Phase 1, open-label, dose escalation, safety, and pharmacokinetics study of ME-344 as a single agent in patients with refractory solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: The current phase 1, open-label, dose escalation study was conducted to establish the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetic profile, and preliminary antitumor activity of the novel mitochondrial inhibitor ME-344 in patients with refractory solid tumors. METHODS: Patients with refractory solid tumors were treated in a 3 + 3 dose escalation design. ME-344 was administered via intravenous infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of the first 28-day cycle and weekly thereafter. Pharmacokinetics was assessed on days 1 and 15 of the first cycle. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients (median age, 65 years; 67% of whom were female) received ME-344. There were 5 dose-limiting toxicities reported. Four patients developed grade 3 neuropathy (2 patients each at doses of 15 mg/kg and 20 mg/kg) and 1 patient treated at a dose of 10 mg/kg developed a grade 3 acute myocardial infarction (toxicity was graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 4.03]). The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was defined as 10 mg/kg weekly. The most common adverse events were nausea, dizziness, and fatigue. At the MTD of 10 mg/kg, the maximal plasma concentration (Cmax) was 25.8 µg/mL and the area under the concentration curve from time zero to infinity was 25.9 hour*µg/mL. One patient with small cell lung cancer achieved a partial response for ≥ 52 weeks. Four patients had prolonged stable disease (1 patient each with urothelial carcinoma [47 weeks], carcinoid tumor [≥ 40 weeks], cervical leiomyosarcoma [39 weeks], and cervical cancer [≥ 31 weeks]). CONCLUSIONS: The once-weekly administration of ME-344 was generally well tolerated in the current study, a first-in-human study; dose-limiting neuropathy was noted, but not at the MTD. Exposures at the 10-mg/kg dose level suggest a sufficient therapeutic index. The preliminary clinical activity as a monotherapy supports the further clinical development of ME-344 in combination with chemotherapy.

Placebo-controlled phase III trial of patient-specific immunotherapy with mitumprotimut-T and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor after rituximab in patients with follicular lymphoma.

PURPOSE: To evaluate patient-specific immunotherapy with mitumprotimut-T (idiotype keyhole limpet hemocyanin [Id-KLH]) and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) in CD20(+) follicular lymphoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with treatment-naive or relapsed/refractory disease achieving a complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or stable disease (SD) with four weekly rituximab infusions were randomly assigned to mitumprotimut-T/GM-CSF or placebo/GM-CSF, with doses given monthly for six doses, every 2 months for six doses, and then every 3 months until disease progression (PD). Randomization was stratified by prior therapy (treatment-naive or relapsed/refractory) and response to rituximab (CR/PR or SD). The primary end point was time to progression (TTP) from randomization. RESULTS: A total of 349 patients were randomly assigned; median age was 54 years, 79% were treatment naive, and 86% had stage III/IV disease. Median TTP was 9.0 months for mitumprotimut-T/GM-CSF and 12.6 months for placebo/GM-CSF (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.384; P = .019). TTP was comparable between the two arms in treatment-naive patients (HR = 1.196; P = .258) and shorter with mitumprotimut-T/GM-CSF in relapsed/refractory disease (HR = 2.265; P = .004). After adjusting for Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) scores, the difference in TTP between the two arms was no longer significant. Overall objective response rate, rate of response improvement, and duration of response were comparable between the two arms. Toxicity was similar in the two arms; 76% of adverse events were mild or moderate, and 94% of patients had injection site reactions. CONCLUSION: TTP was shorter with mitumprotimut-T/GM-CSF compared with placebo/GM-CSF. This difference was possibly due to the imbalance in FLIPI scores.