Oncology phase I trial design and conduct: time for a change - MDICT Guidelines 2022.

In 2021, the Food and Drug Administration Oncology Center of Excellence announced Project Optimus focusing on dose optimization for oncology drugs. The Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies (MDICT) Taskforce met to review and discuss the optimization of dosage for oncology trials and to develop a practical guide for oncology phase I trials. Defining a single recommended phase II dose based on toxicity may define doses that are neither the most effective nor the best tolerated. MDICT recommendations address the need for robust non-clinical data which are needed to inform trial design, as well as an expert team including statisticians and pharmacologists. The protocol must be flexible and adaptive, with clear definition of all endpoints. Health authorities should be consulted early and regularly. Strategies such as randomization, intrapatient dose escalation, and real-world eligibility criteria are encouraged whereas serial tumor sampling is discouraged in the absence of a strong rationale and appropriately validated assay. Endpoints should include consideration of all longitudinal toxicity. The phase I dose escalation trial should define the recommended dose range for later testing in randomized phase II trials, rather than a single recommended phase II dose, and consider scenarios where different populations may require different dosages. The adoption of these recommendations will improve dosage selection in early clinical trials of new anticancer treatments and ultimately, outcomes for patients.

Phase I study of the checkpoint kinase 1 inhibitor GDC-0575 in combination with gemcitabine in patients with refractory solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Checkpoint kinase 1 (Chk1) inhibition following chemotherapy-elicited DNA damage overrides cell cycle arrest and induces mitotic catastrophe and cell death. GDC-0575 is a highly-selective oral small-molecule Chk1 inhibitor that results in tumor shrinkage and growth delay in xenograft models. We evaluated the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic properties of GDC-0575 alone and in combination with gemcitabine. Antitumor activity and Chk1 pathway modulation were assessed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase I open-label study, in the dose escalation stage, patients were enrolled in a GDC-0575 monotherapy Arm (1) or GDC-0575 combination with gemcitabine Arm (2) to determine the maximum tolerated dose. Patients in arm 2 received either i.v. gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (arm 2a) or 500 mg/m2 (arm 2b), followed by GDC-0575 (45 or 80 mg, respectively, as RP2D). Stage II enrolled disease-specific cohorts. RESULTS: Of 102 patients treated, 70% were female, the median age was 59 years (range 27-85), and 47% were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS 0. The most common tumor type was breast (37%). The most frequent adverse events (all grades) related to GDC-0575 and/or gemcitabine were neutropenia (68%), anemia (48%), nausea (43%), fatigue (42%), and thrombocytopenia (35%). Maximum concentrations of GDC-0575 were achieved within 2 hours of dosing, and half-life was ∼23 hours. No pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction was observed between GDC-0575 and gemcitabine. Among patients treated with GDC-0575 and gemcitabine, there were four confirmed partial responses, three occurring in patients with tumors harboring TP53 mutation. Pharmacodynamic data were consistent with GDC-0575 inhibition of gemcitabine-induced expression of pCDK1/2. CONCLUSION: GDC-0575 can be safely administered as a monotherapy and in combination with gemcitabine; however, overall tolerability with gemcitabine was modest. Hematological toxicities were frequent but manageable. Preliminary antitumor activity was observed but limited to a small number of patients with a variety of refractory solid tumors treated with GDC-0575 and gemcitabine. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT01564251.

Immunotherapy phase I trials in patients Older than 70 years with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: The development of immune checkpoint blocker development brings new hope in older patients (OPs) because of clinical efficacy and low toxicity. Clinical indications are rising steadily, but very few data are available in the geriatric population where comorbidities, reduced functional reserve and immunosenescence may affect efficacy and tolerance. METHODS: All cases of patients enrolled in immunotherapy phase I trials between January 2012 and December 2016 in the Drug Development Department (DITEP) at Gustave Roussy were retrospectively reviewed. Case-control analysis was performed in OPs (patients ≥ 70 years) matched to younger patients (YPs) (patients < 70 years) by trial and treatment dose. We compared cumulative incidence, grade and type of immune-related adverse events (IrAEs) and survival outcomes. RESULTS: Among the 46 OPs and the 174 YPs enrolled in 14 phase I/II trials, 10 (22%) and 23 (13%) patients experienced grade III-IV IrAEs. Cumulative incidence of grade I-II IrAEs was significantly higher in OPs than YPs (p < 0.05). No significant difference was observed between the two groups for grade III-IV IrAEs (p = 0.50). Older age was not associated with lower dose intensity of treatment (p = 0.14). No significant difference was observed between OPs and YPs in median progression-free survival (hazards ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.94-2.11] p = 0.09) or median overall survival (HR 0.92, 95% CI [0.61-1.39] p = 0.77). CONCLUSION: Immune checkpoint blockade appears to be an acceptable treatment option for OPs in the setting of phase I trials.

