Phase I Dose-Escalation Study of SCB01A,a Microtubule Inhibitor with Vascular Disrupting Activity,in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors

Lessons Learned

• SCB01A is a novel microtubule inhibitor with vascular disrupting activity.
• This first‐in‐human study demonstrated SCB01A safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary antitumor activity.
• SCB01A is safe and well tolerated in patients with advanced solid malignancies with manageable neurotoxicity.

BackgroundSCB01A, a novel microtubule inhibitor, has vascular disrupting activity.MethodsIn this phase I dose‐escalation and extension study, patients with advanced solid tumors were administered intravenous SCB01A infusions for 3 hours once every 21 days. Rapid titration and a 3 + 3 design escalated the dose from 2 mg/m² to the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) based on dose‐limiting toxicity (DLT). SCB01A‐induced cellular neurotoxicity was evaluated in dorsal root ganglion cells. The primary endpoint was MTD. Safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and tumor response were secondary endpoints.ResultsTreatment‐related adverse events included anemia, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, fever, and peripheral sensorimotor neuropathy. DLTs included grade 4 elevated creatine phosphokinase (CPK) in the 4 mg/m² cohort; grade 3 gastric hemorrhage in the 6.5 mg/m² cohort; grade 2 thromboembolic event in the 24 mg/m² cohort; and grade 3 peripheral sensorimotor neuropathy, grade 3 elevated aspartate aminotransferase, and grade 3 hypertension in the 32 mg/m² cohort. The MTD was 24 mg/m², and average half‐life was ~2.5 hours. The area under the curve‐dose response relationship was linear. Nineteen subjects were stable after two cycles. The longest treatment lasted 24 cycles. SCB01A‐induced neurotoxicity was reversible in vitro.ConclusionThe MTD of SCB01A was 24 mg/m² every 21 days; it is safe and tolerable in patients with solid tumors.     

18F-FDG PET can replace conventional work-up in primary M staging of nonkeratinizing nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Conventional work-up (CWU) with chest radiography, abdominal ultrasonography, and skeletal scintigraphy has limited value in M staging of nonkeratinizing nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Our aim was to evaluate whether (18)F-FDG PET could replace CWU by comparing their diagnostic efficacies. METHODS: Patients with histologically proven nonkeratinizing NPC and no prior treatment were prospectively enrolled. All study participants underwent CWU and (18)F-FDG PET for primary M staging. Distant metastasis was considered to be present if there was any reliable evidence identified within 1 y after diagnosis. The comparative diagnostic efficacies of (18)F-FDG PET, CWU, and the combination of (18)F-FDG PET and CWU (PET+CWU) were evaluated using the areas under the receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: Sixty-one (20.3%) of 300 eligible patients were found to have distant metastases. On a patient-based analysis, (18)F-FDG PET was found to be more effective than CWU (P < 0.001), whereas it was equally effective with PET+CWU (P = 0.130). On region-based analyses, (18)F-FDG PET was more effective than skeletal scintigraphy and chest radiography for detecting bone metastases (P < 0.001) and chest metastases (P < 0.001), respectively. (18)F-FDG PET and abdominal ultrasound were equally effective for detecting hepatic metastases (P = 0.127). On region-based analyses, the combination of (18)F-FDG PET and CWU did not yield any noticeable increase in diagnostic efficacy. CONCLUSION: (18)F-FDG PET can replace CWU in primary M staging of nonkeratinizing NPC.     

Retention of "safe" blood donors. The Retrovirus Epidemiology Donor Study

BACKGROUND: There are obvious advantages to increasing donor retention. However, for reasons of blood safety, certain donors may, in fact, be more desirable to retain than others. “Safe” donors are defined as those who provided a blood donation that was negative on all laboratory screening tests and who subsequently reported no behavioral risks in response to an anonymous survey. This study identifies the most important factors affecting the intention of “safe” donors to provide another donation. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: An anonymous survey asking about donation history, sexual history, injecting drug use, and recent donation experience was mailed to 50,162 randomly selected allogeneic donors (including directed donors) who gave blood from April through July or from October through December 1993 at one of the five United States blood centers participating in the Retrovirus Epidemiology Donor Study. Before mailing, questionnaires were coded to designate donors with nonreactive laboratory screening tests at their most recent donation. RESULTS: A total of 34,726 donors (69%) responded, with substantially higher response among repeat donors. According to reported intentions only, the vast majority of “safe” donors indicated a high likelihood of donating again within the next 12 months. Only 3.4 percent reported a low likelihood of donating again. A comparison of those likely to return and those unlikely to return reveals significant differences in demographics and in ratings of the donation experience. A higher proportion of those unlikely to return were first-time donors, minority-group donors, and donors with less education. The highest projected loss among “safe” donors was seen for those who gave a fair to poor assessment of their treatment by blood center staff or of their physical well-being during or after donating. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that efforts to improve donors' perceptions of their donation experience, as well as attention to the physical effects of blood donation, may aid in the retention of both repeat and first-time donors.