ABSTRACT
This phase I trial evaluated two schedules of escalating vorinostat in combination with decitabine every 28 days: (i) sequential or (ii) concurrent. There were three dose-limiting toxicities: grade 3 fatigue and generalized muscle weakness on the sequential schedule (n = 1) and grade 3 fatigue on the concurrent schedule (n = 2). The maximum tolerated dose was not reached on both planned schedules. The overall response rate (ORR) was 23% (three complete response [CR], two CR with incomplete incomplete blood count recovery [CRi], one partial response [PR] and two morphological leukemic free state [MLFS]). The ORR for all and previously untreated patients in the sequential arm was 13% (one CRi; one MLFS) and 0% compared to 30% (three CR; one CRi; one PR; one MLFS) and 36% in the concurrent arm (p = 0.26 for both), respectively. Decitabine plus vorinostat was safe and has clinical activity in patients with previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia. Responses appear higher with the concurrent dose schedule. Cumulative toxicities may limit long-term usage on the current dose/schedules.
Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute/drug therapy , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/adverse effects , Azacitidine/administration & dosage , Azacitidine/analogs & derivatives , Azacitidine/pharmacokinetics , Decitabine , Drug Administration Schedule , Drug Resistance, Neoplasm , Female , Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors/pharmacokinetics , Humans , Hydroxamic Acids/administration & dosage , Hydroxamic Acids/pharmacokinetics , Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute/pathology , Male , Maximum Tolerated Dose , Middle Aged , Recurrence , Remission Induction , Retreatment , Treatment Outcome , VorinostatABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Few interventions have been designed and tested to improve recruitment to clinical trials in oncology. The multiple factors influencing patients' decisions have made the prioritization of specific interventions challenging. The present study was undertaken to identify the independent predictors of a cancer patient's decision to enter a randomized clinical trial. METHODS: A list of factors from the medical literature was augmented with a series of focus groups involving cancer patients, physicians, and clinical research associates (CRAs). A series of questionnaires was developed with items based on these factors and were administered concurrently to 189 cancer patients, their physicians, and CRAs following the patient's decision regarding trial entry. Forward logistic regression modeling was performed using the items significantly correlated (by univariate analysis) with the decision to enter a clinical trial. RESULTS: A number of items were significantly correlated with the patient's decision. In the multivariate logistic regression model, the patient's perception of personal benefit was the most important, with an odds ratio (OR) of 3.08 (P < .05). CRA-related items involving supportive aspects of the decision-making process were also important. These included whether the CRA helped with the decision (OR = 1.71; P < .05), and whether the decision was hard for the patient to make (OR = 0.52; P < .05). CONCLUSION: Strategies that better address the potential benefits of trial entry may result in improved accrual. Interventions or aids that focus on the supportive aspects of the decision-making process while respecting the need for information and patient autonomy may also lead to meaningful improvements in accrual.
Subject(s)
Decision Making , Neoplasms/therapy , Patient Participation , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Focus Groups , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Selection , Physician-Patient Relations , Physicians/psychology , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
High dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) improves outcomes in patients 65 years of age or less with multiple myeloma. Survival and costs in a cohort of 16 patients who received melphalan and prednisone as part of a clinical trial were compared with those of 36 patients referred to our centre for consideration of ASCT. In the transplant group, survival and costs were extrapolated to match the period of observation in the melphalan and prednisone group. Patient-specific and average costs were calculated from the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health. Costs and survival were varied by 50% in the sensitivity analysis. Transplantation improved life expectancy by 19.3 months with a cost difference of 30,517 Canadian dollars. The incremental cost-effectiveness of transplantation compared with melphalan and prednisone was 25,710 Canadian dollars per life-year gained when additional pamidronate and follow-up costs were considered. Discounting costs and survival at 3 and 5% did not result in important differences. The sensitivity analysis resulted in best and worse case scenarios for transplantation compared with melphalan and prednisone of 13,049 dollars and 63,954 dollars per life-year gained respectively. In comparison with melphalan and prednisone, ASCT appears to be cost-effective in patients 65 years old or younger with myeloma.