Epigenetic modifiers as new immunomodulatory therapies in solid tumours.

Background: Immune therapies have revolutionized cancer treatment over the last few years by allowing improvements in overall survival. However, the majority of patients is still primary or secondary resistant to such therapies, and enhancing sensitivity to immune therapies is therefore crucial to improve patient outcome. Several recent lines of evidence suggest that epigenetic modifiers have intrinsic immunomodulatory properties, which could be of therapeutic interest. Material and methods: We reviewed preclinical evidence and clinical studies which describe or exploit immunomodulatory properties of epigenetic agents. Experimental approaches, clinical applicability and corresponding ongoing clinical trials are described. Results: Several epigenetic modifiers, such as histone deacetylase inhibitors, DNA methyl transferase inhibitors, bromodomain inhibitors, lysine-specific histone demethylase 1 inhibitors and enhancer of zeste homolog 2 inhibitors, display intrinsic immunomodulatory properties. The latter can be achieved through the action of these drugs either on cancer cells (e.g. presentation and generation of neoantigens, induction of immunogenic cell death, modulation of cytokine secretion), on immune cells (e.g. linage, differentiation, activation status and antitumor capability), or on components of the microenvironment (e.g. regulatory T cells and macrophages). Several promising combinations, notably with immune checkpoint blockers or adoptive T-cell therapy, can be envisioned. Dedicated clinically relevant approaches for patient selection and trial design will be required to optimally develop such combinations. Conclusion: In an era where immune therapies are becoming a treatment backbone in many tumour types, epigenetic modifiers could play a crucial role in modulating tumours' immunogenicity and sensitivity to immune agents. Optimal trial design, including window of opportunity trials, will be key in the success of this approach, and clinical evaluation is ongoing.

Professional burnout in European young oncologists: results of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Young Oncologists Committee Burnout Survey.

BACKGROUND: Burnout in health care professionals could have serious negative consequences on quality of patient care, professional satisfaction and personal life. Our aim was to investigate the burnout prevalence, work and lifestyle factors potentially affecting burnout amongst European oncologists ≤40 (YOs). METHODS: A survey was conducted using the validated Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and additional questions exploring work/lifestyle factors. Statistical analyses were carried out to identify factors associated with burnout. RESULTS: Total of 737 surveys (all ages) were collected from 41 European countries. Countries were divided into six regions. Results from 595 (81%) YOs were included (81% medical oncologists; 52% trainees, 62% women). Seventy-one percent of YOs showed evidence of burnout (burnout subdomains: depersonalization 50%; emotional exhaustion 45; low accomplishment 35%). Twenty-two percent requested support for burnout during training and 74% reported no hospital access to support services. Burnout rates were significantly different across Europe (P < 0.0001). Burnout was highest in central European (84%) and lowest in Northern Europe (52%). Depersonalization scores were higher in men compared with women (60% versus 45% P = 0.0001) and low accomplishment was highest in the 26-30 age group (P < 0.01). In multivariable linear regression analyses, European region, work/life balance, access to support services, living alone and inadequate vacation time remained independent burnout factors (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest burnout survey in European Young Oncologists. Burnout is common amongst YOs and rates vary across Europe. Achieving a good work/life balance, access to support services and adequate vacation time may reduce burnout levels. Raising awareness, support and interventional research are needed.

Targeting chromatin defects in selected solid tumors based on oncogene addiction, synthetic lethality and epigenetic antagonism.

