select glioblastoma patients for clinical trials. In other subtypes of glioma, such as anaplastic gliomas, the relevance of MGMT promoter methylation might extend beyond the prediction of chemosensitivity, and could reflect a distinct molecular profile. Here, we review the most commonly used assays for evaluation of MGMT status, outline the prerequisites for standardized tests, and evaluate reasons for difficulties in reproducibility. We critically discuss the prognostic and predictive value of MGMT silencing, reviewing trials in which patients with different types of glioma were treated with various chemotherapy schedules, either up-front or at recurrence. Standardization of MGMT testing requires comparison of different technologies across laboratories and prospectively validated cut-off values for prognostic or predictive effects. Moreover, future clinical trials will need to determine, for each subtype of glioma, the degree to which MGMT promoter methylation is predictive or prognostic, and whether testing should become routine clinical practice.

Predictive value of the MGMT promoter methylation status in metastatic melanoma patients receiving first-line temozolomide plus bevacizumab in the trial SAKK 50/07.

The O6-methylguanine-DNA-methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status is a predictive parameter for the response of malignant gliomas to alkylating agents such as temozolomide. First clinical trials with temozolomide plus bevacizumab therapy in metastatic melanoma patients are ongoing, although the predictive value of the MGMT promoter methylation status in this setting remains unclear. We assessed MGMT promoter methylation in formalin-fixed, primary tumor tissue of metastatic melanoma patients treated with first-line temozolomide and bevacizumab from the trial SAKK 50/07 by methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction. In addition, the MGMT expression levels were also analyzed by MGMT immunohistochemistry. Eleven of 42 primary melanomas (26%) revealed a methylated MGMT promoter. Promoter methylation was significantly associated with response rates CR + PR versus SD + PD according to RECIST (response evaluation criteria in solid tumors) (p<0.05) with a trend to prolonged median progression-free survival (8.1 versus 3.4 months, p>0.05). Immunohistochemically different protein expression patterns with heterogeneous and homogeneous nuclear MGMT expression were identified. Negative MGMT expression levels were associated with overall disease stabilization CR+PR+SD versus PD (p=0.05). There was only a poor correlation between MGMT methylation and lack of MGMT expression. A significant proportion of melanomas have a methylated MGMT promoter. The MGMT promoter methylation status may be a promising predictive marker for temozolomide therapy in metastatic melanoma patients. Larger sample sizes may help to validate significant differences in survival type endpoints.

Correlation of O6-methylguanine methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation with clinical outcomes in glioblastoma and clinical strategies to modulate MGMT activity.

Resistance to alkylating agents via direct DNA repair by O(6)-methylguanine methyltransferase (MGMT) remains a significant barrier to the successful treatment of patients with malignant glioma. The relative expression of MGMT in the tumor may determine response to alkylating agents, and epigenetic silencing of the MGMT gene by promoter methylation plays an important role in regulating MGMT expression in gliomas. MGMT promoter methylation is correlated with improved progression-free and overall survival in patients treated with alkylating agents. Strategies to overcome MGMT-mediated chemoresistance are being actively investigated. These include treatment with nontoxic pseudosubstrate inhibitors of MGMT, such as O(6)-benzylguanine, or RNA interference-mediated gene silencing of MGMT. However, systemic application of MGMT inhibitors is limited by an increase in hematologic toxicity. Another strategy is to deplete MGMT activity in tumor tissue using a dose-dense temozolomide schedule. These alternative schedules are well tolerated; however, it remains unclear whether they are more effective than the standard dosing regimen or whether they effectively deplete MGMT activity in tumor tissue. Of note, not all patients with glioblastoma having MGMT promoter methylation respond to alkylating agents, and even those who respond will inevitably experience relapse. Herein we review the data supporting MGMT as a major mechanism of chemotherapy resistance in malignant gliomas and describe ongoing studies that are testing resistance-modulating strategies.