Outcome of Azacitidine Therapy in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Is not Improved by Concurrent Vorinostat Therapy but Is Predicted by a Diagnostic Molecular Signature.

Purpose: Azacitidine (AZA) is a novel therapeutic option in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), but its rational utilization is compromised by the fact that neither the determinants of clinical response nor its mechanism of action are defined. Co-administration of histone deacetylase inhibitors, such as vorinostat (VOR), is reported to improve the clinical activity of AZA, but this has not been prospectively studied in patients with AML.Experimental Design: We compared outcomes in 259 adults with AML (n = 217) and MDS (n = 42) randomized to receive either AZA monotherapy (75 mg/m2 × 7 days every 28 days) or AZA combined with VOR 300 mg twice a day on days 3 to 9 orally. Next-generation sequencing was performed in 250 patients on 41 genes commonly mutated in AML. Serial immunophenotyping of progenitor cells was performed in 47 patients.Results: Co-administration of VOR did not increase the overall response rate (P = 0.84) or overall survival (OS; P = 0.32). Specifically, no benefit was identified in either de novo or relapsed AML. Mutations in the genes CDKN2A (P = 0.0001), IDH1 (P = 0.004), and TP53 (P = 0.003) were associated with reduced OS. Lymphoid multipotential progenitor populations were greatly expanded at diagnosis and although reduced in size in responding patients remained detectable throughout treatment.Conclusions: This study demonstrates no benefit of concurrent administration of VOR with AZA but identifies a mutational signature predictive of outcome after AZA-based therapy. The correlation between heterozygous loss of function CDKN2A mutations and decreased OS implicates induction of cell-cycle arrest as a mechanism by which AZA exerts its clinical activity. Clin Cancer Res; 23(21); 6430-40. ©2017 AACR.

What Difference Does Patient and Public Involvement Make and What Are Its Pathways to Impact? Qualitative Study of Patients and Researchers from a Cohort of Randomised Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is advocated in clinical trials yet evidence on how to optimise its impact is limited. We explored researchers' and PPI contributors' accounts of the impact of PPI within trials and factors likely to influence its impact. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers and PPI contributors accessed through a cohort of randomised clinical trials. Analysis of transcripts of audio-recorded interviews was informed by the principles of the constant comparative method, elements of content analysis and informant triangulation. RESULTS: We interviewed 21 chief investigators, 10 trial managers and 17 PPI contributors from 28 trials. The accounts of informants within the same trials were largely in agreement. Over half the informants indicted PPI had made a difference within a trial, through contributions that influenced either an aspect of a trial, or how researchers thought about a trial. According to informants, the opportunity for PPI to make a difference was influenced by two main factors: whether chief investigators had goals and plans for PPI and the quality of the relationship between the research team and the PPI contributors. Early involvement of PPI contributors and including them in responsive (e.g. advisory groups) and managerial (e.g. trial management groups) roles were more likely to achieve impact compared to late involvement and oversight roles (e.g. trial steering committees). CONCLUSION: Those seeking to enhance PPI in trials should develop goals for PPI at an early stage that fits the needs of the trial, plan PPI implementation in accordance with these goals, invest in developing good relationships between PPI contributors and researchers, and favour responsive and managerial roles for contributors in preference to oversight-only roles. These features could be used by research funders in judging PPI in trial grant applications and to inform policies to optimise PPI within trials.

