Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2024 May 28;19(5):e0303623. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303623

Evaluation of pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy of [211At] meta-astatobenzylguanidine ([211At] MABG) in patients with pheochromocytoma or paraganglioma (PPGL): A study protocol

Masao Kobayakawa 1,*, Tohru Shiga 2, Kazuhiro Takahashi 2, Shigeyasu Sugawara 2, Kaori Nomura 2, Kazuhiko Hanada 3, Naoki Ishizuka 4, Hiroshi Ito 2
Editor: Margo Dona5
PMCID: PMC11132457  PMID: 38805424

Abstract

Background

Pheochromocytoma, or paraganglioma (PPGL), is a tumor that arises from catecholamine-producing chromaffin cells of the adrenal medulla or paraganglion. Systemic therapy, such as the combination of cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and dacarbazine or therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals such as [131I] meta-iodobenzylguanidine (MIBG), may be administered in cases of locally advanced tumors or distant metastases. However, the current therapies are limited in terms of efficacy and implementation. [211At] meta-astatobenzylguanidine (MABG) is an alpha-emitting radionuclide-labeled ligand that has demonstrated remarkable tumor-reducing effects in preclinical studies, and is expected to have a high therapeutic effect on pheochromocytoma cells.

Methods

We are currently conducting an investigator-initiated first-in-human clinical trial to evaluate the pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy of [211At] MABG. Patients with locally unresectable or metastatic PPGL refractory to standard therapy and scintigraphically positive [123I] MIBG aggregation are being recruited, and a 3 + 3 dose escalation design was adopted. The initial dose of [211At] MABG is 0.65 MBq/kg, with a dose escalation in a 1:2:4 ratio in each cohort. Dose-limiting toxicity is observed for 6 weeks after a single bolus dose of [211At] MABG, and the patients are observed for 3 months to explore safety and efficacy profiles. The primary endpoint is dose-limiting toxicity to determine both maximum tolerated and recommended doses. The secondary endpoints include radiopharmacokinetics, urinary radioactive excretion rate, urinary catecholamine response rate, objective response rate, progression free survival, [123I] MIBG scintigraphy on reducing tumor accumulation, and quality of life.

Trials registration

jRCT2021220012 registered on 17 June 2022.

Introduction

Pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (PPGL) are rare tumors that arise from catecholamine-producing chromaffin cells of the adrenal medulla or paraganglion. The annual incidence of PPGL ranges from 0.04 to 0.95 cases per 100,000 person-years [15]. In the WHO tumor classification of endocrine tumors published in 2017, PPGL was assigned a disease code of malignancy (ICD-3) [6].

Anticancer drug therapy may be performed in cases where resection by surgery is difficult, distant metastasis is identified, or recurrence occurs after surgery. The most commonly reported therapy is the combination of cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and dacarbazine (CVD) [7,8]. It has been reported that CVD therapy only reduces tumor size in about half of all cases, and may lead to improvements in quality of life (QOL), such as improved symptoms, in the short- to medium-term. [131I] meta-iodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) may also be administered in cases of locally advanced tumors or distant metastases [9,10]. Since September 2021, [131I] MIBG injection has been approved in Japan to treat “MIBG accumulation-positive unresectable PPGL.” However, patients should be quarantined from other people for 5–7 days after administration of the drug, because [131I] I emits β-rays, and its half-life is approximately 8 days. [131I] MIBG also emits γ-rays, making it difficult for medical staff to easily access the patients in an isotope treatment room and respond to situations that require emergency medical intervention.

Astatine emits radiation and decays into another element. Among its isotopes, [211At] At is a nuclide that emits α-rays and decays to the stable element lead-207 (207Pb) (half-life is 7.2 h). [211At] meta-astatobenzylguanidine (MABG) is a drug in which [211At] is incorporated into a substance called benzylguanidine, which has a chemical structure similar to that of norepinephrine [11]. [211At] MABG is a substrate for the norepinephrine transporter (NET), which takes up norepinephrine, and is taken up by pheochromocytoma cells via NET. In pheochromocytoma cells, NET expression is enhanced compared to normal cells, and a large amount of [211At] MABG is taken into the cells. Because [211At] MABG is stored in pheochromocytoma cells, we hypothesize that it could be a new treatment option for malignant PPGL.

