4.7 Article

Drug response in a genetically engineered mouse model of multiple myeloma is predictive of clinical efficacy

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 120, Issue 2, Pages 376-385

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2012-02-412783

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [AG20686]
  2. National Cancer Institute [CA136671]
  3. Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation
  4. NHMRC
  5. Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation
  6. Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia
  7. Cancer Council Victoria
  8. Victorian Cancer Agency
  9. Leukemia Foundation of Australia
  10. Victorian Breast Cancer Research Consortium
  11. Australian Rotary Health Foundation
  12. Australian Biomedical Fellowship (Peter Doherty) from the NHMRC
  13. Cooperative Research Center for Biomedical Imaging Development
  14. Novartis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The attrition rate for anticancer drugs entering clinical trials is unacceptably high. For multiple myeloma (MM), we postulate that this is because of preclinical models that overemphasize the antiproliferative activity of drugs, and clinical trials performed in refractory end-stage patients. We validate the Vk*MYC transgenic mouse as a faithful model to predict single-agent drug activity in MM with a positive predictive value of 67% (4 of 6) for clinical activity, and a negative predictive value of 86% (6 of 7) for clinical inactivity. We identify 4 novel agents that should be prioritized for evaluation in clinical trials. Transplantation of Vk*MYC tumor cells into congenic mice selected for a more aggressive disease that models end-stage drug-resistant MM and responds only to combinations of drugs with single-agent activity in untreated Vk*MYC MM. We predict that combinations of standard agents, histone deacetylase inhibitors, bromodomain inhibitors, and hypoxia-activated prodrugs will demonstrate efficacy in the treatment of relapsed MM. (Blood. 2012; 120(2): 376-385)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available