PIVOT-10: Phase II study of bempegaldesleukin plus nivolumab in cisplatin-ineligible advanced urothelial cancer.

The choice of first-line therapy for patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) is based on cisplatin-eligibility and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. For patients with mUC who are ineligible for cisplatin and with low PD-L1 expression, chemotherapy-based regimens are the only approved first-line option. In a Phase I/II trial of the chemotherapy-free regimen, bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG; NKTR-214) plus nivolumab, patients with locally advanced or mUC experienced tumor responses regardless of baseline PD-L1 expression (objective response rates: 50 and 45% in patients with PD-L1-positive and -negative tumors, respectively). The Phase II PIVOT-10 study (NCT03785925), evaluates efficacy and safety of first-line BEMPEG plus nivolumab in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced or mUC. Most patients will have low PD-L1 expression. Primary end point: objective response rates (including complete response).

Erdafitinib in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Alterations in the gene encoding fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) are common in urothelial carcinoma and may be associated with lower sensitivity to immune interventions. Erdafitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of FGFR1-4, has shown antitumor activity in preclinical models and in a phase 1 study involving patients with FGFR alterations. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 2 study, we enrolled patients who had locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma with prespecified FGFR alterations. All the patients had a history of disease progression during or after at least one course of chemotherapy or within 12 months after neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. Prior immunotherapy was allowed. We initially randomly assigned the patients to receive erdafitinib in either an intermittent or a continuous regimen in the dose-selection phase of the study. On the basis of an interim analysis, the starting dose was set at 8 mg per day in a continuous regimen (selected-regimen group), with provision for a pharmacodynamically guided dose escalation to 9 mg. The primary end point was the objective response rate. Key secondary end points included progression-free survival, duration of response, and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 99 patients in the selected-regimen group received a median of five cycles of erdafitinib. Of these patients, 43% had received at least two previous courses of treatment, 79% had visceral metastases, and 53% had a creatinine clearance of less than 60 ml per minute. The rate of confirmed response to erdafitinib therapy was 40% (3% with a complete response and 37% with a partial response). Among the 22 patients who had undergone previous immunotherapy, the confirmed response rate was 59%. The median duration of progression-free survival was 5.5 months, and the median duration of overall survival was 13.8 months. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher, which were managed mainly by dose adjustments, were reported in 46% of the patients; 13% of the patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. There were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: The use of erdafitinib was associated with an objective tumor response in 40% of previously treated patients who had locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma with FGFR alterations. Treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in nearly half the patients. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; BLC2001 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02365597.).

Multicenter Phase I Study of Erdafitinib (JNJ-42756493), Oral Pan-Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitor, in Patients with Advanced or Refractory Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: Here, we report results of the first phase I study of erdafitinib, a potent, oral pan-FGFR inhibitor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients age ≥18 years with advanced solid tumors for which standard antineoplastic therapy was no longer effective were enrolled (NCT01703481). Parts 2 to 4 employed molecular screening for activating FGFR genomic alterations. In patients with such alterations, two selected doses/schedules identified during part 1 dose-escalation [9 mg once daily and 10 mg intermittently (7 days on/7 days off), as previously published (Tabernero JCO 2015;33:3401-8)] were tested. RESULTS: The study included 187 patients. The most common treatment-related adverse events were hyperphosphatemia (64%), dry mouth (42%), and asthenia (28%), generally grade 1/2 severity. All cases of hyperphosphatemia were grade 1/2 except for 1 grade 3 event. Skin, nail, and eye changes were observed in 43%, 33%, and 28% of patients, respectively (mostly grade 1/2 and reversible after temporary dosing interruption). Urothelial carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma were most responsive to erdafitinib, with objective response rates (ORR) of 46.2% (12/26) and 27.3% (3/11), respectively, in response-evaluable patients with FGFR mutations or fusions. All patients with urothelial carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma who responded to erdafitinib carried FGFR mutations or fusions. Median response duration was 5.6 months for urothelial carcinoma and 11.4 months for cholangiocarcinoma. ORRs in other tumor types were <10%. CONCLUSIONS: Erdafitinib shows tolerability and preliminary clinical activity in advanced solid tumors with genomic changes in the FGFR pathway, at two different dosing schedules and with particularly encouraging responses in urothelial carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma.

