Search

Purpose: The combination of bevacizumab and FOLFIRINOX is used in patients with RAS-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (RASm-mCRC). Regorafenib, an oral multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has antiangiogenic properties, cytostatic effects and also true cytotoxic effects, unlike bevacizumab. The aim of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of the regorafenib-FOLFIRINOX combination in patients with RASm-mCRC. Methods: The FOLFIRINOX-R trial was a phase 1/2 study where the dose-escalation part (3 + 3 design with three dose levels, DLs) was completed before its early termination. FOLFIRINOX (14-day cycle) included oxaliplatin (standard dose), folinic acid, fluorouracil and irinotecan (150 or 180 mg/m²). Regorafenib (120 or 160 mg daily) was given from day 4 to day 10 of each cycle. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was studied in the first three cycles. Eligibility criteria included ECOG performance status ≤ 1 and not previously treated RASm-mCRC. Results: Thirteen patients (median age: 65 years; min-max: 40–76) were enrolled. DLT could not be evaluated in one patient (DL3) due to poor observance. The median treatment duration and median follow-up were 6.2 (min-max: 2.3–10) and 13.4 (min-max: 3.8–18.0) months, respectively. Dose was modified in 12/13 (92%) patients. One grade 3 hypokalemia occurred at DL2. MTD was not reached at DL3. Grade 3 diarrhea was recorded in 7/13 patients (13 events) equally distributed in all DLs. Conclusion: The RP2D for this regorafenib-FFX combination could not be determined due to a high prevalence of grade 3 diarrhea related to treatment as advised by our Independent Data Monitoring Committee. Trial registration numbers: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03828799. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Senaparib is a novel, selective poly(ADP‐ribose) polymerase‐1/2 inhibitor with strong antitumor activity in preclinical studies. This first‐in‐human, phase 1, dose‐escalation study examined the safety and preliminary efficacy of senaparib in patients with advanced solid tumors. Methods: Patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled from three centers in Australia, using a conventional 3 + 3 design. Dose‐escalation cohorts continued until the maximum tolerated dose or a recommended phase 2 dose was determined. Patients received one dose of oral senaparib and, if no dose‐limiting toxicity occurred within 7 days, they received senaparib once daily in 3‐week cycles. The primary end points were safety and tolerability. Results: Thirty‐nine patients were enrolled at 10 dose levels ranging from 2 to 150 mg. No dose‐limiting toxicities were observed in any cohort. Most treatment‐emergent adverse events were grade 1–2 (91%). Seven patients (17.9%) reported hematologic treatment‐emergent adverse events. Treatment‐related adverse events occurred in eight patients (20.5%), and the most frequent was nausea (7.7%). Two deaths were reported after the end of study treatment, one of which was considered a complication from senaparib‐related bone marrow failure. Pharmacokinetic analysis indicated that senaparib the accumulation index was 1.06–1.67, and absorption saturation was 80–150 mg daily. In 22 patients with evaluable disease, the overall response rate was 13.6%, and the disease control rate was 81.8%. The overall response rate was 33.3% for the BRCA mutation‐positive subgroup and 6.3% for the nonmutated subgroup. Conclusions: Senaparib was well tolerated in Australian patients with advanced solid tumors, with encouraging signals of antitumor activity. The recommended phase 2 dose for senaparib was determined to be 100 mg daily. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03507543. The novel, oral poly(ADP‐ribose) polymerase‐1/2 inhibitor senaparib was safe and well tolerated, with encouraging signals of antitumor activity, in patients in Australia with relapsed or refractory advanced solid tumors. A comprehensive analysis of safety, pharmacokinetic, and efficacy findings confirmed that the recommended phase 2 dose of senaparib in Australian patients should be 100 mg once daily. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A phase 1a first-in-human study evaluated the safety/tolerability, preliminary antitumour activity and pharmacokinetics of the oral MEK1/2 inhibitor FCN-159 in Chinese patients with advanced, NRAS -mutant melanoma. Patients received a single FCN-159 dose at assigned levels, proceeding to continuous dosing (once daily [QD] for 28-day cycles) if no dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurred within the next 3 days. Dose escalation was initiated after review of data for the previous dose level. The primary end-point was incidence of DLTs after the first dose. Thirty-three patients were enrolled across nine FCN-159 dose groups (0.2–15 mg QD). One DLT occurred: grade 3 folliculitis in the 15-mg group. There was one grade >3 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), death of unknown aetiology (not FCN-159 related). The most common FCN-159–related TEAE was rash (36.4%), and the incidence of grade ≥3 FCN-159–related TEAEs was 15.2%. Antitumour activity at QD doses <6 mg was limited; therefore, efficacy data are presented only for doses ≥6 mg (n = 21). The objective response and clinical benefit rates were 19.0% (four partial responses) and 52.4%, respectively. Median (95% confidence interval) duration of response and progression-free survival were 4.8 months (2.8–not reached) and 3.8 months (1.8–5.6), respectively. FCN-159 exposure increased dose-proportionately; geometric mean terminal half-life was 29.9–56.9 h. FCN-159 was well tolerated and demonstrated promising antitumour activity at doses ≥6 mg QD in patients with advanced, NRAS -mutant melanoma. The recommended phase 2 dose was 12 mg QD. NCT03932253. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03932253. • There is currently no standard targeted therapy for advanced NRAS mut melanoma. • FCN-159, a selective MEK1/2 inhibitor, was evaluated in a first-in-human study. • FCN-159 was well tolerated in Chinese patients with advanced NRAS mut melanoma. • Preliminary signs of antitumour activity were observed at FCN-159 doses ≥6 mg QD. • The findings support further study of FCN-159 in patients with NRAS mut melanoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been increasing attention to dose optimization in the development of targeted oncology therapeutics. The current report has analyzed the dose selection approaches for 116 new molecular entities (NMEs) approved for oncology indications by the US FDA from 2010 to August 2021, with the goal to extract learnings about the ways to select the optimal dose. The analysis showed that: (1) the initial label dose was lower than the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or maximum studied dose (MSD) in Phase 1 for the majority of approved NMEs, and that the MTD approach is no longer the mainstay for dose selection; (2) there was no dose ranging or optimization beyond Phase 1 dose escalation for ~ 80% of the NMEs; (3) integrated dose/exposure-response analyses were commonly used to justify the dose selection; (4) lack of dose optimization led to dose-related PMRs/PMCs in 14% of cases, but 82% of these did not result in change of the initial label dose; and (5) depending on properties of the NME and specific benefit/risk considerations for the target patient population, there could be different dose selection paradigms leading to identification of the appropriate clinical dose. The analysis supports the need to incorporate more robust dose optimization during oncology clinical development, through comparative assessment of benefit/risk of multiple dose levels, over a wide exposure range using therapeutically relevant endpoints and adequate sample size. On the other hand, in certain cases, data from FIP dose escalation may be adequate to support the dose selection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Combining agents has the potential to attenuate resistance in metastatic cancer. However, knowledge of appropriate starting doses for novel drug combinations in clinical trials and practice is lacking. Analysis of 372 published studies was used to ascertain safe starting doses for doublets involving a cytotoxic and targeted agent. Phase I-III adult oncology clinical trial publications (January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2013) were identified (PubMed). The dose of drug used in each combination was compared to the single agent recommended dose [FDA-approved/recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D)/maximum tolerated dose (MTD)]. Dose percentages were calculated as: (safe dose of drug in combination/dose of drug as single agent at FDA/RP2D/MTD) × 100. Additive dose percentages were the sum of the dose percentage for each drug. A total of 24,326 patients (248 drug combinations) were analyzed. In 38% of studies, both drugs could be administered at 100% of their FDA-approved/RP2D/MTD dose. The lowest safe additive dose percentage was 41% with poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) or histone deacetylase inhibitors as the targeted agents; 82%, in the absence of these agents; and 97%, with an antibody in the combination. If one drug was administered at 100% of the single agent dose, the lowest safe dose percentage for the second drug was 17% (cytotoxic at 100%) or 36% (targeted at 100%) of the FDA-approved/RP2D/MTD dose. The current findings can help inform safe starting doses for novel two-drug combinations (cytotoxic and targeted agents) in the context of clinical trials and practice.

