The future of metronomic chemotherapy: experimental and computational approaches of drug repurposing.

Metronomic chemotherapy (MC), long-term continuous administration of anticancer drugs, is gaining attention as an alternative to the traditional maximum tolerated dose (MTD) chemotherapy. By combining MC with other treatments, the therapeutic efficacy is enhanced while minimizing toxicity. MC employs multiple mechanisms, making it a versatile approach against various cancers. However, drug resistance limits the long-term effectiveness of MC, necessitating ongoing development of anticancer drugs. Traditional drug discovery is lengthy and costly due to processes like target protein identification, virtual screening, lead optimization, and safety and efficacy evaluations. Drug repurposing (DR), which screens FDA-approved drugs for new uses, is emerging as a cost-effective alternative. Both experimental and computational methods, such as protein binding assays, in vitro cytotoxicity tests, structure-based screening, and several types of association analyses (Similarity-Based, Network-Based, and Target Gene), along with retrospective clinical analyses, are employed for virtual screening. This review covers the mechanisms of MC, its application in various cancers, DR strategies, examples of repurposed drugs, and the associated challenges and future directions.

Robustness Assessment of Oncology Dose-Finding Trials Using the Modified Fragility Index.

OBJECTIVES: The sample sizes of phase I trials are typically small; some designs may lead to inaccurate estimation of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). The objective of this study was to propose a metric assessing whether the MTD decision is sensitive to enrolling a few additional subjects in a phase I dose-finding trial. METHODS: Numerous model-based and model-assisted designs have been proposed to improve the efficiency and accuracy of finding the MTD. The Fragility Index (FI) is a widely used metric quantifying the statistical robustness of randomized controlled trials by estimating the number of events needed to change a statistically significant result to non-significant (or vice versa). We propose a modified Fragility Index (mFI), defined as the minimum number of additional participants required to potentially change the estimated MTD, to supplement existing designs identifying fragile phase I trial results. FINDINGS: Three oncology trials were used to illustrate how to evaluate the fragility of phase I trials using mFI. The results showed that two of the trials were not sensitive to additional subjects' participation while the third trial was quite fragile to one or two additional subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The mFI can be a useful metric assessing the fragility of phase I trials and facilitating robust identification of MTD.

Phase I clinical trial designs in oncology: A systematic literature review from 2020 to 2022.

Background: Phase I clinical trials aim to find the highest dose of a novel drug that may be administrated safely without having serious adverse effects. Model-based designs have recently become popular in dose-finding procedures. Our objective is to provide an overview of phase I clinical trials in oncology. Methods: A retrospective analysis of phase I clinical trials in oncology was performed by using the PubMed database between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2022. We extracted all papers with the inclusion of trials in oncology and kept only those in which dose escalation or/ and dose expansion were conducted. We also compared the study parameters, design parameters, and patient parameters between industry-sponsored studies and academia-sponsored research. Result: Among the 1450 papers retrieved, 256 trials described phase I clinical trials in oncology. Overall, 71.1% of trials were done with a single study cohort, 56.64% of trials collected a group of at least 20 study volunteers, 55.1% were sponsored by industry, and 99.2% of trials had less than 10 patients who experienced DLTs.The traditional 3 + 3 (73.85%) was still the most prevailing method for the dose-escalation approach. More than 50% of the trials did not reach MTDs. Industry-sponsored study enrolled more patients in dose-escalation trials with benefits of continental cooperation. Compared to previous findings, the usage of model-based design increased to about 10%, and the percentage of traditional 3 + 3 design decreased to 74%. Conclusions: Phase I traditional 3 + 3 designs perform well, but there is still room for development in novel model-based dose-escalation designs in clinical practice.

Dose Finding in Oncology Trials Guided by Ordinal Toxicity Grades Using Continuous Dose Levels.

We present a Bayesian adaptive design for dose finding in oncology trials with application to a first-in-human trial. The design is based on the escalation with overdose control principle and uses an intermediate grade 2 toxicity in addition to the traditional binary indicator of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) to guide the dose escalation and de-escalation. We model the dose-toxicity relationship using the proportional odds model. This assumption satisfies an important ethical concern when a potentially toxic drug is first introduced in the clinic; if a patient experiences grade 2 toxicity at the most, then the amount of dose escalation is lower relative to that wherein if this patient experienced a maximum of grade 1 toxicity. This results in a more careful dose escalation. The performance of the design was assessed by deriving the operating characteristics under several scenarios for the true MTD and expected proportions of grade 2 toxicities. In general, the trial design is safe and achieves acceptable efficiency of the estimated MTD for a planned sample size of twenty patients. At the time of writing this manuscript, twelve patients have been enrolled to the trial.

