A multicenter, phase 1, Adult Brain Tumor Consortium trial of oral terameprocol for patients with recurrent high-grade glioma (GATOR).

Recurrent high-grade gliomas (rHGGs) have a dismal prognosis, where the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of IV terameprocol (5 days/month), a transcriptional inhibitor of specificity protein 1 (Sp1)-regulated proteins, is 1,700 mg/day with median area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of 31.3 µg∗h/mL. Given potentially increased efficacy with sustained systemic exposure and challenging logistics of daily IV therapy, here we investigate oral terameprocol for rHGGs in a multicenter, phase 1 trial (GATOR). Using a 3 + 3 dose-escalation design, we enroll 20 patients, with median age 60 years (range 31-80), 70% male, and median one relapse (range 1-3). Fasting patients tolerate 1,200 mg/day (n = 3), 2,400 mg/day (n = 6), 3,600 mg/day (n = 3), and 6,000 mg/day (n = 2) oral doses without major toxicities. However, increased dosage does not lead to increased systemic exposure, including in fed state (6,000 mg/day, n = 4), with maximal AUC <5 µg∗h/mL. These findings warrant trials investigating approaches that provide sustained systemic levels of transcription inhibitors to exploit their therapeutic potential. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02575794).

Phase 1b study to assess the safety, tolerability, and clinical activity of pamiparib in combination with temozolomide in patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Pamiparib is a potent, selective, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase 1/2 inhibitor that demonstrates synthetic lethality in cells with breast cancer susceptibility gene mutations or other homologous recombination deficiency. This two-stage phase 1b study (NCT03150810) assessed pamiparib in combination with temozolomide (TMZ) in adult patients with histologically confirmed locally advanced and metastatic solid tumors. METHODS: Oral pamiparib 60 mg was administered twice daily. During the dose-escalation stage, increasing doses of TMZ (40-120 mg once daily pulsed or 20-40 mg once daily continuous) were administered to determine the recommended dose to be administered in the dose-expansion stage. The primary objectives were to determine safety and tolerability, maximum tolerated/administered dose, recommended phase 2 dose and schedule, and antitumor activity of pamiparib in combination with TMZ. Pharmacokinetics of pamiparib and TMZ and biomarkers were also assessed. RESULTS: Across stages, 139 patients were treated (dose escalation, n = 66; dose expansion, n = 73). The maximum tolerated dose of TMZ, which was administered during dose expansion, was 7-day pulsed 60 mg once daily. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were anemia (dose escalation, 56.1%; dose expansion, 63.0%), nausea (dose escalation, 54.5%; dose expansion, 49.3%), and fatigue (dose escalation, 48.5%; dose expansion, 47.9%). In the dose-escalation stage, four patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities (three neutropenia and one neutrophil count decreased). No TEAEs considered to be related to study drug treatment resulted in death. Antitumor activity was modest, indicated by confirmed overall response rate (dose escalation, 13.8%; dose expansion, 11.6%), median progression-free survival (3.7 and 2.8 months), and median overall survival (10.5 and 9.2 months). Administration of combination therapy did not notably impact pamiparib or TMZ pharmacokinetics. CONCLUSIONS: Pamiparib in combination with TMZ had a manageable safety profile. Further investigation of the efficacy of this combination in tumor types with specific DNA damage repair deficiencies is warranted.

Phase 1 dose escalation study of the MDM2 inhibitor milademetan as monotherapy and in combination with azacitidine in patients with myeloid malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Mouse double minute-2 homolog (MDM2) plays a key role in downregulating p53 activity in hematologic malignancies, and its overexpression is associated with poor outcomes. METHODS: This phase 1 study assessed the safety and efficacy of different dosing regimens of the MDM2 inhibitor milademetan as monotherapy and in combination with azacitidine (AZA) in patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients (monotherapy, n = 57; milademetan-AZA combination, n = 17) were treated. The maximum tolerated dose of milademetan was 160 mg once daily given for the first 14-21 days of 28-day cycles as monotherapy and on Days 5-14 in combination with AZA. Dose-limiting toxicities were gastrointestinal, fatigue, or renal/electrolyte abnormalities. Treatment-emergent adverse events related to milademetan occurred in 82.5% and 64.7% of participants in the monotherapy and AZA combination arms, respectively. Two participants (4.2%) in the monotherapy arm achieved complete remission (CR), and 1 (2.1%) achieved CR with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi). Two participants (13.3%) achieved CRi in the combination arm. New TP53 mutations, detected only during milademetan monotherapy, were found pre-existing below standard detection frequency by droplet digital polymerase chain reaction. INTERPRETATION: Milademetan was relatively well tolerated in this population; however, despite signals of activity, clinical efficacy was minimal.