Phase I Dose-Escalation Study of JNJ-42756493, an Oral Pan-Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitor, in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: JNJ-42756493 is an orally administered pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor. This first-in-human study evaluates the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics and defines the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of JNJ-42756493. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with advanced solid tumors received escalating doses of JNJ-42756493 from 0.5 to 12 mg administered continuously daily or JNJ-42756493 10 or 12 mg administered intermittently (7 days on/7 days off). RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were enrolled. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events included hyperphosphatemia (65%), asthenia (55%), dry mouth (45%), nail toxicity (35%), constipation (34%), decreased appetite (32%), and dysgeusia (31%). Twenty-seven patients (42%) experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events, and one dose-limiting toxicity of grade 3 ALT elevation was observed at 12 mg daily. Maximum-tolerated dose was not defined. Nine milligrams daily was considered as the initial RP2D; however, tolerability was improved with intermittent schedules, and 10 mg administered on a 7-days-on/7-days-off schedule was considered the final RP2D. Pharmacokinetics were linear, dose proportional, and predictable, with a half-life of 50 to 60 hours. Dose-dependent elevations in serum phosphate, a manifestation of pharmacodynamic effect, occurred in all patients starting at 4 mg daily. Among 23 response-evaluable patients with tumor FGFR pathway alterations, four confirmed responses and one unconfirmed partial response were observed in patients with glioblastoma and urothelial and endometrial cancer (all with FGFR2 or FGFR3 translocations); 16 patients had stable disease. CONCLUSION: JNJ-42756493 administered at 10 mg on a 7-days-on/7-days-off schedule achieved exposures at which clinical responses were observed, demonstrated pharmacodynamic biomarker activity, and had a manageable safety profile.

A note on sequential monitoring of select-the-winner design.

Consider a trial comparing two treatments or doses A and B with a control C. Based on a unblinded interim look, a winner W between A and B will be chosen, and future patients will be randomized to W and C and compared at the end of a study. The naïve test statistic Z under this setting follows an approximate normal distribution, as shown by Lan et al. (2006) and Shun et al. (2008). Results of these two articles apply only to the fixed sample size design. With simple modifications, this manuscript extends the previous works to the group sequential setting.

Carlumab, an anti-C-C chemokine ligand 2 monoclonal antibody, in combination with four chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of patients with solid tumors: an open-label, multicenter phase 1b study.

C-C chemokine ligand 2 (CCL2) stimulates tumor growth, metastasis, and angiogenesis. Carlumab, a human IgG1κ anti-CCL2 mAb, has shown antitumor activity in preclinical and clinical trials. We conducted a first-in-human phase 1b study of carlumab with one of four chemotherapy regimens (docetaxel, gemcitabine, paclitaxel + carboplatin, and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin HCl [PLD]). Patients had advanced solid tumors for which ≥1 of these regimens was considered standard of care or for whom no other treatment options existed. Dose-limiting toxicities included one grade 4 febrile neutropenia (docetaxel arm) and one grade 3 neutropenia (gemcitabine arm). Combination treatment with carlumab had no clinically relevant pharmacokinetic effect on docetaxel (n = 15), gemcitabine (n = 12), paclitaxel or carboplatin (n = 12), or PLD (n = 14). Total serum CCL2 concentrations increased post-treatment with carlumab alone, consistent with carlumab-CCL2 binding, and continued increase in the presence of all chemotherapy regimens. Free CCL2 declined immediately post-treatment with carlumab but increased with further chemotherapy administrations in all arms, suggesting that carlumab could sequester CCL2 for only a short time. Neither antibodies against carlumab nor consistent changes in circulating tumor cells (CTCs) or circulating endothelial cells (CECs) enumeration were observed. Three of 19 evaluable patients showed a 30 % decrease from baseline urinary cross-linked N-telopeptide of type I collagen (uNTx). One partial response and 18 (38 %) stable disease responses were observed. The most common drug-related grade ≥3 adverse events were docetaxel arm-neutropenia (6/15) and febrile neutropenia (4/15); gemcitabine arm-neutropenia (2/12); paclitaxel + carboplatin arm-neutropenia, thrombocytopenia (4/12 each), and anemia (2/12); and PLD arm-anemia (3/14) and stomatitis (2/14). Carlumab could be safely administered at 10 or 15 mg/kg in combination with standard-of-care chemotherapy and was well-tolerated, although no long-term suppression of serum CCL2 or significant tumor responses were observed.