Background: Although the role of epigenetic abnormalities has been studied for several years in cancer genesis and development, epigenetic-targeting drugs have historically failed to demonstrate efficacy in solid malignancies. However, successful targeting of chromatin remodeling deficiencies, histone writers and histone reader alterations has been achieved very recently using biomarker-driven and mechanism-based approaches. Epigenetic targeting is now one of the most active areas in drug development and could represent novel therapeutic opportunity for up to 25% of all solid tumors. Material and methods: We reviewed preclinical and clinical studies that described epigenetic oncogenic addictions, synthetic lethal relationships or epigenetic antagonisms in chromatin regulators. Experimental approaches, their clinical relevance and applicability, as well as corresponding on-going studies are described. Results: The most successful approaches that have been clinically validated so far include the targeting of the BRD4-NUT fusion transcript in NUT-midline carcinoma by BET (Bromodomain Extra-Terminal) inhibitors, and the use of EZH2 (Enhancer of Zest Homolog 2) inhibitors in SMARCB1-deficient malignant rhabdoid tumors and SMARCA4-deficient ovarian small cell carcinomas. Clinical validation is still required for other synthetic lethal relationships or epigenetic antagonisms, including those described between EZH2 inhibitors and deficiencies in components of the Polycomb or SWI/SNF chromatin-remodeling complexes (including BAP1, ARID1A and PBRM1 subunits), as well as between the CREBBP and EP300 histone acetylases. Further, interplays between epigenetic modifiers and non-epigenetic cellular processes might be therapeutically exploited, and combinatorial strategies could be envisioned to overcome resistance or to sensitize cells to already approved drugs. Conclusion: Epigenetic-targeting drugs have historically failed proving efficacy in solid malignancies when used broadly, but novel mechanism-based approaches in molecularly selected patient populations have facilitated recent successes in proof-of-concept studies in solid tumors. Appropriate clinical trial design and molecular patient selection will be key for the success of epigenetic modifiers in solid tumours.

Predictors of chemotherapy efficacy in non-small-cell lung cancer: a challenging landscape.

BACKGROUND: Conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy (CCC) is the backbone of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment since decades and still represents a key element of the therapeutic armamentarium. Contrary to molecularly targeted therapies and immune therapies, for which predictive biomarkers of activity have been actively looked for and developed in parallel to the drug development process ('companion biomarkers'), no patient selection biomarker is currently available for CCC, precluding customizing treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed preclinical and clinical studies that assessed potential predictive biomarkers of CCC used in NSCLC (platinum, antimetabolites, topoisomerase inhibitors, and spindle poisons). Biomarker evaluation method, analytical validity, and robustness are described and challenged for each biomarker. RESULTS: The best-validated predictive biomarkers for efficacy are currently ERCC1, RRM1, and TS for platinum agents, gemcitabine and pemetrexed, respectively. Other potential biomarkers include hENT1 for gemcitabine, class III ß-tubulin for spindle poisons, TOP2A expression and CEP17 duplication (mostly studied for predicting anthracyclines efficacy) whose applicability concerning etoposide would deserve further evaluation. However, none of these biomarkers has till now been validated prospectively in an appropriately designed and powered randomised trial, and none of them is currently ready for implementation in routine clinical practice. CONCLUSION: The search for predictive biomarkers to CCC has been proven challenging. If a plethora of biomarkers have been evaluated either in the preclinical or in the clinical setting, none of them is ready for clinical implementation yet. Considering that most mechanisms of resistance or sensitivity to CCC are multifactorial, a combinatorial approach might be relevant and further efforts are required.

Immune-related adverse events with immune checkpoint blockade: a comprehensive review.