Reductions in tumor size and amount of catecholamine secretion have been reported by non-clinical studies of this drug [1217] and clinical trial results of [131I] MIBG [9,10], a similar drug that emits β-rays. We conducted a toxicology study required prior to the first dose in human in accordance with the International Comprehensive Harmonization (ICH) -M3 guidelines “Guidance on Nonclinical Safety Studies for The Conduct of Human Clinical Trials and Marketing Authorization for Pharmaceuticals” and ICH-S9 guidelines “Nonclinical Evaluation for Anticancer Pharmaceuticals” (data not published). The present study is an investigator-initiated first-in-human clinical trial in patients with PPGL who have no other appropriate therapy, that has been conducted from September 2022 until present.

Materials and methods

Study purpose

The primary purpose of the present study is to determine the Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) and Recommended Dose (RD) of [211At] MABG by assessing the Dose-Limiting Toxicity (DLT), when administered to patients with PPGL. We also examine radiopharmacokinetics, safety profiles, and exploratory efficacy.

Type of trial

Type of study: Exploratory study.

Clinical Trial Phase: Phase I.

Study design

This is a single-arm, open-label trial evaluating the tolerability of a single bolus intravenous dose of [211At] MABG in patients with PPGL. The purpose is to determine the MTD and RD of this drug. Three doses are administered in separate cohorts; Cohort 1 (0.65 MBq/kg), Cohort 2 (1.3 MBq/kg), and Cohort 3 (2.6 MBq/kg), starting with Cohort 1 and investigating RD according to the modified Fibonacci dose escalation method (3 + 3 design).

Trial period

The trial started in September 2022, and we are currently recruiting patients at Fukushima Medical University Hospital.

The trial period for each cohort is from the date of obtaining informed consent to 12 weeks after administration. The trial schedule for each patient is shown in Fig 1.

Fig 1. Trial schedule for each patient.

Fig 1

MABG: Meta-astatobenzylguanidine, KI: Potassium iodine, 5-HT3: 5-hydroxytryptamine, ECOG PS: European comprehensive cancer group performance status, SpO2: Peripheral capillary oxygen saturation, MIBG: Meta-iodobenzylguanidine.

Investigational drug

Investigational drugs (Fig 2) are manufactured in-house by the Advanced Clinical Research Center, in the Fukushima Global Medical Science Center at Fukushima Medical University. Details and handling of the investigational drug are specified in the investigator’s brochure and the “Procedures for the Management of the Investigational Drug” separately.

Fig 2. Structure of [211At] meta-astatobenzylguanidine (MABG).

Fig 2

Definition of dosage and administration

The patients receive a single bolus intravenous dose of the study drug. The dose and dose escalation schedule for each cohort are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Dosage per level.

Cohort Dose level Dose
(Allowance)
Number of cases
1 Level 1 0.65 MBq/kg
(0.485–0.715 MBq/kg)
3–6 cases
2 Level 2 1.3 MBq/kg
(1.17–1.43 MBq/kg)
3–6 cases
3 Level 3 2.6 MBq/kg
(2.34–2.86 MBq/kg)
3–6 cases

The dose escalation follows a common 3 + 3 design. Starting with Cohort 1, the planned number of cases in each cohort is three to six, and the addition of cases is stopped when two cases of DLT occur. Fig 3 shows the dose escalation method. If the number of cases falls below 2/3 or 2/6 at the dose level, up to six additional cases are examined at one level lower.

Fig 3. Dose escalation method.

Fig 3

DLT: Dose limiting toxicity, MTD: Maximum tolerated dose, RD: Recommended dose.

Definition of DLT

The evaluation period is from study drug administration to Day 43. No further subjects are enrolled until the DLT adjudication period is over. DLT includes Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0 (CTCAE v5.0 Japanese translation JCOG/JSCO version) (CTECA) Grade 4 hematological toxicity and Grade ≥ 3 non-hematological toxicity and febrile neutropenia, anemia requiring red blood cell transfusion, and thrombocytopenia requiring platelet transfusion. However, the following adverse events are excluded:

  • Loss of appetite or fatigue.

  • Grade 3 nausea or vomiting not requiring gavage or TPN, and Grade 3 diarrhea without prolonged hospitalization. However, the event must be manageable to Grade ≤ 2 within 7 days after onset with standard antiemetics or antidiarrheals used at the package insert dosage.

  • Grade 3 infection.

The final DLT is determined after consultation between the investigator and sub-investigator for each subject.

DLT evaluation procedure in each cohort

  1. From the first case of each cohort when DLT appears, the details are reported to the Efficacy and Safety Evaluation Committee (hereinafter referred to as the committee) and the committee holds a meeting.

