BACKGROUNDAfrican‐American patients have been under‐represented in oncology clinical trials. Better understanding barriers to African‐American participation may help increase the accrual of African‐American patients onto clinical trials.METHODSTwo hundred eighteen patients with malignant disease (72 African‐American patients and 146 white patients) were recruited from the Duke Cancer Clinic and from Duke Oncology Outreach Clinics (DOORS). Patients were interviewed using a standardized survey. Questions included patients' knowledge of cancer, religious/spiritual beliefs, satisfaction with medical care, knowledge of clinical trials, reasons for participating or refusing to participate in a clinical trial, financial/transportation issues, and demographic factors, such as age and education. Data on attitudes and belief were analyzed for group differences between African‐American patients and white patients as well as between patients who were treated at the Duke Cancer Clinic and patients who were treated at DOORS clinics.RESULTSWillingness to participate in a clinical trial depended on both race and clinic site. Forty‐five percent of white patients, compared with 31% of African‐American patients, were willing to participate in a clinical trial (P = 0.05). white and African‐American patients who were treated at the Duke Cancer Clinic were more willing to participate in a trial compared with their counterparts who were treated at DOORS clinics (47% vs. 37%, respectively; P = 0.09). The greatest differences between groups (African‐American patients vs. white patients and Duke Cancer Clinic patients vs. DOORS patients) were education and income: Much greater percentages of African‐American patients and DOORS patients did not complete high school and had annual incomes < $15,000. In addition, more African‐American patients than white patients believed that God would determine whether they would be cured or would die from their disease. In a multivariate analysis, education, income, and belief that God would determine the patient's outcome also were correlated with a decreased willingness to participate in clinical trials.CONCLUSIONSFactors associated with religion, education, and income, rather than race, may be major barriers to clinical trial participation. Interventions that target education and income may increase the recruitment of African‐American oncology patients onto clinical trials. Cancer 2003;97:1499–506. © 2003 American Cancer Society.DOI 10.1002/cncr.11213

Proteasome inhibitors bortezomib, carfilzomib and ixazomib (approved by the US Food and Drug Administration [FDA]) induce remissions in patients with multiple myeloma (MM), but most patients eventually become resistant. MM and other hematologic malignancies express ubiquitous constitutive proteasomes and lymphoid tissue–specific immunoproteasomes; immunoproteasome expression is increased in resistant patients. Immunoproteasomes contain 3 distinct pairs of active sites, β5i, β1i, and β2i, which are different from their constitutive β5c, β1c, and β2c counterparts. Bortezomib and carfilzomib block β5c and β5i sites. We report here that pharmacologically relevant concentrations of β5i-specific inhibitor ONX-0914 show cytotoxicity in MM cell lines similar to that of carfilzomib and bortezomib. In addition, increasing immunoproteasome expression by interferon-γ increases sensitivity to ONX-0914 but not to carfilzomib. LU-102, an inhibitor of β2 sites, dramatically sensitizes MM cell lines and primary cells to ONX-0914. ONX-0914 synergizes with all FDA-approved proteasome inhibitors in MM in vitro and in vivo. Thus, immunoproteasome inhibitors, currently in clinical trials for the treatment of autoimmune diseases, should also be considered for the treatment of MM.

We describe a case of rapidly progressive necrotizing cellulitis in an immunocompromised farmer caused by Bacillus cereus, and review 15 additional cases of serious soft tissue infection due to this organism reported in the English language literature. These cases illustrate the potential for B. cereus to cause fulminant soft tissue disease indistinguishable from that caused by clostridia.

While multiple myeloma is an incurable disease for nearly all patients, current chemotherapy and supportive care can result in significant disease control and improved duration of survival and quality of life. With the average age of patients about 70, most of the high-dose curative strategies exclude the bulk of patients affected by the disease. Recent advances in understanding the biology and pathophysiology of myeloma have led to novel therapies aimed at altering drug resistance, improving duration of the plateau phase, interrupting the cytokine growth stimulation, and improving management of common complications including infections, anemia, and bone lesions. These latter approaches are not restricted to younger patients, and early evidence indicates that elderly patients are also likely to benefit.

Background Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is fatal in elderly patients who are unfit for standard induction chemotherapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the survival benefit of administering sapacitabine, an oral nucleoside analogue, in alternating cycles with decitabine, a low‐intensity therapy, to elderly patients with newly diagnosed AML. Methods This randomized, open‐label, phase 3 study (SEAMLESS) was conducted at 87 sites in 11 countries. Patients aged ≥70 years who were not candidates for or chose not to receive standard induction chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to arm A (decitabine in alternating cycles with sapacitabine) received 1‐hour intravenous infusions of decitabine 20 mg/m2 once daily for 5 consecutive days every 8 weeks (first cycle and subsequent odd cycles) and sapacitabine 300 mg twice daily on 3 consecutive days per week for 2 weeks every 8 weeks (second cycle and subsequent even cycles) or to control arm C who received 1‐hour infusions of decitabine 20 mg/m2 once daily for 5 consecutive days every 4 weeks. Prior hypomethylating agent therapy for preexisting myelodysplastic syndromes or myeloproliferative neoplasms was an exclusion criterion. Randomization was stratified by antecedent myelodysplastic syndromes or myeloproliferative neoplasms, white blood cell count (<10 × 109/L and ≥10 × 109/L), and bone marrow blast percentage (≥50% vs <50%). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were the rates of complete remission (CR), CR with incomplete platelet count recovery, partial remission, hematologic improvement, and stable disease along with the corresponding durations, transfusion requirements, number of hospitalized days, and 1‐year survival. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01303796). Results Between October 2011 and December 2014, 482 patients were enrolled and randomized to receive decitabine administered in alternating cycles with sapacitabine (study arm, n = 241) or decitabine monotherapy (control arm, n = 241). The median OS was 5.9 months on the study arm versus 5.7 months on the control arm (P = .8902). The CR rate was 16.6% on the study arm and 10.8% on the control arm (P = .1468). In patients with white blood cell counts <10 × 109/L (n = 321), the median OS was higher on the study arm versus the control arm (8.0 vs 5.8 months; P = .145), as was the CR rate (21.5% vs 8.6%; P = .0017). Conclusions The regimen of decitabine administered in alternating cycles with sapacitabine was active but did not significantly improve OS compared with decitabine monotherapy. Subgroup analyses suggest that patients with baseline white blood cell counts <10 × 109/L might benefit from decitabine alternating with sapacitabine, with an improved CR rate and the convenience of an oral drug. These findings should be prospectively confirmed.