STRILL: Phase I Trial Evaluating Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) Dose Escalation for Re-Irradiation of Inoperable Peripheral Lung Lesions.

Few data are available on the role of SBRT re-irradiation for isolated recurrences. We designed a prospective phase I study to evaluate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of SBRT for thoracic re-irradiation, for peripheral lung lesions. RT was delivered with a dose escalation design from 30 Gy in five fractions up to 50 Gy in five fractions. The primary end point was the definition of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of SBRT for thoracic re-irradiation. The dose-limiting toxicity was pneumonia ≥G3. Fifteen patients were enrolled. No cases of pneumonia ≥G3 occurred in any of our cohorts. Only one patient developed pneumonia G1 during treatment. Three patients developed acute toxicities that included dyspnea G1, cardiac failure G3, and chest wall pain. One patient developed G3 late toxicity with acute coronary syndrome. After a median follow-up of 21 months (range 3.6-29.1 months), six patients (40%) had a local relapse. Distant relapse occurred in five patients (33.3%). At the last follow-up, six patients died, all but two due to progressive disease. SBRT dose escalation for thoracic re-irradiation is an effective and well-tolerated option for patients with inoperable lung lesions after a first thoracic RT with acceptable acute and late toxicities.

Reparametrized Firth's Logistic Regressions for Dose-Finding Study With the Biased-Coin Design.

Finding an adequate dose of the drug by revealing the dose-response relationship is very crucial and a challenging problem in the clinical development. The main concerns in dose-finding study are to identify a minimum effective dose (MED) in anesthesia studies and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in oncology clinical trials. For the estimation of MED and MTD, we propose two modifications of Firth's logistic regression using reparametrization, called reparametrized Firth's logistic regression (rFLR) and ridge-penalized reparametrized Firth's logistic regression (RrFLR). The proposed methods are designed by directly reducing the small-sample bias of the maximum likelihood estimate for the parameter of interest. In addition, we develop a method on how to construct confidence intervals for rFLR and RrFLR using profile penalized likelihood. In the up-and-down biased-coin design, numerical studies confirm the superior performance of the proposed methods in terms of the mean squared error, bias, and coverage accuracy of confidence intervals.

U-PRO-CRM: designing patient-centred dose-finding trials with patient-reported outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Determining the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) remains the primary objective for the majority of dose-finding oncology trials. Whilst MTD determination often relies upon clinicians to identify dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) experienced by patients during the trial, research suggests that clinicians may underreport patient's adverse events. Therefore, contemporary practice may be exposed to recommending intolerable doses to patients for further investigation in subsequent trials. There is increasing interest in patients self-assessing their own symptoms using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in dose-finding trials. DESIGN: We present Utility-PRO-Continual Reassessment Method (U-PRO-CRM), a novel trial design which simultaneously uses clinician-rated and patient-rated DLTs (Clinician-DLTs and Patient-DLTs, respectively) to make dose (de-)escalation decisions and to recommend an MTD. U-PRO-CRM contains the published PRO-CRM as a special case and provides greater flexibility to trade-off the rate of Patient-DLTs and Clinician-DLTs to find an optimal dose. We present simulation results for U-PRO-CRM. RESULTS: For specified trade-offs between Clinician-DLT and Patient-DLT rate, U-PRO-CRM outperforms the PRO-CRM design by identifying the true MTD more often. In the special case where U-PRO-CRM generalises to PRO-CRM, U-PRO-CRM performs as well as its published counterpart. U-PRO-CRM minimises the number of patients overdosed whilst maintaining a similar proportion of patients allocated to the true MTD. CONCLUSIONS: By using a utility-based dose selection approach, U-PRO-CRM offers the flexibility to define a trade-off between the risk of patient-rated and clinician-rated DLTs for an optimal dose. Patient-centric dose-finding strategies, which integrate PROs, are poised to assume an ever more pivotal role in significantly advancing our understanding of treatment tolerability. This bears significant implications in shaping the future landscape of early-phase trials.

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.

