TRAIL receptor agonist conatumumab with modified FOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: A randomized phase 1b/2 trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), we conducted a phase 1b/randomized phase 2 trial to define the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab (mFOLFOX6/bev) with conatumumab, an investigational, fully human monoclonal IgG1 antibody that specifically activates death receptor 5 (DR5). METHODS: Twelve patients were enrolled in a phase 1b open-label dose-escalation trial of conatumumab with mFOLFOX6/bev; thereafter, 190 patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive mFOLFOX6/bev in combination with 2 mg/kg conatumumab, 10 mg/kg conatumumab, or placebo. Therapy cycles were repeated every 2 weeks until disease progression or the occurrence of unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: In phase 1b, conatumumab with mFOLFOX6/bev was tolerated without apparent added toxicity over mFOLFOX6/bev alone. In phase 2, conatumumab with mFOLFOX6/bev did not confer a benefit in progression-free survival when compared with placebo with mFOLFOX6/bev. Toxicity was similar in all treatment arms. Following treatment, similar increases in circulating caspase-3 levels were observed in all arms. CONCLUSIONS: Conatumumab with mFOLFOX6/bev did not offer improved efficacy over the same chemotherapy with placebo in first-line treatment of patients with mCRC. These data do not support further development of conatumumab in advanced CRC.

Correlation Between Early Endpoints and Overall Survival in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Trial-Level Meta-Analysis.

Early endpoints, such as progression-free survival (PFS), are increasingly used as surrogates for overall survival (OS) to accelerate approval of novel oncology agents. Compiling trial-level data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) could help to develop a predictive framework to ascertain correlation trends between treatment effects for early and late endpoints. Through trial-level correlation and random-effects meta-regression analysis, we assessed the relationship between hazard ratio (HR) OS and (1) HR PFS and (2) odds ratio (OR) PFS at 4 and 6 months, stratified according to the mechanism of action of the investigational product. Using multiple source databases, we compiled a data set including 81 phase II-IV RCTs (35 drugs and 156 observations) of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Low-to-moderate correlations were generally observed between treatment effects for early endpoints (based on PFS) and HR OS across trials of agents with different mechanisms of action. Moderate correlations were seen between treatment effects for HR PFS and HR OS across all trials, and in the programmed cell death-1/programmed cell death ligand-1 and epidermal growth factor receptor trial subsets. Although these results constitute an important step, caution is advised, as there are some limitations to our evaluation, and an additional patient-level analysis would be needed to establish true surrogacy.

A note on the determination of non-inferiority margins with application in oncology clinical trials.

The goal of a non-inferiority trial is to evaluate whether the effect of an experimental treatment is not inferior to that of the active control. Determination of an appropriate non-inferiority margin is critical to the demonstration of non-inferiority. A commonly used method is called the fixed-margin approach recommended by the FDA. The fixed-margin approach consists of two steps: first the lower limit of the 1 - α * two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the active-control effect versus placebo is calculated from relevant historical trials or meta-analysis; second, the non-inferiority margin is obtained as a fraction of the lower confidence limit of the control effect to preserve partial control effect. An alternative method is to use the point estimate, instead of the lower confidence limit, of the active-control effect. The fixed-margin approach based on the lower limit may be ultra-conservative with unconditional Type 1 error rate much smaller than target α / 2 level, while the margin based on the point estimate is liberal. We derive the Type 1 error rate as a function of variances of the effect estimates in the historical and the current non-inferiority trials. We also propose an alternative approach for the non-inferiority margin that maintains the target Type 1 error rate. For the endpoint of landmark survival, we conduct simulations to compare the fixed-margin methods and the proposed method. For illustration, we apply the proposed method to an oncology non-inferiority clinical trial to determine an alternative non-inferiority margin.

A phase II dose-ranging study of sitamaquine for the treatment of visceral leishmaniasis in India.

This randomized, open label, multicenter study assessed the dose-response and safety profile for oral sitamaquine in 120 Indian subjects with visceral leishmaniasis (VL). Patients aged 5-64 years (mean age 21.2 years) received one of four sitamaquine doses (1.5, 1.75, 2.0, or 2.5 mg kg(-1) day(-1)) daily for 28 days. At Day 180 in the intent-to-treat population, final cure (primary efficacy outcome) was achieved in 92 of 106 (87%) patients overall and 25 of 31 (81%), 24 of 27 (89%), 23 of 23 (100%), and 20 of 25 (80%) patients at doses of 1.5, 1.75, 2.0, or 2.5 mg kg(-1) day(-1) sitamaquine, respectively. Sitamaquine was generally well tolerated. The most common adverse events during the active treatment phase were vomiting (8% [10 of 120]), dyspepsia (8% [9 of 120]) and cyanosis (3% [4 of 120]). Nephrotic syndrome (3% [3 of 120]) and glomerulonephritis (2% [2 of 120]) were also reported and require further investigation. Oral sitamaquine demonstrated efficacy in Indian VL and was well tolerated.

A phase II dose-increasing study of sitamaquine for the treatment of visceral leishmaniasis in Kenya.

Sitamaquine (WR6026) is an 8-aminoquinoline in development for the oral treatment of visceral leishmaniasis (VL). This was an open-label, dose-increasing study to determine the dose-response and safety profile for sitamaquine in Kenyan patients with VL caused by Leishmania donovani. Patients (mean age 15.9 [range = 5-47] years) received sitamaquine daily for 28 days at one of four doses: 1.75 (n = 12), 2.0 (n = 61), 2.5 (n = 12), or 3.0 (n = 12) mg/kg/day. The primary efficacy outcome was cure (absence of parasites on splenic aspirate) in the intent-to-treat population at day 180. Cure was achieved in 79 (83%) of 95 patients overall, and in 11 (92%) of 12, 49 (80%) of 61, 9 (82%) of 11, and 10 (91%) of 11 patients at sitamaquine doses of 1.75, 2.0, 2.5, or 3.0 mg/kg/day, respectively. The most frequent adverse events during active treatment were abdominal pain (12 [12%] of 97) and headache (11 [11%] of 97), and one patient in each of the 2.5 mg/kg/day and 3.0 mg/kg/day dose groups had a severe renal adverse event. The effects of sitamaquine on the kidney need further investigation. Sitamaquine was efficacious and generally well tolerated in Kenyan patients with VL.

An evaluation of Bayesian designs for dose-escalation studies in healthy volunteers.

In this paper, Bayesian decision procedures previously proposed for dose-escalation studies in healthy volunteers are reviewed and evaluated. Modifications are made to the expression of the prior distribution in order to make the procedure simpler to implement and a more relevant criterion for optimality is introduced. The results of an extensive simulation exercise to establish the properties of the procedure and to aid choice between designs are summarized, and the way in which readers can use simulation to choose a design for their own trials is described. The influence of the value of the within-subject correlation on the procedure is investigated and the use of a simple prior to reflect uncertainty about the correlation is explored.