THE LANCET Volume 371 • Number 9625 . Pages 1637-1722 . May 17-23, 2008 www.thelancet.com
Editorial
Restoring trust in medical train_ing a~er Modernising Medical Careers S•ep>g• 1&3R
"The search for a safer cigarette is akin to alchemists seeking to turn lead into gold." See Comment page 1644
Articles
Uslekinumab for psoriasis: PHOENIX 1 and 2
Articles
Active symptom control with and without chemotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma Set• page 16BS
Seminar
Head and neck cancer , eq ioue ][,95
Seminar
Prostate cancer Se• p,190 1710
] ·: ·:_' : ;;;/~~ c~t ;:;S~~ ~~;:~~i;j; ~J~ii~11~~-j~ ~y, ~ c:jn r:; J:/ i~;·t ;ssuc m Oe~:L .~;,i~1 i; , ~o,;b;~.-i~suc, b; Elsev,ct' Ud. © 2008 ElsOV1er lld All nr)lls tmtvcd . Elsevier Ud's Nortl1 American agent is Else11cr Inc , II ·· · 160 Park Avcnuc'S01IU1, New York,-NY '10010-17!0, USA. Tel· 212-GJJ,JS00. r-ax: 212,fiJJ.JBSJ. Periodical postage paid at New York NY and a<ld,honal mailmg offices. II 585-880 USPS CON PMIID90S37l :• ··- - ·•·•· POSThf/iSTER:!iind'\i"<lilr~s's'tlclttgelno·i11c'Lfil1f~t;Elsevicl,'Stibsdiption Cusfomer'Semce, 6277 Sea Harbonr Drive, Orlando, FL 32887-4800, USA. \I· ... . Tor Lancet® is a (e'sf;,~;ed traderriork·ofElsevier Propcrli;s S:A., used under license. Printed in USA. .
1\ • . Foun~cd ~B?) •Fublishcd weck(y .
I Comment
better than bortezomib, and so on. However, instead of 3 l'.11!)1111~\011 ~)Y, la 1ul~rc110, IJ1c~1111u1 l'W, IJ1•,oll Alt liJ01\:hul111 M l',1lll'fn•~ ol
~rnv1vi1l 111 0111h1plt• rnyelrn11,l ,1 pop11l,1l1111 i•ba!.l'd !tlu dy ol p,1l11•11l•,
dr,19rnl'>LSI u1 ~werlc11 fro111 lY7i to WIJJ JClm(Juwl 1CJ07, 25: 11J~~-(J~
1:111,1111 A, ~Udfl'~ 11. Al!)ul.1 M, lJJ111l><.•~D11u B /\IL' 11111drn1111crl t11;1I!. {lff'J) lfl
rnuh1plt• myL-lu111i1 adl!'qu,itely J><1wcH•d1 Huc111utolug1rn :.moi'.
continuing this trajectory, researchers are increasingly
introducing new treatment combinations in small •I
phase II trials, thus avoiding direct head-Lo-head 92 (suppl 2): W!i (ah,t r 1•0-1m L)
comparisons of the key treatment options available. Is
melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide or lenalidomide
dexamethasone better than borl ezomib in combin
at ion with melphalan-prednisone? Do new drug
combinations obviate transplantation? Is lenalidomide
dexamethasone bett er than bortezomib-doxorubicin
in a salvage setting?
Current commercial and public interests are not
aligned to answer these quest ions. The answers are
important for patient s but not for tjrug manufacturers,
which are reluctant to sponsor trials because of the
fear that their drug might turn out to be inferior to a
compet itors'. When commercial and public interests
diverge, all too often clinical research produces
meaningless results that serve no one. Here is where
public funding must step in: we should not wait
another 30 years for the convergence of public and
industry interest s to get the answers patients need
now.
~Benjamin Djulbegovic, Ambuj Kumar
Division of Hemato logic Malignancies (BD) and Department of
Health Outcomes and Behavior (AK), Moffitt Cancer Center
and Research Institute , University of South Florida, Tampa,
FL 3361 2, USA
Wr:! declare that we. have no con01ct of interest.
Myeloma Tmhsts Collaborative Group. Combination chemotherapy versus
mclphalan plus prednisone as treatment for mulllple myeloma an
overview of 6,633 p.llients from 27 randomized t11als / C/111 Oneal 1998 ;
16: 3832-42.
D1ulbcgov1c B, /\dams IR. Lyman GH, el al. Evaluation and apprai~al of
randomized controlled trials in myeloma. Ann Oncol 2001; 12: 1-7.