Metastatic cancers harbor complex genomic alterations. Thus, monotherapies are often suboptimal. Individualized combinations are needed in order to attenuate resistance. To help inform selection of safe starting doses for novel, two-agent, targeted drug combinations, we identified clinical trials in adult oncology patients who received targeted drug doublets (PubMed, January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2013). The dose percentage was calculated for each drug: (safe dose in combination divided by single agent full dose) X 100. Additive dose percentage represented the sum of the dose percentage for each drug. A total of 144 studies (N = 8568 patients; 95 combinations) were analyzed. In 51% of trials, each of the two drugs could be administered at 100% of their full dose. The lowest safe additive dose percentage was 60% if targets and/or class of drugs overlapped, or in the presence of mTor inhibitors, which sometimes compromised the combination dose. If neither class nor target overlapped and if mTor inhibitors were absent, the lowest safe additive dose percentage was 143%. The current observations contribute to the knowledge base that informs safe starting doses for new combinations of targeted drugs in the context of clinical trials or practice, hence facilitating customized combination therapies.

Abstract Background Preclinical studies suggest synergistic effectiveness of ascorbic acid (AA, vitamin C) and cytotoxic agents in gastrointestinal malignancies. This phase 1 study aimed to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of AA combined with mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI regimens in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) or gastric cancer (mGC). Methods In the dose-escalation phase, patients received AA (0.2–1.5 g/kg, 3-h infusion, once daily, days 1–3) with mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI in a 14-day cycle until the MTD was reached. In the speed-expansion phase, AA was administered at the MTD or at 1.5 g/kg if the MTD was not reached at a fixed rate of 0.6, 0.8 or 1 g/min. Pharmacokinetics and preliminary efficacy were also assessed. Results Thirty-six patients were enrolled. The MTD was not reached. The RP2D was established as AA at 1.5 g/kg/day, days 1–3, with mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI. No dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was detected during dose escalation. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TRAEs) were sensory neuropathy (50%), nausea (38.9%), vomiting (36.1%) and neutropenia (27.8%). Grade 3–4 TRAEs were neutropenia (13.9%), sensory neuropathy (2.8%), vomiting (2.8%), diarrhea (2.8%) and leukopenia (2.8%). AA exposure was dose-proportional. The objective response rate was 58.3%, and the disease control rate was 95.8%. No difference in efficacy was found between mCRC patients with wild-type RAS/BRAF and mutant RAS or BRAF. Conclusions The favorable safety profile and preliminary efficacy of AA plus mFOLFOX6/FOLFIRI support further evaluation of this combination in mCRC or mGC. Trial registration ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT02969681.

Phase 1 trials of molecularly targeted agents (MTA) often do not use toxicity data beyond the first cycle of treatment to determine a recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). We investigated the potential utility of longitudinal relative dose intensity (RDI) that may be a better new way of determining a more accurate RP2D as a lower dose that is presumably more tolerable over the long term without compromising efficacy. All consecutive patients who were initially treated using a single MTA at the conventional RP2D or at one level lower dose (OLLD) of that RP2D in 9 phase 1 trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute were included. The associations between longitudinal RDI, time to first progression, and response rate were analyzed. The RDI of the conventional RP2D group were maintained a rate of ≥70% throughout 10 cycles, and were higher than those of the OLLD group, although in both groups the RDI gradually decreased with additional treatment cycles. The RP2D group was similar to the OLLD group with respect to time to first progression and response rate. In both groups, however, the decreasing RDI over time was significantly associated with shorter time to first disease progression; therefore, the longitudinal RDI, which takes into account lower grade toxicity occurrences, may be useful in determining a more desirable dose to use in phase 2 and 3 studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immunotherapy combinations are used to improve outcomes in metastatic cancer, but evidence-based knowledge of appropriate starting doses for novel combinations is lacking. Phase I-III adult combination clinical trials (≥ 1 drug was immunotherapy; anti-PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA-4) were reviewed (PubMed Jan 1, 2010 to Sep 1, 2016; ASCO 2014–2016, ASH/ESMO 2014–2015 abstracts). The safe dose for each drug used in each combination was divided by the single-agent recommended dose to calculate dose percentage. Additive dose percentage was the sum of each dose percentage. Overall, 84 studies (N = 3,526 patients, 59 combinations) were analyzed. In 50% of studies, all drugs could be administered at full dose; 63%, in the presence of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and 36% with anti-CTLA-4. The lowest safe starting dose for a doublet combination including a second immunotherapy was 50% of each drug; 60%, for a targeted agent. Most doublet/triplets combining anti-PD-1/PD-L1 with cytotoxics were tolerable at full doses. Response rates (median [interquartile range]) were higher for 3-drug than 2-drug combinations (53% [33–63%] (N = 23 studies) vs. 23% [14–39%]) (N = 60 studies) (p < 0.0001) with similar rates seen for targeted, cytotoxic, biologic, or additional immunotherapy combinations (p = 0.35). In conclusion, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors can be safely given with a variety of other immunotherapy and targeted agents, albeit at about half dose. Doublet and triplet combinations with cytotoxics could mostly be given at full doses. Anti-CTLA-4 agents compromised dosing more than anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agents. Response rates were significantly higher for 3- versus 2-drug combinations.

