Search

ABSTRACT Dose‐finding studies play a crucial role in drug development by identifying the optimal dose(s) for later studies while considering tolerability. This not only saves time and effort in proceeding with Phase III trials but also improves efficacy. In an era of precision medicine, it is not ideal to assume patient homogeneity in dose‐finding studies as patients may respond differently to the drug. To address this, we propose a personalized dose‐finding algorithm that assigns patients to individualized optimal biological doses. Our design follows a two‐stage approach. Initially, patients are enrolled under broad eligibility criteria. Based on the Stage 1 data, we fit a regression model of toxicity and efficacy outcomes on dose and biomarkers to characterize treatment‐sensitive patients. In the second stage, we restrict the trial population to sensitive patients, apply a personalized dose allocation algorithm, and choose the recommended dose at the end of the trial. Simulation study shows that the proposed design reliably enriches the trial population, minimizes the number of failures, and yields superior operating characteristics compared to several existing dose‐finding designs in terms of both the percentage of correct selection and the number of patients treated at target dose(s). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The discovery of actionable oncogenic driver mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has revolutionized the treatment and prognosis of this dreadful disease. New targeted therapies are being developed and tested in early phase clinical trials rapidly. We summarize emerging first-in-human clinical trials of targeted therapy that have been conducted or initiated in the past year. We hope this review will benefit our readers to be familiar with new advances in this field and create more opportunities for eligible patients to access clinical trials. Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the most common type and is still incurable for most patients at the advanced stage. Targeted therapy is an effective treatment that has significantly improved survival in NSCLC patients with actionable mutations. However, therapy resistance occurs widely among patients leading to disease progression. In addition, many oncogenic driver mutations in NSCLC still lack targeted agents. New drugs are being developed and tested in clinical trials to overcome these challenges. This review aims to summarize emerging targeted therapy that have been conducted or initiated through first-in-human clinical trials in the past year. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Fms-like tyrosine kinase type III (FLT3) inhibitors have been shown to induce significant clinical responses in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) harboring FLT3 mutations. Responses to monotherapy and combination regimens are typically incomplete and transient, prompting the exploration of novel FLT3 inhibitors in AML as well as solid tumors. The aim of this study was to explore the safety and preliminary efficacy of a novel, intravenous FLT3 inhibitor, FN-1501, in patients with advanced solid tumors. The safety profile was consistent with that of approved FLT3 inhibitors. Preliminary efficacy and safety data from this study support further study of FN-1501 as an alternative treatment for patients with solid tumors. Background: FN-1501, a potent inhibitor of receptor FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3) and CDK4/6, KIT, PDGFR, VEGFR2, ALK, and RET tyrosine kinase proteins, has demonstrated significant in vivo activity in various solid tumor and leukemia human xenograft models. Anomalies in FLT3 have an established role as a therapeutic target where the gene has been shown to play a critical role in the growth, differentiation, and survival of various cell types in hematopoietic cancer and have shown promise in various solid tumors. An open-label, Phase I/II study (NCT03690154) was designed to evaluate the safety and PK profile of FN-1501 as monotherapy in patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors and relapsed, refractory (R/R) AML. Methods: Pts received FN-1501 IV three times a week for 2 weeks, followed by 1 week off treatment in continuous 21-day cycles. Dose escalation followed a standard 3 + 3 design. Primary objectives include the determination of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, and recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D). Secondary objectives include pharmacokinetics (PK) and preliminary anti-tumor activity. Exploratory objectives include the relationship between pharmacogenetic mutations (e.g., FLT3, TP53, KRAS, NRAS, etc.), safety, and efficacy; as well as an evaluation of the pharmacodynamic effects of treatment with FN-1501. Dose expansion at RP2D further explored the safety and efficacy of FN-1501 in this treatment setting. Results: A total of 48 adult pts with advanced solid tumors (N = 47) and AML (N = 1) were enrolled at doses ranging from 2.5 to 226 mg IV three times a week for two weeks in 21-day cycles (2 weeks on and 1 week off treatment). The median age was 65 years (range 30–92); 57% were female and 43% were male. The median number of prior lines of treatment was 5 (range 1–12). Forty patients evaluable for dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) assessment had a median exposure of 9.5 cycles (range 1–18 cycles). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported for 64% of the pts. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), defined as those occurring in ≥20% of pts, primarily consisted of reversible Grade 1–2 fatigue (34%), nausea (32%), and diarrhea (26%). The most common Grade ≥3 events occurring in ≥5% of pts consisted of diarrhea and hyponatremia. Dose escalation was discontinued due to DLTs of Grade 3 thrombocytopenia (N = 1) and Grade 3 infusion-related reaction (N = 1) occurring in 2 pts. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was determined to be 170 mg. Conclusions: FN-1501 demonstrated reasonable safety, tolerability, and preliminary activity against solid tumors in doses up to 170 mg. Dose escalation was terminated based on 2 DLTs occurring at the 226 mg dose level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The growing interest in new classes of anti‐cancer agents, such as molecularly‐targeted therapies and immunotherapies with modes of action different from those of cytotoxic chemotherapies, has changed the dose‐finding paradigm. In this setting, the observation of late‐onset toxicity endpoints may be precluded by treatment and trial discontinuation due to disease progression, defining a competing event to toxicity. Trial designs where dose‐finding is modeled in the framework of a survival competing risks model appear particularly well‐suited. We aim to provide a phase I/II dose‐finding design that allows dose‐limiting toxicity (DLT) outcomes to be delayed or unobserved due to competing progression within the possibly long observation window. The proposed design named the Survival‐continual reassessment method‐12, uses survival models for right‐censored DLT and progression endpoints. In this competing risks framework, cause‐specific hazards for DLT and progression‐free of DLT were considered, with model parameters estimated using Bayesian inference. It aims to identify the optimal dose (OD), by minimizing the cumulative incidence of disease progression, given an acceptable toxicity threshold. In a simulation study, design operating characteristics were evaluated and compared to the TITE‐BOIN‐ET design and a nonparametric benchmark approach. The performance of the proposed method was consistent with the complexity of scenarios as assessed by the nonparametric benchmark. We found that the proposed design presents satisfying operating characteristics in selecting the OD and safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This phase I/II clinical study was conducted to examine the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of 10-min dosing of bendamustine in patients with previously untreated indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL) or mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) (Group 1) and patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (rrDLBCL) (Group 2).Methods: Rituximab 375 mg/m2 was administered intravenously every 28 days to Group 1 patients on day 1 and every 21 days to Group 2 patients on day 1. Bendamustine 90 mg/m2/day was administered to the former on days 1 and 2; bendamustine 120 mg/m2/day was administered to the latter on days 2 and 3. Each regimen was delivered up to six cycles for both groups. The primary endpoints were safety and tolerability in Groups 1 and 2, respectively.Results: Among 37 enrolled patients, safety was assessed in 36. In Group 1 (n = 30), 27 patients (90%) had follicular lymphoma. Adverse events (AEs) were observed in all 30 patients in Group 1. Dose-limiting toxicities were observed in two of six patients in Group 2. Common AEs included lymphocyte count decreased (86.7%, 100%). In Group 1, overall response and complete response rates were 93.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 77.2-99.2%) and 75.9% (95% CI 56.5-89.7%), respectively. The Cmax and AUC of bendamustine tended to be higher in Group 2 than in Group 1.Conclusions: This study showed that bendamustine is safe, well-tolerated and effective for patients with previously untreated iNHL, MCL or rrDLBCL. Pharmacokinetic data were equivalent to those obtained outside of Japan.Registration Numbers: Registration NCT03900377; registered April 3, 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Romiplostim is approved for the treatment of immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). This study aimed to evaluate the pharmacokinetics, safety, and pharmacodynamics of romiplostim in Chinese patients with ITP. This multicenter, open‐label, dose‐escalation phase I/II trial enrolled ITP patients from 5 centers in China between October 2015 and August 2017. There were 2 cohorts: 1 μg/kg and 3 μg/kg weekly for 2 weeks. The end points included pharmacokinetics, platelet changes from baseline, hematological indicators, and adverse events (AEs). Sixteen participants, with 8 patients in each cohort, were enrolled. In the 1 μg/kg cohort, time to maximum concentration was 4.00 (4.00‐7.83) hours, maximum serum drug concentration was 52.0 (16.0‐228.0) pg/mL, and area under the serum drug concentration–time curve from time 0 to the last detectable time point was 389 (32.0‐5400) pg · h/mL. In the 3 μg/kg cohort, time to maximum serum drug concentration was 11.91 (4.00‐12.00) hours, maximum serum drug concentration was 105.0 (25.5‐313.0) pg/mL, and half‐life was 12.7 (8.2‐23.6) hours. The absolute change of peak platelet count from baseline was 14 (3‐40) and 72 (3–369) ×109/L in the 1 and 3 μg/kg cohorts, respectively. Seven (87.5%) and eight (100%) participants had treatment‐emergent AEs in 1 μg/kg cohort and 3 μg/kg cohort, respectively. No major AEs occurred in the 2 cohorts. Romiplostim (1 and 3 μg/kg) is safe and well tolerated in Chinese patients with ITP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Pediatric patients with relapsed or refractory disease represent a population with a desperate medical need. The aim of the INFORM (INdividualized Therapy FOr Relapsed Malignancies in Childhood) program is to translate next generation molecular diagnostics into a biomarker driven treatment strategy. The program consists of two major foundations: the INFORM registry providing a molecular screening platform and the INFORM2 series of biomarker driven phase I/II trials. The INFORM2 NivEnt trial aims to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of the combination treatment of nivolumab and entinostat (phase I) and to evaluate activity and safety (phase II). Methods This is an exploratory non-randomized, open-label, multinational and multicenter seamless phase I/II trial in children and adolescents with relapsed / refractory or progressive high-risk solid tumors and CNS tumors. The phase I is divided in 2 age cohorts: 12–21 years and 6–11 years and follows a 3 + 3 design with two dose levels for entinostat (2 mg/m2 and 4 mg/m2 once per week) and fixed dose nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks). Patients entering the trial on RP2D can seamlessly enter phase II which consists of a biomarker defined four group basket trial: high mutational load (group A), high PD-L1 mRNA expression (group B), focal MYC(N) amplification (group C), low mutational load and low PD-L1 mRNA expression and no MYC(N) amplification (group D). A Bayesian adaptive design will be used to early stop cohorts that fail to show evidence of activity. The maximum number of patients is 128. Discussion This trial intends to exploit the immune enhancing effects of entinostat on nivolumab using an innovative biomarker driven approach in order to maximize the chance of detecting signs of activity. It prevents exposure to unnecessary risks by applying the Bayesian adaptive design for early stopping for futility. The adaptive biomarker driven design provides an innovative approach accelerating drug development and reducing exposure to investigational treatments in these vulnerable children at the same time. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03838042 . Registered on 12 February 2019.

