Explore the vast range of titles available.

To evaluate a new therapy versus a control via a randomized, comparative clinical study or a series of trials, due to heterogeneity of the study patient population, a pre-specified, predictive enrichment procedure may be implemented to identify an \"enrichable\" subpopulation. For patients in this subpopulation, the therapy is expected to have a desirable overall risk-benefit profile. To develop and validate such a \"therapy-diagnostic co-development\" strategy, a three-step procedure may be conducted with three independent data sets from a series of similar studies or a single trial. At the first stage, we create various candidate scoring systems based on the baseline information of the patients via, for example, parametric models using the first data set. Each individual score reflects an anticipated average treatment difference for future patients who share similar baseline profiles. A large score indicates that these patients tend to benefit from the new therapy. At the second step, a potentially promising, enrichable subgroup is identified using the totality of evidence from these scoring systems. At the final stage, we validate such a selection via two-sample inference procedures for assessing the treatment effectiveness statistically and clinically with the third data set, the so-called holdout sample. When the study size is not large, one may combine the first two steps using a \"cross-training-evaluation\" process. Comprehensive numerical studies are conducted to investigate the operational characteristics of the proposed method. The entire enrichment procedure is illustrated with the data from a cardiovascular trial to evaluate a beta-blocker versus a placebo for treating chronic heart failure patients.

Despite newly approved treatments, metastatic melanoma remains a life-threatening condition. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic in patients with stage IIIB or IIIC melanoma in the adjuvant setting. DERMA was a phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial done in 31 countries and 263 centres. Eligible patients were 18 years or older and had histologically proven, completely resected, stage IIIB or IIIC, MAGE-A3-positive cutaneous melanoma with macroscopic lymph node involvement and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0 or 1. Randomisation and treatment allocation at the investigator sites were done centrally via the internet. We randomly assigned patients (2:1) to receive up to 13 intramuscular injections of recombinant MAGE-A3 with AS15 immunostimulant (MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic; 300 μg MAGE-A3 antigen plus 420 μg CpG 7909 reconstituted in AS01B to a total volume of 0·5 mL), or placebo, over a 27-month period: five doses at 3-weekly intervals, followed by eight doses at 12-weekly intervals. The co-primary outcomes were disease-free survival in the overall population and in patients with a potentially predictive gene signature (GS-positive) identified previously and validated here via an adaptive signature design. The final analyses included all patients who had received at least one dose of study treatment; analyses for efficacy were in the as-randomised population and for safety were in the as-treated population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00796445. Between Dec 1, 2008, and Sept 19, 2011, 3914 patients were screened, 1391 randomly assigned, and 1345 started treatment (n=895 for MAGE-A3 and n=450 for placebo). At final analysis (data cutoff May 23, 2013), median follow-up was 28·0 months [IQR 23·3–35·5] in the MAGE-A3 group and 28·1 months [23·7–36·9] in the placebo group. Median disease-free survival was 11·0 months (95% CI 10·0–11·9) in the MAGE-A3 group and 11·2 months (8·6–14·1) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·01, 0·88–1·17, p=0·86). In the GS-positive population, median disease-free survival was 9·9 months (95% CI 5·7–17·6) in the MAGE-A3 group and 11·6 months (5·6–22·3) in the placebo group (HR 1·11, 0·83–1·49, p=0·48). Within the first 31 days of treatment, adverse events of grade 3 or worse were reported by 126 (14%) of 894 patients in the MAGE-A3 group and 56 (12%) of 450 patients in the placebo group, treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse by 36 (4%) patients given MAGE-A3 vs six (1%) patients given placebo, and at least one serious adverse event by 14% of patients in both groups (129 patients given MAGE-A3 and 64 patients given placebo). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or worse were neoplasms (33 [4%] patients in the MAGE-A3 group vs 17 [4%] patients in the placebo group), general disorders and administration site conditions (25 [3%] for MAGE-A3 vs four [<1%] for placebo) and infections and infestations (17 [2%] for MAGE-A3 vs seven [2%] for placebo). No deaths were related to treatment. An antigen-specific immunotherapeutic alone was not efficacious in this clinical setting. Based on these findings, development of the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic for use in melanoma has been stopped. GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA.