A Phase 2 Open-Label, Multicenter, Dose Optimization Clinical Study of the Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetic (PK) and Pharmacodynamic (PD) Profiles of Cfi-400945 As a Single Agent or in Combination with Azacitidine or Decitabine in Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: CFI-400945 is a potent, selective, orally administered, first-in-class inhibitor of the serine/threonine kinase, Polo-like kinase 4 (PLK4). PLK4 is a highly conserved master regulator of centriole duplication, and is critical for maintenance of genomic integrity. Aberrant expression of PLK4 results in a number of effects including the centrosome amplification often seen in aneuploid cancers, pointing to a potentially causative role for PLK4 in genome instability and cancer progression. A Phase 1 study has been completed evaluating CFI-400945 as a monotherapy in solid tumors, showing a tolerable safety profile and promising signs of activity. As acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a disease characterized by genomic instability, it is of significant interest as a potential indication for the clinical evaluation of CFI-400945. pre-clinical studies, CFI-400945 showed potent activity towards leukemia cell lines and primary human samples in vitro, as well as marked efficacy in two subcutaneous models of leukemia, specifically the MV4-11 FLT3-ITD AML. A Phase 1 trial in AML was initiated at the Princess Margaret Cancer Center in 2018, and of six patients evaluable for response, two (33%) achieved complete remission (CR), and 3 patients (50%) had stable disease (with one patient having a 78% reduction in marrow blast count) [re: Murphy et al, ASH 2020]. These promising results have led to a plan for an expanded trial examining CFI-400945 in AML, particularly focused on complex karyotype (CK). Study Design and Methods: The study will have 4 parts, Part 1A (1A): a single agent dose escalation portion, Part 1B (1B): a food effect portion once the MTD of 1A is determined, and combinations with azacitidine (2A), and decitabine (2B). For parts 1A and 1B, patients with relapsed and/or refractory AML, MDS, or CMML after >1 prior therapy will be included. Patients with MDS or CMML must have progressed or had a lack of response after at least 4 cycles of hypomethylating agents. For parts 2A and 2B, patients should have relapsed and/or refractory AML or untreated MDS or CMML. Untreated patients who decline or are ineligible for intensive therapy may be included. The study will use a standard 3 + 3 design. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) will be defined as the dose level where the number of dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) is <1 out of 6 at highest dose level below the maximally administered dose. Biomarker Selection and companion Diagnostics: No biomarker based pre-selection of patients. PD evaluations will include blast reduction and markers of mitosis. Study Treatment and Endpoints: Part 1: Each cycle will be 28 days (21 days on/7 days off). Starting does of CFI-400945 will be 32mg po. Once the MTD of 1A is determined, 1B will explore the food effect of a high fat meal on the PK of CFI-400945 at the MTD. 2A and 2B will explore the combination of CFI-400945 with standard dose of either azacitidine (2A) or decitabine (2B). The starting dose of CFI-400945 will be 32mg po for 21 days on/7 off. The DLTs will be defined as NCI CTCAE V5.0 Grade >3 related non-hematologic event(s) occurring during cycle 1 or prolonged pancytopenia in the presence of a hypocellular bone marrow > day 42 without evidence of disease. The efficacy endpoints for AML, MDS, and CMML include the overall response rate, and the CR rate per standard criteria. The aim of the food effect part of the study is the asses the effect of high fat food on the PK of CFI-400945. The safety endpoint is the incidence of treatment emergent adverse events. PK endpoints include evaluations of parameters such as half-life, AUC, etc. Exploratory endpoints include eval of minimal residual disease, genomic alterations and other molecular features associated with response and biological effects of PLK4 inhibition. Disclosures Jonas: Amgen: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; GlycoMimetics: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Sigma Tau: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Tolero: Consultancy; Treadwell: Consultancy; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Accelerated Medical Diagnostics: Research Funding; AROG: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Hanmi: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; LP Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Bixby:GlycoMimetics: Research Funding. Brandwein:Pfizer: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Taiho: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Michelson:Treadwell Therapeutics: Consultancy. Bray:TIO Discovery: Current Employment; Treadwell Therapeutics: Current Employment. Roberts-Thomson:Treadwell Therapeutics: Current Employment. Borthakur:BioTherix: Consultancy; FTC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Nkarta Therapeutics: Consultancy; Treadwell Therapeutics: Consultancy; PTC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Oncoceutics: Research Funding; Xbiotech USA: Research Funding; Polaris: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; BioLine Rx: Research Funding; Jannsen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; BioLine Rx: Consultancy; PTC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Curio Science LLC: Consultancy; Cyclacel: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding.
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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 ».