Background: The recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of anticancer agents is determined traditionally by dose-limiting toxicities. Nontoxicity or biological endpoints such as pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy can also be used to identify RP2D, which may be relevant to molecularly targeted agents (MTAs).Methods: A systematic review identified all monotherapy phase 1 studies of MTAs in solid tumors published between 2001 and 2013. Dose, dosing schedule, and determinants of RP2D were collected from each study. A supplementary search of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website identified the licensed dose for drugs with regulatory approval. Logistic regression was used to explore predictors for the RP2D being consistent with the final approved dose.Results: The search identified 4175 records, of which 250 studies evaluating 181 individual MTAs were included. Of these MTAs, 161 (64%) determined an RP2D. Fifty-two trials (32%), used toxicity alone to specify an RP2D. The remaining trials used a nonclassical approach with either multiple endpoints that included toxicity (n = 87, 54%), multiple nontoxicity endpoints (n = 12, 7%), or a single nontoxicity endpoint (n = 10, 6%). Twenty-nine (16%) MTAs were approved by the FDA for solid tumor indications. The use of nonclassical definitions compared with toxicity alone was significantly associated with higher likelihood of FDA approval (odds ratio, 5.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-22.73; P = .036).Conclusions: In the past decade, there has been a dominance of a nonclassical approach using multiple endpoints with or without toxicity or single nontoxicity endpoints to define RPTD in MTA monotherapy phase 1 trials. Nonclassically defined RP2Ds for MTAs appear to be associated with a higher rate of FDA drug approval. Cancer 2017;123:1409-1415. © 2016 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Preclinical evidence suggests dichloroacetate (DCA) can reverse the Warburg effect and inhibit growth in cancer models. This phase 1 study was undertaken to assess the safety, recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), and pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of oral DCA in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients and Methods Twenty-four patients with advanced solid malignancies were enrolled using a standard 3 + 3 protocol at a starting dose of 6.25 mg/kg twice daily (BID). Treatment on 28 days cycles was continued until progression, toxicity, or consent withdrawal. PK samples were collected on days 1 and 15 of cycle 1, and day 1 of subsequent cycles. PET imaging ( F-FDG uptake) was investigated as a potential biomarker of response. Results Twenty-three evaluable patients were treated with DCA at two doses: 6.25 mg/kg and 12.5 mg/kg BID (median of 2 cycles each). No DLTs occurred in the 6.25 mg/kg BID cohort so the dose was escalated. Three of seven patients had DLTs (fatigue, vomiting, diarrhea) at 12.5 mg/kg BID. Thirteen additional patients were treated at 6.25 mg/kg BID. Most toxicities were grade 1-2 with the most common being fatigue, neuropathy and nausea. No responses were observed and eight patients had stable disease. The DCA PK profile in cancer patients was consistent with previously published data. There was high variability in PK values and neuropathy among patients. Progressive increase in DCA trough levels and a trend towards decreased F-FDG uptake with length of DCA therapy was observed. Conclusions The RP2D of oral DCA is 6.25 mg/kg BID. Toxicities will require careful monitoring in future trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of early stage clinical trials is to determine the recommended dose and toxicity profile of an investigational agent or multi-drug combination. Molecularly targeted agents (MTAs) and immunotherapies have distinct toxicities from chemotherapies that are often not dose dependent and can lead to chronic and sometimes unpredictable side effects. Therefore utilizing a dose escalation method that has toxicity based endpoints may not be as appropriate for determination of recommended dose, and alternative parameters such as pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic outcomes are potentially appealing options. Approaches to enhance safety and optimize dosing include improved preclinical models and assessment, innovative model based design and dose escalation strategies, patient selection, the use of expansion cohorts and extended toxicity assessments. Tailoring the design of phase I trials by adopting new strategies to address the different properties of MTAs is required to enhance the development of these agents. This review will focus on the limitations to safety and dose determination that have occurred in the development of MTAs and immunotherapies. In addition, strategies are proposed to overcome these challenges to develop phase I trials that can more accurately define the recommended dose and identify adverse events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction It is increasingly clear that definitions of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) established for phase 1 trials of cytotoxic agents are not