Background: Pemigatinib is an oral, potent, selective fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) 1-3 inhibitor. FIGHT-101, a three-part, open-label, first-in-human, phase I/II study (NCT02393248), evaluated pemigatinib in patients with advanced solid tumors. In parts 1 and 2, pemigatinib monotherapy had a manageable safety profile and antitumor activity in FGFR-altered tumors. Part 3 (pemigatinib combination therapies) results are presented here., Patients and Methods: Patients received 9, 13.5, or 20 mg oral once-daily pemigatinib on continuous or intermittent schedules with gemcitabine and cisplatin (pemi/gem/cis), docetaxel (pemi/doc), trastuzumab (pemi/tras), pembrolizumab (pemi/pembro), or retifanlimab (pemi/reti) irrespective of whether the tumor was confirmed as FGFR altered. Primary endpoints were safety and pharmacodynamics. Secondary endpoints were investigator-assessed tumor objective response rates (ORRs) and pharmacokinetics (PK)., Results: Of 65 enrolled patients (pemi/gem/cis, n = 8; pemi/doc, n = 7; pemi/tras, n = 6; pemi/pembro, n = 26; pemi/reti, n = 18), all discontinued. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were generally consistent with individual drug AEs. Serious and grade ≥3 TEAEs occurred in 0%-85.7% and 33.3%-100.0% of patients across treatment groups, respectively. All pemigatinib combinations demonstrated steady-state PK comparable to monotherapy. Pharmacodynamic effects in all pemigatinib combinations, except pemi/gem/cis, were consistent with monotherapy. Less inhibition of FGFR2α phosphorylation was observed with this combination. ORRs (95% confidence interval) were 37.5% [8.5% to 75.5% (pemi/gem/cis)], 14.3% [0.4% to 57.9% (pemi/doc)], 0% (pemi/tras), 26.9% [11.6% to 47.8% (pemi/pembro)], and 11.1% [1.4% to 34.7% (pemi/reti)]. All groups had instances of tumor shrinkage. ORRs in assessable patients with FGFR rearrangements and mutations were 50% and 33%, respectively., Conclusions: Pemigatinib combination therapy showed no unexpected toxicities. PK and pharmacodynamics were mostly consistent with pemigatinib monotherapy. Pemi/gem/cis (37.5%) and pemi/pembro (26.9%) had the highest ORR; most responders had FGFR alterations., Competing Interests: Disclosure VS reports scientific advisory board participation for Relay Therapeutics, Incyte, Novartis, Eli Lilly/Loxo Oncology, Roche, Pfizer, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, AbbVie, Regeneron, Novartis, Clinical Care Communications, Invited Speaker. KPP reports consulting or advisory roles for Basilea and Turning Point Therapeutics and research funding paid to the institution from 3D Medicines, AbbVie, ADC Therapeutics, Amgen, Anheart Therapeutics, Bayer, Calithera Biosciences, Daiichi Sankyo, EMD Serono, F-star, Incyte, Jounce Therapeutics, Lilly, Linnaeus Therapeutics, MabSpace Biosciences, MedImmune, Merck, Mersana, Mirati Therapeutics, Peloton Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Syros Pharmaceuticals, Tempest Therapeutics, and Treadwell Therapeutics. DM received consulting fees from AbbVie, Arcus, Lilly, and Mirati. Research grants or funds were received from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Epicentrx, Incyte, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Surface, and Y-mabs. NBM received research funding paid directly to the institution from Actuate Therapeutics, Amphivena Therapeutics, Aravive Inc., AstraZeneca, BioMed Valley Discoveries, Compass Therapeutics, Erytech Pharma, Genentech, Incyte, Leap Therapeutics, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Mereo BioPharma Group, NuCana, Repare Therapeutics, and Syros Pharmaceuticals. IS received research funding paid directly to the institution from Alligator Bioscience, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cantargia AB, Genentech, Genmab, Incyte, Loxo/Bayer, Loxo/Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Orion, Roche, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, and Symphogen; and support for attending meetings and/or travel expenses from AstraZeneca, Incyte, Merck, and Pfizer. MLV and CT are employees and shareholders of Incyte. IMS was an employee of Incyte at the time of the study. MG is a speaker for Guardant and a consultant for Cellularity, Merck, and Sanofi. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Investigating the problem of setting control limits for an exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) chart in the case of parameter uncertainty is more accessible when monitoring the variance because only one parameter has to be estimated. Simply ignoring the induced uncertainty frequently leads to control charts with poor false alarm performances. Adjusting the unconditional in‐control (IC) average run length (ARL) makes the situation even worse. Guaranteeing a minimum conditional IC ARL with some given probability is another very popular approach to solving these difficulties. However, it is very conservative as well as more complex and more difficult to communicate. We utilize the probability of a false alarm within the planned number of points to be plotted on the control chart. It turns out that adjusting this probability produces notably different limit adjustments compared to controlling the unconditional IC ARL. We then develop numerical algorithms to determine the respective modifications of the upper and two‐sided EWMA charts based on the sample variance for normally distributed data. These algorithms are made available within an R package. Finally, the impacts of the EWMA smoothing constant and the size of the preliminary sample on the control chart design and its performance are studied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Objectives Phase I - To determine the optimal dose of each candidate (or combination of candidates) entered into the platform. Phase II - To determine the efficacy and safety of each candidate entered into the platform, compared to the current Standard of Care (SoC), and recommend whether it should be evaluated further in a later phase II & III platforms. Trial design AGILE-ACCORD is a Bayesian multicentre, multi-arm, multi-dose, multi-stage open-label, adaptive, seamless phase I/II randomised platform trial to determine the optimal dose, activity and safety of multiple candidate agents for the treatment of COVID-19. Designed as a master protocol with each candidate being evaluated within its own sub-protocol (Candidate Specific Trial (CST) protocol), randomising between candidate and SoC with 2:1 allocation in favour of the candidate (N.B the first candidate has gone through regulatory approval and is expected to open to recruitment early summer 2020). Each dose will be assessed for safety sequentially in cohorts of 6 patients. Once a phase II dose has been identified we will assess efficacy by seamlessly expanding into a larger cohort. Participants Patient populations can vary between CSTs, but the main eligibility criteria include adult patients (≥18 years) who have laboratory-confirmed infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We will include both severe and mild-moderate patients defined as follows: Group A (severe disease) - patients with WHO Working Group on the Clinical Characteristics of COVID-19 infection 9-point ordinal scale of Grades 4 (hospitalised, oxygen by mask or nasal prongs), 5 (hospitalised, non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen), 6 (hospitalised, intubation and mechanical ventilation) or 7 (hospitalised, ventilation and additional organ support); Group B (mild-moderate disease) - ambulant or hospitalised patients with peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2) >94% RA. If any CSTs are included in the community setting, the CST protocol will clarify whether patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection are also eligible. Participants will be recruited from England, North Ireland, Wales and Scotland. Intervention and comparator Comparator is the current standard of care (SoC), in some CSTs plus placebo. Candidates that prevent uncontrolled cytokine release, prevention of viral replication, and other anti-viral treatment strategies are at various stages of development for inclusion into AGILE-ACCORD. Other CSTs will be added over time. There is not a set limit on the number of CSTs we can include within the AGILE-ACCORD Master protocol and we will upload each CST into this publication as each opens to recruitment. Main outcomes Phase I: Dose limiting toxicities using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5 Grade ≥3 adverse events. Phase II: Agreed on a CST basis depending on mechanism of action of the candidate and patient population. But may include; time to clinical improvement of at least 2 points on the WHO 9-point category ordinal scale [measured up to 29 days from randomisation], progression of disease (oxygen saturation (SaO2)

Brain tumors are the most common solid tumor diagnosed in childhood that account for significant morbidity and mortality. New therapies are urgently needed; hence, we conducted the first ever prospective open-label phase II trials of the biological response modifier, poly-ICLC, in children with brain tumors. Poly-ICLC is a synthetic double-stranded RNA that has direct antiviral, antineoplastic, and immune adjuvant effects. A total of 47 children representing a variety of brain tumor histopathologic subtypes were treated with poly-ICLC. On the basis of the results of the initial phase II trial, an expanded prospective phase II trial in low-grade glioma (LGG) has been initiated. MRI was used to acquire volume-based measures of tumor response. No dose-limiting toxicities have been observed. In the initial study 3 of 12 subjects with progressive high-grade gliomas (HGGs) responded, and 2 of 4 children with progressive LGG experienced stable disease for 18 to 24 months. In the follow-up LGG phase II study, 2 of 5 LGG patients were stable over 18 months, with 1 stable for 6 months. Overall 5 of 10 LGG patients have responded. On the basis of low toxicity and the promising LGG response, poly-ICLC may be effective for childhood LGG, and the results justify biomarker studies for personalization of poly-ICLC as a single agent or adjuvant.

