Dose selection of novel anticancer drugs: exposing the gap between selected and required doses.

Historically, dose selection of anticancer drugs has mainly been based on establishing the maximum tolerated dose in phase 1 clinical trials with a traditional 3 plus 3 design. In the era of targeted therapies and immune-modulating agents, this approach does not necessarily lead to selection of the most favourable dose. This strategy can introduce potentially avoidable toxicity or inconvenience for patients. Multiple changes in drug development could lead to more rational dose selection, such as use of better predictive preclinical models, adaptive and randomised trial design, evaluation of multiple dose levels in late-phase development, assessment of target activity and saturation, and early biomarker use for efficacy and safety evaluation. In this Review, we evaluate the rationale and validation of dose selection in each phase of drug development for anticancer drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration from Jan 1, 2020, to June 30, 2023, and give recommendations for dose optimisation to improve safety and patient convenience. In our evaluation, we classified 20 (65%) of the 31 recently registered anticancer agents as potential candidates for dose optimisation, which could be achieved either by reducing the dose (n=10 [32%]) or adjusting the dosage regimen (n=10 [32%]). Dose selection seemed to be adequately justified for nine (29%) of the drugs, whereas the reviewed data were inconclusive for formulating a recommendation on dose optimisation for two (6%) of the drugs.

CD22-directed CAR T-cell therapy for large B-cell lymphomas progressing after CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy: a dose-finding phase 1 study.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes are poor for patients with large B-cell lymphoma who relapse after CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy (CAR19). CD22 is a nearly universally expressed B-cell surface antigen and the efficacy of a CD22-directed CAR T-cell therapy (CAR22) in large B-cell lymphoma is unknown, which was what we aimed to examine in this study. METHODS: In this single centre, open-label, dose-escalation phase 1 trial, we intravenously administered CAR22 at two dose levels (1 million and 3 million CAR22-positive T cells per kg of bodyweight) to adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who relapsed after CAR19 or had CD19-negative large B-cell lymphoma. The primary endpoints were manufacturing feasibility, safety measured by the incidence and severity of adverse events and dose-limiting toxicities, and identification of the maximum tolerated dose (ie, the recommended phase 2 dose). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04088890) and is active, but closed for enrolment. FINDINGS: From Oct 17, 2019, to Oct 19, 2022, a total of 41 patients were assessed for eligibility; however, one patient withdrew. 40 patients underwent leukapheresis and 38 (95%) had CAR T-cell products manufactured successfully. The median age was 65 years (range 25-84), 17 (45%) were women, 32 (84%) had elevated pretreatment lactate dehydrogenase, 11 (29%) had refractory disease to all previous therapies, and patients had received a median of four lines of previous therapy (range 3-8). Of the 38 patients treated, 37 (97%) had relapsed after previous CAR19. The identified maximum tolerated dose was 1 million CAR T cells per kg. Of 29 patients who received the maximum tolerated dose, no patients developed a dose-limiting toxicity or grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome, immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, or immune effector cell-associated haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis-like syndrome. INTERPRETATION: This trial identifies CD22 as an immunotherapeutic target in large B-cell lymphoma and demonstrates the durable clinical activity of CAR22 in patients with disease progression after CAR19 therapy. Although these findings are promising, it is essential to recognise that this is a phase 1 dose-finding study. Further investigations are warranted to establish the long-term efficacy and to delineate the patient subgroups that will derive the most benefit from this therapeutic approach. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Stanford Cancer Institute, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, Lymph & Co, and the European Hematology Association.