suitable for molecularly targeted agents because of specific toxicity profiles. An international survey collected expertise on the definition of DLT, as part of an initiative aimed at presenting new guidelines for phase 1 trials of targeted agents. Methods A 15-question survey was sent to corresponding authors of phase 1 reports. Questions involved: duration of the DLT assessment period, incorporation of specific grade 1 (G1) or G2 toxicity and their minimum duration to qualify as DLT, exclusion of specific G3 and inclusion of dose modification/delay. Results Among the 400 investigators contacted, 93 replied of whom 65 completed the questionnaires. A total of 87% opted for an extended DLT assessment period beyond cycle 1, with the proviso not to delay patient accrual. Reanalysis at the end of the study of all safety data was proposed in order to recommend the phase 2 dose. Most respondents (92%) suggested including dose modification in the definition of DLT when dose intensity was decreased to 70%. Whilst moderate toxicity was deemed relevant by 70%, the G1/2 toxicities selected to define DLT however varied. Conclusion The majority of experts favoured a longer DLT assessment period as well as incorporation of specific G2 toxicities into the DLT definition. However, no clear consensus existed on a re-definition of DLT. Therefore analyses of a large international data warehouse were also used to develop guidelines presented in a companion paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Traditional dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) definition, which uses grade (G) 3-4 toxicity data from cycle 1 (C1) only, may not be appropriate for molecularly targeted agents (MTAs) of prolonged administration, for which late or lower grade toxicities also deserve attention. Patients and methods In collaboration with pharmaceutical companies and academia, an European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)-led initiative, Dose-Limiting Toxicity and Toxicity Assessment Recommendation Group for Early Trials of Targeted therapies (DLT-TARGETT), collected data from completed phase 1 trials evaluating MTAs as monotherapy. All toxicities at least possibly related to the study drugs that occurred during C1-6, their type, grade (CTCAEv3.0), and duration as well as patients' relative dose-intensity (RDI), were recorded. Results The 54 eligible trials enrolled 2084 evaluable adult patients with solid tumours between 1999 and 2013, and evaluated small molecules (40), antibodies (seven), recombinant peptides (five) and antisense oligodeoxynucleotides (two). A maximum tolerated dose was set in 43 trials. Fifteen percent of the patients received <75% of the intended RDI in C1, but only 9.1% of them presented protocol-defined DLTs. After C1, 16-19% of patients received <75% of the intended RDI. A similar proportion of G < 3 toxicities was recorded in C1 and after C1 (936 and 1087 toxicities, respectively), with the first G < 3 toxicity occurring after C1 in 18.6% of patients. Conclusion Although protocol-defined DLT period is traditionally limited to C1, almost 20% of patients present significant reductions in RDI at any time in phase 1 trials of MTAs. Recommended phase 2 dose assessment should incorporate all available information from any cycle (notably lower grade toxicities leading to such RDI decrease), and be based on achieving >75% RDI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Entrectinib is a TRKA/B/C, ROS1, ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of adults and children aged ≥12 years with NTRK fusion-positive solid tumors and adults with ROS1 fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. We report an analysis of the STARTRK-NG trial, investigating the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and activity of entrectinib in pediatric patients with solid tumors including primary central nervous system tumors., Methods: STARTRK-NG (NCT02650401) is a phase 1/2 trial. Phase 1, dose-escalation of oral, once-daily entrectinib, enrolled patients aged <22 years with solid tumors with/without target NTRK1/2/3, ROS1, or ALK fusions. Phase 2, basket trial at the RP2D, enrolled patients with intracranial or extracranial solid tumors harboring target fusions or neuroblastoma. Primary endpoints: phase 1, RP2D based on toxicity; phase 2, objective response rate (ORR) in patients harboring target fusions. Safety-evaluable patients: ≥1 dose of entrectinib; response-evaluable patients: measurable/evaluable baseline disease and ≥1 dose at RP2D., Results: At data cutoff, 43 patients, median age of 7 years, were response-evaluable. In phase 1, 4 patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities. The most common treatment-related adverse event was weight gain (48.8%). Nine patients experienced bone fractures (20.9%). In patients with fusion-positive tumors, ORR was 57.7% (95% CI 36.9-76.7), median duration of response was not reached, and median (interquartile range) duration of treatment was 10.6 months (4.2-18.4)., Conclusions: Entrectinib resulted in rapid and durable responses in pediatric patients with solid tumors harboring NTRK1/2/3 or ROS1 fusions., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology.)

Background: Cabozantinib inhibits tyrosine kinases including MET, AXL, VEGFR2, RET, KIT, and ROS1 and has demonstrated antitumor activity in multiple tumor types. The primary objective of this phase 1 study (NCT01553656) was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of cabozantinib in Japanese patients., Patients and Methods: Patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled at 2 sites in Japan. After determining the MTD and RP2D, an expansion in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) consisting of 3 molecularly defined cohorts (EGFR mutation; KRAS mutation; ALK, RET, or ROS1 fusion) was initiated. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01553656)., Results: Forty-three Japanese patients were enrolled (dose escalation, n = 23; NSCLC expansion, n = 20). The MTD of cabozantinib capsules was 60 mg daily, and the RP2D of cabozantinib tablets was 60 mg daily. Dose-limiting toxicities were hypertension, proteinuria, and venous embolism. Safety and pharmacokinetics in Japanese patients were consistent with those in non-Japanese patients. Common adverse events included palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, hypertension, and diarrhea. Reduction in tumor lesion size was observed in multiple tumor types in the dose-escalation cohorts, with partial responses observed in 4 of 9 patients with NSCLC (EGFR mutation, n = 1; ALK fusion, n = 2; and RET fusion, n = 1). In the NSCLC expansion, 4 patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC had partial responses; the remaining 16 (EGFR mutation, n = 11; KRAS mutation, n = 2; ALK fusion, n = 1; and RET fusion, n = 2) had stable disease as best response., Conclusion: Cabozantinib had a manageable safety profile in Japanese patients with solid tumors. Responses were observed in diverse molecular subtypes of NSCLC., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Immunotherapy combinations are used to improve outcomes in metastatic cancer, but evidence-based knowledge of appropriate starting doses for novel combinations is lacking. Phase I-III adult combination clinical trials (≥ 1 drug was immunotherapy; anti-PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA-4) were reviewed (PubMed Jan 1, 2010 to Sep 1, 2016; ASCO 2014–2016, ASH/ESMO 2014–2015 abstracts). The safe dose for each drug used in each combination was divided by the single-agent recommended dose to calculate dose percentage. Additive dose percentage was the sum of each dose percentage. Overall, 84 studies (N = 3,526 patients, 59 combinations) were analyzed. In 50% of studies, all drugs could be administered at full dose; 63%, in the presence of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and 36% with anti-CTLA-4. The lowest safe starting dose for a doublet combination including a second immunotherapy was 50% of each drug; 60%, for a targeted agent. Most doublet/triplets combining anti-PD-1/PD-L1 with cytotoxics were tolerable at full doses. Response rates (median [interquartile range]) were higher for 3-drug than 2-drug combinations (53% [33–63%] (N = 23 studies) vs. 23% [14–39%]) (N = 60 studies) (p < 0.0001) with similar rates seen for targeted, cytotoxic, biologic, or additional immunotherapy combinations (p = 0.35). In conclusion, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors can be safely given with a variety of other immunotherapy and targeted agents, albeit at about half dose. Doublet and triplet combinations with cytotoxics could mostly be given at full doses. Anti-CTLA-4 agents compromised dosing more than anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agents. Response rates were significantly higher for 3- versus 2-drug combinations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]