One-sample proportion testing procedures for hypothesis of inequality.

The primary objective of a phase II single arm clinical trial is to determine whether a new treatment is of sufficient activity for a disease to warrant further development. This paper presents single arm one-stage and two-stage designs for testing the response rate of a test treatment against the response rate of an existing treatment. The null and alternative hypotheses are the response rate of the test treatment is equal and unequal to that of the existing treatment respectively. The testing procedures are calculated with exact binomial distribution. Two-stage designs presented minimize total sample size and satisfy type I and II error constraints, with flexibility in the fraction of the total sample size to use in the first stage.

Single-arm phase IIA clinical trials with go/no-go decisions.

Phase IIA clinical trials are commonly conducted as pilot studies to evaluate efficacy and safety in selected populations of patients with the disease or condition to be treated or prevented. The efficacy objective is to find preliminarily evidence of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of study treatments. Go/no-go decisions will be made during or at the end of these trials. Interim analyses (multiple stages) are usually built-in to terminate futile treatments. The designs presented in this paper match the efficacy objective with go/no-go decisions. This is achieved by setting up the threshold as the minimal effective response rate. Asymmetric type I error spending at this threshold is also possible. When two-stage designs are used, the stage I sample size is flexible and can cover all practical scenarios.

A multicenter, phase II study of infliximab plus gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer cachexia.

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of infliximab administered with gemcitabine to treat cancer cachexia and to explore a functional measure of clinical benefit, investigators involved in this multicenter, phase II, placebo-controlled study randomized 89 patients with stage II-IV pancreatic cancer and cachexia to receive either placebo or 3 mg/ kg or 5 mg/kg of infliximab at weeks 0, 2, and 4 and then every 4 weeks to week 24; patients also received 1,000 mg/m2 of gemcitabine weekly from weeks 0-6 and then for 3 of every 4 weeks until their disease progressed. The primary endpoint was change in lean body mass (LBM) at 8 weeks from baseline; major secondary endpoints included overall survival, progression-free survival, Karnofsky performance status, and 6-minute walk test distance. In addition, quality of life was measured. The mean change in LBM at 8 weeks was +0.4 kg for patients receiving placebo, +0.3 kg for those receiving 3 mg/kg of infliximab, and +1.7 kg for those receiving 5 mg/kg of infliximab. No statistically significant differences in LBM or secondary endpoints were observed among the groups. Safety findings were similar in all groups. Adding infliximab to gemcitabine to treat cachexia in advanced pancreatic cancer patients was not associated with statistically significant differences in safety or efficacy when compared with placebo.

On the treatment effect in clinical trials with dropout.

Patient's dropout often occurs in clinical trials with multiple scheduled visits, which results in a great challenge in the analysis of incomplete data. As the first step, one has to define a relevant treatment effect parameter, which is not straightforward in the presence of dropout. We discuss and compare two different treatment effect parameters that are adopted in most analyses of clinical data: the study-end treatment effect and the last-observed treatment effect. Some related issues, such as the estimability of causal parameters, the dependence of study parameters on the dropout patterns, and the use of the last observation carry forward, are also discussed.