  2. The committee considers the necessity of measures such as discontinuation or interruption of the clinical trial. The investigator refers to the results of the review by the committee and decides on future measures. Furthermore, enrollment of new subjects and administration of the study drug to subjects are interrupted until future measures are decided.

  3. At the end of the DLT evaluation period for the third or sixth subject in each cohort, an efficacy/safety evaluation committee convenes to consider the necessity of measures such as discontinuation or interruption of the study. At that time, all available data is confirmed, and the investigator decides whether to proceed to the next cohort, referring to the results of the review by the committee.

Primary endpoint

The primary endpoint is the presence or absence of DLT to determine the optimal dose for single administration of the study drug.

Secondary endpoint

  1. Radiopharmacokinetics (RPK)

    To measure changes in plasma concentration after administration of an investigational drug to patients, blood is collected according to the following schedule, and the geometric mean of Cmax, AUC, t 1/2, Vss, and CL are calculated as pharmacokinetic parameters in each cohort. The details of the pharmacokinetic analysis are described in the separate pharmacokinetic analysis plan.

  2. Urinary radioactivity excretion rate

    Urinary excretion of radioactivity is measured up to 24 h after administration in all cases, and is calculated chronologically in each cohort.

  3. Urinary catecholamine response rate

    Patients with urinary catecholamineuria (adrenaline, noradrenaline, metanephrine, and normetanephrine) ≥ 3 times the upper limit of normal at screening are eligible. For these patients, the response is determined when the best overall response of these catecholamines achieves CR (decrease in values of all urinary catecholamines subject to evaluation of efficacy to within the standard values) or PR (decrease of > 50% relative to baseline in all urinary catecholamine levels included in the efficacy assessment).

  4. Objective response rate (ORR)

    ORR is assessed according to Response Evaluation Criteria in solid tumors (RECIST ver. 1.1) for tumors. In addition, CR and PR are not confirmed at the time of assessment.

  5. Progression free survival (PFS)

    After carrying out a primary objective evaluation of the tumor based on RECIST ver. 1.1, this value is defined as the time from the date of enrollment to death or progression (including clinical progression), whichever comes first.

  6. Evaluation of decreased [123I] MIBG accumulation based on scintigraphy

    A comprehensive evaluation of decreased [123I] MIBG accumulation based on scintigraphy is performed according to the procedure manual for image evaluation.

  7. Quality of life (QOL)

    Measure EORTC QLQ-C30 (EORTC-questionnaire Request ID: 83325), EQ-5D-5L. (registration tracking number 49187)

Sample size

The maximum sample size is 18, according to the modified Fibonacci dose escalation method (traditional 3+ 3 method, up to the third cohort).

Recruitment and informed consent

Patients are recruited at Fukushima Medical University Hospital. Many patients across Japan are referred to this hospital to participate in the clinical trial. Each participant provides written informed consent before any study procedures are performed.

Inclusion criteria

All of the following conditions must be met:

  1. Patients from whom written consent can be obtained.

  2. Patients with histologically or clinically diagnosed pheochromocytoma, paraganglioma, malignant pheochromocytoma, or malignant paraganglioma.

  3. Patients diagnosed with pheochromocytoma as defined below (refractory pheochromocytoma is defined as those who satisfy any of the following (a) to (c) and cannot undergo surgical resection or radical external irradiation).
    1. Pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma with an extensive local extension of the primary tumor at first presentation.
    2. Malignant pheochromocytoma/malignant paraganglioma with distant metastasis at first presentation.
    3. Pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma with local recurrence or distant metastasis despite surgical resection.
  4. Patients aged ≥ 20 years at the time of informed consent.

  5. Patients with an ECOG Performance status (PS) of 0–2.

  6. [123I] MIBG aggregation positive as determined by scintigraphy at the screening in one or more target lesions confirmed by CT imaging.

  7. Patients who meet all the following criteria with test values at screening:
    1. bone marrow function.
      1. ≥ 3,000/μL without administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF).
      2. Hemoglobin without transfusion ≥ 9.0 g/dL.
      3. Platelet count without transfusion ≥ 10 × 104 / mm3 (μL).
    2. Renal function.
      1. Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 30 mL/min/1.73 m2.
    3. Liver function (JSCC standardized method).
      1. AST ≤ 90 U/L.
      2. ALT ≤ 126 U/L (male), ALT ≤ 69 U/L (female).
      3. LDH < 666 U/L.
    4. Heart function.
      1. NYHA Functional class: I or lower.
    5. Diabetes.
      1. HbA1c < 8.0% (NGSP value).
    6. Respiratory condition.
      1. Oxygen saturation (SpO2) ≥ 96% while breathing ambient air.
  8. Patients who are expected to survive for 3 months or longer.

