Three steps toward dose optimization for oncology dose finding.

Background: Traditional dose selection for oncology registration trials typically employs a one- or two-step single maximum tolerated dose (MTD) approach. However, this approach may not be appropriate for molecularly targeted therapy, which tends to have toxicity profiles that are markedly different than cytotoxic agents. The US Food and Drug Administration launched Project Optimus to reform dose optimization in oncology drug development and has recently released a related guidance for industry. Methods: We propose a "three steps toward dose optimization" procedure, in response to these initiatives, and discuss the details in dose-optimization designs and analyses. The first step is dose escalation to identify the MTD or maximum administered dose with an efficient hybrid design, which can offer good overdose control and increases the likelihood of the recommended MTD being close to the true MTD. The second step is the selection of appropriate recommended doses for expansion (RDEs), based on all available data, including emerging safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and other biomarker information. The third step is dose optimization, which uses data from a randomized fractional factorial design with multiple RDEs explored in multiple tumor cohorts during the expansion phase to ensure a feasible dose is selected for registration trials, and that the tumor type most sensitive to the investigative treatment is identified. Conclusion: We believe using this three-step approach can increase the likelihood of selecting an optimal dose for a registration trial that demonstrates a balanced safety profile while retaining much of the efficacy observed at the MTD.

First-in-Human Study of INCB062079, a Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor 4 Inhibitor, in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors.

INTRODUCTION: Fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR)-4/FGF19 pathway dysregulation is implicated in hepatobiliary and other solid tumors. INCB062079, an oral, selective, FGFR4 inhibitor, inhibits growth in FGF19/FGFR4-driven liver cancer models. METHODS: This was a two-part, phase I study (NCT03144661) in previously treated patients with advanced solid tumors. The primary objective was to determine safety, tolerability, and maximum tolerated dose (MTD), while secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics (plasma FGF19; bile acid salts/7α-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one [C4] levels), and preliminary efficacy. In Part 1, patients received INCB062079 starting at 10 mg once daily, with 3 + 3 dose escalation. Part 2 (dose expansion) was not conducted because of study termination. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were treated (hepatobiliary, n = 11; ovarian, n = 9; other, n = 3). Among six patients receiving 15 mg twice daily, two patients had dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs; grade 3 diarrhea, grade 3 transaminitis). Both had high pretreatment C4 concentrations, prompting a protocol amendment requiring pretreatment C4 concentrations < 40.9 ng/mL and concomitant prophylactic bile acid sequestrant treatment. No additional DLTs were reported at 10 and 15 mg twice daily; higher doses were not assessed. The most common toxicity was diarrhea (60.9%). INCB062079 exposure was dose-proportional; FGF19 and bile acid/C4 concentrations increased with exposure. One partial response was achieved (15 mg twice daily; ovarian cancer; FGF/FGFR status unknown; duration of response, 7.5 months); two patients had stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: With C4 cut-off and prophylactic bile acid sequestrant implementation, INCB062079 demonstrated a manageable safety profile and evidence of target inhibition. In view of the rarity of FGF19/FGFR4 alterations and slow patient accrual, the study was terminated before establishing an MTD.

A hybrid design for dose-finding oncology clinical trials.

Identifying the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommending a Phase II dose for an investigational treatment is crucial in cancer drug development. A suboptimal dose often leads to a failed late-stage trial, while an overly toxic dose causes harm to patients. There is a very rich literature on trial designs for dose-finding oncology clinical trials. We propose a novel hybrid design that maximizes the merits and minimizes the limitations of the existing designs. Building on two existing dose-finding designs: a model-assisted design (the modified toxicity probability interval) and a dose-toxicity model-based design, a hybrid design of the modified toxicity probability interval design and a dose-toxicity model such as the logistic regression model is proposed, incorporating optimal properties from these existing approaches. The performance of the hybrid design was tested in a real trial example and through simulation scenarios. The hybrid design controlled the overdosing toxicity well and led to a recommended dose closer to the true MTD due to its ability to calibrate for an intermediate dose. The robust performance of the proposed hybrid design is illustrated through the real trial dataset and simulations. The simulation results demonstrated that the proposed hybrid design can achieve excellent and robust operating characteristics compared to other existing designs and can be an effective model for determining the MTD and recommended Phase II dose in oncology dose-finding trials. For practical feasibility, an R-shiny tool was developed and is freely available to guide clinicians in every step of the dose finding process.