Phase I study of TQB3602, an oral proteasome inhibitor, in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma.

OBJECTIVE: TQB3602 is a novel orally bioavailable proteasome inhibitor. This study is the first-in-human phase I clinical trial to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of TQB3602 in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). METHODS: This is a multicenter phase I clinical trial consisting of the 3+3 dose-escalation phase and dose expansion phase. Patients with MM who have received ≥2 prior antimyeloma therapies were enrolled. TQB3602 is administered at a dose of 0.5~7mg on days 1, 8, 15 in 28-day cycle. RESULTS: Twenty-five RRMM patients who relapsed or failed ≥2 lines of therapies were enrolled in the dose escalation phase. Two patients in the 7.0 mg dose group developed dose-limiting toxicity events (one with grade 2 peripheral neuropathy [PN] complicated by pain and one with diarrhea and abdominal pain), leading to a maximum tolerated dose of 6.0 mg. Any-grade adverse events (AEs) occurred in 24 (96.0%) patients, while grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 13 (52.0%). The most common grade ≥3 AEs was anemia (6, 24.0%). The incidence rate of PN was 16% with no grade ≥3 PN occurred. TQB3602 was rapidly absorbed, resulting in a time-to-plasma peak concentration of 0.8-1.5 h. The mean half-life was approximately 82 h. The AUClast and Cmax were approximately 1.9 times higher on day 15 than on day 1. Among 22 response-evaluable patients, 63.7% achieved stable disease or better. CONCLUSIONS: TQB3602 is well tolerated, with a favorable neurotoxicity profile, and has shown preliminary efficacy in patients with RRMM. The anticipated therapeutic dose was 6 mg and was adopted for an ongoing dose-expansion phase.

Phase Ib dose-escalation trial of taselisib (GDC-0032) in combination with HER2-directed therapies in patients with advanced HER2+ breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: In most patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer, anti-HER2 therapies fail due to the development of acquired resistance, potentially mediated through phosphoinositide-3-kinase (PI3K) signaling. We investigated adding taselisib, an α-selective potent oral inhibitor of PI3K, to different HER2-directed regimens in order to improve disease control. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 68) with advanced HER2+ breast cancer were enrolled to this open-label, dose-escalation phase Ib study. The primary endpoint was defining the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) for the various taselisib-containing combinations. The secondary endpoint was safety. Exploratory endpoints included circulating tumor DNA analysis. The study included four cohorts: (A) taselisib + trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1), (C) taselisib + trastuzumab and pertuzumab (TP), (D) taselisib + TP + paclitaxel, and (E) taselisib + TP + fulvestrant. RESULTS: Following dose escalation, the taselisib MTD was defined as 4 mg once daily. Treatment was associated with significant toxicities, as 34 out of 68 patients experienced grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) attributed to taselisib, the most common all-grade AEs being diarrhea, fatigue, and oral mucositis. At a median follow-up of 43.8 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) for the MTD-treated population in cohorts A, C, and E was 6.3 [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.2-not applicable (NA)] months, 1.7 (95% CI 1.4-NA) months, and 10.6 (95% CI 8.3-NA) months, respectively. The median PFS for patients in cohort A with prior T-DM1 use was 10.4 (95% CI 2.7-NA) months. CONCLUSIONS: PIK3CA targeting with taselisib in combination with HER2-targeted therapies was associated with both promising efficacy and substantial toxicities.

BL-B01D1, a first-in-class EGFR-HER3 bispecific antibody-drug conjugate, in patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumours: a first-in-human, open-label, multicentre, phase 1 study.