Liposomal irinotecan (HR070803) in combination with 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with advanced solid tumors: a phase 1b dose-escalation and expansion study.

This phase 1b study aimed to evaluate the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of HR070803, a novel nanoliposomal formulation of irinotecan, in combination with 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with pretreated advanced solid tumors. This study consisted of dose-escalation and expansion stages. Dose escalation was performed with a traditional 3 + 3 design; patients received intravenous infusion of HR070803 from 60 to 80 mg/m2, followed by leucovorin (200 mg/m2) and 5-fluorouracil (2000 mg/m2) every 2 weeks. In the expansion stage, patients received treatments at selected tolerable dose. Fifteen patients received treatments at 60 mg/m2 (n = 12) and 80 mg/m2 (n = 3). DLTs occurred in 2 patients at 80 mg/m2 (grade 2 neutropenia that resulted in a dose delay of ≥ 7 days, n = 1; grade 3 febrile neutropenia, n = 1). The MTD was determined to be 60 mg/m2. The most frequent HR070803related adverse events included anorexia, leukopenia, neutropenia, nausea, fatigue, and diarrhea. SN-38, the active metabolite of irinotecan, exhibited lower maximum plasma concentrations and a prolonged terminal half-life when irinotecan was administered via nanoliposome compared to conventional injection. Overall, 4 patients achieved a partial response (confirmed, n = 2), and 9 had stable disease. The MTD of HR070803 was 60 mg/m2 when infused with 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin. Nanoliposomal encapsulation modified the pharmacokinetics of irinotecan and SN-38. HR070803 with 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin demonstrated a manageable safety profile and promising antitumor efficacy in advanced solid tumors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05086848. Retrospectively registered on Oct. 12, 2021.

A phase ib clinical trial of oral ciprofloxacin and etoposide in subjects with resistant acute myeloid leukemia.

A phase 1b study was conducted to evaluate the safety and feasibility of ciprofloxacin and etoposide combination treatment in subjects with relapsed and refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Eleven subjects were enrolled in the study. Utilizing the standard '3 + 3' design, escalating ciprofloxacin doses (750 mg, 1000 mg) twice daily on D1-D10 in combination with a fixed dose (200 mg) of etoposide on D2-D8 were administered. Maximum tolerated dose was determined to be 1000 mg of ciprofloxacin in combination with 200 mg of etoposide. Serious adverse events occurred in 54.5% (n = 6) subjects and 91% (n = 10) subjects reported ≥ grade 3 toxicities. Nine subjects completed treatment, one had a dose-limiting toxicity, and one withdrew. One subject achieved complete remission with a duration of 111 days and one subject achieved morphologic leukemia-free state after cycle 1. While the combination demonstrated safety and an acceptable toxicity profile, only modest hematologic and clinical benefits were observed.This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02773732.

Maximum tolerated dose and toxicity evaluation of orally administered docetaxel granule in mice.

Oral delivery of chemotherapy drugs is the most favorable and preferred route of drug administration. However, because of poor solubility and/or permeability, most chemotherapy drugs are given by intravenous administration. Docetaxel (DTX) is a potent chemotherapy drug that inhibits microtubular depolymerization and is widely used to treat numerous cancers. DTX is highly lipophilic and insoluble in water; thus, 50% polysorbate 80, which may cause hypersensitivity reactions and reduce drug uptake by tumor tissue, is used in the commercial DTX injection to dissolve DTX. Maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and toxicity are important to determine parameters in preclinical studies and to predict human dose in clinical trials. However, MTD and toxicity of oral DTX formulations have not been studied although various oral DTX formulations have been reported. We have previously developed oral DTX granule and demonstrated its ability to inhibit tumor growth. In this study, we aimed to systemically measure MTD and tissue distribution and evaluate the toxicity of oral DTX granule in mice. Oral DTX granule showed sex differences in toxicity and absorption. The MTD of DTX granule was determined at 50 mg/kg for female mice and 25 mg/kg for male mice. However, female mice had higher tissue absorption than male mice. At a very high dose (400 mg/kg), oral DTX granule induced kidney damage but did not influence the liver and the lungs. The study provides the fundamental data for future preclinical studies and clinical application of oral DTX formulations for cancers.

Rituximab, gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in relapsed or refractory indolent and mantle cell lymphoma: results of a multicenter phase I/II-study of the German Low Grade Lymphoma Study Group.