Assessing the agreement between two quantitative assays with repeated measurements.

We propose a statistical test in evaluating the equivalence (or agreement) between assay values x and y obtained using two methods in assay or instrument validation, where both x and y are measurements of an unobserved analyte z. Our method builds on the availability of repeated measurements from each sampled subject, which enables us to assess the agreement in terms of the conditional mean of the difference x - y given z as well as the conditional variance of x - y given z. With the help of repeated measurements and a large number of sampled subjects, our method does not require any distributional assumption on (x, y, z) or any model assumption on the conditional mean (or variance) of x - y. Furthermore, our test is designed so that when the null hypothesis is rejected, we can conclude that the two assay methods do not have practically meaningful difference with a high statistical assurance, which is an approach adopted in the assessment of bioequivalence between two drug products.

Last observation carry-forward and last observation analysis.

Drop-out often occurs in clinical trials with multiple visits and drop-out is often informative in the sense that the population of patients who dropped out is different from the population of patients who completed the study. To handle data with informative drop-out, an intention-to-treat analysis, which evaluates treatment effects over the population of all randomized patients with at least one post-treatment evaluation, is often required by the regulatory agencies. As a popular and simple intention-to-treat analysis, the last observation carry-forward (LOCF) analysis of variance (ANOVA) performs a statistical test for treatment effects by treating the last observation prior to drop-out as the observation from the last visit. Although discussions, examples and limited empirical results about the LOCF analysis can be found, its theoretical property is unclear. We find that the LOCF one-way ANOVA test is actually asymptotically valid (that is, its asymptotic size is equal to the nominal size) in the special but important case where only two treatments are compared and the two treatment groups have the same number of patients, regardless of whether drop-out is informative or not. In other cases, however, the asymptotic size of the LOCF test is different from the nominal size and is often too small when drop-out is informative, which results in a loss in power of detecting treatment effects, a disadvantage to drug companies. We propose an asymptotically valid test for comparing the global means over subpopulations, where each subpopulation contains patients dropping out after a particular visit. Some simulation results are presented to study the finite sample performance of the LOCF test and our proposed test.

Evaluating the agreement of two quantitative assays with repeated measurements.

A common task in assay validation is to show the agreement between an assay under investigation and a reference assay. Hence, in the hypothesis setup, we should choose nonagreement as the null hypothesis so that when the null hypothesis is rejected at 5% level of significance, we have a 95% statistical assurance to claim the agreement between two assays. In this paper, we propose a statistical test with nonagreement as the null hypothesis. The calculation of sample size is also given. Some simulation results are provided for illustration.

Evaluating qualitative assays using sensitivity and specificity.

Sensitivity and specificity are two important indices of performance of qualitative assays. Evaluating these indices usually requires one to identify the true disease state of each subject involved in a study. This implies that a perfect test, a "gold standard," is needed to test each subject. However, a gold standard test cannot always be performed on all subjects, whether because of cost or adverse effect on a subject's welfare. In these situations, a common practice is to apply both a currently used assay and an investigational assay to the same specimen. If the testing results are discordant, a gold standard test is applied. This approach has been criticized by many and, in fact, the statistics based on this approach usually overestimate sensitivity and specificity. This paper proposes two alternative methods to estimate sensitivity and specificity. Simulation results show that these methods perform better than the commonly used existing ones. This paper proposes new acceptance criteria and designs to specific topics for the evaluation of blood related assays as well. To evaluate a qualitative assay related to blood specimens, one must also perform studies of storage conditions, interfering substances, and other related factors, in order to establish the equivalency of the assay under standard and various other conditions. To conduct these studies, true negative blood donor specimens are used as a sample from a nondiseased population; and blood donor specimens with spiked analyte are used to represent a sample from a diseased population. Currently, the target-spiking ranges and sample sizes are determined subjectively. This paper presents new acceptance criteria on acceptable conditions and objective standards for selecting the target-spiking range and sample size.