Dataset Information

CHARIOT: a phase I study of berzosertib with chemoradiotherapy in oesophageal and other solid cancers using time to event continual reassessment method.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Berzosertib (M6620) is a highly potent (IC50 = 19 nM) and selective, first-in-class ataxia telangiectasia-mutated and Rad3-related protein kinase (ATR) inhibitor. This trial assessed the safety, preliminary efficacy, and tolerance of berzosertib in oesophageal cancer (A1 cohort) with RT and advanced solid tumours (A2 cohort) with cisplatin and capecitabine.

Methods

Single-arm, open-label dose-escalation (Time-to-Event Continual Reassessment Method) trial with 16 patients in A1 and 18 in A2. A1 tested six dose levels of berzosertib with RT (35 Gy over 15 fractions in 3 weeks).

Results

No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) in A1. Eight grade 3 treatment-related AEs occurred in five patients, with rash being the most common. The highest dose (240 mg/m²) was determined as the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) for A1. Seven DLTs in two patients in A2. The RP2D of berzosertib was 140 mg/m² once weekly. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs were neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. No treatment-related deaths were reported.

Conclusions

Berzosertib combined with RT is feasible and well tolerated in oesophageal cancer patients at high palliative doses. Berzosertib with cisplatin and capecitabine was well tolerated in advanced cancer. Further investigation is warranted in a phase 2 setting.

Clinical trials identifier

EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT) - 2015-003965-27 ClinicalTrials.gov - NCT03641547.

SUBMITTER: Javed SR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10844302 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

CHARIOT: a phase I study of berzosertib with chemoradiotherapy in oesophageal and other solid cancers using time to event continual reassessment method.

Javed S R SR Lord S S El Badri S S Harman R R Holmes J J Kamzi F F Maughan T T McIntosh D D Mukherjee S S Ooms A A Radhakrishna G G Shaw P P Hawkins M A MA

British journal of cancer 20231221 3

<h4>Background</h4>Berzosertib (M6620) is a highly potent (IC50 = 19 nM) and selective, first-in-class ataxia telangiectasia-mutated and Rad3-related protein kinase (ATR) inhibitor. This trial assessed the safety, preliminary efficacy, and tolerance of berzosertib in oesophageal cancer (A1 cohort) with RT and advanced solid tumours (A2 cohort) with cisplatin and capecitabine.<h4>Methods</h4>Single-arm, open-label dose-escalation (Time-to-Event Continual Reassessment Method) trial with 16 patie ...[more]

PMID: 38129525

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:This article studies the notion of irrational dose assignment in Phase I clinical trials. This property was recently defined by Zhou and colleagues as a dose assignment that fails to de-escalate the dose when two out of three, three out of six, or four out of six patients have experienced a dose-limiting toxicity event at the current dose level. The authors claimed that a drawback of the well-known continual reassessment method is that it can result in irrational dose assignments. The aim of this article is to examine this definition of irrationality more closely within the conduct of the continual reassessment method. METHODS:Over a broad range of assumed dose-limiting toxicity probability scenarios for six study dose levels and a variety of target dose-limiting toxicity rates, we simulated 2000 trials of n = 36 patients. For each scenario, we counted the number of irrational dose assignments that were made by the continual reassessment method, according to the definitions of Zhou and colleagues. For each of the irrational decisions made, we classified the dose assignment as an underdose assignment, a target dose assignment, or an overdose assignment based on the true dose-limiting toxicity probability at that dose. RESULTS:Across eight dose-toxicity scenarios, there were a total of 181,581 dose assignments made in the simulation study. Of these assignments, 8165 (4.5%) decisions were made when two out of three, three out of six, or four out of six patients had experienced a dose-limiting toxicity at the current dose. Of these 8165 decisions, 1505 (18.4%) recommended staying at the current dose level and would therefore be classified as irrational by Zhou and colleagues. Among the irrational decisions, 41.2% were misclassified, meaning they were made either at the true target dose (17.9%) or at a true underdose (23.3%). The remaining 58.8% were made at a true overdose and therefore truly irrational. Overall, irrational dose assignments comprised <1% of the total dose assignments made during the simulation study. Similar findings are reported in simulations across 100 randomly generated dose-toxicity scenarios from a recently proposed family of curves. CONCLUSION:Zhou and colleagues argue that the behavior of the continual reassessment method is disturbing due to its ability to make irrational dose assignments. These definitions are based on rules that mimic the popular 3 + 3 design, which should not be the benchmark used to construct guidelines for trial conduct of modern Phase I methods. Our study illustrates that these dose assignments occur very seldom in the continual reassessment method and that even when they do occur, they can often be considered sensible when accounting for all accumulated data in the study.

Project description:IntroductionThe continual reassessment method (CRM) is a model-based design for phase I trials, which aims to find the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of a new therapy. The CRM has been shown to be more accurate in targeting the MTD than traditional rule-based approaches such as the 3 + 3 design, which is used in most phase I trials. Furthermore, the CRM has been shown to assign more trial participants at or close to the MTD than the 3 + 3 design. However, the CRM's uptake in clinical research has been incredibly slow, putting trial participants, drug development and patients at risk. Barriers to increasing the use of the CRM have been identified, most notably a lack of knowledge amongst clinicians and statisticians on how to apply new designs in practice. No recent tutorial, guidelines, or recommendations for clinicians on conducting dose-finding studies using the CRM are available. Furthermore, practical resources to support clinicians considering the CRM for their trials are scarce.MethodsTo help overcome these barriers, we present a structured framework for designing a dose-finding study using the CRM. We give recommendations for key design parameters and advise on conducting pre-trial simulation work to tailor the design to a specific trial. We provide practical tools to support clinicians and statisticians, including software recommendations, and template text and tables that can be edited and inserted into a trial protocol. We also give guidance on how to conduct and report dose-finding studies using the CRM.ResultsAn initial set of design recommendations are provided to kick-start the design process. To complement these and the additional resources, we describe two published dose-finding trials that used the CRM. We discuss their designs, how they were conducted and analysed, and compare them to what would have happened under a 3 + 3 design.ConclusionsThe framework and resources we provide are aimed at clinicians and statisticians new to the CRM design. Provision of key resources in this contemporary guidance paper will hopefully improve the uptake of the CRM in phase I dose-finding trials.

Dataset Information

CHARIOT: a phase I study of berzosertib with chemoradiotherapy in oesophageal and other solid cancers using time to event continual reassessment method.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical trials identifier

Publications

CHARIOT: a phase I study of berzosertib with chemoradiotherapy in oesophageal and other solid cancers using time to event continual reassessment method.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets