Optimal biological dose: a systematic review in cancer phase I clinical trials

Abstract

Background Classical phase 1 dose-finding designs based on a single toxicity endpoint to assess the maximum tolerated dose were initially developed in the context of cytotoxic drugs. With the emergence of molecular targeted agents and immunotherapies, the concept of optimal biological dose (OBD) was subsequently introduced to account for efficacy in addition to toxicity. The objective was therefore to provide an overview of published phase 1 cancer clinical trials relying on the concept of OBD. Methods We performed a systematic review through a computerized search of the MEDLINE database to identify early phase cancer clinical trials that relied on OBD. Relevant publications were selected based on a two-step process by two independent readers. Relevant information (phase, type of therapeutic agents, objectives, endpoints and dose-finding design) were collected. Results We retrieved 37 articles. OBD was clearly mentioned as a trial objective (primary or secondary) for 22 articles and was traditionally defined as the smallest dose maximizing an efficacy criterion such as biological target: biological response, immune cells count for immunotherapies, or biological cell count for targeted therapies. Most trials considered a binary toxicity endpoint defined in terms of the proportion of patients who experienced a dose-limiting toxicity. Only two articles relied on an adaptive dose escalation design. Conclusions In practice, OBD should be a primary objective for the assessment of the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) for a targeted therapy or immunotherapy phase I cancer trial. Dose escalation designs have to be adapted accordingly to account for both efficacy and toxicity.

Evaluating a therapeutic window for precision medicine by integrating genomic profiles and p53 network dynamics

“…To examine that our approach can be translated to real clinical settings beyond a cellular level, we further validated the simulated toxicity with clinical as well as pre-clinical studies (see Supplementary Note). Considering the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), which is the toxicity measurement for patients in clinical phase I 30 , we calculated simulated MTD (sMTD) of the control network (see Methods). We found that MTD of a BCL2 inhibitor is higher than that of an AKT inhibitor, as sMTD of BCL2 perturbation is higher than that of AKT perturbation in the control network.…”

GATOR2-dependent mTORC1 activity is a therapeutic vulnerability in FOXO1 fusion–positive rhabdomyosarcoma

“…We believe the preclinical data presented here provide strong rationale to pursue clinical testing of bisteric inhibitors regardless of the effects seen in ongoing studies with allosteric inhibitors such as temsirolimus. In addition to measuring pharmacokinetics and determining a maximally tolerated dose, response biomarkers to determine optimal biological dosing ( 41 ) will be essential to make sense of potentially conflicting data between these 2 classes of inhibitors. Prior studies have confirmed the prognostic impact of multiparameter mTOR pathway activation in RMS, including phosphorylation of both RPS6 and 4EBP1 ( 42 ).…”

ATG-101, a tetravalent PD-L1×4-1BB bispecific antibody, augments anti-tumor immunity through PD-L1 blockade and PD-L1-directed 4-1BB activation

“…Optimal biological dose (OBD) is generally de ned as the lowest tolerable dose providing the highest rate of e cacy in patients 30 . The "sweet spot" we de ned here is the dose that provides the drug's saturated biological activity while being able to be safely administered.…”