@article{GoekbugetKelshChiaetal.2016,
  author    = {G{\"o}kbuget, N. and Kelsh, M. and Chia, V. and Advani, A. and Bassan, R. and Dombret, H. and Doubek, M. and Fielding, A. K. and Giebel, S. and Haddad, V. and Hoelzer, D. and Holland, C. and Ifrah, N. and Katz, A. and Maniar, T. and Martinelli, G. and Morgades, M. and O'Brien, S. and Ribera, J.-M. and Rowe, J. M. and Stein, A. and Topp, M. and Wadleigh, M. and Kantarjian, H.},
  title     = {Blinatumomab vs historical standard therapy of adult relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia},
  series = {Blood Cancer Journal},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {Blood Cancer Journal},
  doi       = {10.1038/bcj.2016.84},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-164495},
  pages     = {e473},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {We compared outcomes from a single-arm study of blinatumomab in adult patients with B-precursor Ph-negative relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R ALL) with a historical data set from Europe and the United States. Estimates of complete remission (CR) and overall survival (OS) were weighted by the frequency distribution of prognostic factors in the blinatumomab trial. Outcomes were also compared between the trial and historical data using propensity score methods. The historical cohort included 694 patients with CR data and 1112 patients with OS data compared with 189 patients with CR and survival data in the blinatumomab trial. The weighted analysis revealed a CR rate of 24\% (95\% CI: 20-27\%) and a median OS of 3.3 months (95\% CI: 2.8-3.6) in the historical cohort compared with a CR/CRh rate of 43\% (95\% CI: 36-50\%) and a median OS of 6.1 months (95\% CI: 4.2-7.5) in the blinatumomab trial. Propensity score analysis estimated increased odds of CR/CRh (OR=2.68, 95\% CI: 1.67-4.31) and improved OS (HR=0.536, 95\% CI: 0.394-0.730) with blinatumomab. The analysis demonstrates the application of different study designs and statistical methods to compare novel therapies for R/R ALL with historical data.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ManchiaAdliAkulaetal.2013,
  author    = {Manchia, Mirko and Adli, Mazda and Akula, Nirmala and Arda, Raffaella and Aubry, Jean-Michel and Backlund, Lena and Banzato, Claudio E. M. and Baune, Bernhard T. and Bellivier, Frank and Bengesser, Susanne and Biernacka, Joanna M. and Brichant-Petitjean, Clara and Bui, Elise and Calkin, Cynthia V. and Cheng, Andrew Tai Ann and Chillotti, Caterina and Cichon, Sven and Clark, Scott and Czerski, Piotr M. and Dantas, Clarissa and Del Zompo, Maria and DePaulo, J. Raymond and Detera-Wadleigh, Sevilla D. and Etain, Bruno and Falkai, Peter and Fris{\´e}n, Louise and Frye, Mark A. and Fullerton, Jan and Gard, S{\´e}bastien and Garnham, Julie and Goes, Fernando S. and Grof, Paul and Gruber, Oliver and Hashimoto, Ryota and Hauser, Joanna and Heilbronner, Urs and Hoban, Rebecca and Hou, Liping and Jamain, St{\´e}phane and Kahn, Jean-Pierre and Kassem, Layla and Kato, Tadafumi and Kelsoe, John R. and Kittel-Schneider, Sarah and Kliwicki, Sebastian and Kuo, Po-Hsiu and Kusumi, Ichiro and Laje, Gonzalo and Lavebratt, Catharina and Leboyer, Marion and Leckband, Susan G. and L{\´o}pez Jaramillo, Carlos A. and Maj, Mario and Malafosse, Alain and Martinsson, Lina and Masui, Takuya and Mitchell, Philip B. and Mondimore, Frank and Monteleone, Palmiero and Nallet, Audrey and Neuner, Maria and Nov{\´a}k, Tom{\´a}s and O'Donovan, Claire and {\"O}sby, Urban and Ozaki, Norio and Perlis, Roy H. and Pfennig, Andrea and Potash, James B. and Reich-Erkelenz, Daniela and Reif, Andreas and Reininghaus, Eva and Richardson, Sara and Rouleau, Guy A. and Rybakowski, Janusz K. and Schalling, Martin and Schofield, Peter R. and Schubert, Oliver K. and Schweizer, Barbara and Seem{\"u}ller, Florian and Grigoroiu-Serbanescu, Maria and Severino, Giovanni and Seymour, Lisa R. and Slaney, Claire and Smoller, Jordan W. and Squassina, Alessio and Stamm, Thomas and Steele, Jo and Stopkova, Pavla and Tighe, Sarah K. and Tortorella, Alfonso and Turecki, Gustavo and Wray, Naomi R. and Wright, Adam and Zandi, Peter P. and Zilles, David and Bauer, Michael and Rietschel, Marcella and McMahon, Francis J. and Schulze, Thomas G. and Alda, Martin},
  title     = {Assessment of Response to Lithium Maintenance Treatment in Bipolar Disorder: A Consortium on Lithium Genetics (ConLiGen) Report},
  series = {PLoS ONE},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {PLoS ONE},
  number    = {6},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0065636},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-130938},
  pages     = {e65636},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {Objective: The assessment of response to lithium maintenance treatment in bipolar disorder (BD) is complicated by variable length of treatment, unpredictable clinical course, and often inconsistent compliance. Prospective and retrospective methods of assessment of lithium response have been proposed in the literature. In this study we report the key phenotypic measures of the "Retrospective Criteria of Long-Term Treatment Response in Research Subjects with Bipolar Disorder" scale currently used in the Consortium on Lithium Genetics (ConLiGen) study. Materials and Methods: Twenty-nine ConLiGen sites took part in a two-stage case-vignette rating procedure to examine inter-rater agreement [Kappa (\(\kappa\))] and reliability [intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC)] of lithium response. Annotated first-round vignettes and rating guidelines were circulated to expert research clinicians for training purposes between the two stages. Further, we analyzed the distributional properties of the treatment response scores available for 1,308 patients using mixture modeling. Results: Substantial and moderate agreement was shown across sites in the first and second sets of vignettes (\(\kappa\) = 0.66 and \(\kappa\) = 0.54, respectively), without significant improvement from training. However, definition of response using the A score as a quantitative trait and selecting cases with B criteria of 4 or less showed an improvement between the two stages (\(ICC_1 = 0.71\) and \(ICC_2 = 0.75\), respectively). Mixture modeling of score distribution indicated three subpopulations (full responders, partial responders, non responders). Conclusions: We identified two definitions of lithium response, one dichotomous and the other continuous, with moderate to substantial inter-rater agreement and reliability. Accurate phenotypic measurement of lithium response is crucial for the ongoing ConLiGen pharmacogenomic study.},
  language  = {en}
}