4.7 Article

Phase I study of procaspase-activating compound-1 (PAC-1) in the treatment of advanced malignancies

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 128, 期 5, 页码 783-792

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41416-022-02089-7

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study is the first-in-human clinical trial of PAC-1, assessing its maximum tolerated dose, safety, and pharmacokinetics. The recommended phase 2 dose of PAC-1 was found to be 750 mg/day. The study also observed clinical activity of PAC-1 in patients with neuroendocrine tumors, suggesting further investigation is warranted.
Background: Procaspase-3 (PC-3) is overexpressed in multiple tumour types and procaspase-activating compound 1 (PAC-1) directly activates PC-3 and induces apoptosis in cancer cells. This report describes the first-in-human, phase I study of PAC-1 assessing maximum tolerated dose, safety, and pharmacokinetics. Methods: Modified-Fibonacci dose-escalation 3 + 3 design was used. PAC-1 was administered orally at 7 dose levels (DL) on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was assessed during the first two cycles of therapy, and pharmacokinetics analysis was conducted on days 1 and 21 of the first cycle. Neurologic and neurocognitive function (NNCF) tests were performed throughout the study. Results: Forty-eight patients were enrolled with 33 completing >= 2 cycles of therapy and evaluable for DLT. DL 7 (750 mg/day) was established as the recommended phase 2 dose, with grade 1 and 2 neurological adverse events noted, while NNCF testing showed stable neurologic and cognitive evaluations. PAC-1's t(1/2) was 28.5 h after multi-dosing, and systemic drug exposures achieved predicted therapeutic concentrations. PAC-1 clinical activity was observed in patients with neuroendocrine tumour (NET) with 2/5 patients achieving durable partial response. Conclusions: PAC-1 dose at 750 mg/day was recommended for phase 2 studies. Activity of PAC-1 in treatment-refractory NET warrants further investigation.

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

4.7
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