Literature DB >> 34862243

Results from a First-in-Human Phase I Study of Siremadlin (HDM201) in Patients with Advanced Wild-Type TP53 Solid Tumors and Acute Leukemia.

Eytan M Stein1, Daniel J DeAngelo2, Jörg Chromik3, Manik Chatterjee4, Sebastian Bauer5,6, Chia-Chi Lin7, Cristina Suarez8, Filip de Vos9, Neeltje Steeghs10, Philippe A Cassier11, David Tai12, Jean-Jacques Kiladjian13, Noboru Yamamoto14, Rogier Mous15, Jordi Esteve16, Hironobu Minami17, Stephane Ferretti18, Nelson Guerreiro18, Christophe Meille18, Rajkumar Radhakrishnan19, Bernard Pereira20, Luisa Mariconti18, Ensar Halilovic20, Claire Fabre18, Cecilia Carpio21.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This phase I, dose-escalation study investigated the recommended dose for expansion (RDE) of siremadlin, a p53-MDM2 inhibitor, in patients with wild-type TP53 advanced solid or hematologic cancers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Initial dosing regimens were: 1A (day 1; 21-day cycle; dose 12.5-350 mg) and 2A (days 1-14; 28-day cycle; dose 1-20 mg). Alternative regimens included 1B (days 1 and 8; 28-day cycle) and 2C (days 1-7; 28-day cycle). The primary endpoint was incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) during cycle 1.
RESULTS: Overall, 115 patients with solid tumors and 93 with hematologic malignancies received treatment. DLTs occurred in 8/92 patients with solid tumors and 10/53 patients with hematologic malignancies. In solid tumors, an RDE of 120 mg was defined in 1B. In hematologic tumors, RDEs were defined in 1A: 250 mg, 1B: 120 mg, and 2C: 45 mg. More patients with hematologic malignancies compared with solid tumors experienced grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (71% vs. 45%), most commonly resulting from myelosuppression. These were more frequent and severe in patients with hematologic malignancies; 22 patients exhibited tumor lysis syndrome. Overall response rates at the RDEs were 10.3% [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.2-27.4] in solid tumors and 4.2% (95% CI, 0.1-21.1), 20% (95% CI, 4.3-48.1), and 22.2% (95% CI, 8.6-42.3) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in 1B, 1A, and 2C, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: A common safety profile was identified and preliminary activity was noted, particularly in AML. Comprehensive investigation of dosing regimens yielded recommended doses/regimens for future combination studies. ©2021 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 34862243     DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-1295

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Cancer Res        ISSN: 1078-0432            Impact factor:   12.531


  4 in total

Review 1.  Targeting p53-MDM2 interaction by small-molecule inhibitors: learning from MDM2 inhibitors in clinical trials.

Authors:  Haohao Zhu; Hui Gao; Yingying Ji; Qin Zhou; Zhiqiang Du; Lin Tian; Ying Jiang; Kun Yao; Zhenhe Zhou
Journal:  J Hematol Oncol       Date:  2022-07-13       Impact factor: 23.168

Review 2.  Current strategies and progress for targeting the "undruggable" transcription factors.

Authors:  Jing-Jing Zhuang; Qian Liu; Da-Lei Wu; Lu Tie
Journal:  Acta Pharmacol Sin       Date:  2022-02-07       Impact factor: 7.169

3.  Comprehensive Analysis of Genomic Alterations in Hepatoid Adenocarcinoma of the Stomach and Identification of Clinically Actionable Alterations.

Authors:  Rongjie Zhao; Hongshen Li; Weiting Ge; Xiuming Zhu; Liang Zhu; Xiangbo Wan; Guanglan Wang; Hongming Pan; Jie Lu; Weidong Han
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-09       Impact factor: 6.575

4.  In Vitro/In Vivo Translation of Synergistic Combination of MDM2 and MEK Inhibitors in Melanoma Using PBPK/PD Modelling: Part II.

Authors:  Jakub Witkowski; Sebastian Polak; Zbigniew Rogulski; Dariusz Pawelec
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-10-08       Impact factor: 6.208

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.