Rituximab, gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (R-GemOx) has demonstrated to be effective and safe in lymphoma patients. We aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of oxaliplatin in combination with rituximab and gemcitabine and to explore the efficacy and safety of R-GemOx in relapsed or refractory (r/r) indolent and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). In this single-arm, phase I/II trial, we enrolled 55 patients with r/r indolent lymphoma and MCL not suitable for autologous stem-cell transplantation. Patients received 4 cycles of R-GemOx. In the dose escalation group, 70 mg/m2 of oxaliplatin was applied and interindividually increased by 10 mg/m2 until the MTD was reached together with fixed doses of rituximab and gemcitabine. At the oxaliplatin MTD, an extension cohort was opened. Primary aim was to detect an overall response rate (ORR) greater than 65% (α = 0.05). Oxaliplatin 70 mg/m2 (MTD) was chosen for the extension cohort after 3 of 6 patients experienced a DLT at 80 mg/m2. Among 46 patients evaluable for the efficacy analysis ORR was 72% (33/46), missing the primary aim of the study (p = 0.21). After a median follow-up of 7.9 years, median PFS and OS were 1.0 and 2.1 years. Most frequent grade ≥ 3 adverse events were cytopenias. R-GemOx induces decent response rates in r/r indolent lymphoma and MCL, though novel targeted therapies have largely replaced chemotherapy in the relapse setting. Particularly in MCL, R-GemOx might be an alternative option in late relapses or as bridging to CAR-T-cells. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on Aug 4th, 2009, number NCT00954005.

On the relative conservativeness of Bayesian logistic regression method in oncology dose-finding studies.

The Bayesian logistic regression method (BLRM) is a widely adopted and flexible design for finding the maximum tolerated dose in oncology phase I studies. However, the BLRM design has been criticized in the literature for being overly conservative due to the use of the overdose control rule. Recently, a discussion paper titled "Improving the performance of Bayesian logistic regression model with overall control in oncology dose-finding studies" in Statistics in Medicine has proposed an overall control rule to address the "excessive conservativeness" of the standard BLRM design. In this short communication, we discuss the relative conservativeness of the standard BLRM design and also suggest a dose-switching rule to further enhance its performance.

The patient perspective on dose optimization for anticancer treatments: A new era of cancer drug dosing-Challenging the "more is better" dogma.

The Patient-Centered Dosing Initiative, a patient-led effort advocating for a paradigm shift in determining cancer drug dosing strategies, pioneers a departure from traditional oncology drug dosing practices. Historically, oncology drug dosing relies on identifying the maximum tolerated dose through phase 1 dose escalation methodology, favoring higher dosing for greater efficacy, often leading to higher toxicity. However, this approach is not universally applicable, especially for newer treatments like targeted therapies and immunotherapies. Patient-Centered Dosing Initiative challenges this "more is better" ethos, particularly as metastatic breast cancer patients themselves, as they not only seek longevity but also a high quality of life since most metastatic breast cancer patients stay on treatment for the rest of their lives. Surveying 1221 metastatic breast cancer patients and 119 oncologists revealed an evident need for flexible dosing strategies, advocating personalized care discussions based on patient attributes. The survey results also demonstrated an openness toward flexible dosing and a willingness from both patients and clinicians to discuss dosing as part of their care. Patient-centered dosing emphasizes dialogue between clinicians and patients, delving into treatment efficacy-toxicity trade-offs. Similarly, clinical trial advocacy for multiple dosing regimens encourages adaptive strategies, moving away from strict adherence to maximum tolerated dose, supported by recent research in optimizing drug dosages. Recognizing the efficacy-effectiveness gap between clinical trials and real-world practice, Patient-Centered Dosing Initiative underscores the necessity for patient-centered dosing strategies. A focus on individual patient attributes aligns with initiatives like Project Optimus and Project Renewal, aiming to optimize drug dosages for improved treatment outcomes at both the pre- and post-approval phases. Patient-Centered Dosing Initiative's efforts extend to patient education, providing tools to initiate dosage-related conversations with physicians. In addition, it emphasizes physician-patient dialogues and post-marketing studies as essential in determining optimal dosing and refining drug regimens. A dose-finding paradigm prioritizing drug safety, tolerability, and efficacy benefits all stakeholders, reducing emergency care needs and missed treatments for patients, aligning with oncologists' and patients' shared goals. Importantly, it represents a win-win scenario across healthcare sectors. In summary, the Patient-Centered Dosing Initiative drives transformative changes in cancer drug dosing, emphasizing patient well-being and personalized care, aiming to enhance treatment outcomes and optimize oncology drug delivery.