  9. Patients who are expected to be independently eat, excrete, and sleep during the nuclear medicine treatment hospital isolation period.

  10. Patients for whom standard therapy (CVD therapy or [131I] MIBG therapy) failed or who have no suitable therapy other than that administered in the present study.

Exclusion criteria

Patients who meet any of the following criteria are excluded.

  1. Patients with multiple active cancers.

    “Multiple active cancers” refers to the presence of malignancies other than the one included in the study or history of other malignancies with a disease-free interval < 5 years.

    However, lesions equivalent to carcinoma in situ or carcinoma in situ that are judged to have been cured by local treatment and have a disease-free period of more than 1 year after cure are not included in active multiple cancers. In addition, the following cancers associated with familial pheochromocytoma are not included in active double/multiple cancers:
    1. Medullary thyroid carcinoma in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 (MEN2)
    2. Retinal hemangioblastoma in von Hippel Lindau disease (VHL)
    3. Neurofibromas in neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1)
  2. Patients who cannot stop taking a drug that suppresses the accumulation of MABG according to the EANM procedure guidelines for 131I-meta-iodobenzylguanidine (131I-mIBG) therapy [18] during the study period.

  3. Patients unable to stop taking α-methylparatyrosine during the study period.

  4. Patients who have undergone surgery, CVD therapy, catheter hepatic artery embolization for liver metastasis, or radiotherapy within 8 weeks before enrollment.

  5. Patients who have received MIBG treatment within 12 weeks before enrollment.

  6. Patients who have developed Grade 2 or higher non-hematological toxicity during or after prior treatment, for which a causal relationship to treatment cannot be ruled out, and who require treatment during the study period.

  7. Patients who have any of the following infections and require medical treatment during the study period:
    1. Hepatitis B virus infection
    2. Hepatitis C virus infection
    3. HIV infection
    4. Other infectious diseases requiring systemic treatment
  8. Patients with a disease that requires continuous systemic administration of adrenocortical hormone (prednisone or prednisolone equivalent dose of ≥ 10 mg/d) or other immunosuppressants and that requires treatment during the study period.

  9. Patients with a history of uncontrolled catecholamine seizures.

  10. Patients with a history of fatal arrhythmia or cardiac arrest.

  11. Patients with uncontrolled symptomatic arrhythmia, thyroid dysfunction including hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism, respiratory disease, pleural effusion or ascites.

  12. Patients with coronary artery disease, arrhythmia requiring treatment with amiodarone, severe valvular disease, aortic disease, or any disease or condition with bleeding tendency.

  13. Patients that are pregnant (even if it is determined that there is a possibility of pregnancy via a doctor’s consultation, the patient is excluded from this study), have given birth within the previous 28 days, or are currently breast-feeding (including women who have temporarily stopped breast-feeding).

  14. Female patients of childbearing potential or male patients with partners of childbearing potential who are unable to agree to contraception for 6 months after drug treatment (any two of the following: contraception methods that include latex condoms [used by men], oral contraceptives, intrauterine device [IUD] [progesterone-free T type] used in combination; or tubal ligation and vasectomy).

  15. Patients participating in other clinical trials within 3 months before the consent date.

  16. Patients who are judged by the investigator or sub-investigator to be unsuitable for this study for other reasons.

Adverse Events (AEs)

An adverse event (AE) is any untoward medical occurrence in a subject, regardless of whether or not it is causally related to the drug, including unintended signs and clinically significant changes in laboratory test values, including exacerbation of disease, symptoms, and complications. New AEs occurring between obtaining informed consent and up to 12 weeks after administration are recorded in the case report form. Discontinuation of study participation due to AEs should also be recorded in the case report form. Worsening PPGL is treated as disease progression under efficacy assessments, not as an AE. All AEs are followed until resolution to baseline status (in terms of Grade), clinical stabilization of symptoms if recovery is unlikely, or until the subject is no longer available for follow-up. When treatment such as examination or surgery is administered, the treatment itself is not treated as an AE; rather the disease that led to the treatment is considered an AE. Regarding the death of a subject, the disease that causes death is regarded as an AE. If the subject’s condition is the same as before treatment and the expected effects of this drug are not observed despite the administration of this drug, it is not regarded as an AE. In the present study, the CTCAE is used as the evaluation criteria for AEs. Any worsening of the severity of each event is treated as an AE and described in the case report form.

Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)

The definitions of SAEs follow ICH-E2A “Clinical Safety Management: Definitions and Standards for Expedited Reporting” (Oct 27, 1994) and other national regulations. An SAE refers to any unfavorable medical event that occurs in a subject between the date of informed consent and 12 weeks after administration.

Statistical analysis

This section describes the outline of the statistical analysis plan, and the details are described in the separately specified statistical analysis plan. Sample size is set according to the modified Fibonacci dose escalation (traditional 3 + 3 design). MTD is determined as the highest dose level at which none of the three cases developed DLT or only one of the six cases developed DLT. RD is determined as the same dose of MTD. All secondary endpoints are described as descriptive statistics, no formal statistical hypothesis test is performed. Statistical analyses were performed with SAS software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute). The version of the statistical analysis plan is created when the database is fixed as the final version, and the final analysis is performed according to this version.

As appropriate, summary statistics are calculated for subject demographics, safety, and PK data by cohort or time point. Summary statistics for continuous data include means, medians, standard deviations, and ranges (e.g., Cmax, AUC, geometric mean, and geometric coefficient of variation for PK parameters), and frequencies and proportions are calculated for categorical data. The data is also illustrated as necessary. Changes from baseline to post-treatment or post-treatment percent change relative to baseline are performed in subjects with baseline and posttreatment measurements. Unless otherwise stated, the most recent data measured before the first dose of the study drug is used as baseline data.PK/PD analyses are performed with Phoenix WinNonlin software (version 8.1, Certara, Inc.).

Ethics

The Institutional Review Board of Fukushima Medical University approved this trial on 22 February 2022 (IS03003). The Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency accepted an investigational new drug application for this trial on 16 March 2022. This trial was registered to jRCT on 17 June 2022 (jRCT2021220012). We are conducting this trial in accordance with the ICH Good Clinical Practice Guideline (ICH-GCP) and the Act on Securing Quality, Efficacy and Safety of Products Including Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices of Japan.

Quality management

Data management, Monitoring, and Audit are conducted by the contract research organization according to the ICH-GCP.

Discussion

[211At] At is an α-emitting nuclide with a short half-life, and because α-rays have shorter range in water than β-rays, there is no need to isolate patients treated with this drug for long periods in an isotope treatment room. Possible side effects of [211At] At include myelosuppression, gastrointestinal toxicity, liver damage, and crisis because of catecholamine release, similar to those of other cytotoxic drugs.

[211At] MABG has been shown to have a cytotoxic effect on human medulloblastoma cells in vitro [12]. In an in vitro study using rat pheochromocytoma cell PC12, [211At] MABG dose-dependently increased the proportion of cells with DNA double-strand breaks and decreased cell viability [13,14]. [211At] MABG was administered to mice with subcutaneous transplantation of PC12 cells, and [211At] MABG showed high accumulation in PC12 cells and inhibited the proliferation of PC12 cells in a dose-dependent manner.

In a single-dose intravenous administration pharmacokinetic study in normal mice that we previously conducted (data not published), [211At] MABG was rapidly translocated from the blood into tissues, and the blood radioactivity concentration decayed biphasically with a T1/2α half-life of about 11 minutes and a T1/2β half-life of 13.6 hours. After administration of [211At] MABG, radioactivity distribution in the blood was high in the blood cell fraction, and no free unchanged drug was detected in the plasma fluid fraction 60 min after administration. Excretion after administration of [211At] MABG showed a tendency similar to that of [123I] MIBG, but 6 hours after administration, [211At] MABG tended to be slower than [211At] MABG (49.3% ID, [123I] MIBG: 60.9% ID). Absorbed dose simulation of [131I] MIBG in humans using pharmacokinetics of [131I] MIBG in mice showed similar biodistributions to [131I] MIBG in humans [1517], suggesting that mice could be appropriate test animals to predict absorbed dose of [211At] MABG in human.