Background: Over 13,000 new cases of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) are diagnosed in the UK, with approximately 4,900 attributable deaths each year. Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common NHL comprising one third of adult NHL cases. R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisolone) is accepted as the international standard first-line regimen, but improvement in first line treatment is needed. Dysregulated B-cell receptor (BCR) signalling has been identified as a feature of DLBCL. Inhibition of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (Btk), downstream of the BCR has proven efficacious in other B-cell malignancies and in combination with R-CHOP. The second generation Btk inhibitor, acalabrutinib, may have improved target potency and specificity, and therefore better efficacy and tolerability. Methods: ACCEPT is an open-label non-randomised Phase Ib/II trial testing the addition of acalabrutinib to conventional R-CHOP therapy. ACCEPT incorporates an initial 6+6 modified Phase I design of up to 24 participants followed by 15 participant single arm Phase II expansion cohort in treatment naive patients with histologically confirmed DLBCL expressing CD20. Participants are recruited from UK secondary care sites. Phase I will establish the recommended Phase II dose (RP2D, primary endpoint) of acalabrutinib in combination with R-CHOP. Phase II will gain additional information on safety and efficacy on the RP2D. The primary endpoints of Phase II are overall response rate and toxicity profile. Secondary endpoints include duration of response (progression-free survival and overall survival OS) in relation to cell of origin. Analyses are not powered for formal statistical comparisons; descriptive statistics will describe rates of toxicity, efficacy and translational endpoints. Discussion: ACCEPT will provide evidence for whether acalabrutinib in combination with R-CHOP is safe and biologically effective prior to future Phase II/III trials in patients with previously untreated CD20 positive DLBCL. Trial registration: EudraCT Number: 2015-003213-18 (issued 16 July 2015); ISRCTN 13626902 (registered 07 March 2017).

Wilms tumour (WT) accounts for about 6% of all childhood cancers and overall survival of WT is about 90% in international protocols. However, for WT subgroups with much poorer prognoses, i.e. typically high-risk (unfavorable) histology and/or relapse, there is an unmet need to better understand the biology of WT and to translate biological findings into clinics through early phase clinical trials that evaluate innovative therapies. The main challenges are the small numbers of children suitable for early phase trials, the genetic heterogeneity of WT and the low number of somatic mutations that are currently considered 'druggable'. Accordingly, a joint meeting between clinical and biology experts from the international cooperative groups of the Renal Tumour Study Group of the International Society of Paediatric Oncology, the Renal Tumour Committee of the Children's Oncology Group and the European Innovative Therapies for Children with Cancer consortium and parents representatives was organised during the first SIOPE meeting in Prague, 2019. We reviewed WT molecular features, ongoing/planned early phase trials and explored available knowledge on organoid technology. The key messages were: (1) relapsed WT should undergo whenever possible thorough molecular characterization and be enrolled in protocols or trials with systematic data collecting and reporting; (2) WT displays few known 'actionable' targets and currently no novel agent has appeared promising; (3) we need to improve the enrolment rate of WT candidates in early phase trials especially for the relatively small subgroup of relapses with an adverse prognostic signature; (4) despite some agnostic early phase trials existing, development of WT-focused trials are warranted; (5) growing organoids with parallel testing of drug panels seems feasible and may direct individual treatment and encourage clinical researchers to incorporate the most promising agents into early phase trials. • A meeting at the first SIOPE identified the unmet needs for relapsed Wilms tumour (WT). • WT displays few known actionable targets and no novel agent seems promising. • Improvement of the enrolment rate for WT candidates in early phase trials needed. • Models like organoids with parallel testing help to improve theory suggestions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Urothelial bladder cancer (UBC) accounts for 10,000 new diagnoses and 5000 deaths annually in the UK (Cancer Research UK, http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/bladder-cancer, Cancer Research UK, Accessed 26 Mar 2018). Cisplatin-based chemotherapy is standard of care therapy for UBC for both palliative first-line treatment of advanced/metastatic disease and radical neoadjuvant treatment of localised muscle invasive bladder cancer. However, cisplatin resistance remains a critical cause of treatment failure and a barrier to therapeutic advance in UBC. Based on supportive pre-clinical data, we hypothesised that DNA methyltransferase inhibition would circumvent cisplatin resistance in UBC and potentially other cancers. Methods The addition of SGI-110 (guadecitabine, a DNA methyltransferase inhibitor) to conventional doublet therapy of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) is being tested within the phase Ib/IIa SPIRE clinical trial. SPIRE incorporates an initial, modified rolling six-dose escalation phase Ib design of up to 36 patients with advanced solid tumours followed by a 20-patient open-label randomised controlled dose expansion phase IIa component as neoadjuvant treatment for UBC. Patients are being recruited from UK secondary care sites. The dose escalation phase will determine a recommended phase II dose (RP2D, primary endpoint) of SGI-110, by subcutaneous injection, on days 1–5 for combination with GC at conventional doses (cisplatin 70 mg/m2, IV infusion, day 8; gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2, IV infusion, days 8 and 15) in every 21-day cycle. In the dose expansion phase, patients will be randomised 1:1 to GC with or without SGI-110 at the proposed RP2D. Secondary endpoints will include toxicity profiles, SGI-110 pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic biomarkers, and pathological complete response rates in the dose expansion phase. Analyses will not be powered for formal statistical comparisons and descriptive statistics will be used to describe rates of toxicity, efficacy and translational endpoints by treatment arm. Discussion SPIRE will provide evidence for whether SGI-110 in combination with GC chemotherapy is safe and biologically effective prior to future phase II/III trials as a neoadjuvant therapy for UBC and potentially in other cancers treated with GC. Trial Registration EudraCT Number: 2015–004062-29 (entered Dec 7, 2015) ISRCTN registry number: 16332228 (registered on Feb 3, 2016)

This phase I/II study assessed the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with carboplatin (CBDCA) and nab-paclitaxel (nab-PTX) in advanced elderly patients (aged ≥75 years) with advanced squamous cell lung cancer (SqCLC). In this phase I study, the doses of carboplatin at an area under the curve (AUC) of 5 or 6 mg/mL/min on day 1 (levels 1 and 2, respectively) were administered along with weekly nab-PTX (100 mg/m2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks for up to 6 cycles using a modified 3 + 3 design. The primary endpoint for the phase II study was the 6-month progression-free survival (6 m PFS) rate. A total of 46 patients were enrolled in this study. Ten patients were enrolled in the phase I part. At dose level 1, 2/7 patients showed dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of grade 3 diarrhea and febrile neutropenia; at dose level 2, 1/3 patient exhibited grade 3 anorexia as a DLT. The recommended dose was determined to be level 2. Efficacy was then evaluated in 39 patients enrolled in a phase II study. The median number of cycles was 4 (range, 1–6), and the median follow-up time was 17.5 months (range, 5.6–28.9 months). The 6 m PFS rate was 59.4% (90% confidence interval [CI], 44.8%–71.4%), and the primary endpoint was met. The median overall survival time was 23.5 months (95% CI, 11.6–35.4), and the median PFS was 6.8 months (95% CI, 5.4–9.1). The response rate was 54%, and the disease control rate was 92%. Sixteen patients (41%) received immune checkpoint inhibitors post-study. Common grade 3 or 4 toxicities were neutropenia (61.5%), anemia (46.2%), thrombocytopenia (17.9%), and febrile neutropenia (15.4%). Combination chemotherapy consisting of CBDCA with weekly nab-PTX had a promising efficacy and acceptable toxicities in elderly patients (aged ≥75 years) with advanced SqCLC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pediatric patients with relapsed or refractory disease represent a population with a desperate medical need. The aim of the INFORM (INdividualized Therapy FOr Relapsed Malignancies in Childhood) program is to translate next generation molecular diagnostics into a biomarker driven treatment strategy. The program consists of two major foundations: the INFORM registry providing a molecular screening platform and the INFORM2 series of