Literature DB >> 27689717

Phase i trials in melanoma: A framework to translate preclinical findings to the clinic.

Eunjung Kim1, Vito W Rebecca2, Keiran S M Smalley2, Alexander R A Anderson3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: One of major issues in clinical trials in oncology is their high failure rate, despite the fact that the trials were designed based on the data from successful equivalent preclinical studies. This is in part due to the intrinsic homogeneity of preclinical model systems and the contrasting heterogeneity of actual patient responses.
METHODS: We present a mathematical model-driven framework, phase i (virtual/imaginary) trials, that integrates the heterogeneity of actual patient responses and preclinical studies through a cohort of virtual patients. The framework includes an experimentally calibrated mathematical model, a cohort of heterogeneous virtual patients, an assessment of stratification factors, and treatment optimisation. We show the detailed process through the lens of melanoma combination therapy (chemotherapy and an AKT inhibitor), using both preclinical and clinical data.
RESULTS: The mathematical model predicts melanoma treatment response and resistance to mono and combination therapies and was calibrated and then validated with in vitro experimental data. The validated model and a genetic algorithm were used to generate virtual patients whose tumour volume responses to the combination therapy matched statistically the actual heterogeneous patient responses in the clinical trial. Analyses on simulated cohorts revealed key model parameters such as a tumour volume doubling rate and a therapy-induced phenotypic switch rate that may have clinical correlates. Finally, our approach predicts optimal AKT inhibitor scheduling suggesting more effective but less toxic treatment strategies.
CONCLUSION: Our proposed computational framework to implement phase i trials in cancer can readily capture observed heterogeneous clinical outcomes and predict patient survival. Importantly, phase i trials can be used to optimise future clinical trial design.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical trials; Heterogeneity of patient responses; Mathematical model; Stratification; Treatment schedule optimisation

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27689717      PMCID: PMC5658204          DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.07.024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer        ISSN: 0959-8049            Impact factor:   9.162


  29 in total

1.  Model-based prediction of phase III overall survival in colorectal cancer on the basis of phase II tumor dynamics.

Authors:  Laurent Claret; Pascal Girard; Paulo M Hoff; Eric Van Cutsem; Klaas P Zuideveld; Karin Jorga; Jan Fagerberg; René Bruno
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-07-27       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  Trial watch: phase III and submission failures: 2007-2010.

Authors:  John Arrowsmith
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 84.694

3.  Targeting ER stress-induced autophagy overcomes BRAF inhibitor resistance in melanoma.

Authors:  Xiao-Hong Ma; Sheng-Fu Piao; Souvik Dey; Quentin McAfee; Giorgos Karakousis; Jessie Villanueva; Lori S Hart; Samuel Levi; Janice Hu; Gao Zhang; Rossitza Lazova; Vincent Klump; John M Pawelek; Xiaowei Xu; Wei Xu; Lynn M Schuchter; Michael A Davies; Meenhard Herlyn; Jeffrey Winkler; Constantinos Koumenis; Ravi K Amaravadi
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2014-02-24       Impact factor: 14.808

Review 4.  Lost in translation: animal models and clinical trials in cancer treatment.

Authors:  Isabella Wy Mak; Nathan Evaniew; Michelle Ghert
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2014-01-15       Impact factor: 4.060

5.  MK-2206, a novel allosteric inhibitor of Akt, synergizes with gefitinib against malignant glioma via modulating both autophagy and apoptosis.

Authors:  Yan Cheng; Yi Zhang; Li Zhang; Xingcong Ren; Kathryn J Huber-Keener; Xiaoyuan Liu; Lei Zhou; Jason Liao; Heike Keihack; Li Yan; Eric Rubin; Jin-Ming Yang
Journal:  Mol Cancer Ther       Date:  2011-11-04       Impact factor: 6.261

6.  Inhibition of autophagy enhances the effects of the AKT inhibitor MK-2206 when combined with paclitaxel and carboplatin in BRAF wild-type melanoma.

Authors:  Vito W Rebecca; Renato R Massaro; Inna V Fedorenko; Vernon K Sondak; Alexander R A Anderson; Eunjung Kim; Ravi K Amaravadi; Silvya S Maria-Engler; Jane L Messina; Geoffrey T Gibney; Ragini R Kudchadkar; Keiran S M Smalley
Journal:  Pigment Cell Melanoma Res       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 4.693

7.  Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of paclitaxel: a 3-hour infusion versus a 24-hour infusion.

Authors:  T Ohtsu; Y Sasaki; T Tamura; Y Miyata; H Nakanomyo; Y Nishiwaki; N Saijo
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 8.  Targeted cancer therapy.