Phase 1 dose escalation study of the MDM2 inhibitor milademetan as monotherapy and in combination with azacitidine in patients with myeloid malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Mouse double minute-2 homolog (MDM2) plays a key role in downregulating p53 activity in hematologic malignancies, and its overexpression is associated with poor outcomes. METHODS: This phase 1 study assessed the safety and efficacy of different dosing regimens of the MDM2 inhibitor milademetan as monotherapy and in combination with azacitidine (AZA) in patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients (monotherapy, n = 57; milademetan-AZA combination, n = 17) were treated. The maximum tolerated dose of milademetan was 160 mg once daily given for the first 14-21 days of 28-day cycles as monotherapy and on Days 5-14 in combination with AZA. Dose-limiting toxicities were gastrointestinal, fatigue, or renal/electrolyte abnormalities. Treatment-emergent adverse events related to milademetan occurred in 82.5% and 64.7% of participants in the monotherapy and AZA combination arms, respectively. Two participants (4.2%) in the monotherapy arm achieved complete remission (CR), and 1 (2.1%) achieved CR with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi). Two participants (13.3%) achieved CRi in the combination arm. New TP53 mutations, detected only during milademetan monotherapy, were found pre-existing below standard detection frequency by droplet digital polymerase chain reaction. INTERPRETATION: Milademetan was relatively well tolerated in this population; however, despite signals of activity, clinical efficacy was minimal.

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.

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 1b study to assess the safety, tolerability, and clinical activity of pamiparib in combination with temozolomide in patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Pamiparib is a potent, selective, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase 1/2 inhibitor that demonstrates synthetic lethality in cells with breast cancer susceptibility gene mutations or other homologous recombination deficiency. This two-stage phase 1b study (NCT03150810) assessed pamiparib in combination with temozolomide (TMZ) in adult patients with histologically confirmed locally advanced and metastatic solid tumors. METHODS: Oral pamiparib 60 mg was administered twice daily. During the dose-escalation stage, increasing doses of TMZ (40-120 mg once daily pulsed or 20-40 mg once daily continuous) were administered to determine the recommended dose to be administered in the dose-expansion stage. The primary objectives were to determine safety and tolerability, maximum tolerated/administered dose, recommended phase 2 dose and schedule, and antitumor activity of pamiparib in combination with TMZ. Pharmacokinetics of pamiparib and TMZ and biomarkers were also assessed. RESULTS: Across stages, 139 patients were treated (dose escalation, n = 66; dose expansion, n = 73). The maximum tolerated dose of TMZ, which was administered during dose expansion, was 7-day pulsed 60 mg once daily. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were anemia (dose escalation, 56.1%; dose expansion, 63.0%), nausea (dose escalation, 54.5%; dose expansion, 49.3%), and fatigue (dose escalation, 48.5%; dose expansion, 47.9%). In the dose-escalation stage, four patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities (three neutropenia and one neutrophil count decreased). No TEAEs considered to be related to study drug treatment resulted in death. Antitumor activity was modest, indicated by confirmed overall response rate (dose escalation, 13.8%; dose expansion, 11.6%), median progression-free survival (3.7 and 2.8 months), and median overall survival (10.5 and 9.2 months). Administration of combination therapy did not notably impact pamiparib or TMZ pharmacokinetics. CONCLUSIONS: Pamiparib in combination with TMZ had a manageable safety profile. Further investigation of the efficacy of this combination in tumor types with specific DNA damage repair deficiencies is warranted.

A multicenter, phase 1, Adult Brain Tumor Consortium trial of oral terameprocol for patients with recurrent high-grade glioma (GATOR).

Recurrent high-grade gliomas (rHGGs) have a dismal prognosis, where the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of IV terameprocol (5 days/month), a transcriptional inhibitor of specificity protein 1 (Sp1)-regulated proteins, is 1,700 mg/day with median area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of 31.3 µg∗h/mL. Given potentially increased efficacy with sustained systemic exposure and challenging logistics of daily IV therapy, here we investigate oral terameprocol for rHGGs in a multicenter, phase 1 trial (GATOR). Using a 3 + 3 dose-escalation design, we enroll 20 patients, with median age 60 years (range 31-80), 70% male, and median one relapse (range 1-3). Fasting patients tolerate 1,200 mg/day (n = 3), 2,400 mg/day (n = 6), 3,600 mg/day (n = 3), and 6,000 mg/day (n = 2) oral doses without major toxicities. However, increased dosage does not lead to increased systemic exposure, including in fed state (6,000 mg/day, n = 4), with maximal AUC <5 µg∗h/mL. These findings warrant trials investigating approaches that provide sustained systemic levels of transcription inhibitors to exploit their therapeutic potential. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02575794).