A little more conversation please? Qualitative study of researchers' and patients' interview accounts of training for patient and public involvement in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Training in patient and public involvement (PPI) is recommended, yet little is known about what training is needed. We explored researchers' and PPI contributors' accounts of PPI activity and training to inform the design of PPI training for both parties. METHODS: We used semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers (chief investigators and trial managers) and PPI contributors, accessed through a cohort of clinical trials, which had been funded between 2006 and 2010. An analysis of transcripts of audio-recorded interviews drew on the constant comparative method. RESULTS: We interviewed 31 researchers and 17 PPI contributors from 28 trials. Most researchers could see some value in PPI training for researchers, although just under half had received such training themselves, and some had concerns about the purpose and evidence base for PPI training. PPI contributors were evenly split in their perceptions of whether researchers needed training in PPI. Few PPI contributors had themselves received training for their roles. Many informants across all groups felt that training PPI contributors was unnecessary because they already possessed the skills needed. Informants were also concerned that training would professionalise PPI contributors, limiting their ability to provide an authentic patient perspective. However, informants welcomed informal induction 'conversations' to help contributors understand their roles and support them in voicing their opinions. Informants believed that PPI contributors should be confident, motivated, intelligent, focussed on helping others and have relevant experience. Researchers looked for these qualities when selecting contributors, and spoke of how finding 'the right' contributor was more important than accessing 'the right' training. CONCLUSIONS: While informants were broadly receptive to PPI training for researchers, they expressed considerable reluctance to training PPI contributors. Providers of training will need to address these reservations. Our findings point to the importance of reconsidering how training is conceptualised, designed and promoted and of providing flexible, learning opportunities in ways that flow from researchers' and contributors' needs and preferences. We also identify some areas of training content and the need for further consideration to be given to the selection of PPI contributors and models for implementing PPI to ensure clinical trials benefit from a diversity of patient perspectives.

From plans to actions in patient and public involvement: qualitative study of documented plans and the accounts of researchers and patients sampled from a cohort of clinical trials.

UNLABELLED: : Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is increasingly required, although evidence to inform its implementation is limited. OBJECTIVE: Inform the evidence base by describing how plans for PPI were implemented within clinical trials and identifying the challenges and lessons learnt by research teams. METHODS: We compared PPI plans extracted from clinical trial grant applications (funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme between 2006 and 2010) with researchers' and PPI contributors' interview accounts of PPI implementation. Analysis of PPI plans and transcribed qualitative interviews drew on the Framework technique. RESULTS: Of 28 trials, 25 documented plans for PPI in funding applications and half described implementing PPI before applying for funding. Plans varied from minimal to extensive, although almost all anticipated multiple modes of PPI. Interview accounts indicated that PPI plans had been fully implemented in 20/25 trials and even expanded in some. Nevertheless, some researchers described PPI within their trials as tokenistic. Researchers and contributors noted that late or minimal PPI engagement diminished its value. Both groups perceived uncertainty about roles in relation to PPI, and noted contributors' lack of confidence and difficulties attending meetings. PPI contributors experienced problems in interacting with researchers and understanding technical language. Researchers reported difficulties finding 'the right' PPI contributors, and advised caution when involving investigators' current patients. CONCLUSIONS: Engaging PPI contributors early and ensuring ongoing clarity about their activities, roles and goals, is crucial to PPI's success. Funders, reviewers and regulators should recognise the value of preapplication PPI and allocate further resources to it. They should also consider whether PPI plans in grant applications match a trial's distinct needs. Monitoring and reporting PPI before, during and after trials will help the research community to optimise PPI, although the need for ongoing flexibility in implementing PPI should also be recognised.

Patient and public involvement in the early stages of clinical trial development: a systematic cohort investigation.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered particularly likely to benefit from patient and public involvement (PPI). Decisions made by professional researchers at the outset may go on to have a significant impact on the potential for PPI contributions. OBJECTIVE: To increase knowledge of PPI within the early development of RCTs by systematically describing the reported level, nature and acceptability of proposed PPI to the funders. METHODS: Documentation from the outline application process for all RCTs that received funding from the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme 2006-2010 was requested. For each application, data were extracted on trial characteristics, references to PPI in the development of the outline application and funding Board feedback, and plans for PPI in the full application and after the trial was funded. RESULTS: 110 applications were eligible with outline applications available for 90 (82%). The cohort covered a wide range of interventions and conditions. 54% (49/90) provided some information about PPI. 26 (28.9%) indicated PPI within the development of the outline application itself; 32 (35.6%) planned involvement in the full application and 43 (48%) once the trial was funded. Recruitment at diagnosis and surgical interventions were less likely to describe PPI. Blinded trials and trials in which participants may receive placebo only, more frequently described PPI activity. The HTA commissioning Board feedback rarely referred to PPI. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of PPI within the development of the outline application or specification of plans for future involvement was low. Funder requests for applicants to provide information on PPI and justification for its absence should be welcomed but further research is needed to identify the impact of this on its contributions to research. Comments on PPI by reviewers should be directional rather than state that an increase is required. Challenges facing applicants in initiating PPI prior to funding need to be addressed.