biomarker driven phase I/II trials. The INFORM2 NivEnt trial aims to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of the combination treatment of nivolumab and entinostat (phase I) and to evaluate activity and safety (phase II).Methods: This is an exploratory non-randomized, open-label, multinational and multicenter seamless phase I/II trial in children and adolescents with relapsed / refractory or progressive high-risk solid tumors and CNS tumors. The phase I is divided in 2 age cohorts: 12-21 years and 6-11 years and follows a 3 + 3 design with two dose levels for entinostat (2 mg/m2 and 4 mg/m2 once per week) and fixed dose nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks). Patients entering the trial on RP2D can seamlessly enter phase II which consists of a biomarker defined four group basket trial: high mutational load (group A), high PD-L1 mRNA expression (group B), focal MYC(N) amplification (group C), low mutational load and low PD-L1 mRNA expression and no MYC(N) amplification (group D). A Bayesian adaptive design will be used to early stop cohorts that fail to show evidence of activity. The maximum number of patients is 128.Discussion: This trial intends to exploit the immune enhancing effects of entinostat on nivolumab using an innovative biomarker driven approach in order to maximize the chance of detecting signs of activity. It prevents exposure to unnecessary risks by applying the Bayesian adaptive design for early stopping for futility. The adaptive biomarker driven design provides an innovative approach accelerating drug development and reducing exposure to investigational treatments in these vulnerable children at the same time.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03838042. Registered on 12 February 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/aims: The increasing cost of the drug development process has seen interest in the use of adaptive trial designs grow substantially. Accordingly, much research has been conducted to identify barriers to increasing the use of adaptive designs in practice. Several articles have argued that the availability of user-friendly software will be an important step in making adaptive designs easier to implement. Therefore, we present a review of the current state of software availability for adaptive trial design. Methods: We review articles from 31 journals published in 2013–2017 that relate to methodology for adaptive trials to assess how often code and software for implementing novel adaptive designs is made available at the time of publication. We contrast our findings against these journals' policies on code distribution. We also search popular code repositories, such as Comprehensive R Archive Network and GitHub, to identify further existing user-contributed software for adaptive designs. From this, we are able to direct interested parties toward solutions for their problem of interest. Results: Only 30% of included articles made their code available in some form. In many instances, articles published in journals that had mandatory requirements on code provision still did not make code available. There are several areas in which available software is currently limited or saturated. In particular, many packages are available to address group sequential design, but comparatively little code is present in the public domain to determine biomarker-guided adaptive designs. Conclusions: There is much room for improvement in the provision of software alongside adaptive design publications. In addition, while progress has been made, well-established software for various types of trial adaptation remains sparsely available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An important tool to evaluate the performance of any design is an optimal benchmark proposed by O'Quigley and others (2002. Non-parametric optimal design in dose finding studies. Biostatistics3, 51-56) that provides an upper bound on the performance of a design under a given scenario. The original benchmark can only be applied to dose finding studies with a binary endpoint. However, there is a growing interest in dose finding studies involving continuous outcomes, but no benchmark for such studies has been developed. We show that the original benchmark and its extension by Cheung (2014. Simple benchmark for complex dose finding studies. Biometrics70, 389-397), when looked at from a different perspective, can be generalized to various settings with several discrete and continuous outcomes. We illustrate and compare the benchmark's performance in the setting of a dose finding Phase I clinical trial with a continuous toxicity endpoint and a Phase I/II trial with binary toxicity and continuous efficacy endpoints. We show that the proposed benchmark provides an accurate upper bound in these contexts and serves as a powerful tool for evaluating designs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is often of interest to explore how dose affects the toxicity and efficacy properties of a novel treatment. In oncology, efficacy is often assessed through response, which is defined by a patient having no new tumour lesions and their tumour size shrinking by 30%. Usually response and toxicity are analysed as binary outcomes in early phase trials. Methods have been proposed to improve the efficiency of analysing response by utilising the continuous tumour size information instead of dichotomising it. However, these methods do not allow for toxicity or for different doses. Motivated by a phase II trial testing multiple doses of a treatment against placebo, we propose a latent variable model that can estimate the probability of response and no toxicity (or other related outcomes) for different doses. We assess the confidence interval coverage and efficiency properties of the method, compared to methods that do not use the continuous tumour size, in a simulation study and the real study. The coverage is close to nominal when model assumptions are met, although can be below nominal when the model is misspecified. Compared to methods that treat response as binary, the method has confidence intervals with 30-50% narrower widths. The method adds considerable efficiency but care must be taken that the model assumptions are reasonable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the era of targeted therapy and immunotherapy, the objective of dose finding is often to identify the optimal biological dose (OBD), rather than the maximum tolerated dose. We develop a utility-based Bayesian optimal interval (U-BOIN) phase I/II design to find the OBD. We jointly model toxicity and efficacy using a multinomial-Dirichlet model, and employ a utility function to measure dose risk-benefit trade-off. The U-BOIN design consists of two seamless stages. In stage I, the Bayesian optimal interval design is used to quickly explore the dose space and collect preliminary toxicity and efficacy data. In stage II, we continuously update the posterior estimate of the utility for each dose after each cohort, using accumulating efficacy and toxicity from both stages I and II, and then use the posterior estimate to direct the dose assignment and selection. Compared to existing phase I/II designs, one prominent advantage of the U-BOIN design is its simplicity for implementation. Once the trial is designed, it can be easily applied using predetermined decision tables, without complex model fitting and estimation. Our simulation study shows that, despite its simplicity, the U-BOIN design is robust and has high accuracy to identify the OBD. We extend the design to accommodate delayed efficacy by leveraging the short-term endpoint (eg, immune activity or other biological activity of targeted agents), and using it to predict the delayed efficacy outcome to facilitate real-time decision making. A user-friendly software to implement the U-BOIN is freely available at www.trialdesign.org. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The Matchpoint trial aims to identify the optimal dose of ponatinib to give with conventional chemotherapy consisting of fludarabine, cytarabine and idarubicin to chronic myeloid leukaemia patients in blastic transformation phase. The dose should be both tolerable and efficacious. This paper describes our experience implementing EffTox in the Matchpoint trial. Methods EffTox is a Bayesian adaptive dose-finding trial design that jointly scrutinises binary efficacy and toxicity outcomes. We describe a nomenclature for succinctly describing outcomes in phase I/II dose-finding trials. We use dose-transition pathways, where doses are calculated for each feasible set of outcomes in future cohorts. We introduce the phenomenon of dose ambivalence, where EffTox can recommend different doses after observing the same outcomes. We also describe our experiences with outcome ambiguity, where the categorical evaluation of some primary outcomes is temporarily delayed. Results We arrived at an EffTox parameterisation that is simulated to perform well over a range of scenarios. In scenarios where dose ambivalence manifested, we were guided by the dose-transition pathways. This technique facilitates planning, and also helped us overcome short-term outcome ambiguity. Conclusions EffTox is an efficient and powerful design, but not without its challenges. Joint phase I/II clinical trial designs will likely become increasingly important in coming years as we further investigate non-cytotoxic treatments and streamline the drug approval process. We hope this account of the problems we faced and the solutions we used will help others implement this dose-finding clinical trial design. Trial registration Matchpoint was added to the European Clinical Trials Database ( https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2012-005629-65/GB ) on 2013-12-30.