Cancer immunotherapy is coming of age; it has prompted a paradigm shift in oncology, in which therapeutic agents are used to target immune cells rather than cancer cells. The first generation of new immunotherapies corresponds to antagonistic antibodies that block specific immune checkpoint molecules cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4), programmed cell death protein (PD-1) and its ligand PD-L1. Targeting these checkpoints in patients living with cancer had led to long-lasting tumour responses. By unbalancing the immune system, these new immunotherapies also generate dysimmune toxicities, called immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) that mainly involve the gut, skin, endocrine glands, liver, and lung but can potentially affect any tissue. In view of their undisputed clinical efficacy, anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 antibodies are entering in the routine oncological practice, and the number of patients exposed to these drugs will increase dramatically in the near future. Although steroids can be used to treat these IRAEs, the associated immunosuppression may compromise the antitumour response. Oncologists must be ready to detect and manage these new types of adverse events. This review focuses on the mechanisms of IRAE generation, putative relationship between dysimmune toxicity and antitumour efficacy, as a basis for management guidelines.

Challenges of phase 1 clinical trials evaluating immune checkpoint-targeted antibodies.

BACKGROUND: Immunostimulatory monoclonal antibodies (imAbs) targeting immune checkpoint molecules are revolutionizing oncology not only regarding cancer therapeutics and clinical care, but also from a drug development point of view. A handful of first-generation molecules have been approved so far based on their tremendous efficacy, after an expedited development phase that has challenged most paradigms established in the era of conventional cytotoxic therapy and to some extent molecularly targeted agents. A huge wave of second-generation imAbs is just entering into phase 1 trials now, in monotherapy or in combination. In order to maximize their chances of success in early phase trials, and eventually for patients' benefit, their clinical development has to benefit from lessons learnt from previous imAbs phase 1 trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the early clinical development of anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 and anti-programmed death-1 receptor/ligand. Particularities of each agent, including safety, dose--toxicity and dose--efficacy relationships, scheduling, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), trial design, biomarkers, response assessment and overall drug development strategies, are described and challenged. RESULTS: As opposed to conventional cytotoxic agents, dose of imAbs is not linearly associated with efficacy and toxicity. Therefore, the definition of a minimal immunologically active dose could be proposed. Traditional patient eligibility criteria might also be revisited as the toxicity profile and mechanism of toxicity--immune-related adverse events--are mostly known and their physiopathology somehow less unexpected than with molecularly targeted small molecules. Most challenging are the comprehensive investigation of complex PK and PD characteristics as well as the definition of patient selection biomarkers. Finally, the early focus on efficacy (and not only dose confirmation) in expansion cohorts challenges the traditional phase 1/2/3 drug development process. CONCLUSION: Several drug development paradigms have been challenged by imAbs. Here, we discuss novel approaches for an efficient and successful drug development of these agents.

Seeking the driver in tumours with apparent normal molecular profile on comparative genomic hybridization and targeted gene panel sequencing: what is the added value of whole exome sequencing?

BACKGROUND: Molecular tumour profiling technologies have become increasingly important in the era of precision medicine, but their routine use is limited by their accessibility, cost, and tumour material availability. It is therefore crucial to assess their relative added value to optimize the sequence and combination of such technologies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Within the MOSCATO-01 trial, we investigated the added value of whole exome sequencing (WES) in patients that did not present any molecular abnormality on array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) and targeted gene panel sequencing (TGPS) using cancer specific panels. The pathogenicity potential and actionability of mutations detected on WES was assessed. RESULTS: Among 420 patients enrolled between December 2011 and December 2013, 283 (67%) patients were analysed for both TGPS and aCGH. The tumour sample of 25 (8.8%) of them presented a flat (or low-dynamic) aCGH profile and no pathogenic mutation on TGPS. We selected the first eligible 10 samples-corresponding to a heterogeneous cohort of different tumour types-to perform WES. This allowed identifying eight mutations of interest in two patients: FGFR3, PDGFRB, and CREBBP missense single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) in an urothelial carcinoma; FGFR2, FBXW7, TP53, and MLH1 missense SNVs as well as an ATM frameshift mutation in a squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue. The FGFR3 alteration had been previously described as an actionable activating mutation and might have resulted in treatment by an FGFR inhibitor. CREBBP and ATM alterations might also have suggested a therapeutic orientation towards epigenetic modifiers and ataxia-telangectasia and Rad3-related inhibitors, respectively. CONCLUSION: The therapeutic added value of performing WES on tumour samples that do not harbour any genetic abnormality on TGPS and aCGH might be limited and variable according to the histotype. Alternative techniques, including RNASeq and methylome analysis, might be more informative in selected cases.

Use of adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) and radiotherapy (RT) in incompletely resected (R1) early stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): a European survey conducted by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) young oncologists committee.

BACKGROUND: Early stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) is potentially curable with surgery. ESMO guidelines recommend cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) for completely resected stage II-III NSCLC. There is limited evidence for the use of adjuvant CT and/or radiotherapy (RT) in incompletely resected (R1) early stage NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A European survey of thoracic oncologists was conducted to evaluate use of adjuvant CT and RT for R1-resected NSCLC and to identify factors influencing treatment decisions. Demographics and information on clinical stage, regimens, cycles planned, radiotherapy sites, multidisciplinary management and discussion about inconclusive evidence with the patient were collected. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: 768 surveys were collected from 41 European countries. 82.9% of participants were medical oncologists; 49.3% ESMO members; 37.1% based in University Hospitals; 32.6% practicing oncology for over 15 years and 81.4% active in research. 91.4% of participants prescribed adjuvant CT and mostly cisplatin/vinorelbine (81.2%) or cisplatin/gemcitabine (42.9%). 85% discussed limited clinical evidence with the patient. In the univariate analysis, a statistically significant association with CT prescription was found for medical oncology specialty (p<0.001), ESMO membership (p<0.001), activity in clinical research (p=0.002) and increased frequency of ESMO guidelines consultation (p for trend <0.001). 48.3% of participants prescribed adjuvant RT and its prescription were associated with radiation oncology specialty (p<0.001), not being an ESMO member (p<0.001), years practicing specialty (p for trend=0.001), workload of lung cancer patients (p for trend=0.027) and decreased frequency in consulting ESMO guidelines (p<0.001). In the multivariate analysis, medical oncology and radiation oncology were the best discriminator for prescription of adjuvant CT and RT, respectively. CONCLUSION: This survey demonstrates that adjuvant CT and RT are commonly used in clinical practice for R1-resected NSCLC despite limited evidence. Prospective trials are necessary to clarify optimal management in this setting.

A high-throughput screen identifies PARP1/2 inhibitors as a potential therapy for ERCC1-deficient non-small cell lung cancer.

Excision repair cross-complementation group 1 (ERCC1) is a DNA repair enzyme that is frequently defective in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although low ERCC1 expression correlates with platinum sensitivity, the clinical effectiveness of platinum therapy is limited, highlighting the need for alternative treatment strategies. To discover new mechanism-based therapeutic strategies for ERCC1-defective tumours, we performed high-throughput drug screens in an isogenic NSCLC model of ERCC1 deficiency and dissected the mechanism underlying ERCC1-selective effects by studying molecular biomarkers of tumour cell response. The high-throughput screens identified multiple clinical poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 and 2 (PARP1/2) inhibitors, such as olaparib (AZD-2281), niraparib (MK-4827) and BMN 673, as being selective for ERCC1 deficiency. We observed that ERCC1-deficient cells displayed a significant delay in double-strand break repair associated with a profound and prolonged G2/M arrest following PARP1/2 inhibitor treatment. Importantly, we found that ERCC1 isoform 202, which has recently been shown to mediate platinum sensitivity, also modulated PARP1/2 sensitivity. A PARP1/2 inhibitor-synthetic lethal siRNA screen revealed that ERCC1 deficiency was epistatic with homologous recombination deficiency. However, ERCC1-deficient cells did not display a defect in RAD51 foci formation, suggesting that ERCC1 might be required to process PARP1/2 inhibitor-induced DNA lesions before DNA strand invasion. PARP1 silencing restored PARP1/2 inhibitor resistance in ERCC1-deficient cells but had no effect in ERCC1-proficient cells, supporting the hypothesis that PARP1 might be required for the ERCC1 selectivity of PARP1/2 inhibitors. This study suggests that PARP1/2 inhibitors as a monotherapy could represent a novel therapeutic strategy for NSCLC patients with ERCC1-deficient tumours.

