Phase I study of continuous MKC-1 in patients with advanced or metastatic solid malignancies using the modified Time-to-Event Continual Reassessment Method (TITE-CRM) dose escalation design

University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, WI, USA.
Investigational New Drugs (Impact Factor: 2.92). 06/2011; 30(3):1039-45. DOI: 10.1007/s10637-010-9629-6
Source: PubMed


MKC-1 is an oral cell-cycle inhibitor with broad antitumor activity in preclinical models. Clinical studies demonstrated modest antitumor activity using intermittent dosing schedule, however additional preclinical data suggested continuous dosing could be efficacious with additional effects against the mTor/AKT pathway. The primary objectives were to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and response of continuous MKC-1. Secondary objectives included characterizing the dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) and pharmacokinetics (PK).
Patients with solid malignancies were eligible, if they had measurable disease, ECOG PS ≤1, and adequate organ function. Exclusions included brain metastases and inability to receive oral drug. MKC-1 was dosed twice daily, continuously in 28-day cycles. Other medications were eliminated if there were possible drug interactions. Doses were assigned using a TITE-CRM algorithm following enrollment of the first 3 pts. Disease response was assessed every 8 weeks.
Between 5/08-9/09, 24 patients enrolled (15 M/9 F, median 58 years, range 44-77). Patients 1-3 received 120 mg/d of MKC-1; patients 4-24 were dosed per the TITE-CRM algorithm: 150 mg [n = 1], 180 [2], 200 [1], 230 [1], 260 [5], 290 [6], 320 [5]. The median time on drug was 8 weeks (range 4-28). The only DLT occurred at 320 mg (grade 3 fatigue). Stable disease occurred at 150 mg/d (28 weeks; RCC) and 320 mg/d (16 weeks; breast, parotid). Escalation halted at 320 mg/d. Day 28 pharmacokinetics indicated absorption and active metabolites.
Continuous MKC-1 was well-tolerated; there were no RECIST responses, although clinical benefit occurred in 3/24 pts. Dose escalation stopped at 320 mg/d, and this is the MTD as defined by the CRM dose escalation algorithm; this cumulative dose/cycle exceeds that determined from intermittent dosing studies. A TITE-CRM allowed for rapid dose escalation and was able to account for late toxicities with continuous dosing via a modified algorithm.

Download full-text


Available from: Glenn Liu,
  • Source
    • "TITE-CRM has been reported to more accurately define the MTD without exposing patients to excessive toxicity when compared with the standard 3 þ 3 method, provided that preclinical data do not unacceptably underestimate the side effects (Normolle and Lawrence, 2006). Currently only TITE- CRM has been used in early phase clinical trials with mixed results (Desai et al., 2007; Muler et al., 2004; Tevaarwerk et al., 2012). The limited application of these other designs may be due to the need for considerable biostatistical expertise, resources and software. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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.
    Molecular Oncology 08/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.molonc.2014.07.025 · 5.33 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The CRM has utility in any area where finding the MTD is needed. However, to date, it has primarily been used in cancer [17] and stroke [18,19] research trials. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Adaptive designs allow planned modifications based on data accumulating within a study. The promise of greater flexibility and efficiency stimulates increasing interest in adaptive designs from clinical, academic, and regulatory parties. When adaptive designs are used properly, efficiencies can include a smaller sample size, a more efficient treatment development process, and an increased chance of correctly answering the clinical question of interest. However, improper adaptations can lead to biased studies. A broad definition of adaptive designs allows for countless variations, which creates confusion as to the statistical validity and practical feasibility of many designs. Determining properties of a particular adaptive design requires careful consideration of the scientific context and statistical assumptions. We first review several adaptive designs that garner the most current interest. We focus on the design principles and research issues that lead to particular designs being appealing or unappealing in particular applications. We separately discuss exploratory and confirmatory stage designs in order to account for the differences in regulatory concerns. We include adaptive seamless designs, which combine stages in a unified approach. We also highlight a number of applied areas, such as comparative effectiveness research, that would benefit from the use of adaptive designs. Finally, we describe a number of current barriers and provide initial suggestions for overcoming them in order to promote wider use of appropriate adaptive designs. Given the breadth of the coverage all mathematical and most implementation details are omitted for the sake of brevity. However, the interested reader will find that we provide current references to focused reviews and original theoretical sources which lead to details of the current state of the art in theory and practice.
    Trials 08/2012; 13(1):145. DOI:10.1186/1745-6215-13-145 · 1.73 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: MKC-1 is an orally available cell cycle inhibitor with downstream targets that include tubulin and the importin-β family. We conducted an open-label Phase II study with MKC-1 in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Eligibility criteria included unresectable or metastatic pancreatic cancer, performance status of 1 or better, and failure of at least one prior regimen of chemotherapy. MKC-1 was administered orally, twice daily, initially at 100 mg/m(2) dosing for 14 consecutive days of a 28-day cycle. This schedule was modified during the trial to fixed and continuous dosing of 150 mg per day. 20 of an original target of 33 patients were accrued, with a median age of 61 (range 44-81). No objective responses were observed, with one patient demonstrating stable disease. Overall survival was 101 days from the start of MKC-1 administration, and median time to progression was 42 days. The most common adverse events listed as related or possibly related to MKC-1 administration were hematologic toxicities and fatigue. One patient developed grade 5 (fatal) pancytopenia. Grade 3 and 4 events included cytopenias (lymphopenia, anemia), hyperbilirubinemia, pneumonia, mucositis, fatigue, infusion reaction, anorexia, and hypoalbuminemia. MKC-1 administration was associated with substantial toxicity and did not demonstrate sufficient activity in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer to justify further exploration in this patient population.
    Investigational New Drugs 07/2011; 30(4):1614-20. DOI:10.1007/s10637-011-9708-3 · 2.92 Impact Factor
Show more