Abstract A104: Safety and effectiveness of phase I solid tumor trial designs of molecularly targeted combination therapies
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Tumors depend on more than one signaling pathway for their growth and survival. As a consequence, different strategies are developed to inhibit multiple signaling pathways or multiple steps in the same pathway either by the development of multi-targeted agents or the combination of single targeted molecular therapies (MTT). We reviewed the strategies used to conduct phase I trials of MTT combination. Material and Methods: We systemically reviewed the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Clinical Cancer Research and the ASCO, TAT, AACR-NCI-AACR meeting abstracts for phase 1 MTT published between 2004 and 2009. For each publication, we extracted data on study population, drug class (tyrosine kinase inhibitor, TKI; monoclonal antibody, mAB), primary and secondary endpoints, starting dose (SD), dose escalation methods, determination of maximum administered dose (MAD), dose limiting toxicities (DLT) and recommended phase II dose (RP2D), inclusion of pharmacokinetics (PK), correlative studies, and antitumor activity. Results: We identified 95 phase 1 MTT trials (11 final reports and 84 abstracts), testing 67 combinations of 48 different drugs. XX trials evaluated two drugs and YY trials evaluated 3 drugs. Trials combined mAB and TKI (n=37), TKI and TKI (n=48), mAB and mAB (n=2) and others (n=9). The most common combinations were with HER (n=51 trials), VEGF-VEGFR (n=51) or mTOR inhibitors (n=29). The study populations were tumor-site-specific (n=46), advanced solid cancers (n=39), or target-specific (n=10). All trials were designed to identify the RP2D based on DLTs. In most trials (n=62), one drug was given at full dose (100% of its RP2D in n=58 trials). The median SD of the escalated compound was 50% (range=15–100%) of the RP2D. When both drugs were escalated (n=33), the median SDs were 50% (ranges 15–75%) of each drug. The most common trial design was the 3+3 design(n=59). The median numbers of dose levels and patients per trial were 3 (range: 0–8) and 22 (range 2–61) respectively. The MTD was reached in 38 of the completed trials (n=80). The RP2D was clearly reported in 34 trials. On average, first DLTs were observed at the 2nd dose level (range 1–5). 89 trials reported antitumor activity with a median 6 complete responses (CRs) and 3 partial responses (PRs) (range 1–21) per trial. The most common tumor responses were in renal cancer, NSCLC, thyroid or breast cancers. PK data were available in 49 studies, and 9 trials reported PK drug interactions. 32 trials incorporated translational research based on tumor biopsy or functional imaging. Conclusion: Phase I studies of MTT combination have generally used traditional endpoints for the selection of the R2PD . In general SDs of 100% and 50% or 50% and 50% of single agent RP2D is safe and active. High starting doses limited the number of evaluated dose levels. The details of the dose finding designs were often not assessable from the given material. The high clinical response rates observed in these combination trials is uncommon in phase I of monotherapy therapies, likely reflecting that the individual drugs had established single agent activity in specific disease settings. Few trials have incorporated translational research studies to identify mechanisms of additivity or synergy. Citation Information: Mol Cancer Ther 2009;8(12 Suppl):A104.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,020 | 0,035 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».