Shifting Sociodemographic Characteristics of a Phase I Clinical Trial Population at an NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center in the Southeast.

Racial and ethnic minority populations are consistently under-represented in oncology clinical trials despite comprising a disproportionate share of a cancer burden. Phase I oncology clinical trials pose a unique challenge and opportunity for minority inclusion. Here we compared the sociodemographic characteristics of patients participating in phase 1 clinical trials a National Cancer Institute ( NCI)-designated comprehensive center to all patients at the center, patients with new cancer diagnosis in metropolitan Atlanta and patients with new cancer diagnoses in the state of Georgia. From 2015 to 2020, 2325 patients (43.4% female, 56.6% male) consented to participate in a phase I trial. Grouped self-reported race distribution was 70.3% White, 26.2% Black, and 3.5% other. Of new patient registrations at Winship Cancer Institute (N = 107 497) (50% F, 50% M), grouped race distribution was 63.3% White, 32.0% Black, and 4.7% other. Patients with new cancer diagnoses in metro Atlanta from 2015 to 2016 (N = 31101) were 58.4% White, 37.2% Black, and 4.3% other. Race and sex distribution of phase I patients was significantly different than Winship patients (P < .001). Over time, percent of White patients decreased in both phase I and Winship groups (P = .009 and P < .001, respectively); percentage of females did not change in either group (P = .54 phase I, P = .063 Winship). Although phase I patients were more likely to be White, male, and privately ensured than the Winship cohort, from 2015 to 2020 the percentage of White patients in phase I trials and among all new patients treated at Winship decreased. The intent of characterizing existing disparities is to improve the representation of patients from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds in phase I clinical trials.

Phase 1 study of veliparib (ABT-888), a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, with carboplatin and paclitaxel in advanced solid malignancies.

PURPOSE: Veliparib is an oral inhibitor of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP)-1 and -2. PARP-1 expression may be increased in cancer, and this increase confers resistance to cytotoxic agents. We aimed to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), and pharmacokinetics (PK) of veliparib combined with paclitaxel and carboplatin. METHODS: Eligibility criteria included patients with advanced solid tumors treated with ≤ 3 prior regimens. Paclitaxel and carboplatin were administered on day 3 of a 21-day cycle. Veliparib was given PO BID days 1-7, except for cycle 1 in the first 46 patients to serve as control for toxicity and PK. A standard "3 + 3" design started veliparib at 10 mg BID, paclitaxel at 150 mg/m2, and carboplatin AUC 6. The pharmacokinetic (PK) disposition of veliparib, paclitaxel, and carboplatin was determined by LC-MS/MS and AAS during cycles 1 and 2. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients were enrolled. Toxicities were as expected with carboplatin/paclitaxel chemotherapy, including neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and peripheral neuropathy. DLTs were seen in two of seven evaluable patients at the maximum administered dose (MAD): veliparib 120 mg BID, paclitaxel 200 mg/m2, and carboplatin AUC 6 (febrile neutropenia, hyponatremia). The MTD and RP2D were determined to be veliparib 100 mg BID, paclitaxel 200 mg/m2, and carboplatin AUC 6. Median number of cycles of the three-agent combination was 4 (1-16). We observed 22 partial and 5 complete responses. Veliparib did not affect paclitaxel or carboplatin PK disposition. CONCLUSION: Veliparib, paclitaxel, and carboplatin were well tolerated and demonstrated promising antitumor activity.

Impact of Isotope Dilution Mass Spectrometry (IDMS) Standardization on Carboplatin Dose and Adverse Events.

BACKGROUND: When using area under the concentration-time curve-based strategies for dosing carboplatin, accurate estimation of glomerular filtration rate is required for determining dose. Commonly, the Cockcroft-Gault equation is used, which is dependent on measurement of serum creatinine (SCr). Because analysis of SCr changed to an isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS) standard, we sought to determine the impact of this assay change on carboplatin dosing and related toxicity. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective chart review of adults treated with carboplatin between April 2008 and April 2010 divided into cohorts that initiated carboplatin before or after IDMS standardization. End points included grade 3 thrombocytopenia, decrease in platelet count, and hospitalization and were evaluated in cohorts based on concomitant chemotherapy. RESULTS: The chart review identified 158 patients, with 63 patients in the pre-IDMS group and 95 patients in the post-IDMS group. Average SCr (pre 1.01 mg/dl vs post 0.86 mg/dl, p<0.001) and average carboplatin dose (pre 580 mg vs post 703 mg, p<0.001) were significantly different between the groups. The frequency of grade 3 thrombocytopenia was not statistically significant across three partner chemotherapy cohorts before and after IDMS implementation. CONCLUSION: IDMS standardization led to an overall decrease in SCr with subsequent increase in carboplatin doses. However, no increase in recorded adverse events was observed, suggesting that the clinical relevance in toxicity from higher doses was minimal.