BACKGROUND: Antibody-drug conjugates have promising clinical activity in the treatment of solid tumours. BL-B01D1 is a first-in-class EGFR-HER3 bispecific antibody-drug conjugate. We aimed to assess the safety and preliminary antitumour activity of BL-B01D1 in patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumours. METHODS: This first-in-human, open-label, multicentre, dose-escalation and dose-expansion phase 1 trial was conducted in seven hospitals in China, enrolling patients aged 18-75 years (dose escalation; phase 1a) or older than 18 years (dose expansion; phase 1b), with a life expectancy of at least 3 months, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and histologically or cytologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic solid tumours that had progressed on current standard treatment. In the phase 1a i3+3 design, patients received intravenous BL-B01D1 at three different schedules: 0·27 mg/kg, 1·5 mg/kg, and 3·0 mg/kg weekly; 2·5 mg/kg, 3·0 mg/kg, and 3·5 mg/kg on days 1 and 8 of each cycle every 3 weeks; or 5·0 mg/kg and 6·0 mg/kg on day 1 of each cycle every 3 weeks. The primary objectives of phase 1a were to identify the safety, maximum tolerated dose, and dose-limiting toxicity. In phase 1b, patients were treated in two schedules: 2·5 and 3·0 mg/kg on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks, or 4·5, 5·0, and 6·0 mg/kg on day 1 every 3 weeks. The primary objectives of phase 1b were to assess the safety and recommended phase 2 dose of BL-B01D1, and objective response rate was a key secondary endpoint. Safety was analysed in all patients with safety records who received at least one dose of BL-B01D1. Antitumour activity was assessed in the activity analysis set which included all patients who received at least one dose of BL-B01D1 every 3 weeks. This trial is registered with China Drug Trials, CTR20212923, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05194982, and recruitment is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2021, and March 13, 2023, 195 patients (133 [65%] men and 62 [32%] women; 25 in phase 1a and 170 in phase 1b) were consecutively enrolled, including 113 with non-small-cell lung cancer, 42 with nasopharyngeal carcinomas, 13 with small-cell lung cancer, 25 with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, one with thymic squamous cell carcinoma, and one with submandibular lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma. In phase 1a, four dose-limiting toxicities were observed (two at 3·0 mg/kg weekly and two at 3·5 mg/kg on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks; all were febrile neutropenia), thus the maximum tolerated dose was reached at 3·0 mg/kg on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks and 6·0 mg/kg on day 1 every 3 weeks. Grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events occurred in 139 (71%) of 195 patients; the most common of which were neutropenia (91 [47%]), anaemia (76 [39%]), leukopenia (76 [39%]), and thrombocytopenia (63 [32%]). 52 (27%) patients had a dose reduction and five (3%) patients discontinued treatment due to treatment-related adverse events. One patient was reported as having interstitial lung disease. Treatment-related deaths occurred in three (2%) patients (one due to pneumonia, one due to septic shock, and one due to myelosuppression). In 174 patients evaluated for activity, median follow-up was 6·9 months (IQR 4·5-8·9) and 60 (34%; 95% CI 27-42) patients had an objective response. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that BL-B01D1 has preliminary antitumour activity in extensively and heavily treated advanced solid tumours with an acceptable safety profile. Based on the safety and antitumour activity data from both phase 1a and 1b, 2·5 mg/kg on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks was selected as the recommended phase 2 dose in Chinese patients. FUNDING: Sichuan Baili Pharmaceutical. TRANSLATION: For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Ramucirumab in combination with pembrolizumab for recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a single-centre, phase 1/2 trial.

BACKGROUND: VEGF, a key mediator of angiogenesis and resistance to immunotherapy, is overexpressed in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). We aimed to determine the recommended phase 2 dose of ramucirumab, a selective VEGFR2 inhibitor, given with pembrolizumab and the objective response rate of this combination as first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. METHODS: In this single-centre, phase 1/2 trial, which was done at Washington University (St Louis, MO, USA), eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with incurable recurrent or metastatic HNSCC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients in phase 2 were required to have had no previous systemic therapy for recurrent or metastatic disease. In a dose de-escalation phase 1 design, patients received ramucirumab (starting dose 10 mg/kg given intravenously) and pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously) on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. The recommended phase 2 dose of ramucirumab was defined as the highest dose at which one or fewer of three patients had dose-limiting toxicity during cycle one (primary endpoint of phase 1). In a Simon's two-stage phase 2 design, patients received the recommended phase 2 dose of ramucirumab and pembrolizumab. Tumour response (primary endpoint of phase 2) was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1). We hypothesised that there would be an objective response rate of 32% or higher (null ≤13%). Eight or more responses among 33 evaluable patients (those with at least one response assessment) was evidence for activity (80% power; one-sided α=0·05). Analyses were done per protocol. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03650764, and is closed to enrolment. FINDINGS: Between June 18, 2019, and Feb 11, 2021, three patients enrolled and were treated in phase 1 and 37 patients in phase 2. Median age of all patients was 64 years (IQR 59-72). 36 (90%) of 40 patients were men and four (10%) were women, and 36 (90%) patients were White, three (8%) were Black or African American, and one (3%) was Asian. In phase 1, no dose-limiting toxicity event occurred. The recommended phase 2 dose of ramucirumab was 10 mg/kg. Median follow-up for patients on phase 2 was 14·8 months (IQR 4·9-31·0). In phase 2, 18 (55%; 95% CI 38-70) of 33 evaluable patients had an objective response, including confirmed complete response in 11 patients, confirmed partial response in six patients, and unconfirmed partial response in one patient. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were dysphagia (14 [38%] of 37 patients), lung infection (11 [30%]), lymphocyte count decrease (ten [27%]), hypophosphataemia (nine [24%]), and hypertension (eight [22%]). No treatment-related deaths were recorded. INTERPRETATION: Ramucirumab and pembrolizumab were safe to administer to patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC, and the objective response rate with this combination as first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic HNSCC was favourable. Further studies of ramucirumab and pembrolizumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC are warranted. FUNDING: Lilly and the Joseph Sanchez Foundation.

