This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
HSP90 is involved in stability and function of cancer-related proteins. This study was conducted to define the MTD, safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary antitumor efficacy of TAS-116, a novel class, orally available, highly selective inhibitor of HSP90. Patients with advanced solid tumors received TAS-116 orally once daily (QD, step 1) or every other day (QOD, step 2) in 21-day cycles. Each step comprised a dose escalation phase to determine MTD and an expansion phase at the MTD. In the dose escalation phase, an accelerated dose-titration design and a “3+3” design were used. Sixty-one patients were enrolled in Japan and the United Kingdom. MTD was determined to be 107.5 mg/m2/day for QD, and 210.7 mg/m2/day for QOD. In the expansion phase of step 1, TAS-116 was administered 5 days on/2 days off per week (QD × 5). The most common treatment-related adverse events included gastrointestinal disorders, creatinine increases, AST increases, ALT increases, and eye disorders. Eye disorders have been reported with HSP90 inhibitors; however, those observed with TAS-116 in the expansion phases were limited to grade 1. The systemic exposure of TAS-116 increased dose-proportionally with QD and QOD regimens. Two patients with non–small cell lung cancer and one patient with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) achieved a confirmed partial response. TAS-116 had an acceptable safety profile with some antitumor activity, supporting further development of this HSP90 inhibitor. This is a result from a first-in-human study, in which the HSP90 inhibitor TAS-116 demonstrated preliminary antitumor efficacy in patients with advanced solid tumors, including those with heavily pretreated GIST.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shimomura et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: