Plocabulin (Plo) induces depolymerization of tubulin fibers with disorganization and fragmentation of the microtubule network leading to mitosis. Plo combined with gemcitabine (Gem) showed synergistic anti-tumor activity in preclinical studies. This phase I trial evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and efficacy of Plo 10-min infusion plus Gem on Day 1 and 8 every 3-week in patients with advanced solid tumors. Fifty-seven patients were enrolled into 8 dose levels (DLs); 74%: females; 74%: ECOG performance status 1; median age: 62 years; median number of prior lines of therapy:3. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) in Cycle 1 were grade (G) 3 intestinal obstruction at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), G3 peripheral sensory neuropathy (PSN), G3 abdominal pain, and G4 thrombocytopenia (1 patient each). The highest DL (DL8: Plo 10.5 mg/m2/Gem 1000 mg/m2) was the MTD. Accrual into DL7 (Plo 10.0 mg/m2/Gem 1000 mg/m2) was stopped before it was formally defined as the recommended dose (RD). Most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were fatigue (56%), nausea (55%), diarrhea (31%); G3/4 hematologic toxicities comprised anemia (35%), neutropenia (27%) and thrombocytopenia (17%). No treatment-related deaths occurred. PK parameters for Gem or dFdU at all DLs were in line with reference values from the literature. Six of 46 evaluable pts were responders (overall response rate:13%). Of note, 2 partial responses (PR) and 2 stable disease (SD) ≥ 4 months occurred among 13 pts with ovarian cancer. The combination of Plo and Gem is well tolerated. The MTD was Plo 10.5 mg/m2/Gem 1000 mg/m2. No PK drug-drug interaction was found. The most encouraging outcome occurred in ovarian cancer patients.

Methylmercury (MeHg) is a ubiquitous environmental contaminant, well known for its neurotoxic effects. MeHg can interact with several nutrients in the diet and affect nutrient metabolism, however the interaction between MeHg and dietary proteins has not been thoroughly investigated. Male BALB/c mice were fed diets based on either casein, cod or chicken as protein sources, which were or were not spiked with MeHg (3.5 mg Hg kg-1). Following 13 weeks of dietary exposure to MeHg, the animals accumulated mercury in varying degrees depending on the diet, where the levels of mercury were highest in the mice fed casein and MeHg, lower in mice fed cod and MeHg, and lowest in mice fed chicken and MeHg in all tissues assessed. Assessment of gut microbiota revealed differences in microbiota composition based on the different protein sources, however, the introduction of MeHg eliminated this difference. Proteomic profiling of liver tissue uncovered the influence of the dietary protein sources on a range of enzymes related to Phase I and Phase II detoxification mechanisms, suggesting an impact of the diet on MeHg metabolism and excretion. Also, enzymes linked to pathways including methionine and glycine betaine cycling, which in turn impact the production of glutathione, an important MeHg conjugation molecule, were up-regulated in mice fed chicken as dietary protein. Our findings indicate that dietary proteins can affect expression of hepatic enzyme that potentially influence MeHg metabolism and excretion, highlighting the relevance of considering the dietary composition in risk assessment of MeHg through dietary exposure.

Few data are available on the role of SBRT re-irradiation for isolated recurrences. We designed a prospective phase I study to evaluate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of SBRT for thoracic re-irradiation, for peripheral lung lesions. RT was delivered with a dose escalation design from 30 Gy in five fractions up to 50 Gy in five fractions. The primary end point was the definition of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of SBRT for thoracic re-irradiation. The dose-limiting toxicity was pneumonia ≥G3. Fifteen patients were enrolled. No cases of pneumonia ≥G3 occurred in any of our cohorts. Only one patient developed pneumonia G1 during treatment. Three patients developed acute toxicities that included dyspnea G1, cardiac failure G3, and chest wall pain. One patient developed G3 late toxicity with acute coronary syndrome. After a median follow-up of 21 months (range 3.6-29.1 months), six patients (40%) had a local relapse. Distant relapse occurred in five patients (33.3%). At the last follow-up, six patients died, all but two due to progressive disease. SBRT dose escalation for thoracic re-irradiation is an effective and well-tolerated option for patients with inoperable lung lesions after a first thoracic RT with acceptable acute and late toxicities.