HER2-targeting antibody drug conjugate FS-1502 in HER2-expressing metastatic breast cancer: a phase 1a/1b trial.

Currently approved HER2-targeting antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) for HER2-positive breast cancer (BC) are associated with safety concerns. In this multicenter, single-arm, dose-escalation (phase 1a) and dose-expansion (phase 1b) phase 1 trial (NCT03944499), patients with HER2-expressing advanced solid tumors received FS-1502 (an anti-HER2 ADC) with a 3 + 3 design in phase 1a; patients with metastatic HER2-positive BC received FS-1502 at the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) in phase 1b. The primary end points were dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and RP2D for phase 1a and objective response rate (ORR) for phase 1b. A total of 150 patients with HER2-expressing solid tumors (n = 5) and BC (n = 145) were enrolled (female, n = 146, 97.3%). One DLT each was reported at 3.0 and 3.5 mg/kg; the MTD was not reached. The RP2D was 2.3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks. Five (3.3%) patients experienced pneumonitis; four (2.7%) had grade 3 reversible ocular events. Of 67 HER2-positive BC patients receiving the RP2D, the best ORR was 53.7% (95% CI, 41.1-66.0%), including PRs confirmed (confirmed ORR, 37.5%) and pending for confirmation. FS-1502 was well tolerated with limited ocular and pulmonary findings and demonstrated promising antitumor activity in HER2-positive BC patients.

Ramucirumab in combination with pembrolizumab for recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a single-centre, phase 1/2 trial.

BACKGROUND: VEGF, a key mediator of angiogenesis and resistance to immunotherapy, is overexpressed in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). We aimed to determine the recommended phase 2 dose of ramucirumab, a selective VEGFR2 inhibitor, given with pembrolizumab and the objective response rate of this combination as first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. METHODS: In this single-centre, phase 1/2 trial, which was done at Washington University (St Louis, MO, USA), eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with incurable recurrent or metastatic HNSCC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients in phase 2 were required to have had no previous systemic therapy for recurrent or metastatic disease. In a dose de-escalation phase 1 design, patients received ramucirumab (starting dose 10 mg/kg given intravenously) and pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously) on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. The recommended phase 2 dose of ramucirumab was defined as the highest dose at which one or fewer of three patients had dose-limiting toxicity during cycle one (primary endpoint of phase 1). In a Simon's two-stage phase 2 design, patients received the recommended phase 2 dose of ramucirumab and pembrolizumab. Tumour response (primary endpoint of phase 2) was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1). We hypothesised that there would be an objective response rate of 32% or higher (null ≤13%). Eight or more responses among 33 evaluable patients (those with at least one response assessment) was evidence for activity (80% power; one-sided α=0·05). Analyses were done per protocol. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03650764, and is closed to enrolment. FINDINGS: Between June 18, 2019, and Feb 11, 2021, three patients enrolled and were treated in phase 1 and 37 patients in phase 2. Median age of all patients was 64 years (IQR 59-72). 36 (90%) of 40 patients were men and four (10%) were women, and 36 (90%) patients were White, three (8%) were Black or African American, and one (3%) was Asian. In phase 1, no dose-limiting toxicity event occurred. The recommended phase 2 dose of ramucirumab was 10 mg/kg. Median follow-up for patients on phase 2 was 14·8 months (IQR 4·9-31·0). In phase 2, 18 (55%; 95% CI 38-70) of 33 evaluable patients had an objective response, including confirmed complete response in 11 patients, confirmed partial response in six patients, and unconfirmed partial response in one patient. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were dysphagia (14 [38%] of 37 patients), lung infection (11 [30%]), lymphocyte count decrease (ten [27%]), hypophosphataemia (nine [24%]), and hypertension (eight [22%]). No treatment-related deaths were recorded. INTERPRETATION: Ramucirumab and pembrolizumab were safe to administer to patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC, and the objective response rate with this combination as first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic HNSCC was favourable. Further studies of ramucirumab and pembrolizumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC are warranted. FUNDING: Lilly and the Joseph Sanchez Foundation.

Phase Ib dose-escalation trial of taselisib (GDC-0032) in combination with HER2-directed therapies in patients with advanced HER2+ breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: In most patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer, anti-HER2 therapies fail due to the development of acquired resistance, potentially mediated through phosphoinositide-3-kinase (PI3K) signaling. We investigated adding taselisib, an α-selective potent oral inhibitor of PI3K, to different HER2-directed regimens in order to improve disease control. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 68) with advanced HER2+ breast cancer were enrolled to this open-label, dose-escalation phase Ib study. The primary endpoint was defining the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) for the various taselisib-containing combinations. The secondary endpoint was safety. Exploratory endpoints included circulating tumor DNA analysis. The study included four cohorts: (A) taselisib + trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1), (C) taselisib + trastuzumab and pertuzumab (TP), (D) taselisib + TP + paclitaxel, and (E) taselisib + TP + fulvestrant. RESULTS: Following dose escalation, the taselisib MTD was defined as 4 mg once daily. Treatment was associated with significant toxicities, as 34 out of 68 patients experienced grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) attributed to taselisib, the most common all-grade AEs being diarrhea, fatigue, and oral mucositis. At a median follow-up of 43.8 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) for the MTD-treated population in cohorts A, C, and E was 6.3 [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.2-not applicable (NA)] months, 1.7 (95% CI 1.4-NA) months, and 10.6 (95% CI 8.3-NA) months, respectively. The median PFS for patients in cohort A with prior T-DM1 use was 10.4 (95% CI 2.7-NA) months. CONCLUSIONS: PIK3CA targeting with taselisib in combination with HER2-targeted therapies was associated with both promising efficacy and substantial toxicities.

A phase I study of TAK-659 and paclitaxel in patients with taxane-refractory advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel resistance limits durability of response in patients with initial clinical benefit. Overexpression of spleen tyrosine kinase (SYK) has been proposed as a possible resistance mechanism. This phase I trial evaluated the safety and preliminary activity of the SYK inhibitor TAK-659 combined with paclitaxel in patients with advanced taxane-refractory solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors and prior progression on taxane-based therapy received intravenous infusion of paclitaxel on days 1, 8, and 15 plus oral TAK-659 daily in 28-day cycles. The dose-escalation phase included six cohorts treated at different dose levels; the dose-expansion phase included patients with ovarian cancer treated at the highest dose level. Toxicity was graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Efficacy was evaluated using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. RESULTS: Our study included 49 patients. Maximum tolerated dose was not reached, but higher rates of adverse events were observed at higher dose levels. There were no treatment-related deaths. The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade were increased aspartate aminotransferase (n = 31; 63%), increased alanine aminotransferase (n = 26; 53%), decreased neutrophil count (n = 26; 53%), and decreased white blood cell count (n = 26; 53%). Most adverse events were either grade 1 or 2. In the 44 patients with evaluable disease, 12 (27%) had stable disease as the best overall response, including three patients with prolonged stable disease, and 4 patients (9%) achieved a partial response. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of paclitaxel and TAK-659 showed preliminary activity possibly overcoming resistance to taxane-based therapy as well as a tolerable safety profile in patients with advanced solid tumors.

The safety and efficacy outcomes of Minnelide given alone or in combination with paclitaxel in advanced gastric cancer: A phase I trial.

Minnelide is a water-soluble disodium salt variant of triptolide, an HSP70 inhibitor that can prevent tumor progression and induce apoptosis. Maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, and antitumor activity of Minnelide alone and its combination with paclitaxel were evaluated in this open-label, single-center, dose-escalation phase I study (NCT05566834) in patients who were previously treated for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Minnelide was administered orally using a 3 + 3 dose-escalation design as monotherapy (Regimen A), and in combination with paclitaxel (Regimen B & C). Our results show that no patients experienced dose limiting toxicity (DLT) in the combination group (Regimen B& C) while 2 patients experienced DLT from the Regimen A group (n = 11) (Minnelide 1.5 mg). The MTD was Minnelide 1.25 mg once daily for 21days Q4 weeks as monotherapy. The most common Grade ≥3 AEs were neutropenia (19.4 %) and abdominal pain (11.1 %). In Regimen C, 71.5 % achieved either a partial response or a stable disease with the median PFS of 4.5 months, and the median OS of 10.7 months. The combination of Minnelide plus paclitaxel as salvage treatment in AGC patients showed meaningful clinical activity with a manageable safety profile. Based on these encouraging results, a phase II study is being initiated to test the effectiveness of the combination regimen in patients with advanced gastric cancer.