A Phase 1/2 Study of the Oral Janus Kinase 1 Inhibitors INCB052793 and Itacitinib Alone or in Combination With Standard Therapies for Advanced Hematologic Malignancies.

BACKGROUND: The Janus kinase (JAK)/signal transducers and activators of transcription pathway has been implicated in the pathogenesis and progression of various hematologic malignancies. JAK1-regulated cytokines stimulate proliferation and growth of malignant cells and resistance to certain therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase 1/2 study evaluated 2 oral, novel JAK1 inhibitors (INCB052793 and itacitinib) in advanced hematologic malignancies. Phase 1a assessed dose escalation and expansion of INCB052793 monotherapy. Phase 1b evaluated INCB052793 plus standard therapy in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, acute myeloid leukemia (AML), or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Phase 2 evaluated INCB052793 or itacitinib plus azacitidine in DNA methyltransferase inhibitor (DNMTi)-refractory AML or MDS. Primary endpoints included safety and tolerability for phase 1, and objective response rate for phase 2. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were enrolled, all received study treatment and discontinued either treatment or participation in the study. The most common reasons for treatment discontinuation were progressive disease (35.4% and 50.0%) and adverse events (22.9% and 20.0%) for INCB052793 and itacitinib plus azacitidine, respectively. In phase 1, 12 of 39 patients (31%) achieved an objective response; 35 mg once daily was selected as the phase 2 dose. Two patients with DNMTi-refractory disease had an objective response in phase 2. The study was terminated for lack of efficacy. CONCLUSION: Inhibition of JAK1 with INCB052793 (monotherapy or combination therapy) or itacitinib plus azacitidine did not demonstrate clinically meaningful responses in these patients with hematopoietic malignancies.

FIGHT-302: first-line pemigatinib vs gemcitabine plus cisplatin for advanced cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 rearrangements.

FGFR2 rearrangements resulting in dysregulated signaling are drivers of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) tumorigenesis, and occur almost exclusively in intrahepatic CCA. Pemigatinib, a selective, potent, oral inhibitor of FGFR1-3, has demonstrated efficacy and safety in a Phase II study of patients with previously treated locally advanced/metastatic CCA harboring FGFR2 fusions/rearrangements. We describe the study design of FIGHT-302, an open-label, randomized, active-controlled, multicenter, global, Phase III study comparing the efficacy and safety of first-line pemigatinib versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin in patients with advanced CCA with FGFR2 rearrangements (NCT03656536). The primary end point is progression-free survival; secondary end points are objective response rate, overall survival, duration of response, disease control rate, safety and quality of life. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03656536 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

A phase I dose-escalation study of MSC1992371A, an oral inhibitor of aurora and other kinases, in advanced hematologic malignancies.

A phase I dose-escalation study of MSC1992371A, an oral aurora kinase inhibitor, was carried out in patients with hematologic malignancies. Patients received escalating doses either on days 1-3 and 8-10 (n=36) or on days 1-6 (n=39) of a 21-day cycle. The maximum tolerated doses were 37 and 28 mg/m(2)/day, respectively. Dose-limiting toxicities included severe neutropenia with infection and sepsis, mucositis/stomatitis, and diarrhea. Complete responses occurred in 3 patients. Four disease-specific expansion cohorts then received the dose and schedule dictated by the escalation phase but the study was prematurely discontinued due to hematologic and gastrointestinal toxicity at clinically effective doses.