4.7 Article

Phase Ib Study of Glasdegib, a Hedgehog Pathway Inhibitor, in Combination with Standard Chemotherapy in Patients with AML or High-Risk MDS

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 24, 期 10, 页码 2294-2303

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-2824

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Pfizer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose:This open-label, multicenter, dose-finding, phase lb study (NCI'015.16038) evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and clinical activity of the novel Hedgehog pathway Smoothened inhibitor glasdegib (PF-04449913) in patients (N = 52) with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Experimental Design: Glasdegib 100 or 200 mg was administered orally, once daily in 28-day cycles, in combination with low-dose cytarabine (arm A) or decitabine (arm B) to newly diagnosed patients considered not suitable for standard induction chemotherapy, and in combination with cytarabine/daunorubicin (arm C) to fit patients. The study followed i standard 3-1 dose-escalation design. The primary endpoint was dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Ten additional patients were enrolled in expansion cohorts of anus A (n - 23) and C (n - 22) to confirm the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Results: No DLTs were observed in anus A and B; 1 DLT (grade 4 neuropathy) occurred in arm C. The most common treatment-related nonhematologic adverse events were mostly grades 1 and 2 in all arms. Muscle spasms, dysgeusia, and alopecia were generally mild. Overall, 16 patients (31%) achieved a complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete blood count recovery'. Note that 100 mg daily was selected as the RP2D for glasdegib in combination with standard chemotherapies in the absence of an estimated MID in this setting. Conclusions: Treatment with glasdegib in combination with standard chemotherapy was generally well-tolerated and consistent with prior findings, warranting further evaluation of glasdegib-based combinations in patients with AMI. or high-risk MDS. (C) 2018 AACR.

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