The initial first human dose is recommended to be 1/10 of the rodent STD10 according to the ICH-S9 guideline. In our previous extended single-dose toxicity study of [211At] MABG in normal mice (BALB/c), three deaths out of 50 mice occurred in the 80 MB/kg dose group. However, no other irreversible toxicity was observed, and the severely toxic dose in 10% of mice (STD10) was considered to be ≥ 80 MBq/kg (data not published). Therefore, a dose of 8 MBq/kg in mice is used as the initial dose in the current clinical trial. When converted to a human-equivalent dose, this is 0.65 MBq/kg, so the common ratio is 1:2:4, and the dose levels are as follows: dose level 1: 0.65 MBq/kg, dose level 2: 1.3 MBq/kg, dose level 3: 2.6 MBq/kg.

We set the duration for DLT observation based on the findings of the above extended single-dose toxicity test (data not published). In mice, marked deterioration of general condition was observed from Day 5 to Day 13, and euthanasia and death were observed on Days 8 and 9 respectively. A blood test showed the lowest white blood cell count on Day 5, and it returned to normal thereafter. In the pathological examination on Day 35, the disorder of the small intestinal mucosa observed on Days 5 and 14 was not observed on Day 35. Therefore, we considered 35 days to be sufficient for determining DLT in humans, but we conservatively decided on an observation period of 42 days.

The investigational drugs used in the current study are manufactured in-house by Fukushima Medical University, and quality control is performed according to the Good Manufacturing Practice as much as possible. For safety, we wrote a manual on the proper use of [211At] MABG in clinical settings [19].

In the present study, up to 18 adult patients with PPGL are examined at a single center in Japan and receive a single bolus dose only. This is standard in first-in-human clinical trials and we consulted the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, before initiating this trial, and [211At] MABG was accepted as an investigational new drug application for clinical trial based on the results of our preclinical studies and the present study protocol.

Leveraging the results of the ongoing phase I trial, we are planning to conduct a phase II multicenter study with repeated recommended doses of [211At] MABG for the patients with PPGL. In addition, [211At] MABG might be a candidate for cancers which possibly uptake [211At] MABG such as neuroblastoma.

Conclusions

As the first low-molecular-weight compound labeled with an α-ray nuclide for human use in the world, we are accelerating the development of [211At] MABG for the treatment of patients with PPGL.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. SPIRIT 2013 checklist: Recommended items to address in a clinical trial protocol and related documents*.

(DOC)

pone.0303623.s001.doc (122.5KB, doc)
S1 File

(PDF)

pone.0303623.s002.pdf (1.5MB, pdf)
S2 File

(PDF)

pone.0303623.s003.pdf (1.3MB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

We thank Songji Zhao and Naoyuki Ukon for providing the results of preclinical studies necessary to conduct the clinical study.

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.