Attal M, 1-t1111M1!)!.l'iJu JL, !>toppt1 AM A p10 !.pet llvt , 1a11dw1uwtl t11alof
,1utol(J(JtJ'.1 borw mauuw tra11'.iplan1c1t11u1 ;11HJ du!11mtl1r:1,1py 111111ult1pl1·
111yelwn., N/119//Med1yy(,.3 3S:Yl-Y7
(, I ,1un1 'I, M,uy J\', f-tuh11 C, t.•1 a!. rn1 IJl'l1aU of tlu.-l11tc1~JrutJ111· I rtttlt uph01wd11
Myelu11u• Mclpl,ala,1 r1ml 111l'd111!>fnu~ plur. tl1i1hdo11udl' vt!1~u~ 111l'lpl1al,111 a1ul
pwdru~u1w i1lu1wu1 1educcd-1r1tem1ty c1utuluuuus. Stl'111 U'II trans.planta11uu
in l'ldcrly pattcml\ wrtli 11111h1pll• myelurn,1 (l~M yy.CJ6). ,11,111du1111s.l'd tr@I
Lu11,er 20Ul, 370: 1209-l ll
7 H11l1n( , V111ur1J, Lell!u Y., et al (o mpar,s.on of 111L.fpl1ala11-111edrns.urn··
1haildon11dt• (MP-T) tu n1clphal;u1-p1t•d111s.um• (M l') 111 patumt~ 7~ yc;11!.of
agcu1 older with 101l 1l!'ate d mult1ph: myelun11 {MM} pwli1111nary 1t"!:iuh1;i of
tht• rando11111ctl, tloubl1·-bl111tl, pl;rlelllJ mn1Jolled IFM 01-01 t 11al. / (1111 U11wl
1007, 25 (supplJ: llOOJ
8 l'alumliuA, liunghc11 :.. Ccua1.11ti11, et ill, for the Italian Muh1ph: Myclomil
Nctworl:, GIMEMA Ural melphala11 and prcdnr,one chemotherapy pluc
1hat1dormch•cumpared w11h rnelphalar1 and prcdni!'iom: alorn: 111 ulderly
pa11cnts w1lh mull,plc mycloma randoou,cd conuolled t11al Lu11LC1 200&.
367: H25-3l
y lJ1mopoulm M. Spenwr I, , Attal M, el al Lenahdom1dc plus dexametha,om·
forrefap1cdorrelr,1clory multiple myeloma N Engl/ Med 2007, 357: 2123-31
JO Orlowsb Ill , Nagler A, Sonnevcld I', cl al. Random1Zed phase Ill study ol
pegylaled hpo,omal doxorubicm plus bonezomib compared with
bortczomil,alone in ,elapsed or refractory multiple myelom.a. comb1nat1on
therapy rmproves ume LO progression,/ (l,n(Jmol 2007. 25: 3892-901
11 Rajl:umar SV, Blood E. Vesole D, Fonseca R, Gre1pp Pl!. Phase Ill clrmcal 111al of
thahdomidt• plus dcxamethasone compared with dcxamcthasonc alone in
newly d,agno~ed multiple myeloma. a cl1mcal 111al coordinated by the Eastern
Coopcrat1ve Oncology Group / ( lrnOncol 2006; 24: 431-36
12 Ra1l:um,11 SV, Jacobus S, Callander N, et al Phase Ill 111al of lenalidom1de plus
h19h,dose dexamelha,one versus lenalrdomide plus low-dose dcxamclhasonc
,n newly diagnosed mulllple myelom.1 (E4A03). a t11al coordmated by the
EastcrnCooper,1t1veOncolo9y Group./Clm Oncol 2007; 25 (suppl): 8025
13 R,chardson PG, Sonneveld P, Schuster MW, et al. Bonezomibor h19h-dosc
dexamelhasone /or relapsed mull1ple myeloma. N Engl/ Med 2005.
352: 2487-98 .
14 Weber DM, Chen C, N1esv1lky R, et al. Lenalrdom,de plus dexamethasone for
relapsed multiple myeloma in Nonh Ame11ca. N Engl/ Med 2007;
357: 2133-42
15 l:umai ii , Djulbegov1c B. Mycloma (multiple). ( Im Evid 2006 ; 15: 1-29
16 Kumar A. Loughran TP. Alsina M. Durro OG, D1ulbegov1c U. Management of
multiple myeloma: a systemati c review and critical appraisal of publ,shed
studies. Lancet Onwl 2003. 4 : 293-30 4.
17 Orlowski RZ, Stmchcombe TE. Mitchell BS, ct al Phase I trial of the
prolea,ome inhibitor PS-341 in patients with refracto ry hemalo log,c
malignancies./ Chn Oncol 2002; 20: 11420-27.
18 llichardson l'G, Oarlogic U, Berenson J, et al. /I phase 2 study of hortew mih 111
relapsed, refractory myeloma. NEnglJ Med 2003; 348: 2609- 17.
Alchemy, the safer cigarette, and Philip Morris
20 years ago Philip Morris, t he manufacturer of Marlboro
cigarettes, noted in its an nu al report to shareholders
that the company accounted for just 7% of worldwide
cigarette sales, but added determinedly that "since
our share of most internationa l cigarette markets is
still far below our US level, we have considerable room
for future growth".' The prophet ic rise in Philip Morris'
market share of current global cigarette sales to 15·6%
has culminated in the March spinoff of Philip Morris
International (PMI}.' This means that PMI, newly
headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland, is now an
entirely separate corporation that is traded on the New
York Stock Exchange, as is Altria, which is the parent
entity of Philip Morris USA (as well as a new cigar
acquisit ion, John Middleton).
PMI is the world's most profitable publicly traded
tobacco company, with operations in 160 count ries.
Yet just 5% of PMl's profits are from Asia and Eastern
www.thelancet.com Vol 371 May 17, 2008
Europe, which account for 60% of international cigarette consumption.1 Now with a headquarters in Switzerland and thus with far less exposure than in the USA to tobacco-product litigation, federal and state regulations, antismoking activism, and strict prohibitions on public smoking, PMI is introducing a host of new cigarette products targeted at these
emerging markets."-1
The spinoff of PMI and its global marketing push would seem to contradict Philip Morris' carefully cultivated image of social responsibility in the USA in recent years, as epitomised by its breaking ranks with the rest of
the industry to support putative regulation of tobacco products by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), by its advertising campaigns touting the company's charitable giving, and by the name-change of its parent
corporation to the altruistically sounding Altria.1·~ Could Philip Morris' makeover have diverted attention from the
move of most of the company's assets to a safe haven? The vestigial entity, Philip Morris USA, remains
America's dominant cigarette-maker by far, with a
50% share of a declining but still highly profitable market.
In Richmond, VA, USA, where it has consolidated all operations, the company has opened a US$350-million research centre that will employ 500 scientists, engineers, and technical staff. Chief executive officer Louis Camilleri
(whose masterminding of the company's expansion into
developing nations propelled him into its top job) has promised that the facility will be "dedicated to enhancing scientific research, developing new technologies and new products that might help address the harm caused by
smoking".'° With this tactic, the company may be count ing on
the public's short memory. Indeed, the gleaming Philip
Morris Center for Research and Technology is the tobacco giant's fourth such incarnation since the 1950s ostensibly aimed at eliminating the risks of smoking.
And Philip Morris' newly professed commitment to public health is reminiscent of the ignominious "Frank statem ent to cigarette smokers", a 1954 advertisement in major newspapers writ ten by the newly formed Tobacco Industry Research Committee (which included Philip Morris) after cigarette sales flattened on the heels of growing evidence that smoking caused lung cancer. "We accept an interest in people's health as a basic responsibility, paramoun t to every other consideration in our business", asserted the Committee, which
1•,ww.thclancot com Vol 371 May 17, 2008
pledged "aid and assistance to the research effort into
all phases of toba cco use and health"." Yet in the ensuing half-century, virtually all reports
of diseases caused by smoking were disputed by the
tobacco industry, which claimed that more research was needed.11 Only in 1999, confronting massive litigation, did Philip Morris acknowledge "the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking
causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and other serious diseases in smokers"." Meanwhile, as millions died from cigarette smoking, research funded by the tobacco industry resulted in a plethora of filters, "low
tar" products, "reduced emission" cigarettes, and "mild", "light", or "ultra-light" brands, none of which has made smoking safer.'',.,~
The hoopla over Philip Morris' new centre (the
company has even advertised for researchers in Science} is synergistic with its backing of the bill to
permit FDA regulation of tobacco products . The imprimatur of the FDA would provide much-needed credibility for research initiated by Philip Morris now that the company has been found by Federal
Judge Gladys Kessler (Aug 17, 2006} to have violated civil racketeer ing laws over a SO-year period by deceiving the public about the dangers of smoking, by manipulating the design of cigarettes, and by
suppressing research.'"
Comment
A Frank Statement To Cigarette Smokers
I
RECENT REPORTS on experiments wilh mice have given wide publicity lo a theory lhnt cignreue smoking is in some wny linked wi1h lung cnnccr in human beings.
Allhough conducted by doctors of professional standing, these cxperimcnls nre nol regarded ns conch.wive in the field ofcnnccr rc!Jcurch. However, we do not bclir;ve resulls nrc inconclueivc, should be disrcgartlcd or lightly dismissed. At lhc same lime, we feel ii is in lhc public inlercsl lo call nllenlion to U1e foci U1nt eminent doctors and research ocienlists hnvc publicly queslioncd the claimed significnncc of lhc,e experiments.
Diatinguishod authorities poinl nut:
Thal medical rcsenrch of recent years inJieatc.,; mnny possible cnuses of lung cnnccr.
Thal there is no agreement nmong lhc uulhorilics regartling whnt lhc cause is.
That there ir. no proof thnl eigorclte smoking io one of the eatLses.
'llinl slutislies purporting lo link eigareltc nmolcing wilh lhe di sense could npply with equal force to nny one ofm11J1y olher nspecls of modern life. Indeed lhe vnlidily oflhe slalislies themselves is quc.,;lioncd by numerous scicntisu.
We ncccpl wt intcrcsl in people's health us n bnsie responsibility, pnrnmount lo every 0U1cr consideration in our business
We believe the products we make nre not injurimm lo hcnlth.
The 19 5'1 advertisement in US nC?wspi1pNs Stt1rl of thr. .1dvert1sc111ent signed by 1'1 tohilcco crnnpi\llU!'> t1n<l lf,1de i1Sson,1tion<i 11
1645
I Comment
Since existing brands will remain essentially
untouched by the FIJA bill, Marlboro, with a 41% US
market share (or more than fivC:' times that of its nearest
competitor), is unlikely to experience a significant
sales decline. Philip Morris will thu s continue to have
deep pockets to promote the chimera that research
will make smoking safer. To this end, the company
is increasing ties to academic medical centres, such
as the University of Virginia, to which it has given
~25 million." The search for a safer cigarette is akin to alchemists
seeking to turn lead into gold. Perpetuat ing the myth to
the medical community and the public at large may also
be worth its weight in gold to Philip_Morris.
Alan Blum University of Alabama Center for the Study orTobacco and Society
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401, USA
ABlum@cch~.ua.edu
I deda1e that I havr no c.onfl1cl of in1ere1:it
Philip Moms Cornpan,es Int 198B ,,nnual repon New Yori:· Philip Moms
lntorporated , 1989 .
ht1p://1wM'.phil1pmorr1sm1erna1,onal.rnm/pm1ntl/pages/en9/defauh asp
(actessed May 12. 2008)
3 Bowe C Ah11a lo split up Philip Moms F111anc1afTime, Aug 29. 2007
http :/ /seaJth.t L.wm/f I Art ,tie ?query Text =Ahr ,a, to, spli t&y• 4&aJe =l rue&,
• l2&,d=070829011128&<t=O&nclid._died :• l (a«essed May 8. 2008)
(J'C ,11ull'II V l'hil11) Mt1111-.. 1e,1du•1, ,1~q1t:i •,1vt• ylub,11 J>U!,,11 W11JI !.IH'L'I J
J,111 /~J. 100 1: /\1 Ill Ip /1011111 K· Yl!.j ,C.UI0/,11 ltdf'/!,lU /(Jl ~{,<H-11 B!,:U .i! ,l !J
1111111 (,nCl•Ss('(I M,,y ~-] IXJ!!J
A1HH1y11um'.. Wl1a1\ ;l111:,tcl for l'MI "Jul1uuu U1:1rnrh~, M1url1 . .JOOB '1~1
( , h11u1a J Marlhuw Mi'l11 puuiel'I!. 1u•w ll•r11101y lolxit.w h11cmulw1iul
lll'1~mhc1. '100/ J4 w1~J
~1NJl•I W,, Blu111 A I IJ/\ 11:11ula1u111 of tulJacu, IC)Hll'VI· Im ti \(' Marlboro
111;;11, I.Ulltl'I /UO(,. 3&U: :16(,. (,!l
H l<t-!iprn1-.ih1llly 111 Al1,1,1 <,,oup. hu /(J(J(, ,11111ual reprnl N1•wVrnl. Ahr111
(Jrnup Im , J007
~ ~ 1111111 I , M;1lrn11• It Al111a 11u,.;111•, tubauti Pl1ilip Mwrn.':. 1dP1111ty U l!.I'..
A111Jf'uhl1t Ht'(JJrh :mo~. 93: ~~3-) l,
HJ <.amilll:11 LC.. '1007 Altria armual mceuny of sll.uehnldt•r!., l il!il l-la11ovl•1, NJ.
April 111, 2(J07 http.l/www.ah11a.to111/mvc:~lLJ1•,/U? _U/ _;m11ual11u,.l'I 111~01!.
h;uehuldt•1>.a1p (atccs,c d M;iy 12, WOil)
11 l obauu lmluslry l(l !~l."ilfCh (rnrn111ttl!1•. /\ frnnl. S1iltl'mt•nt 1<1 c1~ilH ! ll< •
srnol:e" Cl11cug11 Amcrrco11 Jan 4, 1 ~54 7 hllp // le<J•" Y.lilrrary.uu,f l-du/
t1d/hgj76cOO{actcsscd May C. 2008 1
1 :, lolx 1ccu lmlu~try Statemt•11l\ 1111hc IJcpartnll'nl of Justice Lawsuit,
Mmuruy ~1.iff l(Pport, !>r,ccial l1111e.st1gat1tJn!. IJ1v1!i1un, ( omrnru cc: 011
Guvcrnmcnt f<efm m, U~ Hous1• of l<cprescnlallvc!., Sepl 17. 200:?
hltp://repos1to11cs cdlllwry/w111cx1/1c/arl1Clt•/lOlL /1ype/pdl/vieww 111c111
{actesscd May 8. 2008)
13 Philip Mom, USA pos,11011 on srnol:1119 and health ,ssue hu p://phihpmoms
usa.corn/f.'11/I H.:'al1 I 1_1ssul!!. htt p;//phil1pmorr1su~itcom/t?1\Jcms/f '1oduct '.JI
C19aie11es/Heahh_lssucs/detauh.asp,?sJC =top_nav taccessl-d May 12, 2008)
14 Miller GH Tht· "less hazardous· ,,garet lc a deadly dclus,orr NY Staid Med
198~. 85: 313-17. 15 lhcl:en WS "lc!is hazardous .. c19arctlc!:.-fact or '1ct1on7 NV Stal~) Med
1983. 83 : 1269-72
16 /\mended FmalOpm,on. Umted States of Amc11c..1 v. Philip Moms US/,. Int
Sept 8. 2006 . h11p://wv,w.usdoJ.gov/ovil/cases/1obacrn2/
amended, ;20op ,nion.pdf {a[(csscd May 8. 2008) .
17 Milligan J You·ve tom e a long way, baby. Philip Mor11s redefines the
tobacrn rnm pany man anti-smokmg age. V1191111a UusmrnJ April. 2007
y • l y http://www.gatewayva.com/b,z/vi r 91111,1bu!i111es!>/n ,aya zi ne/y, 2007 /
apr07/wverl .shtml (ac,essed May B. 2008)
Trastuzumab: possible publication bias
Publication bias is of increasing concern, entrenching the
use of inferior t reatments.' This concern now extends to
adjuvant trastuzumab (Herceptin) in women with early
breast cancer that is ERBB2 (HER2) positive, because a
key clinical trial' has been only selectively published.3 As
such, patients are being given an important treatme nt
sequence that may be much less effective than currently
thoug ht."-1
Adjuvant trastuzuma b can be given in two main
sequences: concurrent ly with or sequentially after other
chemotherapy.6 Sequential t reat ment is licensed,' ·1 is
standard practice, and is the publicly funded regimen
in many countrie s, such as most of Europe (UK
included). One randomised trial (out of six relevant
trials'•·R), by the North Central Cancer Treatment Group
(NCCTG), trial NCCTG-N9831,' has studied sequentia l
and concurrent treatment s head -to-head, together
with a control or usual-care group . However, although
this three-group study has important implications
for how best to use trastuzumab , it has only been
part ly published. Data from the 985 women given
12-month sequent ial trastuzumab in this study are in
effect missing,••1 despite publication of data from the
12-mont h concurrent and control groups of the same
trial nearly 3 years ago.9
Interim results for all three groups of t he NCCTG trial
were presented orally in 2005 at the American Society
of Clinical Oncology's annual meeting.' After 1·5 years
of median follow-up, sequential trastuzumab gave a
comparatively' small 13% relative reduction in disease
events compared with usual care-with a reasonable
chance of being no bett er than the cont rol group (hazard
ratio 0-87, 95% Cl 0-67-1·13). Conversely, concurrent
trastuzumab was significantly more effective than
sequential therapy, reducing disease events by a third
(0-64, 0-46-0 -91).'
Soon after, Romond and colleagues published the
concurrent and cont rol group results from the I\JCCTG
www.thelamet.com Vol 371 May 17. 2008