Myocardial reperfusion injury (MRI) accounts for up to 50% of the final size in acute myocardial infarction and other conditions associated with ischemia-reperfusion. Currently, there is still no therapy to prevent MRI, but it is well known that oxidative stress has a key role in its mechanism. We previously reduced MRI in rats through a combined antioxidant therapy (CAT) of ascorbic acid, N-acetylcysteine, and deferoxamine. This study determines the safety and pharmacokinetics of CAT in a Phase I clinical trial. Healthy subjects (n = 18) were randomized 2:1 to CAT or placebo (NaCl 0.9% i.v.). Two different doses/infusion rates of CATs were tested in a single 90-minute intravenous infusion. Blood samples were collected at specific times for 180 minutes to measure plasma drug concentrations (ascorbic acid, N-acetylcysteine, and deferoxamine) and oxidative stress biomarkers. Adverse events were registered during infusion and followed for 30 days. Both CAT1 and CAT2 significantly increased the CAT drug concentrations compared to placebo (P < .05). Most of the pharmacokinetic parameters were similar between CAT1 and CAT2. In total, 6 adverse events were reported, all nonserious and observed in CAT1. The ferric-reducing ability of plasma (an antioxidant biomarker) increased in both CAT groups compared to placebo (P < .001). The CAT is safe in humans and a potential treatment for patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing reperfusion therapy.

BACKGROUND: Determining the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) remains the primary objective for the majority of dose-finding oncology trials. Whilst MTD determination often relies upon clinicians to identify dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) experienced by patients during the trial, research suggests that clinicians may underreport patient\'s adverse events. Therefore, contemporary practice may be exposed to recommending intolerable doses to patients for further investigation in subsequent trials. There is increasing interest in patients self-assessing their own symptoms using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in dose-finding trials.
METHODS: We present Utility-PRO-Continual Reassessment Method (U-PRO-CRM), a novel trial design which simultaneously uses clinician-rated and patient-rated DLTs (Clinician-DLTs and Patient-DLTs, respectively) to make dose (de-)escalation decisions and to recommend an MTD. U-PRO-CRM contains the published PRO-CRM as a special case and provides greater flexibility to trade-off the rate of Patient-DLTs and Clinician-DLTs to find an optimal dose. We present simulation results for U-PRO-CRM.
RESULTS: For specified trade-offs between Clinician-DLT and Patient-DLT rate, U-PRO-CRM outperforms the PRO-CRM design by identifying the true MTD more often. In the special case where U-PRO-CRM generalises to PRO-CRM, U-PRO-CRM performs as well as its published counterpart. U-PRO-CRM minimises the number of patients overdosed whilst maintaining a similar proportion of patients allocated to the true MTD.
CONCLUSIONS: By using a utility-based dose selection approach, U-PRO-CRM offers the flexibility to define a trade-off between the risk of patient-rated and clinician-rated DLTs for an optimal dose. Patient-centric dose-finding strategies, which integrate PROs, are poised to assume an ever more pivotal role in significantly advancing our understanding of treatment tolerability. This bears significant implications in shaping the future landscape of early-phase trials.

BACKGROUND: Though cancer is more prevalent in the older population, this patient group are underrepresented in phase I oncology trials.
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the use of a geriatric screening tool (SAOP3) in patients of 70 years of age or older who attended a Phase I Clinical Trials Unit, with the aim of assessing the feasibility of the tool and identifying potential unmet needs in this patient group.
METHODS: Twenty-two patients over the age of 70 completed the SAOP3 questionnaire. Geriatric impairments and needs were analysed with descriptive statistics. Qualitative responses were grouped in themes using structured thematic analysis.
RESULTS: All of patients triggered at least 1 geriatric domain, most commonly mobility. Six core themes were identified as being important to the patient including family, friends and positivity. On cognition assessment over 20% of patients triggered as requiring further cognitive assessment. The group had a relatively high screen fail risk.
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, routine geriatric screening withSAOP3 was feasible and identified areas of patient need. Results highlight the prevalence of psychological distress and cognitive impairment. Geriatric screening offers an opportunity for prehabilitation prior to trial and support during trial participation to optimise safety and improve trial access.

Activated guided irradiation by X-ray (AGuIX) nanoparticles are gadolinium-based agents that have the dual benefit of mimicking the effects of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) contrast agent used in a clinical routine and enhancing the radiotherapeutic activity of conventional X-rays (for cancer treatment). This \"theragnostic\" action is explained on the one hand by the paramagnetic properties of gadolinium and on the other hand by the generation of high densities of secondary radiation following the interaction of ionizing radiation and high-Z atoms, which leads to enhanced radiation dose deposits within the tumors where the nanoparticles accumulate. Here, we report the results of a phase I trial that aimed to assess the safety and determine the optimal dose of AGuIX nanoparticles in combination with chemoradiation and brachytherapy in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. AGuIX nanoparticles were administered intravenously and appropriately accumulated within tumors on a dose-dependent manner, as assessed by T1-weighted MRI, with a rapid urinary clearance of uncaught nanoparticles. We show that the observed tumor accumulation of the compounds can support precise delineation of functional target volumes at the time of brachytherapy based on gadolinium enhancement. AGuIX nanoparticles combined with chemoradiation appeared well tolerated among the 12 patients treated, with no dose-limiting toxicity observed. Treatment yielded excellent local control, with all patients achieving complete remission of the primary tumor. One patient had a distant tumor recurrence. These results demonstrate the clinical feasibility of using theranostic nanoparticles to augment the accuracy of MRI-based treatments while focally enhancing the radiation activity in tumors.

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients are underrepresented in clinical trials, particularly in early-phase studies. Our study assessed the safety and efficacy of novel anti-cancer treatments investigated in early-phase clinical trials, comparing outcomes between younger and elderly patients.
METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed data from patients enrolled in phase I/II trials at our center between January 2014 and April 2021. We evaluated clinicopathologic characteristics, toxicity, and clinical efficacy, categorizing patients into younger (≤ 65 years) and elderly (> 65 years) groups.
RESULTS: 419 patients were included with a median age of 56 years. Among these, 107 (26 %) were older than 65 years. Predominant cancers included breast (48 %), lung (10 %), and melanoma (5 %). Patients were treated in 64 trials, predominantly receiving immunotherapy-based (47 %) or targeted therapy-based (45 %) treatment. Elderly presented with poorer ECOG performance status (P = 0.001) and had fewer prior therapy lines (P = 0.01) than younger patients. Grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) were similar across age groups (31 % younger vs 33 % elderly; P = 0.7), including in combination therapy scenarios. However, elderly patients experienced more AEs with antibody-drug conjugates compared to younger counterparts (56 % vs 14 %, P = 0.036) and were more likely to discontinue treatment due to toxicity (15 % vs 7 %; P = 0.011). No significant age-related differences in response rates and survival outcomes were observed across treatment modalities, except for immunotherapy-based regimens for which elderly patients exhibited higher response rates, disease control rates, and prolonged progression-free survival.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that elderly exhibit comparable safety and efficacy outcomes to younger patients in early-phase clinical trials for new cancer drugs. This underscores the importance of including elderly patients in phase I/II trials to ensure the generalizability of study results and mitigate age-related disparities in cancer treatment access.

BACKGROUND: In light of the FDA\'s Project Optimus initiative, there is fresh interest in leveraging Patient-reported Outcome (PRO) data to enhance the assessment of tolerability for investigational therapies within early phase dose-finding oncology trials. Typically, dose escalation in most trial designs is solely reliant on clinician assessed adverse events. Research has shown a disparity between patients and clinicians when assessing whether an investigational therapy is tolerable, leading to the recommendation of potentially intolerable doses for further investigation in subsequent trials. It is also increasingly recognized that patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) plays a pivotal role in enriching trial design and conduct. However, to our knowledge, no PPIE has explored the optimal integration of PROs in the development of advanced statistical trial designs within early phase dose-finding oncology trials.
METHODS: A virtual PPIE session was held with nine participants on 18th October 2023 to discuss the incorporation of PROs within a dose-finding trial design. This cross disciplinary session was developed and led by a team of statisticians, clinical specialists, qualitative experts, and trial methodologists. Following the session, in-depth perspectives were provided by two patient advocates who actively engaged in the PPIE session. We discuss the importance of PPIE in shaping advanced dose-finding trial designs, share insights from patients on integrating PROs to inform treatment tolerability, and present a template for meaningful patient involvement in trial design development.
RESULTS: Participants generally supported the introduction of PROs within dose-finding trials but showed some apprehensiveness as to how PROs may reduce the size of the recommended dose (and potentially efficacious effect). Some participants shared that they may be reluctant to record the real severity of their symptoms via PROs if it would mean that they would have to discontinue treatment. They discussed that PROs could be used to assess tolerability rather than toxicity of a dose.
CONCLUSIONS: Amplifying patient voice in the development of patient-centric dose-finding trial designs is now essential. This paper offers an exemplary illustration of how trialists and methodologists can effectively incorporate patient voice in the future development of advanced dose-finding trial designs.
The aim of dose-finding oncology trials is to make sure a treatment is safe, understand its side effects, and recommend the right dose (or doses) for future clinical trials. Traditionally, a patient’s tolerance to treatment is assessed by doctors who evaluate toxicities (side-effects) using established grading guidelines. Research has shown that doctors might not identify all the side effects that patients actually experience during a trial.There is growing interest in the introduction of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) within dose-finding trials. PROs are reports of a patient’s health and well-being experiences which come directly from the patient themselves, usually assessed using a questionnaire.In a dose-finding trial, we start with a low dose of a drug and increase it until too many patients have severe side effects. The highest safe dose is then investigated in a later phase trial.   We are suggesting a new way to do these trials. We want to look at both what doctors see as severe side effects and what patients say. This enables us to recommend a dose that balances both perspectives. We would also like to ask patients what level of risk they are comfortable with regarding severe side effects.In this paper, we highlight the importance of involving patients in creating advanced dose-finding trial designs, particularly with PROs to help decide whether a dose is tolerable for patients. We also share findings of a patient and public involvement and engagement session and provide a guide for meaningful patient involvement in developing trial designs.

Dose selection for investigations of intrinsic and extrinsic factors of pharmacokinetic variability as well as safety is a challenging question in the early clinical stage of drug development. The dose of an investigational product is chosen considering the compound information available to date, feasibility of the assessments, regulatory requirements, and the intent to maximize information for later regulatory submission. This review selected 37 programs as case examples of recently approved drugs to explore the doses selected with focus on studies of drug interaction, renal and hepatic impairment, food effect and concentration-QTc assessment.The review found that regulatory agencies may consider alternative approaches if justified and safe as illustrated in these examples. It is thus recommendable to use the first in human trial as an opportunity to assess QT-prolongation and drug interactions using probes or endogenous markers while maximizing the DDI potential, increasing sensitivity and ensuring safety. Early understanding of dose proportionality assists dose finding and simple and fast to conduct DDI study designs are advantageous. Single dose impairment studies despite non-proportional/time-dependent PK are often acceptability.Overall, the early understanding of the drug\'s safety profile is essential to ensure the safety of doses selected while preventing clinical trials with unnecessary exposure when using high doses or multiple doses. The information collected in this retrospective survey is a good reminder to tailor the early clinical program to the profile and needs of the molecule and consider regulatory opportunities to streamline the development path.