Background: An acellular Pertussis (aP) vaccine containing recombinant genetically detoxified Pertussis Toxin (PTgen), Filamentous Hemagglutinin (FHA) and Pertactin (PRN) has been developed by BioNet-Asia (BioNet). We present here the results of the first clinical study of this recombinant aP vaccine formulated alone or in combination with tetanus and diphtheria toxoids (TdaP). Methods: A phase I/II, observer-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted at Mahidol University in Bangkok, Thailand in healthy adult volunteers aged 18–35 y. The eligible volunteers were randomized to receive one dose of either BioNet's aP or Tetanus toxoid-reduced Diphtheria toxoid-acellular Pertussis (TdaP) vaccine, or the Tdap Adacel® vaccine in a 1:1:1 ratio. Safety follow-up was performed for one month. Immunogenicity was assessed at baseline, at 7 and 28 d after vaccination. Anti-PT, anti-FHA, anti-PRN, anti-tetanus and anti-diphtheria IgG antibodies were assessed by ELISA. Anti-PT neutralizing antibodies were assessed also by CHO cell assay. Results: A total of 60 subjects (20 per each vaccine group) were enrolled and included in the safety analysis. Safety laboratory parameters, incidence of local and systemic post-immunization reactions during 7 d after vaccination and incidence of adverse events during one month after vaccination were similar in the 3 vaccine groups. One month after vaccination, seroresponse rates of anti-PT, anti-FHA and anti-PRN IgG antibodies exceeded 78% in all vaccine groups. The anti-PT IgG, anti-FHA IgG, and anti-PT neutralizing antibody geometric mean titers (GMTs) were significantly higher following immunization with BioNet's aP and BioNet's TdaP than Adacel® (P< 0.05). The anti-PRN IgG, anti-tetanus and anti-diphtheria GMTs at one month after immunization were comparable in all vaccine groups. All subjects had seroprotective titers of anti-tetanus and anti-diphtheria antibodies at baseline. Conclusion: In this first clinical study, PTgen-based BioNet's aP and TdaP vaccines showed a similar tolerability and safety profile to Adacel® and elicited significantly higher immune responses to PT and FHA.

Background: Routine treatment for unstable spinal metastases consists of surgical stabilization followed by external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) after a minimum of 1–2 weeks to allow for initial wound healing. Although routine treatment, there are several downsides. First, radiotherapy induced pain relief is delayed by the time interval required for wound healing. Second, EBRT often requires multiple hospital visits and only 60% of the patients experience pain relief. Third, spinal implants cause imaging artifacts hindering SBRT treatment planning and delivery. Reversing the order of surgery and radiotherapy, with dose sparing of the surgical area by SBRT, could overcome these disadvantages and by eliminating the interval between the two treatments, recovery, and palliation may occur earlier.Design: The safety of SBRT followed by surgical stabilization within 24 h for the treatment of unstable spinal metastases was investigated. Safety was evaluated using the Common-Toxicity-Criteria-Adverse-Events-4.0, with the occurrence of wound complications within 90-days being the primary concern.Results: Between June-2015 and January-2017, 13 patients underwent SBRT followed by surgical stabilization for unstable spinal metastases. The median time between SBRT and surgery was 17-h (IQR 5–19). None of the patients experienced wound complications. Improvements in pain and quality of life were observed over time for all patients.Conclusion: SBRT followed by surgical stabilization within 24 h for the treatment of unstable spinal metastases is safe. Palliation may be experienced earlier and with both treatments being performed in one hospital admission the treatment burden decreases.

Summary: Background This phase I/II trial evaluated toxicity and antitumor activity of everolimus plus mFOLFOX6 + bevacizumab for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Methods A phase I, modified 3 + 3 Fibonacci schema determined the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of everolimus, followed by phase II dose expansion. The phase II primary objective was progression-free survival at 6 months (PFS-6 m). Results The everolimus MTD was 10 mg daily with mFOLFOX6 + bevacizumab based on safety from phase I (n = 22). Twenty-five patients were treated in the phase II at 10 mg everolimus daily. Frequent grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (64%), leukopenia (28%) and hypokalemia (26%). Grade 2 stomatitis was observed in 62% of patients. Two dose-limiting toxicities were observed with one attributed to everolimus 10 mg daily (grade 3 diarrhea, hypokalemia, and anorexia) and grade 3 coronary vasospasm attributed to fluorouracil. The objective response rate was 53% and was higher (86%) in those with PTEN deficiency. PFS-6 m was 96% (95% CI 89–99.9%) at the MTD (n = 35). The everolimus recommended phase II dose of this regimen is 7.5 mg daily due to frequent stomatitis and dose reductions. Conclusions Everolimus plus mFOLFOX-6 + bevacizumab is tolerable and demonstrated preliminary efficacy for first-line mCRC. Further studies are warranted in PTEN deficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background Mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway and angiogenesis through vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) have been shown to play important roles in prostate cancer progression. Preclinical data in prostate cancer has suggested the potential additive effect dual inhibition of VEGF and mTOR pathways. In this phase I/II trial we assessed the safety and efficacy of bevacizumab in combination with temsirolimus for the treatment of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Methods In the phase I portion, eligible patients received temsirolimus (20 mg or 25 mg IV weekly) in combination with a fixed dose of IV bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks). The primary endpoint for the phase II portion was objective response measured by either PSA or RECIST criteria. Exploratory endpoints included changes in circulating tumor cells (CTC) and their correlation with PSA response to treatment. Results Twenty-one patients, median age 64 (53–82), with pre-treatment PSA of 205.3 (11.1–1801.0), previously treated with a median of 2 (0–5) lines of therapy for mCRPC received the combination of temsirolimus weekly at 20 mg (n = 4) or 25 mg (n = 17) with bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n = 21). Median time to progression was 2.6 months (95% CI, 1.2–3.9) and the median best PSA change from baseline to 12 weeks was a 32% increase (−40–632%) which met the predefined futility rule and led to early termination of the study. Nine patients (43%) had ≥ grade 3 toxicity that included fatigue (24%), anorexia (10%), nausea/vomiting (5%) and lymphopenia (5%). In exploratory analysis, a decrease in CTC levels was observed in 9 out of 11 patients. No association between PSA levels and CTC levels was detected. Conclusions The combination of temsirolimus and bevacizumab showed limited clinical activity in mCRPC patients previously treated with chemotherapy and was associated with significant adverse events (AEs). Transient decrease in CTC levels was independent from PSA response. NCT01083368. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Phase I - To determine the optimal dose of each candidate (or combination of candidates) entered into the platform. Phase II - To determine the efficacy and safety of each candidate entered into the platform, compared to the current Standard of Care (SoC), and recommend whether it should be evaluated further in a later phase II & III platforms.Trial Design: AGILE-ACCORD is a Bayesian multicentre, multi-arm, multi-dose, multi-stage open-label, adaptive, seamless phase I/II randomised platform trial to determine the optimal dose, activity and safety of multiple candidate agents for the treatment of COVID-19. Designed as a master protocol with each candidate being evaluated within its own sub-protocol (Candidate Specific Trial (CST) protocol), randomising between candidate and SoC with 2:1 allocation in favour of the candidate (N.B the first candidate has gone through regulatory approval and is expected to open to recruitment early summer 2020). Each dose will be assessed for safety sequentially in cohorts of 6 patients. Once a phase II dose has been identified we will assess efficacy by seamlessly expanding into a larger cohort.Participants: Patient populations can vary between CSTs, but the main eligibility criteria include adult patients (≥18 years) who have laboratory-confirmed infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We will include both severe and mild-moderate patients defined as follows: Group A (severe disease) - patients with WHO Working Group on the Clinical Characteristics of COVID-19 infection 9-point ordinal scale of Grades 4 (hospitalised, oxygen by mask or nasal prongs), 5 (hospitalised, non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen), 6 (hospitalised, intubation and mechanical ventilation) or 7 (hospitalised, ventilation and additional organ support); Group B (mild-moderate disease) - ambulant or hospitalised patients with peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2) >94% RA. If any CSTs are included in the community setting, the CST protocol will clarify whether patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection are also eligible. Participants will be recruited from England, North Ireland, Wales and