BL-B01D1, a first-in-class EGFR-HER3 bispecific antibody-drug conjugate, in patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumours: a first-in-human, open-label, multicentre, phase 1 study.

BACKGROUND: Antibody-drug conjugates have promising clinical activity in the treatment of solid tumours. BL-B01D1 is a first-in-class EGFR-HER3 bispecific antibody-drug conjugate. We aimed to assess the safety and preliminary antitumour activity of BL-B01D1 in patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumours. METHODS: This first-in-human, open-label, multicentre, dose-escalation and dose-expansion phase 1 trial was conducted in seven hospitals in China, enrolling patients aged 18-75 years (dose escalation; phase 1a) or older than 18 years (dose expansion; phase 1b), with a life expectancy of at least 3 months, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and histologically or cytologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic solid tumours that had progressed on current standard treatment. In the phase 1a i3+3 design, patients received intravenous BL-B01D1 at three different schedules: 0·27 mg/kg, 1·5 mg/kg, and 3·0 mg/kg weekly; 2·5 mg/kg, 3·0 mg/kg, and 3·5 mg/kg on days 1 and 8 of each cycle every 3 weeks; or 5·0 mg/kg and 6·0 mg/kg on day 1 of each cycle every 3 weeks. The primary objectives of phase 1a were to identify the safety, maximum tolerated dose, and dose-limiting toxicity. In phase 1b, patients were treated in two schedules: 2·5 and 3·0 mg/kg on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks, or 4·5, 5·0, and 6·0 mg/kg on day 1 every 3 weeks. The primary objectives of phase 1b were to assess the safety and recommended phase 2 dose of BL-B01D1, and objective response rate was a key secondary endpoint. Safety was analysed in all patients with safety records who received at least one dose of BL-B01D1. Antitumour activity was assessed in the activity analysis set which included all patients who received at least one dose of BL-B01D1 every 3 weeks. This trial is registered with China Drug Trials, CTR20212923, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05194982, and recruitment is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2021, and March 13, 2023, 195 patients (133 [65%] men and 62 [32%] women; 25 in phase 1a and 170 in phase 1b) were consecutively enrolled, including 113 with non-small-cell lung cancer, 42 with nasopharyngeal carcinomas, 13 with small-cell lung cancer, 25 with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, one with thymic squamous cell carcinoma, and one with submandibular lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma. In phase 1a, four dose-limiting toxicities were observed (two at 3·0 mg/kg weekly and two at 3·5 mg/kg on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks; all were febrile neutropenia), thus the maximum tolerated dose was reached at 3·0 mg/kg on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks and 6·0 mg/kg on day 1 every 3 weeks. Grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events occurred in 139 (71%) of 195 patients; the most common of which were neutropenia (91 [47%]), anaemia (76 [39%]), leukopenia (76 [39%]), and thrombocytopenia (63 [32%]). 52 (27%) patients had a dose reduction and five (3%) patients discontinued treatment due to treatment-related adverse events. One patient was reported as having interstitial lung disease. Treatment-related deaths occurred in three (2%) patients (one due to pneumonia, one due to septic shock, and one due to myelosuppression). In 174 patients evaluated for activity, median follow-up was 6·9 months (IQR 4·5-8·9) and 60 (34%; 95% CI 27-42) patients had an objective response. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that BL-B01D1 has preliminary antitumour activity in extensively and heavily treated advanced solid tumours with an acceptable safety profile. Based on the safety and antitumour activity data from both phase 1a and 1b, 2·5 mg/kg on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks was selected as the recommended phase 2 dose in Chinese patients. FUNDING: Sichuan Baili Pharmaceutical. TRANSLATION: For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity of SAR439459, a TGFß inhibitor, as monotherapy and in combination with cemiplimab in patients with advanced solid tumors: Findings from a phase 1/1b study.

