NOX66 as Monotherapy, and in Combination With Carboplatin, in Patients With Refractory Solid Tumors: Phase Ia/b Study.

BACKGROUND: Although oral and intravenous forms of idronoxil have been well tolerated, the safety of NOX66, with idronoxil formulated as a rectal suppository, is not known. This Phase Ia/b clinical study (protocol No. NOX66-001A), known as Chemotherapy Enhancement Program-1, is the first to assess NOX66 in patients with refractory solid tumors. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to determine the safety profile of NOX66 both as a monotherapy and in combination with carboplatin, and to evaluate whether or not NOX66 has a meaningful anticancer effect when combined with carboplatin in this patient population. METHODS: Chemotherapy Enhancement Program-1 was a multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized, 2-dose cohort study of NOX66 as monotherapy (Phase Ia) and in combination with carboplatin (Phase Ib). Patients with refractory solid tumors who had stopped responding to standard treatments were eligible to participate. Twenty patients were screened and 19 enrolled in the study. They were divided into 2 groups: cohort 1 (n = 8) received 1 suppository daily (400 mg) and cohort 2 (n = 11) received 2 suppositories daily (800 mg) for 14 consecutive days followed by 7 days of rest. Patients who completed Phase Ia without significant toxicity continued to Phase Ib, where NOX66 was combined with carboplatin for up to 6x 28-day treatment cycles, with low-dose carboplatin (600 mg) for cycles 1B through 3B and standard dose carboplatin (900 mg) for cycles 4B through 6B. The main outcomes assessed were safety (n = 18) and efficacy signals (n = 14). RESULTS: NOX66 generally was well tolerated at 400 mg and 800 mg, both as monotherapy and in combination with carboplatin in patients with refractory solid tumors. The safety profile was consistent for oncology patients, with 77.8% experiencing at least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event. The most common adverse events were blood and lymphatic system disorders (44.4%), with only anemia considered as possibly related to NOX66. Although the study was primarily designed to assess safety and tolerability, the efficacy measurements demonstrated that most patients had stable disease or better by study end. CONCLUSIONS: The favorable safety profile of NOX66 provides reassurance to justify continuation of clinical research. The efficacy findings are encouraging in terms of the chemosensitizing potential of NOX66 in refractory solid tumors. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2021; 82:XXX-XXX).

Prostate cancer therapy: standard management, new options and experimental approaches.

The management of prostate cancer is one of the core tasks for urologists today. This review focuses on therapeutic options for the curative and palliative treatment of prostate cancer. Within the area of urological competence, radical prostatectomy remains the standard procedure for the curative treatment of localised prostate cancer. Recently, interest in minimally-invasive procedures such as brachytherapy, focused ultrasound and cryotherapy has increased considerably. Established palliative treatment strategies include hormonal treatment schemes as the gold standard. Chemotherapeutic regimes are used for the hormone refractory disease. In addition to both the standard and new urological therapeutic options, promising experimental systemic strategies for the generalised disease are presented in this review.

Acoustic energy: a new transfection method for cancer of the prostate, cancer of the bladder and benign kidney cells.

BACKGROUND: Clinical use of gene therapy is limited by the poor efficacy and accuracy of intracellular DNA delivery. Known concepts of DNA transfection have not yet become clinical routine in the treatment of human disorders. We therefore focused on new transfection methods using different forms of acoustic energy as potentially safe and topographically applicable methods for gene delivery in the field of urology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three different cell lines (prostatic and urothelial cancer, benign kidney) were transfected by different forms of acoustic energy. The effect of several parameters of electromagnetic shock wave treatment (number and frequency of impulses, energy flow density and plasmid concentration) as well as focused ultrasound on the transfection rate was assessed in a standardized experimental setup. The transfection rate was measured through reporter genes (pEGFP) by FACScan. Transfection by lipofectamine and electroporation served as positive controls. RESULTS: All cell lines were transfectable by acoustic energy. Maximum transfection rate was achieved using focused ultrasound (49.5o%; 200 W, 500 ms, 200 microg/ml DNA). 31.3% of kidney cells were transfected by electromagnetic shock waves (1500 impulses, 200 microg/ml DNA, 0.5 mJ/mm2 energy density, 2 Hz). Plasmid strand breaks were identified as a limiting factor of the transfection rate. CONCLUSION: Transfection by acoustic energy, especially focused ultrasound, can be achieved at a high level in different cell lines. The possible topical application to urological organs and the low level of side-effects make acoustic energy a promising new gene therapy treatment option in urology.