Starting dose selection and dose escalation for oncology small molecule first-in-patient trials: learnings from a survey of FDA-approved drugs

A review of dose escalation for FDA-approved products treating solid tumors and hematological malignancies in first-in-human trials

First-in-human (FIH) dose-escalation trials on oncology should prioritize safety and emphasize efficacy. We reviewed the FIH trials of 67 anti-tumor products approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 2018 and 2023 and found that the "3 + 3" design remains the predominant dose-escalation method (66.2%). The number of patients receiving sub-therapeutic doses is positively correlated with the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or maximum dose (MD) to starting dose ratio (P = 0.056) and the number of dose levels in trials (P < 0.001). In addition, the proportion of products with a high ratio in antibody drugs is higher than that in small molecules (P < 0.001). The MTD or MD exceeded the label dose by three or more doses in 22.03% of the products. In conclusion, optimizing the starting dose selection method, refining the way of determining doses, and finding alternative indicators to replace toxicity as the endpoints will increase the effectiveness and broaden the beneficiary scope.

Dose Optimization of Targeted Therapies for Oncologic Indications

Therapeutic advances in oncology in the 21st century have contributed to significant declines in cancer mortality. Notably, targeted therapies comprised the largest proportion of oncology drugs approved by the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the past 25 years and have become the standard of care for the treatment of many cancers. However, despite the metamorphosis of the therapeutic landscape, some aspects of cancer drug development have remained essentially unchanged. In particular, the dose-finding methodology originally developed for cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs continues to be implemented, even though this approach no longer represents the most appropriate strategy for modern cancer therapies. In recognition of the need to reconsider assumptions, adapt the dose selection process for newer drugs, and design alternative strategies, the FDA has undertaken several initiatives in recent years to address these concerns. These actions include the launch of Project Optimus in 2021 and the issuance of draft guidance for industry on dose optimization of oncology drugs in 2023. Amid this evolving regulatory environment, the present manuscript reviews case studies for six different targeted cancer therapies, highlighting how dose-finding challenges have been managed to date by oncologists, sponsors, and regulators.

Oncology Combination Dose-Finding Study Design for Targeted and Immuno-Oncology Therapies

Combination therapies are often evaluated during the clinical development of oncology investigational agents. A new investigational agent may be combined with one or more approved agent(s) or investigational agent(s). As the initial step to test combination therapies, combination dose escalation of an investigational agent and an approved drug is generally conducted using one of the following designs: sequential design, parallel (staggered) design, healthy participant first-in-human prior to first-in-patient combination escalation, monotherapy lead-in (intra-patient "crossover"), and potentially combination escalation (no monotherapy component). Dose-finding studies for the combinations of two investigational agents may follow similar principles and considerations, and a more conservative approach may be required. A comparison of the characteristics of these designs indicates an efficient design should consider factors including the predicted difference in dose/exposure-response relationships between monotherapy and combination therapy, any potential for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between the combinatory agents, and the benefit/risk to study participants, etc. In this report, we propose application scenarios for each trial design based on the above considerations and a review of the internal database and published external studies. Generation of robust exposure-response data via an appropriate design will assist the selection of appropriate doses for further assessment to support optimal dose selection as encouraged by the US Food and Drug Administration based on Project Optimus.

An IQ consortium analysis of starting dose selection for oncology small molecule first-in-patient trials suggests an alternative NOAEL-based method can be safe while reducing time to the recommended phase 2 dose

The first-in-patient (FIP) starting dose for oncology agents should be reasonably safe and provide potential therapeutic benefit to the patient. For late-stage oncology patients, this dose is often based on the ICH S9 guidance, which was developed primarily based on experience with cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents using the rodent STD10 or non-rodent HNSTD and an appropriate safety factor. With the increase in molecularly targeted chemotherapeutics, it is prudent to re-evaluate how the FIP dose is derived to ensure that the appropriate balance between risk and therapeutic benefit to the patient is achieved. Blinded data on 92 small molecule oncology compounds from 12 pharmaceutical companies who are members of the IQ DruSafe consortium were gathered to investigate if a NOAEL-based starting dose without a safety factor would have been tolerated in the FIP trial and if so, estimating how many dose escalation cohorts could have been reduced. Our analysis suggests that the NOAEL-based alternative starting dose would have been tolerated in most cases evaluated, with an anticipated mean reduction of 2.3 cohorts. Of the 12 cases where the alternative approach resulted in a starting dose that would have exceeded the MTD/RP2D, none of the nonclinical toxicities in these cases were considered irreversible and would be monitorable in all but one instance. Most non-tolerated cases were within two-threefold of the MTD/RP2D, with the clinical AEs considered manageable and mitigated by dose de-escalation. No one method of FIP dose calculation will likely be appropriate for all oncology small molecules and starting dose selection should be performed using a case-by-case approach. However, the NOAEL-based method that does not utilize a safety factor should be considered when appropriate to minimize the number of patients exposed to sub-therapeutic doses of an investigational oncology agent and accelerating development to RP2D.

Recent advances and clinical pharmacology aspects of Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-cellular therapy development

Advances in immuno-oncology have provided a variety of novel therapeutics that harness the innate immune system to identify and destroy neoplastic cells. It is noteworthy that acceptable safety profiles accompany the development of these targeted therapies, which result in efficacious cancer treatment with higher survival rates and lower toxicities. Adoptive cellular therapy (ACT) has shown promising results in inducing sustainable remissions in patients suffering from refractory diseases. Two main types of ACT include engineered Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T cells and T cell receptor (TCR) T cells. The application of these immuno-therapies in the last few years has been successful and has demonstrated a safe and rapid treatment regimen for solid and non-solid tumors. The current review presents an insight into the clinical pharmacology aspects of immuno-therapies, especially CAR-T cells. Here, we summarize the current knowledge of TCR and CAR-T cell immunotherapy with particular focus on the structure of CAR-T cells, the effects and toxicities associated with these therapies in clinical trials, risk mitigation strategies, dose selection approaches, and cellular kinetics. Finally, the quantitative approaches and modeling techniques used in the development of CAR-T cell therapies are described.

Healthy volunteers in first-in-human oncology drug development for small molecules

This review provides tools to consider the inclusion of healthy volunteers (HVs) in first-in-human (FIH) oncology clinical trials with small molecules, including targeted and immunomodulatory agents, a strategy that was not envisioned with classic chemotherapy. To enable an FIH oncology trial in HVs compared to cancer patients (CPs), a robust nonclinical package must be generated, which includes toxicokinetic and pharmacokinetic studies, as well as more extensive safety pharmacology, toxicology and genotoxicity studies. This strategy could provide an early clinical characterization of the pharmacokinetic parameters and clinical safety profile in the absence of comorbidities and concomitant medication. It also avoids the ethical issue of administrating subtherapeutic doses to CPs, and could potentially help to accelerate the timelines of clinical drug development for patient care. That being said, stakeholders involved in these studies need to proceed with caution, fully understand the regulatory guidance and thoroughly evaluate the benefits and risks. This paper serves to address the regulatory guidance and other considerations needed when using healthy volunteers in early oncology trials.

Of some innovations in clinical trial design in hematology and oncology

The design of clinical trials, formalized in the immediate post-war period, has undergone major changes due to therapeutic innovations, particularly the arrival of targeted therapies in onco-hematology. The traditional phase I-II-III regimen is regularly questioned and multiple adaptations are proposed. This article proposes to expose some of these modifications and the issues they lead to.