SAR439459 (SAR'459), a "second-generation" human anti-transforming growth factor beta (TGFß) monoclonal antibody, enhances the activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors. In this phase I/Ib study, we evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity of SAR'459 ± cemiplimab (intravenous) in patients with advanced solid tumors. Increasing doses of SAR'459 were administered every 2 or 3 weeks (Q2W, Q3W) alone (Part 1A) or with 3 mg/kg cemiplimab Q2W or 350 mg Q3W (Part 1B). In Part 2A (dose expansion), melanoma patients were randomly (1:1) administered 22.5 or 7.5 mg/kg SAR'459. In Part 2B (dose expansion), 22.5 mg/kg SAR'459 and 350 mg cemiplimab Q3W were administered. The primary end points were maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or maximum administered dose (MAD; Part 1), preliminary antitumor activity (Part 2B), and optimal monotherapy dose (Part 2A). Twenty-eight and 24 patients were treated in Parts 1A and 1B, respectively; MTD was not reached, MAD was 15 (Q2W) and 22.5 mg/kg (Q3W) alone and in combination, respectively. Fourteen and 95 patients, including 14 hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients, were treated in Parts 2A and 2B, respectively. The population PK model yielded satisfactory goodness-of-fit plots and adequately described the observed data by a two-compartment PK model with linear elimination. Objective responses were not observed in Parts 1 and 2A. In Part 2B, objective response rate was 8.4% and 7.1% across tumor types and the HCC cohort, respectively. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse effects were hemorrhagic events (43.5%), keratoacanthoma (6.8%), and skin neoplasms (6.2%). Fatal bleeding occurred in 21.4% HCC patients despite the implementation of mitigation measures. SAR'459 monotherapy and combination with cemiplimab appeared relatively safe and tolerable in limited number of patients in dose escalation. However, the study was discontinued due to the unclear efficacy of SAR'459 and bleeding risk, particularly in HCC patients.

Safety and Efficacy of the Combination Lurbinectedin plus Doxorubicin from a Phase 1b Trial in Patients with Advanced/Metastatic Soft-Tissue Sarcoma.

PURPOSE: While cytotoxic chemotherapy is the standard first-line treatment for patients with metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (STS), clinical outcomes remain suboptimal. Our prior study showed lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin is well tolerated with promising clinical activity in STS. We designed this phase 1b trial to optimize dosing as the basis for a randomized trial in leiomyosarcoma and to further explore the safety profile and efficacy signal. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had advanced/metastatic STS and no prior anthracycline/lurbinectedin/trabectedin. Escalation followed a 3 + 3 design with 3-week cycles: lurbinectedin (3.2 mg/m2 day 1) and two doxorubicin levels (DL1, 25 mg/m2 day 1; DL2, 25 mg/m2 days 1 and 8). The primary objectives were to identify the maximum tolerated dose and recommended dose for subsequent randomized trials. RESULTS: Ten patients were enrolled in a 6-month period. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were grade (G) 2 fatigue and nausea, and G2 cytopenias with no febrile neutropenia events. There were two dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) at DL2 [day 8 (G2 alanine aminotransferase [ALT]/aspartate aminotransferase increase, G3 neutropenia)], and one DLT in DL1 (G3 ALT increase). These were reversible and all patients continued the study. DL1 was chosen for further study. At the time of data cutoff, the estimated median progression-free survival is 16.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 6.0-ND]. The objective response rate was 60% (6/10 confirmed partial responses). CONCLUSIONS: In this phase 1b study, the recommended dose is lurbinectedin 3.2 mg/m2 in combination with doxorubicin 25 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. The study combination was well tolerated and demonstrated intriguing clinical activity.

Implementing and assessing Bayesian response-adaptive randomisation for backfilling in dose-finding trials.

Traditional approaches in dose-finding trials, such as the continual reassessment method, focus on identifying the maximum tolerated dose. In contemporary early-phase dose-finding trials, especially in oncology with targeted agents or immunotherapy, a more relevant aim is to identify the lowest dose level that maximises efficacy whilst remaining tolerable. Backfilling, defined as the practice of assigning patients to dose levels lower than the current highest tolerated dose, has been proposed to gather additional pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and biomarker data to recommend the most appropriate dose to carry forward for subsequent studies. The first formal framework [5] for backfilling proposed randomising backfill patients with equal probability among those doses below the dose level where the study is currently at. Here, we propose to use Bayesian response-adaptive randomisation to backfill patients. This patient-oriented approach to backfilling aims to allocate more patients to dose levels in the backfill set with higher expected efficacy based on emerging data. The backfill set constitutes of the doses below the dose the dose-finding algorithm is at. At study completion, collective patient data inform the dose-response curve, suggesting an optimal dose level balancing toxicity and efficacy. Our simulation study across diverse clinical trial settings demonstrates that a backfilling strategy using Bayesian response-adaptive randomisation can result in a patient-oriented patient assignment procedure which simultaneously enhances the likelihood of correctly identifying the most appropriate dose level. This contribution offers a methodological framework and practical implementation for patient-oriented backfilling, encompassing design and analysis considerations in early-phase trials.

Design and sample size determination for multiple-dose randomized phase II trials for dose optimization.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has launched Project Optimus to shift dose selection from the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) to the dose that produces the optimal risk-benefit tradeoff. One approach highlighted in the FDA's guidance involves conducting a randomized phase II trial following the completion of a phase I trial, where multiple doses (typically including the MTD and one or two doses lower than the MTD) are compared to identify the optimal dose that maximizes the benefit-risk tradeoff. This article focuses on the design of such a multiple-dose randomized trial, specifically the determination of the sample size. We generalized the standard definitions of type I error and power to accommodate the unique characteristics of dose optimization and derived a decision rule along with an algorithm to determine the optimal sample size. The resulting design is referred to as MERIT (Multiple-dosE RandomIzed Trial design for dose optimization based on toxicity and efficacy). Simulation studies demonstrate that MERIT has desirable operating characteristics, and a sample size between 20 and 40 per dosage arm often offers reasonable power and type I errors to ensure patient safety and benefit. To facilitate the implementation of the MERIT design, we provide software, available at https://www.trialdesign.org.

Comprehensive safety evaluation of a novel multitargeting compound XYY-CP1106: A candidate for Alzheimer's disease.

Multitargeting has become a promising strategy for the development of anti-Alzheimer's disease (AD) drugs, considering the complexity of molecular mechanisms in AD pathology. In most pre-clinical studies, the effectiveness of these multi-targeted anti-AD drugs has been demonstrated but comprehensive safety assessments are lacking. Here, the safety evaluation of a novel multi-targeted candidate in AD (XYY-CP1106), characterized by its dual-property of iron chelation and monoamine oxidase B inhibition, was conducted by multifaceted analysis. Acute toxicity in mice was conducted to investigate the safety of oral administration and the maximum tolerated dose of the agent. In vitro Ames analysis, CHL chromosomal aberration analysis, and bone marrow micronucleus analysis were executed to evaluate the genotoxicity. A teratogenesis investigation in pregnant mice were meticulously performed to evaluate the teratogenesis of XYY-CP1106. Furthermore, a 90-day long-term toxicity analysis in rats was investigated to evaluate the cumulative toxicity after long-term administration. Strikingly, no toxic phenomena were found in all investigations, demonstrating relatively high safety profile of the candidate compound. The securing of safety heightened the translational significance of XYY-CP1106 as a novel multi-targeted anti-AD candidate, supporting the rationality of multitargeting strategy in the designs of smart anti-AD drugs.

A phase I dose escalation and expansion trial of the next-generation oral SERD camizestrant in women with ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: SERENA-1 monotherapy results.