Scotland.Intervention and Comparator: Comparator is the current standard of care (SoC), in some CSTs plus placebo. Candidates that prevent uncontrolled cytokine release, prevention of viral replication, and other anti-viral treatment strategies are at various stages of development for inclusion into AGILE-ACCORD. Other CSTs will be added over time. There is not a set limit on the number of CSTs we can include within the AGILE-ACCORD Master protocol and we will upload each CST into this publication as each opens to recruitment.Main Outcomes: Phase I: Dose limiting toxicities using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5 Grade ≥3 adverse events. Phase II: Agreed on a CST basis depending on mechanism of action of the candidate and patient population. But may include; time to clinical improvement of at least 2 points on the WHO 9-point category ordinal scale [measured up to 29 days from randomisation], progression of disease (oxygen saturation (SaO2) <92%) or hospitalization or death, or change in time-weighted viral load [measured up to 29 days from randomisation].Randomisation: Varies with CST, but default is 2:1 allocation in favour of the candidate to maximise early safety data.Blinding (masking): For the safety phase open-label although for some CSTs may include placebo or SoC for the efficacy phase.Numbers To Be Randomised (sample Size): Varies between CSTs. However simulations have shown that around 16 participants are necessary to determine futility or promise of a candidate at a given dose (in efficacy evaluation alone) and between 32 and 40 participants are required across the dose-finding and efficacy evaluation when capping the maximum number of participants contributing to the evaluation of a treatment at 40.Trial Status: Master protocol version number v5 07 May 2020, trial is in setup with full regulatory approval and utilises several digital technology solutions, including Medidata's Rave EDC [electronic data capture], RTSM for randomisation and patient eConsent on iPads via Rave Patient Cloud. The recruitment dates will vary between CSTs but at the time of writing no CSTs are yet open for recruitment.Trial Registration: EudraCT 2020-001860-27 14th March 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Phase I/II trials for a combination therapy of two agents, we ideally want to explore as many dose combinations as possible with limited sample size in Phase I and to reduce the number of untried dose combinations before moving to Phase II. Efficient collection of toxicity data in Phase I would eventually improve the accuracy of optimal dose combination identification in Phase II. In this paper, we develop a novel dose-finding method based on efficacy and toxicity outcomes for two-agent combination Phase I/II trials. We propose a “zone-finding stage” that determines the most admissible toxicity zone on the dose combination matrix and subsequently select the dose combination allocated to the next patient from that zone in Phase I. Upon completion of this zone-finding stage, we allocate the next patient to the dose combination determined by adaptive randomization of the admissible toxicity and efficacy dose combinations in Phase II. Simulation studies demonstrated the utility of the proposed zone-finding stage and proved that the operating characteristic of the proposed method was no worse than the existing method. The sensitivity of the proposed method, as well as the operating characteristic of this method when the efficacy outcome is delayed, was also examined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Matchpoint trial aims to identify the optimal dose of ponatinib to give with conventional chemotherapy consisting of fludarabine, cytarabine and idarubicin to chronic myeloid leukaemia patients in blastic transformation phase. The dose should be both tolerable and efficacious. This paper describes our experience implementing EffTox in the Matchpoint trial.Methods: EffTox is a Bayesian adaptive dose-finding trial design that jointly scrutinises binary efficacy and toxicity outcomes. We describe a nomenclature for succinctly describing outcomes in phase I/II dose-finding trials. We use dose-transition pathways, where doses are calculated for each feasible set of outcomes in future cohorts. We introduce the phenomenon of dose ambivalence, where EffTox can recommend different doses after observing the same outcomes. We also describe our experiences with outcome ambiguity, where the categorical evaluation of some primary outcomes is temporarily delayed.Results: We arrived at an EffTox parameterisation that is simulated to perform well over a range of scenarios. In scenarios where dose ambivalence manifested, we were guided by the dose-transition pathways. This technique facilitates planning, and also helped us overcome short-term outcome ambiguity.Conclusions: EffTox is an efficient and powerful design, but not without its challenges. Joint phase I/II clinical trial designs will likely become increasingly important in coming years as we further investigate non-cytotoxic treatments and streamline the drug approval process. We hope this account of the problems we faced and the solutions we used will help others implement this dose-finding clinical trial design.Trial Registration: Matchpoint was added to the European Clinical Trials Database ( https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2012-005629-65/GB ) on 2013-12-30. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Platinum-based combination therapy plus a programmed cell death 1/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitor is a standard treatment for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer. However, necitumumab is used with gemcitabine and cisplatin as a first-line treatment option for squamous cell lung cancer (SqCLC). Furthermore, the combination of necitumumab with immune checkpoint inhibitors has the potential to enhance tumor immunity and improve the therapeutic effect. Thus, we planned and initiated this phase I/II study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of necitumumab plus pembrolizumab, nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel), and carboplatin therapy for patients with previously untreated SqCLC., Patients and Methods: In phase I, the primary endpoint is the tolerability and recommended dose of necitumumab combined with pembrolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel and carboplatin. In phase II, the primary endpoint is the overall response rate. Secondary endpoints are disease control rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. Forty-two patients will be enrolled in phase II., Conclusion: This is the first study to investigate the efficacy and safety of necitumumab plus pembrolizumab combined with platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated SqCLC., Competing Interests: Disclosure Nippon Kayaku Co., Ltd. provides necitumumab for the clinical trial; A.M., H.A., S.W., T.S., Y.T., Y.H., S.S, T.O., S.M., K.K., and M.S. received honoraria from AstraZeneca; H.A., S.W., Y.H., S.S, T.O., S.M., and M.S. received honoraria from Eli Lilly Japan; H.A., S.W., T.S., Y.H., S.S, T.O., S.M., and M.S. received honoraria from Taiho Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd; H.A., S.W., T.S., Y.T., Y.H., S.S, T.O., S.M., and M.S. received honoraria from Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd; H.A., S.W., T.S., Y.H., S.S, and M.S. received honoraria from Ono Pharmaceutical; S.W., T.S., Y.H., S.S, T.O., S.M., and M.S. received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb; A.M., H.A., Y.H., S.S, K.M., and M.S. received honoraria from Kyowa Kirin; A.M., S.W., T.S., Y.T., Y.H., S.S, M.M, and M.S. received honoraria from Nippon Kayaku Co., Ltd; Y.H., S.S, T.O., K.K., and M.S. received honoraria from Takeda Pharmaceutical; H.A., S.W., T.S., S.S, S.M., and M.S. received honoraria from MSD K.K; S.W., T.S., Y.H., S.S, and M.S. received honoraria from Novartis Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd; S.W., T.S., S.S, T.O., K.M., and M.S. received honoraria from Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim Co. Ltd; S.W., T.S., and M.S. received honoraria from Daiichi-Sankyo; K.M. received honoraria from Astellas; Y.H., S.M. received honoraria from Eisai; A.M., S.W., T.S., Y.H., S.S, S.M., received honoraria from Phizer Japan Inc; S.S, received honoraria from Yakult Honsha; H.A., S.S, received honoraria from Merck; S.S, received honoraria from Amgen, AbbVie, Otsuka, Thermo Fisher Scientific and Towa Pharmaceutical; T.S. received research funding from AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co Ltd, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim Co Ltd, MSD K.K, and Novartis Pharmaceutical Co Ltd; Y.T. received research funding from Ono Pharmaceutical and Phizer Japan Inc; S.M. received research funding from Eisai; K.M. received consulting fees from Nippon Kayaku Co., Ltd; M.S. received research funding from Taiho Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Eli Lilly, MSD K.K, and Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim Co. Ltd., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The article discusses the results of a study aimed at evaluating a previous phase I trial of PM00104 administered as a 1-h intravenous infusion resting every fourth week as the recommended dose (RD) in patients with solid tumours and optimiziing the dose of PM00104 in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). It references the article by C. Massard and colleagues which appeared in a 2013 issue of the journal "Investigational New Drugs."