Mechanisms underlying dose-limiting toxicities of conventional chemotherapeutic agents.

Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) are severe adverse effects that define the maximum tolerated dose of a cancer drug. In addition to the specific mechanisms of each drug, common contributing factors include inflammation, apoptosis, ion imbalances, and tissue-specific enzyme deficiencies. Among various DLTs are bleomycin-induced pulmonary fibrosis, doxorubicin-induced cardiomyopathy, cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity, methotrexate-induced hepatotoxicity, vincristine-induced neurotoxicity, paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy, and irinotecan, which elicits severe diarrhea. Currently, specific treatments beyond dose reduction are lacking for most toxicities. Further research on cellular and molecular pathways is imperative to improve their management. This review synthesizes preclinical and clinical data on the pharmacological mechanisms underlying DLTs and explores possible treatment approaches. A comprehensive perspective reveals knowledge gaps and emphasizes the need for future studies to develop more targeted strategies for mitigating these dose-dependent adverse effects. This could allow the safer administration of fully efficacious doses to maximize patient survival.

The dose-limiting toxicity of most anticancer drugs occurs via the activation of inflammatory/apoptosis/ROS pathways.Regarding the dose-limiting toxicity of most anticancer drugs, there is no specific treatment other than discontinuation or dose reduction.Accurately identifying the molecular pathways involved in the dose-limiting toxicity of anticancer drugs can help to identify new treatments.

A phase I dose-finding trial of hyperthermic intraperitoneal docetaxel combined with cisplatin in patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of docetaxel combined with a fixed dose of cisplatin (75 mg/m²) delivered as hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in patients with ovarian cancer. METHODS: In this phase I trial, a time-to-event Bayesian optimal interval design was used. Docetaxel was given at a starting dose of 60 mg/m² and was increased in 5 mg/m² increments until the MTD was determined or the maximum dose level of 75 mg/m² was reached. The dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) rate was set at 25%, with a total sample size of 30 patients. HIPEC was delivered immediately following debulking surgery at a target temperature of 43°C for 90 minutes. RESULTS: From August 2022 to November 2022, 30 patients were enrolled. Among the patients who received a dose of docetaxel ≤65 mg/m², no DLT was reported. DLTs were observed in one patient who received 70 mg/m² docetaxel (grade 3 anaemia) and in three patients who received 75 mg/m² docetaxel (one case of grade 3 anaemia, one case of grade 3 hepatic impairment and one case of grade 4 thrombocytopenia). Patients treated with docetaxel 75 mg/m² in combination with cisplatin 75 mg/m² had an estimated DLT rate of 25%, which was the closest to the target DLT rate and was therefore chosen as the MTD. CONCLUSION: Docetaxel, in combination with a fixed dose of cisplatin (75 mg/m²), can be used safely at intraperitoneal doses of 75 mg/m² in ovarian cancer patients who received HIPEC (43°C, 90 minutes) following debulking surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05410483.

Determining the maximum tolerated dose of paclitaxel combined with fixed dose of cisplatin for hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in ovarian cancer: A multicenter phase I trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of paclitaxel combined with a fixed dose of cisplatin (75 mg/m2) delivered via hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to patients with ovarian cancer. METHODS: This multicenter Phase I trial employed a Bayesian Optimal Interval (BOIN) design. The MTD was determined to have a target dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) rate of 25%. The starting dose was 175 mg/m2. The Data and Safety Monitoring Board made decisions regarding dose escalation or de-escalation in increments of 25 mg/m2 for subsequent patient cohorts, up to a maximum sample size of 30 or 12 patients treated at a given dose. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients participated in this study. Among the three evaluable patients who received 150 mg/m2 paclitaxel, no DLTs were observed. Among the 12 evaluable patients who received 175 mg/m2 paclitaxel, two reported DLTs: one had grade 4 neutropenia and one had grade 4 anemia, neutropenia, and leukopenia. Four of the six evaluable patients who received 200 mg/m2 paclitaxel reported DLTs: one patient had grade 4 diarrhea, one had grade 3 kidney injury, and two had grade 4 anemia. The isotonic estimate of the DLT rate in the 175 mg/m2 dose group was 0.17 (95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.42), and this dose was selected as the MTD. CONCLUSION: Paclitaxel, when combined with a fixed dose of cisplatin (75 mg/m2), can be safely administered intraperitoneally at a dose of 175 mg/m2 in patients with ovarian cancer who received HIPEC (43 °C, 90 min) following cytoreductive surgery.

