Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Theratechnologies Inc T.TH

Alternate Symbol(s):  THTX

Theratechnologies Inc. is a Canada-based clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company. The Company is focused on the development and commercialization of therapies addressing unmet medical needs. It markets prescription products for people with human immunodeficiency viruses (HIV) in the United States. The Company's research pipeline focuses on specialized therapies addressing unmet medical needs in HIV, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and oncology. Its medicines include Trogarzo and EGRIFTA SV (tesamorelin for injection). Trogarzo (ibalizumab-uiyk) injection is a long-acting monoclonal antibody which binds to domain 2 of the CD4 T cell receptors. It blocks viral entry into host cells while preserving normal immunologic function. The Company is also investigating an intramuscular method of administration of Trogarzo. EGRIFTA SV (tesamorelin for injection) is approved in the United States for the reduction of excess abdominal fat in people with HIV who have lipodystrophy.


TSX:TH - Post by User

Comment by qwerty22on Jun 11, 2021 10:52am
98 Views
Post# 33371961

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Cancer centers are enrolling

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Cancer centers are enrolling

I can't find any trials described the way you describe it. They all recruit more at each stage. MTD is based on 1 of 3 or 2 of 3 patients having DLTs. How can you generate those numbers with just one patient going thru the process? 

One of the modifications (I think) was to have one patients for the first (and maybe second) dose to reduce sub-therapeutic dosing. After that it's +3 all the way

"The MTD is defined as that dose-level at which ≤1 of 6 patients in a cohort develop an emergent DLT."

If this is the goal of THTX's dose escalation then what role is the single patient being taken through the dose escalation playing? How can 1 patient help you generate a 1 of 6 number?

The 1 in 6 comes from dosing 3 patients at each (later) dose. When a DLT emerges you re-dose 3 more patients at that dose, if another DLT emerges in one of those 3 then you now have 2 of 6 DLT and you drop back down a dose. Test 3 more, if no DLT then you have your MTD.

There is no point to taking one patient thru that process, it doesn't allow you to meet any of the criteria.

Everything I find looks something like this.

https://www.ctg.queensu.ca/docs/newinv/2017/PlenarySession1_Phase1ClinicalTrialsDesignsandConsiderations.pdf

Standard is on P11. Accelerated (which recruits just 1 patient to the earliest doses) is on P14. I think they are following P14 with 1 patient on the first 2 doses.

Hopefully they'll talk patient numbers next week and this will become clearer.

qwerty22 wrote:

You're saying one patient until July then start enrolling more?
That doesn't make sense to me.

 

scarlet1967 wrote:

 

 

“The study will use a modified rapid dose-escalation design as described by Simon et al. (1997). A starting dose of 30 mg/m2 is proposed based on the available data for TH1902 and the known safety profile of docetaxel.”

 

TH1902 in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov

 

That rapid dose escalation has 4 designs the first one is classic 3+3, the rest starting with one patient and keep dosing same patient until they get to DLT then they take a dose just below that and shift to classic 3+3.

In that case they only dose one patient at the start now as their first patient has passed away at whatever stage of the trial they will use that data and move on to another patient as these Cancer centres have most likely experienced early mortalities one can presume they had a second participant ready to join the trial also they could have some lead time as that gentleman’s condition was most likely worsening gradually. I think Gettysburg Cancer Center will deal with first patient and  MD Anderson will take over when they start the 3+3 part of the trial as they started enrolling patients while ago.

That’s my take but we should know soon if that’s the way things have been progressing.

 

Wino115 wrote: So this would make one think there are at least 3 new patients and possibly 6 enrolled, correct?
 

 

scarlet1967 wrote:

As per the design they start with one or two patients to get the MTD and then they take the data to classic 3+3 design so initially they won’t need 6 patients. Due to high mortality of stage 4 patients one can presume the cancer centres are prepared for those mortalities and have new cohorts to participate in the trial. That would be the perfect scenario.


 

qwerty22 wrote:

 

I understand it's something like this except in the earliest doses they enrolled 1 patient to reduce the number of patients exposed to sub-therapeutic levels.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-3-3-dose-escalation-study-design-DLT-dose-limiting-toxicity-MTD-maximum_fig1_327291429

So as long as there are no dose limiting toxicities then the dose level goes up and more patients get enrolled each time. It makes sense that Gettysburg could cope with the earliest dose because it's only one patient but other centres got brought in to help with the +3 patients each dose.

 

Wino115 wrote: Helpful - but the question is, have any other patients signed up to do the trial? We can only speculate, but if no one else has then they haven't been able to do the  escalation beyond what patient 1 did. I'd like to think they've gotten a few more but there's a lot of refractory trials and I am unfamiliar with what the clinics do that are running 30-40 phase 1 trials looking for similar types of patients.  For all we know, they've only had 1 or 2 patients sign up so far.  I'd like to know they filled the 10 slots but we just don't know.