HER2-targeting antibody drug conjugate FS-1502 in HER2-expressing metastatic breast cancer: a phase 1a/1b trial.

Currently approved HER2-targeting antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) for HER2-positive breast cancer (BC) are associated with safety concerns. In this multicenter, single-arm, dose-escalation (phase 1a) and dose-expansion (phase 1b) phase 1 trial (NCT03944499), patients with HER2-expressing advanced solid tumors received FS-1502 (an anti-HER2 ADC) with a 3 + 3 design in phase 1a; patients with metastatic HER2-positive BC received FS-1502 at the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) in phase 1b. The primary end points were dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and RP2D for phase 1a and objective response rate (ORR) for phase 1b. A total of 150 patients with HER2-expressing solid tumors (n = 5) and BC (n = 145) were enrolled (female, n = 146, 97.3%). One DLT each was reported at 3.0 and 3.5 mg/kg; the MTD was not reached. The RP2D was 2.3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks. Five (3.3%) patients experienced pneumonitis; four (2.7%) had grade 3 reversible ocular events. Of 67 HER2-positive BC patients receiving the RP2D, the best ORR was 53.7% (95% CI, 41.1-66.0%), including PRs confirmed (confirmed ORR, 37.5%) and pending for confirmation. FS-1502 was well tolerated with limited ocular and pulmonary findings and demonstrated promising antitumor activity in HER2-positive BC patients.

A phase I study of TAK-659 and paclitaxel in patients with taxane-refractory advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel resistance limits durability of response in patients with initial clinical benefit. Overexpression of spleen tyrosine kinase (SYK) has been proposed as a possible resistance mechanism. This phase I trial evaluated the safety and preliminary activity of the SYK inhibitor TAK-659 combined with paclitaxel in patients with advanced taxane-refractory solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors and prior progression on taxane-based therapy received intravenous infusion of paclitaxel on days 1, 8, and 15 plus oral TAK-659 daily in 28-day cycles. The dose-escalation phase included six cohorts treated at different dose levels; the dose-expansion phase included patients with ovarian cancer treated at the highest dose level. Toxicity was graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Efficacy was evaluated using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. RESULTS: Our study included 49 patients. Maximum tolerated dose was not reached, but higher rates of adverse events were observed at higher dose levels. There were no treatment-related deaths. The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade were increased aspartate aminotransferase (n = 31; 63%), increased alanine aminotransferase (n = 26; 53%), decreased neutrophil count (n = 26; 53%), and decreased white blood cell count (n = 26; 53%). Most adverse events were either grade 1 or 2. In the 44 patients with evaluable disease, 12 (27%) had stable disease as the best overall response, including three patients with prolonged stable disease, and 4 patients (9%) achieved a partial response. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of paclitaxel and TAK-659 showed preliminary activity possibly overcoming resistance to taxane-based therapy as well as a tolerable safety profile in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity of SAR439459, a TGFß inhibitor, as monotherapy and in combination with cemiplimab in patients with advanced solid tumors: Findings from a phase 1/1b study.