Funding Statement

This study is funded by the Advanced Clinical Research Center management business subsidy from Japanese government and granted by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development(23ck0106815h0001). The funders did not and will not have a role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Beard CM, Sheps SG, Kurland LT, Carney JA, Lie JT. Occurrence of pheochromocytoma in Rochester, Minnesota, 1950 through 1979. Mayo Clin Proc. 1983;58(12):802–804. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Stenstrom G, Svardsudd K. Pheochromocytoma in Sweden 1958–1981. An analysis of the National Cancer Registry Data. Acta Med Scand. 1986;220(3):225–232. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Andersen GS, Lund JO, Toftdahl D, Strandgaard S, Nielsen PE. Pheochromocytoma and Conn’s syndrome in Denmark 1977–1981. Acta Med Scand Suppl. 1986;714:11–14. doi: 10.1111/j.0954-6820.1986.tb08961.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hartley L, Perry-Keene D. Phaeochromocytoma in Queensland—1970-83. Aust NZJ Surg. 1985;55(5):471–475. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Al Subhi AR, Boyle V, Elston MS. Systematic Review: Incidence of Pheochromocytoma and Paraganglioma Over 70 Years. J Endocr Soc. 2022;6(9):bvac105. doi: 10.1210/jendso/bvac105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lam AK. Update on adrenal tumours. In 2017 World Health Organization (WHO) of endocrine tumours. Endocr Pathol. 2017;28(3):213–227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Huang H, Abraham J, Hung E, Averbuch S, Merino M, Steinberg SM, et al. Treatment of malignant pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and dacarbazine: recommendation from a 22-year follow-up of 18 patients. Cancer. 2008;113(8):2020–2028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Tanabe A, Naruse M, Nomura K, Tsuiki M, Tsumagari A, Ichiharaet A. Combination chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and dacarbazine in patients with malignant pheochromocytoma. Horm Cancer. 2013;4(2):103–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Loh KC, Fitzgerald PA, Matthay KK, Yeo PP, Price DC. The treatment of malignant pheochromocytoma with iodine-131 metaiodobenzylguanidine ([131I] MIBG): a comprehensive review of 116 reported patients. J Endocrinol Invest. 1997;20:648–658. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Yoshinaga K, Oriuchi N, Wakabayashi H, Tomiyama Y, Jinguji M, Higuchi T, et al. Effects and safety of 131I-metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) radiotherapy in malignant neuroendocrine tumors: results from a multicenter observational registry. Endocr J. 2014;61:1171–1180. doi: 10.1507/endocrj.EJ14-0211 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Vaidyanathan G, Zalutsky M R. 1-(m-[211At] astatobenzyl) guanidine: synthesis via astato demetalation and preliminary in vitro and in vivo evaluation. Bioconjug Chem.1992;3(6):499–503. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Strickland DK, Vaidyanathan G, Friedman HS, Zalutsky MR. Meta-[131I] iodobenzylguanidine uptake and meta-[211At]astatobenzylguanidine treatment in human medulloblastoma cell lines. J Neurooncol. 1995;25(1):9–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ohshima Y, Sudo H, Watanabe S, Nagatsu K, Tsuji AB, Sakashita T, et al. Antitumor effects of radionuclide treatment using α-emitting meta-211At-astato-benzylguanidine in a PC12 pheochromocytoma model. J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45(6):999–1010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Sudo H, Tsuji AB, Sugyo A, Nagatsu K, Minegishi K, Ishioka NS, et al. Preclinical Evaluation of the Acute Radiotoxicity of the α-Emitting Molecular-Targeted Therapeutic Agent 211At-MABG for the Treatment of Malignant Pheochromocytoma in Normal Mice. Transl Oncol. 2019;12(7):879–888. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Sakashita T, Watanabe S, Hanaoka H, Ohshima Y, Ikoma Y, Ukon N, et al. Absorbed dose simulation of meta-211At-astato-benzylguanidine using pharmacokinetics of 131I-MIBG and a novel dose conversion method, RAP. Ann Nucl Med. 2021; 35(1):121–131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Sakashita T, Matsumoto S, Watanabe S, Hanaoka H, Ohshima Y, Ikoma Y, et al. Nonclinical study and applicability of the absorbed dose conversion method with a single biodistribution measurement for targeted alpha-nuclide therapy. EJNMMI Phys. 2021;8(1):80. doi: 10.1186/s40658-021-00425-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ukon N, Zhao S, Washiyama K, Oriuchi N, Tan C, Shimoyama S, et al. Human dosimetry of free 211At and meta-[211At] astatobenzylguanidine (211At-MABG) estimated using preclinical biodistribution from normal mice. EJNMMI Phys. 2022;7(1):58. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Giammarile F, Chiti A, Lassmann M, Brans B, Flux G. EANM procedure guidelines for 131I-meta-iodobenzylguanidine (131I-mIBG) therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008; 35(5):1039–1047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ukon N, Higashi T, Hosono M, Kinuya S, Yamada T, Yanagida S, et al. Manual on the proper use of meta-[211At] astato-benzylguanidine ([211At] MABG) injections in clinical trials for targeted alpha therapy (1st edition). Ann Nucl Med. 2022;36(8):695–709. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Matteo Bauckneht

12 Oct 2023

PONE-D-23-24585Evaluation of pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy of At-211 meta-astatobenzylguanidine (MABG) in patients with pheochromocytoma or paraganglioma (PPGL): A study protocolPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kobayakawa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 25 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Matteo Bauckneht

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

********** 

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

********** 

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

********** 

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

********** 

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

********** 

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The work by Kobayakawa and colleagues illustrates the protocol of an ongoing study (started in September 2022) testing the efficacy of [211At]MABG as a therapeutic approach in adult patients (>20 years old) affected by pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma not amenable to surgery.

The study is interesting in light of the paucity of the currently available treatments in this setting and the potential to be transferred to other guanidine-avid diseases, such as neuroblastoma.

I suggest the following amendments to the text:

Please be consistent with the verbal tenses: over the manuscript, you switch from the present to the future tense repeatedly. Since the study is ongoing, you might want to stick to the present tense. Overall, the text reads fine; a review by a native English speaker might be, however, considered.

