Phase I open-label trial of intraperitoneal paclitaxel in combination with intravenous cisplatin and oral capecitabine in patients with advanced gastric cancer and peritoneal metastases (IPGP study): study protocol

Statistical methods and data visualisation of patient-reported outcomes in early phase dose-finding oncology trials: a methodological review

Background

Traditionally, within dose-finding clinical trials, treatment toxicity and tolerability are assessed by clinicians. Research has shown that clinician reporting may have inadequate inter-rater reliability, poor correlation with patient reported outcomes, and under capture the true toxicity burden. The introduction of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), where the patient can assess their own symptomatic adverse events or quality of life, has potential to complement current practice to aid dose optimisation. There are no international recommendations offering guidance for the inclusion of PROs in dose-finding trial design and analysis. Our review aimed to identify and describe current statistical methods and data visualisation techniques employed to analyse and visualise PRO data in published early phase dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs).

Methods

DFOTs published from June 2016-December 2022, which presented PRO analysis methods, were included in this methodological review. We extracted 35 eligible papers indexed in PubMed. Study characteristics extracted included: PRO objectives, PRO measures, statistical analysis and visualisation techniques, and whether the PRO was involved in interim and final dose selection decisions.

Findings

Most papers (30, 85.7%) did not include clear PRO objectives. 20 (57.1%) papers used inferential statistical techniques to analyse PROs, including survival analysis and mixed-effect models. One trial used PROs to classify a clinicians' assessed dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Three (8.6%) trials used PROs to confirm the tolerability of the recommended dose. 25 trial reports visually presented PRO data within a figure or table within their publication, of which 12 papers presented PRO score longitudinally.

Interpretation

This review highlighted that the statistical methods and reporting of PRO analysis in DFOTs are often poorly described and inconsistent. Many trials had PRO objectives which were not clearly described, making it challenging to evaluate the appropriateness of the statistical techniques used. Drawing conclusions based on DFOTs which are not powered for PROs may be misleading. With no guidance and standardisation of analysis methods for PROs in early phase DFOTs, it is challenging to compare study findings across trials. Therefore, there is a crucial need to establish international guidance to enhance statistical methods and graphical presentation for PRO analysis in the dose-finding setting.

Funding

EA has been supported to undertake this work as part of a PhD studentship from the Institute of Cancer Research within the MRC/NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership. AM is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, the Institute of Cancer Research and Imperial College.

Gastric Cancer (GC) with Peritoneal Metastases (PMs): An Overview of Italian PSM Oncoteam Evidence and Study Purposes

Gastric cancer (GC) continues to be one of the leading types of malignancies worldwide, despite an ongoing decrease in incidence. It is the fifth most frequent type of cancer in the world and the fourth leading cause of cancer death. Peritoneal metastases (PMs) occur in 20-30% of cases during the natural history of the disease. Systemic chemotherapy (SC) is undoubtedly the standard of care for patients with GC and PMs. However, with the development of highly effective regimens (SC combined with intraperitoneal chemotherapy), significant tumor shrinkage has been observed in many patients with synchronous GC and PMs, allowing some to undergo curative resection "conversion surgery" with long-term survival. In recent years, there has been growing interest in intraperitoneal chemotherapy for PMs, because the reduced drug clearance associated with the peritoneal/plasma barrier allows for direct and prolonged drug exposure with less systemic toxicity. These procedures, along with other methods used for peritoneal surface malignancies (PSMs), can be used in GCs with PMs as neoadjuvant chemotherapy or adjuvant treatments after radical surgery or as palliative treatments delivered either laparoscopically or-more recently-as pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy. The great heterogeneity of patients with stage IV gastric cancer did not allow us to carry out a systemic review; therefore, we limited ourselves to providing readers with an overview to clarify the indications and outcomes of integrated treatments for GCs with PMs by analyzing reports from the international clinical literature and the specific experiences of our oncoteam.

Application of Approved Cisplatin Derivatives in Combination Therapy against Different Cancer Diseases

The problems with anticancer therapy are resistance and toxicity. From 3000 Cisplatin derivatives tested as antitumor agents, most of them have been rejected, due to toxicity. The aim of current study is the comparison of therapeutic combinations of the currently applied in clinical practice: Cisplatin, Carboplatin, Oxaliplatin, Nedaplatin, Lobaplatin, Heptaplatin, and Satraplatin. The literature data show that the strategies for the development of platinum anticancer agents and bypassing of resistance to Cisplatin derivatives and their toxicity are: combination therapy, Pt IV prodrugs, the targeted nanocarriers. The very important strategy for the improvement of the antitumor effect against different cancers is synergistic combination of Cisplatin derivatives with: (1) anticancer agents-Fluorouracil, Gemcitabine, Cytarabine, Fludarabine, Pemetrexed, Ifosfamide, Irinotecan, Topotecan, Etoposide, Amrubicin, Doxorubicin, Epirubicin, Vinorelbine, Docetaxel, Paclitaxel, Nab-Paclitaxel; (2) modulators of resistant mechanisms; (3) signaling protein inhibitors-Erlotinib; Bortezomib; Everolimus; (4) and immunotherapeutic drugs-Atezolizumab, Avelumab, Bevacizumab, Cemiplimab, Cetuximab, Durvalumab, Erlotinib, Imatinib, Necitumumab, Nimotuzumab, Nivolumab, Onartuzumab, Panitumumab, Pembrolizumab, Rilotumumab, Trastuzumab, Tremelimumab, and Sintilimab. An important approach for overcoming the drug resistance and reduction of toxicity of Cisplatin derivatives is the application of nanocarriers (polymers and liposomes), which provide improved targeted delivery, increased intracellular penetration, selective accumulation in tumor tissue, and enhanced therapeutic efficacy. The advantages of combination therapy are maximum removal of tumor cells in different phases; prevention of resistance; inhibition of the adaptation of tumor cells and their mutations; and reduction of toxicity.

Phase 1 trial of intraperitoneal paclitaxel in combination with intravenous cisplatin and oral capecitabine in patients with advanced gastric cancer and peritoneal metastases (IPGP study)

AIMS

Gastric cancer with peritoneal involvement has a poor prognosis. Intraperitoneal (IP) paclitaxel has shown promising results in these patients. However, this approach has only been studied in the Asian population, and in combination with S-1. We investigated the maximum tolerated dose of IP paclitaxel, with a standard chemotherapy combination, in the Australian population.

METHODS

The study of the population included metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) negative gastric adenocarcinoma with peritoneal involvement. Treatment included six 21-day cycles of cisplatin (80 mg/m² IV, day 1) plus capecitabine (1000 mg/m² PO BD, days 1-14) plus IP paclitaxel (days 1 and 8). IP paclitaxel doses for cohort 1-3 were 10, 20, and 30 mg/m² , respectively, in a 3 + 3 standard dose-escalation design.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients were enrolled of which 6 were female and the median age was 63. Two patients developed dose-limiting toxicities. No grade 4/5 toxicities were recorded. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached. Therefore, as defined by the study protocol, the recommended phase-2 dose for IP paclitaxel was determined to be 30 mg/m² . The 12-month survival rate was 46.7%, and the median survival was 11.5 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 15.3-6.9).

CONCLUSIONS

IP paclitaxel is safe in combination with cisplatin and capecitabine and the recommended phase-2 dose is 30 mg/m² .

Study protocol of a phase 1 clinical trial establishing the safety of intrapleural administration of liposomal curcumin: curcumin as a palliative treatment for malignant pleural effusion (IPAL-MPE)

INTRODUCTION

This is a phase 1, open-label, single-centre, uncontrolled, dose-escalation study to evaluate the feasibility, tolerability and pharmacokinetic profiles of a single dose of liposomal curcumin, administered via an existing tunnelled indwelling pleural catheter (TIPC) directly to the tumour site in individuals with diagnoses of malignant pleural effusion. Primarily, we aim to determine a maximum tolerated dose of liposomal curcumin administered via this method.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will use a 3+3 expanded cohort for predefined dose-escalation levels or until a predefined number of dose-limiting toxicities are reached. Participants will be administered a single dose of liposomal curcumin (LipoCurc, SignPath Pharma) via their existing TIPC as a sequential enrolling case series with the following dose cohorts: 100, 200 and 300 mg/m². Primary endpoints are determination of the maximum tolerated dose within the predetermined dose range, and determination of the feasibility of intrapleural administration of liposomal curcumin via an existing TIPC. Secondary endpoints include determination of the safety and tolerability of intrapleural administration of liposomal curcumin, median overall survival, effects on quality of life and on feelings of breathlessness, and the pharmacokinetics and concentrations of curcumin from the plasma and the pleural fluid. Important inclusion criteria include age ≥18 years, an existing TIPC, a pleural biopsy or pleural fluid cytology-proven diagnosis of malignant pleural effusion and for whom no antitumour therapy of proven benefit is available or has been previously declined, eastern cooperative group performance status <2.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol has been approved by the Southern Adelaide Local Health Network Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) (approval number: HREC/20/SAC/11). Study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, and presented at conferences, in field of medical oncology and respiratory medicine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12620001216909.

PROTOCOL VERSION NUMBER

V.1.0.