Invertebrate Cells as Targets for Hazardous Substances

Electron microscopy is an established diagnostic method in pathology of man as well as of vertebrate animals. During the last decade, ultrastructural studies have also been performed in invertebrates to elucidate cellular injuries caused by hazardous substances (BAYNE et al. 1985, MOORE 1985, STORCH 1988, HOPKIN 1989). The interest in invertebrates has increased due to their suitability to monitor environmental pollution. For example field and laboratory studies have been performed using the bivalve Mytilus edulis or the gastropod Littorina littorea as indicator of chemical contamination (AUFFRET 1988, CAJARAVILLE et al. 1989, CAJARAVILLE et al. 1990, MOORE 1988). Additionally, many invertebrates, such as aphids, grasshoppers, caterpillars or slugs are of significance as pest organisms in agriculture. Others, in most cases insects like the Ichneumonidae or Planipennia, are of increasing importance in biological or integrated pest control. In a series of laboratory tests we examined cellular reactions in a variety of invertebrates after exposure to environmentally relevant toxicants, like metals or pesticides. The following animals were selected for their environmental or commercial significance: -the shrimp, Penaeus monodon (Crustacea, Decapoda), as a commercially important aquaculture species which is impaired by environmental toxicants, -the flatworm, Polycelis felina (Turbellaria, Tricladida), a common inhabitant of central European brooks, which is menaced by acid rain and subsequently released aluminium, -the millipede, Cylindroiulus punctatus (Diplopoda, Julida), as an important animal of the soil macrofauna, involved in the decomposition of organic material, -the moss mite, Nothrus silvestris (Acari, Oribatida), as a representative of saprophagous soil animals occurring in high population densities, -the slug, Deroceras reticulatum (Gastropoda, Pulmonata), which is an important pest organism in European agriculture, -and Chrysoperla carnea (Insecta, Planipennia), as a beneficial species used in the biological control of aphids. It was the aim of this study to demonstrate the suitability of electron microscopy for evaluating the effects of hazardous substances on cells of invertebrate tissues

Protocol of the IntenSify-Trial:An open-label phase I trial of the CYP3A inhibitor cobicistat and the cytostatics gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in patients with advanced stage or metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to evaluate the combination's pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy

Expression of CYP3A5 protein is a basal and acquired resistance mechanism of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma cells conferring protection against the CYP3A and CYP2C8 substrate paclitaxel through metabolic degradation. Inhibition of CYP3A isozymes restores the cells sensitivity to paclitaxel. The combination of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel is an established regimen for the treatment of metastasized or locally advanced inoperable pancreatic cancer. Cobicistat is a CYP3A inhibitor developed for the pharmacoenhancement of protease inhibitors. The addition of cobicistat to gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel may increase the antitumor effect. We will conduct a phase I dose escalation trial with a classical 3 + 3 design to investigate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics (PKs) of gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel, and cobicistat. Although the doses of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) and cobicistat (150 mg) are fixed, three dose levels of nab-paclitaxel (75, 100, and 125 mg/m2) will be explored to account for a potential PK drug interaction. After the dose escalation phase, we will set the recommended dose for expansion (RDE) and treat up to nine patients in an expansion part of the trial. The trial is registered under the following identifiers EudraCT-Nr. 2019-001439-29, drks.de: DRKS00029409, and ct.gov: NCT05494866. Overcoming resistance to paclitaxel by CYP3A5 inhibition may lead to an increased efficacy of the gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel regimen. Safety, efficacy, PK, and RDE data need to be acquired before investigating this combination in a large-scale clinical study.</p

Rationale and design of the 2 by 2 factorial design GnG-trial: a randomized phase-III study to compare two schedules of gemtuzumab ozogamicin as adjunct to intensive induction therapy and to compare double-blinded intensive postremission therapy with or without glasdegib in older patients with newly diagnosed AML