SAR439459 (SAR'459), a "second-generation" human anti-transforming growth factor beta (TGFß) monoclonal antibody, enhances the activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors. In this phase I/Ib study, we evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity of SAR'459 ± cemiplimab (intravenous) in patients with advanced solid tumors. Increasing doses of SAR'459 were administered every 2 or 3 weeks (Q2W, Q3W) alone (Part 1A) or with 3 mg/kg cemiplimab Q2W or 350 mg Q3W (Part 1B). In Part 2A (dose expansion), melanoma patients were randomly (1:1) administered 22.5 or 7.5 mg/kg SAR'459. In Part 2B (dose expansion), 22.5 mg/kg SAR'459 and 350 mg cemiplimab Q3W were administered. The primary end points were maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or maximum administered dose (MAD; Part 1), preliminary antitumor activity (Part 2B), and optimal monotherapy dose (Part 2A). Twenty-eight and 24 patients were treated in Parts 1A and 1B, respectively; MTD was not reached, MAD was 15 (Q2W) and 22.5 mg/kg (Q3W) alone and in combination, respectively. Fourteen and 95 patients, including 14 hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients, were treated in Parts 2A and 2B, respectively. The population PK model yielded satisfactory goodness-of-fit plots and adequately described the observed data by a two-compartment PK model with linear elimination. Objective responses were not observed in Parts 1 and 2A. In Part 2B, objective response rate was 8.4% and 7.1% across tumor types and the HCC cohort, respectively. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse effects were hemorrhagic events (43.5%), keratoacanthoma (6.8%), and skin neoplasms (6.2%). Fatal bleeding occurred in 21.4% HCC patients despite the implementation of mitigation measures. SAR'459 monotherapy and combination with cemiplimab appeared relatively safe and tolerable in limited number of patients in dose escalation. However, the study was discontinued due to the unclear efficacy of SAR'459 and bleeding risk, particularly in HCC patients.

L-RNA aptamer-based CXCL12 inhibition combined with radiotherapy in newly-diagnosed glioblastoma: dose escalation of the phase I/II GLORIA trial.

The chemokine CXCL12 promotes glioblastoma (GBM) recurrence after radiotherapy (RT) by facilitating vasculogenesis. Here we report outcomes of the dose-escalation part of GLORIA (NCT04121455), a phase I/II trial combining RT and the CXCL12-neutralizing aptamer olaptesed pegol (NOX-A12; 200/400/600 mg per week) in patients with incompletely resected, newly-diagnosed GBM lacking MGMT methylation. The primary endpoint was safety, secondary endpoints included maximum tolerable dose (MTD), recommended phase II dose (RP2D), NOX-A12 plasma levels, topography of recurrence, tumor vascularization, neurologic assessment in neuro-oncology (NANO), quality of life (QOL), median progression-free survival (PFS), 6-months PFS and overall survival (OS). Treatment was safe with no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related deaths. The MTD has not been reached and, thus, 600 mg per week of NOX-A12 was established as RP2D for the ongoing expansion part of the trial. With increasing NOX-A12 dose levels, a corresponding increase of NOX-A12 plasma levels was observed. Of ten patients enrolled, nine showed radiographic responses, four reached partial remission. All but one patient (90%) showed at best response reduced perfusion values in terms of relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV). The median PFS was 174 (range 58-260) days, 6-month PFS was 40.0% and the median OS 389 (144-562) days. In a post-hoc exploratory analysis of tumor tissue, higher frequency of CXCL12+ endothelial and glioma cells was significantly associated with longer PFS under NOX-A12. Our data imply safety of NOX-A12 and its efficacy signal warrants further investigation.

Dose-Adjusted EPOCH Plus Inotuzumab Ozogamicin in Adults With Relapsed or Refractory B-Cell ALL: A Phase 1 Dose-Escalation Trial.

Importance: Options for adults with relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia or lymphoma (B-ALL) are limited, and new approaches are needed. Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) has been combined with low-intensity chemotherapy, with modest improvements over historical controls, and dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, and doxorubicin (DA-EPOCH) treatment is safe and active for newly diagnosed ALL. Objective: To assess the safety and clinical activity of DA-EPOCH and InO in adults with relapsed or refractory B-ALL. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-center, single-arm, nonrandomized, phase 1 dose-escalation trial included adults with relapsed or refractory CD22+ B-ALL and was conducted between September 2019 and November 2022. At least 5% blood or marrow blasts or measurable extramedullary disease (EMD) was required for enrollment. Interventions: DA-EPOCH was given on days 1 to 5, while InO was given on day 8 and day 15 of a 28-day cycle. Three dose levels were studied using a bayesian optimal interval design. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the maximum tolerated dose of InO when combined with DA-EPOCH, defined as the highest dose level that produced a rate of dose-limiting toxicity below 33%. Secondary objectives included response rates, survival estimates, and descriptions of toxic effects. Results: A total of 24 participants were screened and enrolled (median age, 46 [range, 28-76] years; 15 [62%] male). The median number of lines of prior therapy was 3 (range, 1-12). Three of 11 participants (27%) treated at the highest dose level (InO, 0.6 mg/m2, on day 8 and day 15) experienced dose-limiting toxicity, making this the maximum tolerated dose. No deaths occurred during the study, and only 1 patient (4%; 95% CI, 0.1%-21%) developed sinusoidal obstructive syndrome after poststudy allograft. The morphologic complete response rate was 84% (95% CI, 60%-97%), 88% (95% CI, 62%-98%) of which was measurable residual disease negative by flow cytometry. Five of 6 participants with EMD experienced treatment response. The overall response rate was 83% (95% CI, 63%-95%). Median overall survival, duration of response, and event-free survival were 17.0 (95% CI, 8.4-not reached), 15.0 (95% CI, 6.7-not reached), and 9.6 (95% CI, 4.5-not reached) months, respectively. Conclusions: In this study, adding InO to DA-EPOCH in adults with relapsed or refractory B-ALL was feasible, with high response rates and sinusoidal obstructive syndrome occurring rarely in a heavily pretreated population. Many patients were able to proceed to poststudy consolidative allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant and/or chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Further investigation of this combination is warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03991884.