 

 

scarlet1967 wrote:
Both Gettysburg Cancer Center and MD Anderson Cancer Center are still recruiting patients.
 
https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=TH1902&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=
 
https://www.mdanderson.org/patients-family/diagnosis-treatment/clinical-trials/clinical-trials-index/clinical-trials-detail.ID2021-0030.html
 
 
I am going to revisit the schedule of dose escalation, as per the trial’s description the study will use Accelerated Titration Designs for Phase I  by Simon et al.(1997) which has 4 designs:
 
“ Design 1 is the standard 3+3 Dose steps are defined by a modified Fibonacci series in which the increments of dose for succeeding levels are 100%, 67%, 50%, and 40%, followed by 33% for all subsequent levels. Three patients are usually treated at a dose level and observed for acute toxicity for one course of treatment before any more patients are entered. If none of the three patients experience DLT, then the next cohort of three patients is treated at the next higher dose. If two or more of the three patients experience DLT, then three more patients are treated at the next lower dose unless six patients have already been treated at that dose. If one of three patients treated at a dose experiences DLT, then three more patients are treated at that same level. If the incidence of DLT among those six patients is one in six, then the next cohort is treated at the next higher dose. In general, if two or more of the six patients treated at a dose level experience DLT, then the MTD is considered to have been exceeded, and three more patients are treated at the next lower dose as described above. Designs 3 and 4 also use only one patient per cohort during the early stage of the trial, but they incorporate more rapid dose escalation by using double-dose steps during this stage. With design 3, the single-patient-cohort stage of the trial also terminates when one patient experiences first-course DLT or two patients experience first-course grade 2 toxicity. Design 2 treats one patient per dose level until one patient exhibits DLT or two patients exhibit grade 2 toxicity during their first course of treatment. At that time, the escalation plan switches to design 1. That is, two additional patients are accrued at the dose that triggered the switch, and three to six patients are treated in that and each subsequent cohort. This approach offers the possibility of speeding up the trial and reducing the number of patients assigned to low doses. It uses the first instance of first-course DLT to trigger the switch as proposed by Storer. It also uses first-course grade 2 toxicity to provide an added element of caution. We use the second instance of grade 2 toxicity for practical reasons, since it is often difficult to determine whether a grade 2 toxicity is drug related in a heterogeneous population of very ill patients. With design 4, this accelerated stage terminates when the first instance of DLT or the second instance of grade 2 toxicity is observed in any course of treatment. In either case, after the rapid escalation stage terminates, subsequent cohort sizes are three to six patients and single-dose escalation steps are used as in design 1.”
 
The reason for choosing the modified rapid dose escalations is:
 
“Although most patients who participate in phase I trials hope to obtain therapeutic benefit from promising new experimental treatments, few achieve this objective. Whereas most patients would not have derived benefit from drugs studied in phase I trials, even if treated at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), treating patients at substantially lower doses is likely to further reduce whatever chance for benefit might exist. A second problem with current designs is that phase I trials may take a long time to complete, especially when the starting dose is far below the MTD (3). Current phase I trials also provide almost no information about variability among patients in the dose that can be tolerated without dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) or about whether there is evidence of cumulative toxicity.”
 
https://brb.nci.nih.gov/techreport/AcceleratedTitration.pdf
 
So they will dosing one patient per dose until one patient shows DLT (dose limiting toxicities) at that time, the escalation plan switches to design 1.
Absent any toxicity they  started with 30mg/m2 and doubled the dose for the first two cycles by May 3 they would be at 120mg/m2 then applying modified Fibonacci dose escalation scheme (67%, 50%, 40% and 33%) forth cycle would be at a dose=120x1.67%=200mg/m2 May 24, fifth cycle 200mg/m2x1.5=300 mg/m2 June 14.
Sixth cycle 300mg/m2x1.4=420mg/m2 July 5, seventh Cycle 420mg/m2x1.33=559mg/m2 July 26. The company said they need one fourth of PDC dosages versus docetaxel alone to have therapeutic effects even bypassing that as per current recommendation docetaxel can have therapeutic effect starting at or just below 100mg/m2. So theoretically if no toxicity at and above the forth cycle their PDC will have progressively more therapeutic effect than docetaxel. 
 

 

 

 

 


“The study will use a modified rapid dose-escalation design as described by Simon et al. (1997). A starting dose of 30 mg/m2 is proposed based on the available data for TH1902 and the known safety profile of docetaxel.”

 

TH1902 in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov

 

That rapid dose escalation has 4 designs the first one is classic 3+3, the rest starting with one patient and keep dosing same patient until they get to DLT then they take a dose just below that and shift to classic 3+3.

In that case they only dose one patient at the start now as their first patient has passed away at whatever stage of the trial they will use that data and move on to another patient as these Cancer centres have most likely experienced early mortalities one can presume they had a second participant ready to join the trial also they could have some lead time as that gentleman’s condition was most likely worsening gradually. I think Gettysburg Cancer Center will deal with first patient and  MD Anderson will take over when they start the 3+3 part of the trial as they started enrolling patients while ago.

That’s my take but we should know soon if that’s the way things have been progressing.





<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>

USER FEEDBACK SURVEY ×

Be the voice that helps shape the content on site!

At Stockhouse, we’re committed to delivering content that matters to you. Your insights are key in shaping our strategy. Take a few minutes to share your feedback and help influence what you see on our site!

The Market Online in partnership with Stockhouse