Authors:  Charles Sawyers
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2004-11-18       Impact factor: 49.962

9.  Phase 1 trial of the oral AKT inhibitor MK-2206 plus carboplatin/paclitaxel, docetaxel, or erlotinib in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Authors:  L Rhoda Molife; Li Yan; Joanna Vitfell-Rasmussen; Adriane M Zernhelt; Daniel M Sullivan; Philippe A Cassier; Eric Chen; Andrea Biondo; Ernestina Tetteh; Lillian L Siu; Amita Patnaik; Kyriakos P Papadopoulos; Johann S de Bono; Anthony W Tolcher; Susan Minton
Journal:  J Hematol Oncol       Date:  2014-01-03       Impact factor: 17.388

10.  Prediction of early death among patients enrolled in phase I trials: development and validation of a new model based on platelet count and albumin.

Authors:  A Ploquin; D Olmos; D Lacombe; R A'Hern; A Duhamel; C Twelves; S Marsoni; R Morales-Barrera; J-C Soria; J Verweij; E E Voest; P Schöffski; J H Schellens; A Kramar; R S Kristeleit; H-T Arkenau; S B Kaye; N Penel
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2012-08-21       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  13 in total

1.  CNS Anticancer Drug Discovery and Development: 2016 conference insights.

Authors:  Victor A Levin; Lauren E Abrey; Timothy P Heffron; Peter J Tonge; Arvin C Dar; William A Weiss; James M Gallo
Journal:  CNS Oncol       Date:  2017-07-18

Review 2.  Towards personalized computational oncology: from spatial models of tumour spheroids, to organoids, to tissues.

Authors:  Aleksandra Karolak; Dmitry A Markov; Lisa J McCawley; Katarzyna A Rejniak
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 4.118

Review 3.  New insights into RAS biology reinvigorate interest in mathematical modeling of RAS signaling.

Authors:  Keesha E Erickson; Oleksii S Rukhlenko; Richard G Posner; William S Hlavacek; Boris N Kholodenko
Journal:  Semin Cancer Biol       Date:  2018-03-05       Impact factor: 15.707

Review 4.  Homeostasis Back and Forth: An Ecoevolutionary Perspective of Cancer.

Authors:  David Basanta; Alexander R A Anderson
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 6.915

5.  An in silico glioblastoma microenvironment model dissects the immunological mechanisms of resistance to PD-1 checkpoint blockade immunotherapy.

Authors:  Zhuoyu Zhang; Lunan Liu; Chao Ma; Xin Cui; Raymond H W Lam; Weiqiang Chen
Journal:  Small Methods       Date:  2021-04-22

Review 6.  Mathematical and Computational Modeling in Complex Biological Systems.

Authors:  Zhiwei Ji; Ke Yan; Wenyang Li; Haigen Hu; Xiaoliang Zhu
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-03-13       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 7.  The 2019 mathematical oncology roadmap.

Authors:  Russell C Rockne; Andrea Hawkins-Daarud; Kristin R Swanson; James P Sluka; James A Glazier; Paul Macklin; David A Hormuth; Angela M Jarrett; Ernesto A B F Lima; J Tinsley Oden; George Biros; Thomas E Yankeelov; Kit Curtius; Ibrahim Al Bakir; Dominik Wodarz; Natalia Komarova; Luis Aparicio; Mykola Bordyuh; Raul Rabadan; Stacey D Finley; Heiko Enderling; Jimmy Caudell; Eduardo G Moros; Alexander R A Anderson; Robert A Gatenby; Artem Kaznatcheev; Peter Jeavons; Nikhil Krishnan; Julia Pelesko; Raoul R Wadhwa; Nara Yoon; Daniel Nichol; Andriy Marusyk; Michael Hinczewski; Jacob G Scott
Journal:  Phys Biol       Date:  2019-06-19       Impact factor: 2.959

Review 8.  System-based approaches as prognostic tools for glioblastoma.

Authors:  Manuela Salvucci; Zaitun Zakaria; Steven Carberry; Amanda Tivnan; Volker Seifert; Donat Kögel; Brona M Murphy; Jochen H M Prehn
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2019-11-12       Impact factor: 4.430

Review 9.  Computational models of melanoma.

Authors:  Marco Albrecht; Philippe Lucarelli; Dagmar Kulms; Thomas Sauter
Journal:  Theor Biol Med Model       Date:  2020-05-14       Impact factor: 2.432

10.  Virtual clinical trials identify effective combination therapies in ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Emilia Kozłowska; Tuulia Vallius; Johanna Hynninen; Sakari Hietanen; Anniina Färkkilä; Sampsa Hautaniemi
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-12-10       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.