Implementing and assessing Bayesian response-adaptive randomisation for backfilling in dose-finding trials.

Traditional approaches in dose-finding trials, such as the continual reassessment method, focus on identifying the maximum tolerated dose. In contemporary early-phase dose-finding trials, especially in oncology with targeted agents or immunotherapy, a more relevant aim is to identify the lowest dose level that maximises efficacy whilst remaining tolerable. Backfilling, defined as the practice of assigning patients to dose levels lower than the current highest tolerated dose, has been proposed to gather additional pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and biomarker data to recommend the most appropriate dose to carry forward for subsequent studies. The first formal framework [5] for backfilling proposed randomising backfill patients with equal probability among those doses below the dose level where the study is currently at. Here, we propose to use Bayesian response-adaptive randomisation to backfill patients. This patient-oriented approach to backfilling aims to allocate more patients to dose levels in the backfill set with higher expected efficacy based on emerging data. The backfill set constitutes of the doses below the dose the dose-finding algorithm is at. At study completion, collective patient data inform the dose-response curve, suggesting an optimal dose level balancing toxicity and efficacy. Our simulation study across diverse clinical trial settings demonstrates that a backfilling strategy using Bayesian response-adaptive randomisation can result in a patient-oriented patient assignment procedure which simultaneously enhances the likelihood of correctly identifying the most appropriate dose level. This contribution offers a methodological framework and practical implementation for patient-oriented backfilling, encompassing design and analysis considerations in early-phase trials.

Design and sample size determination for multiple-dose randomized phase II trials for dose optimization.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has launched Project Optimus to shift dose selection from the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) to the dose that produces the optimal risk-benefit tradeoff. One approach highlighted in the FDA's guidance involves conducting a randomized phase II trial following the completion of a phase I trial, where multiple doses (typically including the MTD and one or two doses lower than the MTD) are compared to identify the optimal dose that maximizes the benefit-risk tradeoff. This article focuses on the design of such a multiple-dose randomized trial, specifically the determination of the sample size. We generalized the standard definitions of type I error and power to accommodate the unique characteristics of dose optimization and derived a decision rule along with an algorithm to determine the optimal sample size. The resulting design is referred to as MERIT (Multiple-dosE RandomIzed Trial design for dose optimization based on toxicity and efficacy). Simulation studies demonstrate that MERIT has desirable operating characteristics, and a sample size between 20 and 40 per dosage arm often offers reasonable power and type I errors to ensure patient safety and benefit. To facilitate the implementation of the MERIT design, we provide software, available at https://www.trialdesign.org.

Comprehensive safety evaluation of a novel multitargeting compound XYY-CP1106: A candidate for Alzheimer's disease.

Multitargeting has become a promising strategy for the development of anti-Alzheimer's disease (AD) drugs, considering the complexity of molecular mechanisms in AD pathology. In most pre-clinical studies, the effectiveness of these multi-targeted anti-AD drugs has been demonstrated but comprehensive safety assessments are lacking. Here, the safety evaluation of a novel multi-targeted candidate in AD (XYY-CP1106), characterized by its dual-property of iron chelation and monoamine oxidase B inhibition, was conducted by multifaceted analysis. Acute toxicity in mice was conducted to investigate the safety of oral administration and the maximum tolerated dose of the agent. In vitro Ames analysis, CHL chromosomal aberration analysis, and bone marrow micronucleus analysis were executed to evaluate the genotoxicity. A teratogenesis investigation in pregnant mice were meticulously performed to evaluate the teratogenesis of XYY-CP1106. Furthermore, a 90-day long-term toxicity analysis in rats was investigated to evaluate the cumulative toxicity after long-term administration. Strikingly, no toxic phenomena were found in all investigations, demonstrating relatively high safety profile of the candidate compound. The securing of safety heightened the translational significance of XYY-CP1106 as a novel multi-targeted anti-AD candidate, supporting the rationality of multitargeting strategy in the designs of smart anti-AD drugs.

Safety and Efficacy of the Combination Lurbinectedin plus Doxorubicin from a Phase 1b Trial in Patients with Advanced/Metastatic Soft-Tissue Sarcoma.

PURPOSE: While cytotoxic chemotherapy is the standard first-line treatment for patients with metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (STS), clinical outcomes remain suboptimal. Our prior study showed lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin is well tolerated with promising clinical activity in STS. We designed this phase 1b trial to optimize dosing as the basis for a randomized trial in leiomyosarcoma and to further explore the safety profile and efficacy signal. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had advanced/metastatic STS and no prior anthracycline/lurbinectedin/trabectedin. Escalation followed a 3 + 3 design with 3-week cycles: lurbinectedin (3.2 mg/m2 day 1) and two doxorubicin levels (DL1, 25 mg/m2 day 1; DL2, 25 mg/m2 days 1 and 8). The primary objectives were to identify the maximum tolerated dose and recommended dose for subsequent randomized trials. RESULTS: Ten patients were enrolled in a 6-month period. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were grade (G) 2 fatigue and nausea, and G2 cytopenias with no febrile neutropenia events. There were two dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) at DL2 [day 8 (G2 alanine aminotransferase [ALT]/aspartate aminotransferase increase, G3 neutropenia)], and one DLT in DL1 (G3 ALT increase). These were reversible and all patients continued the study. DL1 was chosen for further study. At the time of data cutoff, the estimated median progression-free survival is 16.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 6.0-ND]. The objective response rate was 60% (6/10 confirmed partial responses). CONCLUSIONS: In this phase 1b study, the recommended dose is lurbinectedin 3.2 mg/m2 in combination with doxorubicin 25 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. The study combination was well tolerated and demonstrated intriguing clinical activity.

Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of adavosertib in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors: A phase I, open-label study.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to assess the safety, pharmacokinetic profile, and antitumor activity of adavosertib monotherapy in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a single-center, open-label, phase I study with two consecutive cohorts (250 mg and 200 mg cohorts). Patients received adavosertib at 250 mg or 200 mg, orally once daily for 5 days on and 2 days off for Weeks 1 and 2 of a 21-day cycle. RESULTS: Dose-limiting toxicities (Grade 3 febrile neutropenia) occurred in 2/6 patients in the 250 mg cohort. None of the three patients in the 200 mg cohort developed dose-limiting toxicities. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event was nausea (250 mg: 83.3 %; 200 mg: 100.0 %). Median time to peak drug concentration was 4.03 and 2.08 h after the first dose and 2.82 and 1.90 h after multiple dosing in the 250 and 200 mg cohorts, respectively; respective mean terminal elimination half-lives were 7.36 and 7.30 h (first dose) and 10.55 and 8.88 h (multiple dosing). Systemic exposure increased in a slightly more than dose-proportional manner. No RECIST v1.1 response was observed. Disease control rate was 0 % and 33.3 % in the 250 and 200 mg cohorts, respectively. One patient (33.3 %) in the 200 mg cohort showed a best overall response of stable disease at ≥ 8 weeks; the rest showed progressive disease. CONCLUSIONS: Adavosertib 200 mg once daily was well tolerated in this patient population and no safety concerns were raised. Exposure increased in a slightly more than dose-proportional manner and limited antitumor activity was shown. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04462952.

A mathematical model to study low-dose metronomic scheduling for chemotherapy.

Metronomic chemotherapy refers to the frequent administration of chemotherapeutic agents at a lower dose and presents an attractive alternative to conventional chemotherapy with encouraging response rates. However, the schedule of the therapy, including the dosage of the drug, is usually based on empiricism. The confounding effects of tumor-endothelial-immune interactions during metronomic administration of drugs have not yet been explored in detail, resulting in an incomplete assessment of drug dose and frequency evaluations. The present study aimed to gain a mechanistic understanding of different actions of metronomic chemotherapy using a mathematical model. We have established an analytical condition for determining the dosage and frequency of the drug depending on its clearance rate for complete tumor elimination. The model also brings forward the immune-mediated clearance of the tumor during the metronomic administration of the chemotherapeutic agent. The results from the global sensitivity analysis showed an increase in the sensitivity of drug and immune-mediated killing factors toward the tumor population during metronomic scheduling. Our results emphasize metronomic scheduling over the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and define a model-based approach for approximating the optimal schedule of drug administration to eliminate tumors while minimizing harm to the immune cells and the patient's body.

A Phase I Study of KIN-3248, an Irreversible Small-molecule Pan-FGFR Inhibitor, in Patients with Advanced FGFR2/3-driven Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: Despite efficacy of approved FGFR inhibitors, emergence of polyclonal secondary mutations in the FGFR kinase domain leads to acquired resistance. KIN-3248 is a selective, irreversible, orally bioavailable, small-molecule inhibitor of FGFR1-4 that blocks both primary oncogenic and secondary kinase domain resistance FGFR alterations. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A first-in-human, phase I study of KIN-3248 was conducted in patients with advanced solid tumors harboring FGFR2 and/or FGFR3 gene alterations (NCT05242822). The primary objective was determination of MTD/recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Secondary and exploratory objectives included antitumor activity, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and molecular response by circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) clearance. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients received doses ranging from 5 to 50 mg orally daily across six cohorts. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (48.1%), gastric (9.3%), and urothelial (7.4%) were the most common tumors. Tumors harbored FGFR2 (68.5%) or FGFR3 (31.5%) alterations-23 (42.6%) received prior FGFR inhibitors. One dose-limiting toxicity (hypersensitivity) occurred in cohort 1 (5 mg). Treatment-related, adverse events included hyperphosphatemia, diarrhea, and stomatitis. The MTD/RP2D was not established. Exposure was dose proportional and concordant with hyperphosphatemia. Five partial responses were observed; 4 in FGFR inhibitor naïve and 1 in FGFR pretreated patients. Pretreatment ctDNA profiling confirmed FGFR2/3 alterations in 63.3% of cases and clearance at cycle 2 associated with radiographic response. CONCLUSION: The trial was terminated early for commercial considerations; therefore, RP2D was not established. Preliminary clinical data suggest that KIN-3248 is a safe, oral FGFR1-4 inhibitor with favorable pharmacokinetic parameters, though further dose escalation was required to nominate the MTD/RP2D. SIGNIFICANCE: KIN-3248 was a rationally designed, next generation selective FGFR inhibitor, that was effective in interfering with both FGFR wild-type and mutant signaling. Clinical data indicate that KIN-3248 is safe with a signal of antitumor activity. Translational science support the mechanism of action in that serum phosphate was proportional with exposure, paired biopsies suggested phospho-ERK inhibition (a downstream target of FGFR2/3), and ctDNA clearance may act as a RECIST response surrogate.

The 3 + 3 design in dose-finding studies with small sample sizes: Pitfalls and possible remedies.

In the last few years, numerous novel designs have been proposed to improve the efficiency and accuracy of phase I trials to identify the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) or the optimal biological dose (OBD) for noncytotoxic agents. However, the conventional 3+3 approach, known for its and poor performance, continues to be an attractive choice for many trials despite these alternative suggestions. The article seeks to underscore the importance of moving beyond the 3+3 design by highlighting a different key element in trial design: the estimation of sample size and its crucial role in predicting toxicity and determining the MTD. We use simulation studies to compare the performance of the most used phase I approaches: 3+3, Continual Reassessment Method (CRM), Keyboard and Bayesian Optimal Interval (BOIN) designs regarding three key operating characteristics: the percentage of correct selection of the true MTD, the average number of patients allocated per dose level, and the average total sample size. The simulation results consistently show that the 3+3 algorithm underperforms in comparison to model-based and model-assisted designs across all scenarios and metrics. The 3+3 method yields significantly lower (up to three times) probabilities in identifying the correct MTD, often selecting doses one or even two levels below the actual MTD. The 3+3 design allocates significantly fewer patients at the true MTD, assigns higher numbers to lower dose levels, and rarely explores doses above the target dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) rate. The overall performance of the 3+3 method is suboptimal, with a high level of unexplained uncertainty and significant implications for accurately determining the MTD. While the primary focus of the article is to demonstrate the limitations of the 3+3 algorithm, the question remains about the preferred alternative approach. The intention is not to definitively recommend one model-based or model-assisted method over others, as their performance can vary based on parameters and model specifications. However, the presented results indicate that the CRM, Keyboard, and BOIN designs consistently outperform the 3+3 and offer improved efficiency and precision in determining the MTD, which is crucial in early-phase clinical trials.