Abstract Background Overall survival remains poor in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with less than 10% being alive after 5 years. In recent studies, a significant improvement in event-free, relapse-free and overall survival was shown by adding gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO), a humanized antibody-drug conjugate directed against CD33, to intensive induction therapy once or in a sequential dosing schedule. Glasdegib, the small-molecule inhibitor of smoothened (SMO), also showed improved overall survival in patients not eligible for intensive chemotherapy when combined with low-dose cytarabine compared to low-dose cytarabine alone. These findings warrant further investigations in the phase III GnG trial. Methods/Design This is a randomized phase III trial with measurable residual disease (MRD) after induction therapy and event-free survival (EFS) as primary endpoints. The two research questions are addressed in a 2 by 2 factorial design. Patients age 60 years and older are upfront randomized 1:1 in one of the two induction arms: GO administered to intensive induction therapy on days 1,4, and 7 versus GO administered once on day 1 (GO-147 versus GO-1), and double-blinded 1:1 in one of the subsequent treatment arms glasdegib vs. placebo as adjunct to consolidation therapy and as single-agent maintenance therapy for six months. Chemotherapy backbone for induction therapy consists of standard 7 + 3 schedule with cytarabine 200 mg/m2 continuously days 1 to 7, daunorubicin 60 mg/m2 days 1, 2, and 3 and high-dose cytarabine (1 g/m2, bi-daily, days 1, 2, and 3) for consolidation therapy. Addressing two primary endpoints, MRD-negativity after induction therapy and event-free survival (EFS), 252 evaluable patients are needed to reject each of the two null hypotheses at a two-sided significance level of 2.5% with a power of at least 85%. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval and approvals from the local and federal competent authorities were granted. Trial results will be reported via peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences and scientific meetings. Trial status Protocol version: 1st version 20.10.2020, no amendments yet. Study initiation on February 16, 2021. First patient was recruited on April 1st. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04093505 ; EudraCT 2019-003913-32. Registered on October 30, 2018

Q-HAM: a multicenter upfront randomized phase II trial of quizartinib and high-dose Ara-C plus mitoxantrone in relapsed/refractory AML with FLT3-ITD

Abstract Background About 50% of older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) fail to attain complete remission (CR) following cytarabine plus anthracycline-based induction therapy. Salvage chemotherapy regimens are based on high-dose cytarabine (HiDAC), which is frequently combined with mitoxantrone (HAM regimen). However, CR rates remain low, with less than one-third of the patients achieving a CR. FLT3-ITD has consistently been identified as an unfavorable molecular marker in both relapsed and refractory (r/r)-AML. One-quarter of patients who received midostaurin are refractory to induction therapy and relapse rate at 2 years exceeds 40%. The oral second-generation bis-aryl urea tyrosine kinase inhibitor quizartinib is a very selective FLT3 inhibitor, has a high capacity for sustained FLT3 inhibition, and has an acceptable toxicity profile. Methods In this multicenter, upfront randomized phase II trial, all patients receive quizartinib combined with HAM (cytarabine 3g/m2 bidaily day one to day three, mitoxantrone 10mg/m2 days two and three) during salvage therapy. Efficacy is assessed by comparison to historical controls based on the matched threshold crossing approach with achievement of CR, complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi), or complete remission with partial recovery of peripheral blood counts (CRh) as primary endpoint. During consolidation therapy (chemotherapy and allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation), patients receive either prophylactic quizartinib therapy or measurable residual disease (MRD)-triggered preemptive continuation therapy with quizartinib according to up-front randomization. The matched threshold crossing approach is a novel study-design to enhance the classic single-arm trial design by including matched historical controls from previous clinical studies. It overcomes common disadvantages of single-armed and small randomized studies, since the expected outcome of the observed study population can be adjusted based on the matched controls with a comparable distribution of known prognostic and predictive factors. Furthermore, balanced treatment groups lead to stable statistical models. However, one of the limitations of our study is the inability to adjust for unobserved or unknown confounders. Addressing the primary endpoint, CR/CRi/CRh after salvage therapy, the maximal sample size of 80 patients is assessed generating a desirable power of the used adaptive design, assuming a logistic regression is performed at a one-sided significance level α=0.05, the aspired power is 0.8, and the number of matching partners per intervention patient is at least 1. After enrolling 20 patients, the trial sample size will be recalculated in an interim analysis based on a conditional power argument. Conclusion Currently, there is no commonly accepted standard for salvage chemotherapy treatment. The objective of the salvage therapy is to reduce leukemic burden, achieve the best possible remission, and perform a hemopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Thus, in patients with FLT3-ITD mutation, the comparison of quizartinib with intensive salvage therapy versus chemotherapy alone appears as a logical consequence in terms of efficacy and safety. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval and approvals from the local and federal competent authorities were granted. Trial results will be reported via peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences and scientific meetings. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03989713; EudraCT Number: 2018-002675-17