4.5 Article

Phase 1/2a, open-label, multicenter study of RM-1929 photoimmunotherapy in patients with locoregional, recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hed.26885

关键词

cetuximab-IR700 conjugate; light-activatable dye (IRDye 700DX); recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (rHNSCC); RM-1929 photoimmunotherapy; tumor-targeted monoclonal antibody

资金

  1. Rakuten Medical

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrated the safety and efficacy of RM-1929 photoimmunotherapy in treating patients with rHNSCC. The treatment was well tolerated and showed clinically meaningful responses and survival outcomes in heavily pretreated patients, warranting further investigation.
Background Recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (rHNSCC) represents a significant global health burden with an unmet medical need. In this study we determined the safety and efficacy of RM-1929 photoimmunotherapy in patients with heavily pretreated rHNSCC. Methods RM-1929 (anti-EGFR-IR700 dye conjugate) was infused, followed by tumor illumination. We evaluated safety, tumor response, and pharmacokinetics. Results Nine patients were enrolled in Part 1 (dose-finding) and 30 patients in Part 2 (safety and efficacy). No dose-limiting toxicities were experienced in Part 1; 640 mg/m(2) with fixed light dose (50 J/cm(2) or 100 J/cm) was recommended for Part 2. Adverse events (AEs) in Part 2 were mostly mild to moderate but 19 (63.3%) patients had AE >= Grade 3, including 3 (10.0%) with serious AEs leading to death (not treatment related). Efficacy in Part 2: unconfirmed objective response rate (ORR) 43.3% (95% CI 25.46%-62.57%); confirmed ORR 26.7% (95% CI 12.28%-45.89%); median overall survival 9.30 months (95% CI 5.16-16.92 months). Conclusions Treatment was well tolerated. Responses and survival following RM-1929 photoimmunotherapy in heavily pretreated patients with rHNSCC were clinically meaningful and warrant further investigation. Clinical Trial Information NCT02422979.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据