Phase I dose-escalation study of nab-paclitaxel combined with cisplatin and capecitabin as induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Nab-paclitaxel is a promising albumin-bound paclitaxel with a therapeutic index superior to that of docetaxel, but the optimal dose of nab-paclitaxel combined with cisplatin and capecitabine as induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy for patients with locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma remains unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an open-label, single-arm study investigating the safety and efficacy of nab-paclitaxel + cisplatin + capecitabin as IC for three cycles, followed by cisplatin CCRT, conducted by using the standard "3 + 3" design in LA-NPC. If more than one-third of the patients in a cohort experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), the dose used in the previous cohort was designated the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). The recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) was defined as one level below the MTD. RESULTS: From 29 May 2021 to 17 March 2022, 19 patients with LA-NPC were enrolled, one patient withdrew informed consent. Two DLTs occurred in cohort 4 (grade 4 febrile neutropenia and grade 3 peripheral neuropathy), and an MTD was established as 225 mg/m2. The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (16.7 %), hypertriglyceridemia (16.7 %), leukopenia (5.6 %) and peripheral neuropathy (5.6 %) during IC. CONCLUSION: The RP2D is nab-paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 on day 1, combined with cisplatin 75 mg/mg2 on day 1 and capecitabin1000 mg/m2 on days 1-14, twice a day, every 3 weeks, for three cycles as an IC regimen prior to CCRT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04850235.

An extended Bayesian semi-mechanistic dose-finding design for phase I oncology trials using pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic information.

We propose a model-based, semi-mechanistic dose-finding (SDF) design for phase I oncology trials that incorporates pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) information when modeling the dose-toxicity relationship. This design is motivated by a phase Ib/II clinical trial of anti-CD20/CD3 T cell therapy in non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients; it extends a recently proposed SDF model framework by incorporating measurements of a PD biomarker relevant to the primary dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). We propose joint Bayesian modeling of the PK, PD, and DLT outcomes. Our extensive simulation studies show that on average the proposed design outperforms some common phase I trial designs, including modified toxicity probability interval (mTPI) and Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN) designs, the continual reassessment method (CRM), as well as an SDF design assuming a latent PD biomarker (SDF-woPD), in terms of the percentage of correct selection of maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and average number of patients allocated to MTD, under a variety of dose-toxicity scenarios. When the working PK model and the class of link function between the cumulative PD effect and DLT probability is correctly specified, the proposed design also yields better estimated dose-toxicity curves than CRM and SDF-woPD. Our sensitivity analyses suggest that the design's performance is reasonably robust to prior specification for the parameter in the link function, as well as misspecification of the PK model and class of the link function.

Two-dimensional calibration-free odds design for phase I drug-combination trials.

In oncology, it is commonplace to treat patients with a combination of drugs that deliver different effects from different disease-curing or cancer-elimination perspectives. Such drug combinations can often achieve higher efficacy in comparison with single-drug treatment due to synergy or non-overlapping toxicity. Due to the small sample size, there is a growing need for efficient designs for phase I clinical trials, especially for drug-combination trials. In the existing experimental design for phase I drug-combination trials, most of the proposed methods are parametric and model-based, either requiring tuning parameters or prior knowledge of the drug toxicity probabilities. We propose a two-dimensional calibration-free odds (2dCFO) design for drug-combination trials, which utilizes not only the current dose information but also that from all the neighborhood doses (i.e., along the left, right, up and down directions). In contrast to interval-based designs which only use the current dose information, the 2dCFO is more efficient and makes more accurate decisions because of its additional leverage over richer resources of neighborhood data. Because our design makes decisions completely based on odds ratios, it does not rely upon any dose-toxicity curve assumption. The simulations show that the 2dCFO delivers satisfactory performances in terms of accuracy and efficiency as well as demonstrating great robustness due to its non-parametric or model-free nature. More importantly, the 2dCFO only requires the minimal specification of the target toxicity probability, which greatly eases the design process from the clinicians' aspects.