The insulin-like growth factor-I receptor inhibitor figitumumab (CP-751,871) in combination with docetaxel in patients with advanced solid tumours: results of a phase Ib dose-escalation, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: This phase Ib trial assessed safety, tolerability, and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of figitumumab (CP-751,871), a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting the insulin-like growth factor type 1 receptor (IGF-IR), in combination with docetaxel. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumours were treated with escalating dose levels of figitumumab plus 75 mg m(-2) docetaxel every 21 days. Safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics (PKs), and biomarker responses were evaluated. RESULTS: In 46 patients, no dose-limiting toxicities were attributable to the treatment combination. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities included neutropaenia (n=28), febrile neutropaenia (n=11), fatigue (n=10), leukopaenia (n=7), diarrhoea (n=5), hyperglycaemia, lymphopaenia, cellulitis, DVT, and pain (all n=1). The MTD was not reached. Four partial responses were observed; 12 patients had disease stabilisation of > or =6 months. Pharmacokinetic and biomarker analyses showed a dose-dependent increase in plasma exposure, and complete sIGF-IR downregulation at doses of >or =3 mg kg(-1). Pharmacokinetics of docetaxel in combination was similar to when given alone. Out of 18 castration-resistant prostate cancer patients, 10 (56%) had > or =5 circulating tumour cells (CTCs) per 7.5 ml of blood at baseline: 6 out of 10 (60%) had a decline from > or =5 to <5 CTCs and 9 out of 10 (90%) had a > or =30% decline in CTCs after therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Figitumumab and docetaxel in combination are well tolerated. Further evaluation is warranted.

[Dose finding methods for targeted agents: new perspectives]. / Méthodes pour la recherche de dose de traitements ciblés : nouvelles pistes.

BACKGROUND: The definition of the optimal dose of a new compound and the design for identifying this dose have been set up for treatment with cytotoxic activity. The optimal dose is typically the Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) defined by the occurrence of severe toxic side effects during the first course of treatment. In the era of molecularly targeted therapies (MTA), where the mechanistic relations between the dose, the activity and the toxicity are probably different, how relevant these definitions and designs are? METHODS: We present here a review of the outcomes of potential interest for defining the optimal dose and we present several statistical innovative dose finding methods. Longitudinal data (tumour growth, repeated evaluation of toxic side effects) and continuous outcomes appear particularly promising for early phase trials. CONCLUSIONS: Phase I dose finding method for molecularly targeted agents should continue to identify the MTD, but the dose recommended for phase II trials should not be systematically defined as the MTD and should incorporate other endpoints. In particular, more sensitive and more discriminatory endpoints are necessary. They needn't be good surrogate of the clinical benefit, but they should allow for ranking several doses. Experience from other medical specialties, such as phase II dose-ranging trials could be considered.

Clinical benefit in Phase-I trials of novel molecularly targeted agents: does dose matter?

Phase-I trials traditionally involve dose-escalation to determine the maximal tolerated dose (MTD). With conventional chemotherapy, efficacy is generally deemed to be dose-dependent, but the same may not be applicable to molecularly targeted agents (MTAs). We analysed consecutive patients included in Phase-I trials at the Royal Marsden Hospital from 5 January 2005 to 6 June 2006. We considered only trials of monotherapy MTAs in which the MTD was defined. Three patient cohorts (A, B, and C) were identified according to the dose received as a percentage of the final trial MTD (0-33%, 34-65%, >66%). Potential efficacy was assessed using the non-progression rate (NPR), that is, complete/partial response or stable disease for at least 3 months by RECIST. A total of 135 patients having progressive disease before enrolment were analysed from 15 eligible trials. Median age was 57 years (20-86); male : female ratio was 1.8 : 1. Cohort A, B, and C included 28 (21%), 22 (16%), and 85 (63%) patients; NPR at 3 and 6 months was 21% and 11% (A), 50% and 27% (B), 31% and 14% (C), respectively, P=0.9. Median duration of non-progression (17 weeks; 95% CI=13-22) was not correlated with the MTD level, P=0.9. Our analysis suggests that the potential for clinical benefit is not confined to patients treated at doses close to the MTD in Phase-I trials of MTAs.