Q fever is a widespread zoonotic disease caused by Coxiella burnetii . In cattle the bacterial shedding can persist without symptoms for several months and the shedders identification is a critical issue in the control of the infection at herd level. Following the example of the human protocols for the assessment of Q fever infection status, the aim of this study was the evaluation of the antibody response dynamics to phase I and phase II antigens in C. burnetii shedder dairy cows by means of a phase-specific serology, to verify the suitability of the investigated tools in recognising milk shedders. A total of 99 cows were monitored during time and classified on the basis of serological and PCR results in five groups identifying different shedding patterns. The 297 sera collected in three sampling times were tested by means of ELISA IgG for differential phase I and phase II antibodies detection, while a selection of 107 sera were tested by means of phase specific IgM and IgG IFAT. Both ELISA IgG and IFAT IgG highlighted a low reactivity in non-shedder seropositive animals compared to chronic milk shedder animals. ELISA IgG seemed to perform better than IFAT IgG–IgM, showing significant serological differences among groups that allowed recognising specific serological group patterns, in particular for chronic and occasional milk shedders. These results supported the hypothesis that an animal classification based on phase patterns is reasonable, although it needs to be further investigated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose This phase I/II study sought to determine the safety and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination of rapamycin, an mTOR inhibitor, with short-course radiotherapy in rectal cancer patients. Antitumor activity, changes in metabolic activity and perfusion on imaging, and changes in phosphorylation status of the mTOR pathway were also assessed. Materials and methods Patients with primary resectable rectal cancer were treated with short-course hypofractionated radiotherapy (5 × 5 Gy) combined with oral rapamycin 1 week before and during radiotherapy, followed by surgical resection. Results Thirteen patients were entered in phase I. One patient developed a dose-limiting toxicity, consisting of a grade 4 leak and grade 4 bleeding. Because of an unexpected high rate of grade 3 postoperative toxicity, it was decided to treat patients with delayed surgery in phase II. Primary endpoint for phase II was tumor blood flow ( K trans ) assessed by perfusion CT. Thirty-one patients were treated with the MTD of 6 mg rapamycin daily. One patient (3%) developed a pathological complete response (pCR) and 3 patients (10%) had a ypT1N0 tumor at the time of resection. No change in tumor perfusion was observed on perfusion CT, but a significant decrease of metabolic activity was found on PET-scan. Conclusions The combination of short-course radiotherapy and rapamycin turned out to be feasible, provided that the interval between neo-adjuvant treatment and surgical resection is at least 6 weeks. Although from this cohort no clear increase in pCR could be observed, a clear metabolic response after rapamycin run-in was observed, indicating a biological activity of this drug in rectal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Outcomes for older adults with acute myeloid leukaemia ( AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome ( MDS) are generally poor, and new effective therapies are needed. We investigated oral clofarabine combined with low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) in patients aged 60 years and above with relapsed or refractory AML or high-risk MDS in a phase I/ II trial. A 3 + 3 dose escalation of oral clofarabine was followed by a phase II expansion with the aim of obtaining a complete response ( CR) rate ≥30%. We identified 20 mg/d for 5 d as the maximum tolerated dose ( MTD) of oral clofarabine. A total of 35 patients, with a median age of 72 years, were treated. Of 26 patients enrolled at the MTD, 4 had treatment-related grade 3-4 non-haematological toxicities, but none died within 28 d. The observed CR rate and median survival were 34% [95% confidence interval ( CI), 18-50%] and 6·8 months overall and 38% [95% CI, 19-57%] and 7·2 months at the MTD. The median disease-free survival was 7·4 months. Fifty-two percent (23/44) of cycles administered at the MTD were done without hospital admission. This combination of oral clofarabine and LDAC demonstrated efficacy with a CR rate of >30% and acceptable toxicity in older patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dose-finding studies that aim to evaluate the safety of single agents are becoming less common, and advances in clinical research have complicated the paradigm of dose finding in oncology. A class of more complex problems, such as targeted agents, combination therapies and stratification of patients by clinical or genetic characteristics, has created the need to adapt early-phase trial design to the specific type of drug being investigated and the corresponding endpoints. In this article, we describe the implementation of an adaptive design based on a continual reassessment method for heterogeneous groups, modified to coincide with the objectives of a Phase I/II trial of stereotactic body radiation therapy in patients with painful osseous metastatic disease. Operating characteristics of the Institutional Review Board approved design are demonstrated under various possible true scenarios via simulation studies. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We investigated the efficacy and safety of vemurafenib in Japanese patients with unresectable or recurrent melanoma with BRAF V 600 mutations. This was a two-step open-label multicenter phase I/ II study. Step 1 evaluated the initial safety of vemurafenib 960 mg administrated p.o. twice daily in three patients. In step 2, eight patients received vemurafenib 960 mg administrated p.o. twice daily for 28-day treatment cycles; the primary outcome measure was response rate, as determined by independent review committee using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Adverse events ( AE) experienced by five or more patients were arthralgia ( n = 10), myalgia ( n = 8), alopecia ( n = 7), and rash, maculopapular rash and decreased appetite ( n = 5 each). Three patients had grade 3 AE. One serious AE occurred in one patient (abnormal hepatic function). Six patients required dose reduction because of AE. One patient died within 28 days after the last dose, but death was caused by disease progression and not associated with the study drug. In the eight patients in step 2, overall response rate was 75.0%, none had a complete response and six had a partial response (75.0%). Median response duration was 240.0 days, disease control rate 87.5%, median progression-free survival 416.0 days and median overall survival 443.0 days. In conclusion, vemurafenib treatment resulted in an overall response rate of 75% in Japanese patients with metastatic melanoma with BRAF V 600 mutations. All toxicities were manageable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This is a phase I/II study of second-line chemotherapy with paclitaxel and irinotecan in fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-pretreated patients with metastatic or recurrent gastric cancer. Methods: Phase I part with a standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation design was conducted to define the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) using four predefined dose levels of paclitaxel and irinotecan. The efficacy of RP2D was evaluated in a phase II part. Results: In phase I part, 12 patients were enrolled. Dose-limiting toxicity was not observed. The RP2D was established as level 4 (paclitaxel-135 mg/m and irinotecan-160 mg/m, every 3 weeks). In phase II part, 27 patients were enrolled. Thirty patients, including three patients at dose level 4 in the phase I part, were analyzed for efficacy. There was no complete response. Partial response and stable disease were reported in four and 16 patients, respectively (response rate 13.3 %, 95 % CI 0.0-25.5 %; disease control rate 66.6 %, 95 % CI 49.0-83.0 %). The median time to progression and overall survival was 3.0 months (95 % CI 1.8-4.2) and 10.1 months (95 % CI 6.6-13.6), respectively. Grade 3/4 toxicities included neutropenia (2 patients, 7.4 %), thrombocytopenia (1, 3.7 %), neutropenic fever (1, 3.7 %), and diarrhea (1, 3.7 %). There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusion: The RP2D of the paclitaxel and irinotecan combination is paclitaxel (135 mg/m) and irinotecan (160 mg/m), every 3 weeks. This combination as a second-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer shows tolerable toxicity and modest efficacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In oncology, vaccine-based immunotherapy often investigates regimens that demonstrate minimal toxicity overall and higher doses may not correlate with greater immune response. Rather than determining the maximum tolerated dose, the goal of the study becomes locating the optimal biological dose, which is defined as a safe dose demonstrating the greatest immunogenicity, based on some predefined measure of immune response. Incorporation of adjuvants, new or optimized peptide vaccines, and combining vaccines with immune modulators may enhance immune response, with the aim of improving clinical response. Innovative dose escalation strategies are needed to establish the safety and immunogenicity of new immunologic combinations. We describe the implementation of an adaptive design for identifying the optimal treatment strategy in a multi-site, FDA-approved, phase I/II trial of a novel vaccination approach using long-peptides plus TLR agonists for resected stage IIB-IV melanoma. Operating characteristics of the design are demonstrated under various possible true scenarios via simulation studies. Overall performance indicates that the design is a practical Phase I/II adaptive method for use with combined immunotherapy agents. The simulation results demonstrate the method's ability to effectively recommend optimal regimens in a high percentage of trials with manageable sample sizes. The numerical results presented in this work include the type of simulation information