BACKGROUND: SERENA-1 (NCT03616587) is a phase I, multi-part, open-label study of camizestrant in pre- and post-menopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer. Parts A and B aim to determine the safety and tolerability of camizestrant monotherapy and define doses for clinical evaluation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women aged ≥18 years with metastatic or recurrent ER+, HER2- breast cancer, refractory (or intolerant) to therapy, were assigned 25 mg up to 450 mg once daily (QD; escalation) or 75, 150, or 300 mg QD (expansion). Safety and tolerability, antitumor efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and impact on mutations in the estrogen receptor gene (ESR1m) circulating tumor (ct)DNA levels were assessed. RESULTS: By 9 March 2021, 108 patients received camizestrant monotherapy at 25-450 mg doses. Of these, 93 (86.1%) experienced treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), 82.4% of which were grade 1 or 2. The most common TRAEs were visual effects (56%), (sinus) bradycardia (44%), fatigue (26%), and nausea (15%). There were no TRAEs grade 3 or higher, or treatment-related serious adverse events at doses ≤150 mg. Median tmax was achieved ∼2-4 h post-dose at all doses investigated, with an estimated half-life of 20-23 h. Efficacy was observed at all doses investigated, including in patients with prior cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) and/or fulvestrant treatment, with and without baseline ESR1 mutations, and with visceral disease, including liver metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Camizestrant is a next-generation oral selective ER antagonist and degrader (SERD) and pure ER antagonist with a tolerable safety profile. The pharmacokinetics profile supports once-daily dosing, with evidence of pharmacodynamic and clinical efficacy in heavily pre-treated patients, regardless of ESR1m. This study established 75-, 150-, and 300-mg QD doses for phase II testing (SERENA-2, NCT04214288 and SERENA-3, NCT04588298).

Dose-Adjusted EPOCH Plus Inotuzumab Ozogamicin in Adults With Relapsed or Refractory B-Cell ALL: A Phase 1 Dose-Escalation Trial.

Importance: Options for adults with relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia or lymphoma (B-ALL) are limited, and new approaches are needed. Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) has been combined with low-intensity chemotherapy, with modest improvements over historical controls, and dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, and doxorubicin (DA-EPOCH) treatment is safe and active for newly diagnosed ALL. Objective: To assess the safety and clinical activity of DA-EPOCH and InO in adults with relapsed or refractory B-ALL. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-center, single-arm, nonrandomized, phase 1 dose-escalation trial included adults with relapsed or refractory CD22+ B-ALL and was conducted between September 2019 and November 2022. At least 5% blood or marrow blasts or measurable extramedullary disease (EMD) was required for enrollment. Interventions: DA-EPOCH was given on days 1 to 5, while InO was given on day 8 and day 15 of a 28-day cycle. Three dose levels were studied using a bayesian optimal interval design. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the maximum tolerated dose of InO when combined with DA-EPOCH, defined as the highest dose level that produced a rate of dose-limiting toxicity below 33%. Secondary objectives included response rates, survival estimates, and descriptions of toxic effects. Results: A total of 24 participants were screened and enrolled (median age, 46 [range, 28-76] years; 15 [62%] male). The median number of lines of prior therapy was 3 (range, 1-12). Three of 11 participants (27%) treated at the highest dose level (InO, 0.6 mg/m2, on day 8 and day 15) experienced dose-limiting toxicity, making this the maximum tolerated dose. No deaths occurred during the study, and only 1 patient (4%; 95% CI, 0.1%-21%) developed sinusoidal obstructive syndrome after poststudy allograft. The morphologic complete response rate was 84% (95% CI, 60%-97%), 88% (95% CI, 62%-98%) of which was measurable residual disease negative by flow cytometry. Five of 6 participants with EMD experienced treatment response. The overall response rate was 83% (95% CI, 63%-95%). Median overall survival, duration of response, and event-free survival were 17.0 (95% CI, 8.4-not reached), 15.0 (95% CI, 6.7-not reached), and 9.6 (95% CI, 4.5-not reached) months, respectively. Conclusions: In this study, adding InO to DA-EPOCH in adults with relapsed or refractory B-ALL was feasible, with high response rates and sinusoidal obstructive syndrome occurring rarely in a heavily pretreated population. Many patients were able to proceed to poststudy consolidative allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant and/or chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Further investigation of this combination is warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03991884.