that aid review boards in understanding design performance, such as average sample size and frequency of early trial termination, which we hope will augment early-phase trial design in cancer immunotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The humanised αν integrin-inhibitory monoclonal antibody abituzumab may extend overall survival when combined with cetuximab and irinotecan in patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer with high integrin αvβ6 expression. The tolerability of abituzumab in combination with cetuximab and irinotecan is acceptable.Background Integrins are involved in tumour progression and metastasis, and differentially expressed on colorectal cancer (CRC) cells. Abituzumab (EMD 525797), a humanised monoclonal antibody targeting integrin αν heterodimers, has demonstrated preclinical activity. This trial was designed to assess the tolerability of different doses of abituzumab in combination with cetuximab and irinotecan (phase I) and explore the efficacy and tolerability of the combination versus that of cetuximab and irinotecan in patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) (phase II part). Methods Eligible patients had KRAS (exon 2) wild-type mCRC and had received prior oxaliplatin-containing therapy. The trial comprised an initial safety run-in using abituzumab doses up to 1000 mg combined with a standard of care (SoC: cetuximab plus irinotecan) and a phase II part in which patients were randomised 1 : 1 : 1 to receive abituzumab 500 mg (arm A) or 1000 mg (arm B) every 2 weeks combined with SoC, or SoC alone (arm C). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), response rate (RR) and tolerability. Associations between tumour integrin expression and outcomes were also assessed. Results Phase I showed that abituzumab doses up to 1000 mg were well tolerated in combination with SoC. Seventy-three (arm A), 71 (arm B) and 72 (arm C) patients were randomised to the phase II part. Baseline characteristics were balanced. PFS was similar in the three arms: arm A versus SoC, hazard ratio (HR) 1.13 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78–1.64]; arm B versus SoC, HR 1.11 (95% CI 0.77–1.61). RRs were also similar. A trend toward improved OS was observed: arm A versus SoC, HR 0.83 (95% CI 0.54–1.28); arm B versus SoC, HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.52–1.25). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events were observed in 72%, 78% and 67% of patients. High tumour integrin αvβ6 expression was associated with longer OS in arms A [HR 0.55 (0.30–1.00)] and B [HR 0.41 (0.21–0.81)] than in arm C. Conclusion The primary PFS end point was not met, although predefined exploratory biomarker analyses identified subgroups of patients in whom abituzumab may have benefit. The tolerability of abituzumab combined with cetuximab and irinotecan was acceptable. Further study is warranted. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01008475 [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This phase I/II study in advanced renal cell carcinoma demonstrated that lenalidomide plus sunitinib produced unacceptable toxicity at the protocol-defined maximum tolerated dose, precluding further development. Correlative studies demonstrated modulation of the immune cell repertoire, including alteration in B cell and T cell subsets.Background This phase I/II study was conducted to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, and efficacy of lenalidomide plus sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients. Patients and methods Patients with histologically confirmed, metastatic RCC were treated with 10 mg/day lenalidomide plus 37.5 mg/day sunitinib, orally in 21-day cycles. Doses were escalated to determine the MTD in phase I, with additional patients planned at this dose in phase II. Primary end points were MTD and response rate. Results Sixteen patients received a median of 2, 3, and 5 cycles in cohort 1 [lenalidomide 10 mg (days 1–21) and sunitinib 37.5 mg (days 1–21)], cohort 2 [lenalidomide 10 mg (days 1–21) and sunitinib 37.5 mg (days 1–14)], and cohort 3 [lenalidomide 15 mg (days 1–21) and sunitinib 37.5 mg (days 1–14)], respectively. Median treatment durations were 41, 63, and 97 days for lenalidomide; and 41, 57, and 97.5 days for sunitinib. The MTD was found to be continuous dosing of lenalidomide 10 mg/day plus sunitinib 37.5 mg/day for 14 of 21 days. Dose-limiting toxicities included neutropenia, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, asthenia, atrial fibrillation, and increased transaminases. The most frequent grade 3–4 treatment-emergent adverse events were hematologic, including neutropenia and leukopenia. One patient achieved partial response, and seven had stable disease of which three were confirmed at subsequent tumor assessments. B cells and several T-cell subsets were modulated versus baseline. Conclusion The dose schedules of lenalidomide and sunitinib evaluated in this study were not well tolerated; cumulative toxicity precluded enrollment at the MTD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We carried out a phase I/ II trial of adding 2-weekly docetaxel to cisplatin plus fluorouracil ( CF) therapy (2-weekly DCF regimen) in esophageal cancer patients to investigate its safety and antimetastatic activity. Patients received 2-weekly docetaxel (30 mg/m2 [dose level ( DL)1] or 40 mg/m2 [ DL2] with a 3 + 3 design in phase I, on days 1 and 15) in combination with fixed-dose CF (80 mg/m2 cisplatin, day 1; 800 mg/m2 fluorouracil, days 1-5) repeated every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was dose-limiting toxicity ( DLT) in phase I and central peer review-based response rate in phase II. At least 22 responders among 50 patients were required to satisfy the primary endpoint with a threshold of 35%. Sixty-two patients were enrolled in phase I and II. In phase I, 10 patients were enrolled with DLT of 0/3 at DL1 and 2/7 in DL2. Considering DLT and treatment compliance, the recommended phase II dose was determined as DL1. In phase II, the response rate was 62% ( P < 0.0001; 95% confidence interval, 48-75%); median overall survival and progression-free survival were 11.1 and 5.8 months, respectively. Common grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (25%), anemia (36%), hyponatremia (29%), anorexia (24%), and nausea (11%). No febrile neutropenia was observed. Pneumonitis caused treatment-related death in one patient. The 2-weekly DCF regimen showed promising antimetastatic activity and tolerability. A phase III study comparing this regimen with CF therapy is planned by the Japan Clinical Oncology Group. This study was registered at the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry as UMIN 000001737. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ADVANTAGE trial investigated cilengitide (CIL; integrin inhibitor) + cisplatin/5-fluorouracil/cetuximab (PFE) in recurrent/metastatic squamous cell cancer of the head/neck. In the here reported open-label, controlled phase 2 part, 182 patients were randomized to PFE alone or PFE + CIL 2000 mg once/twice weekly. In neither of the CIL arms a progression-free survival benefit vs PFE alone was seen.Background Recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M-SCCHN) overexpresses αvβ5 integrin. Cilengitide selectively inhibits αvβ3 and αvβ5 integrins and is investigated as a treatment strategy. Patients and methods The phase I/II study ADVANTAGE evaluated cilengitide combined with cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and cetuximab (PFE) in R/M-SCCHN. The phase II part reported here was an open-label, randomized, controlled trial investigating progression-free survival (PFS). Patients received up to six cycles of PFE alone or combined with cilengitide 2000 mg once (CIL1W) or twice (CIL2W) weekly. Thereafter, patients received maintenance therapy (cilengitide arms: cilengitide plus cetuximab; PFE-alone arm: cetuximab only) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Results One hundred and eighty-two patients were treated. Median PFS per investigator read was similar for CIL1W + PFE, CIL2W + PFE, and PFE alone (6.4, 5.6, and 5.7 months, respectively). Accordingly, median overall survival and objective response rates were not improved with cilengitide (12.4 months/47%, 10.6 months/27%, and 11.6 months/36%, respectively). No clinically meaningful safety differences were observed between groups. None of the tested biomarkers (expression of integrins, CD31, Ki-67, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2, vascular endothelial-cadherin, type IV collagen, epidermal growth factor receptor, or p16 for human papillomavirus) were predictive of outcome. Conclusion Neither of the cilengitide-containing regimens demonstrated a PFS benefit over PFE alone in R/M-SCCHN patients. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Instead of using traditional separate phase I and II trials, in this article, we propose using a parallel three-stage phase I/II design, incorporating a dose expansion approach to flexibly evaluate the safety and efficacy of dose levels, and to select the optimal dose. In the proposed design, both the toxicity and efficacy responses are binary endpoints. A 3+3-based procedure is used for initial period of dose escalation at stage 1; at this level, the dose can be expanded to stage 2 for exploratory efficacy studies of phase IIa, while simultaneously, the safety testing can advance to a higher dose level. A beta-binomial model is used to model the efficacy responses. There are two placebo-controlled randomization interim monitoring analyses at stage 2 to select the promising doses to be recommended to stage 3 for further efficacy studies of phase IIb. An adaptive randomization approach is used to assign more patients to doses with higher efficacy levels at stage 3. We examine the properties of the proposed design through extensive simulation studies by using R programming language, and also compare the new design with the conventional design and a competing adaptive Bayesian design. The simulation results show that our design can efficiently assign more patients to doses with higher efficacy levels and is superior to the two competing designs in terms of total sample size reduction. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]