Please utilise the proper radiopharmaceuticals nomenclature, as indicated in the official EANM statement: https://www.eanm.org/content-eanm/uploads/2019/12/EANM_GUIDANCE-_TRACER_NOMENCLATURE-1.pdf

Please adjust the definition of “multiple active cancers”, which could be confusing in its current form; I suggest “presence of malignancies other than the one object of the study or history of other malignancies with a disease-free interval <5 years”

Please explain which drugs fall in the category described in the second point of the exclusion criteria; the recommended withdrawal period for these medications and the one mentioned in point 3 should also be added.

Please expand on the “uncontrolled thyroid dysfunction” that could lead to an exclusion from the study.

Discussion: consider changing the word “penetrability” to “shorter range in water”; the sentence “have a shorter half-life of At-211” referred to alpha-radiation is confusing and must be corrected or removed.

********** 

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 May 28;19(5):e0303623. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303623.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


7 Nov 2023

Responses to Reviewer’s

Comment 1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Response to Comment 1: Thank you for your valuable comment. This study is a first-in-human clinical trial of an anticancer drug. The rationale of the study is only from non-clinical pharmacological and biodistribution studies, which indicate the efficacy profiles for pheochromocytoma cells. They are described in the Introduction section (references: 12–17). We have added that the required toxicity studies were conducted prior to the first dose in humans, in accordance with ICH-M3 and -S9 guidelines (https://www.pmda.go.jp/files/000156321.pdf ). Based on these guidelines, we set the start dose for first administration in human, which is described in the Discussion section.

Comment 2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Response to Comment 2: This study was planned as a phase I study of an anticancer drug. The main purpose of a phase I cancer clinical trial is to determine the maximum tolerated dose and recommended dose by elucidating the dose-limiting toxicity in each dose escalation cohort. That is why, in the present study, there were no statistical hypotheses, and no statistical tests were planned. Regarding exploratory efficacy endpoints, such as objective response and progression-free survival, and pharmacological parameters, point estimations of these parameters are calculated.

Comment 3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Response to Comment 3: Sample size is not calculated statistically, but is traditionally set according to the modified Fibonacci dose escalation (3 + 3 design). In addition, there are usually no controls in phase I cancer clinical trials. Therefore, we have now added an explanation about the modified Fibonacci method in the section describing sample size and statistical analysis. We believe this manuscript ensures reproducibility of study planning and conducting.

Comment 4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Response to Comment 4: We have added the following sentence to the data availability subsection in the METADATA: “No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.”

Comment 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Response to Comment 5: We have checked this revised manuscript prior to resubmission, and had it proofread by native English-speaking scientific editors.

Comment 6.

Comment 6-1: Please be consistent with the verbal tenses: over the manuscript, you switch from the present to the future tense repeatedly. Since the study is ongoing, you might want to stick to the present tense. Overall, the text reads fine; a review by a native English speaker might be, however, considered.

Response to Comment 6-1: Thank you for the advice, according to which we have amended the manuscript so that it now uses the correct tenses. In addition, as mentioned in our previous response, the manuscript has also been proofread by native-English-speaking scientific editors.

Comment 6-2: Please utilize the proper radiopharmaceuticals nomenclature, as indicated in the official EANM statement: https://www.eanm.org/content-eanm/uploads/2019/12/EANM_GUIDANCE-_TRACER_NOMENCLATURE-1.pdf

Response to Comment 6-2: We have changed the radiopharmaceuticals’ nomenclature, in accordance with the EANM statement, from At-211 MABG, I-123 MIBG, and I-131 MIBG to [211 At] MABG, [123I] MIBG, [131I] MIBG, respectively.

Comment 6-3: Please adjust the definition of “multiple active cancers”, which could be confusing in its current form; I suggest “presence of malignancies other than the one object of the study or history of other malignancies with a disease-free interval <5 years”

Response to Comment 6-3: Thank you for your suggestion. We have now changed the sentence as follows: ““Multiple active cancers” refers to presence of malignancies other than the one included in the study or history of other malignancies with a disease-free interval <5 years.”

Comment 6-4: Please explain which drugs fall in the category described in the second point of the exclusion criteria; the recommended withdrawal period for these medications and the one mentioned in point 3 should also be added.

Response to Comment 6-4: We have now provided this information in the manuscript as follows: “Patients who cannot stop the dosage of a drug that suppresses the accumulation of MABG according to the EANM procedure guidelines for 131I-meta-iodobenzylguanidine (131I-mIBG) therapy during the study period.” In addition, we have clarified the withdrawal periods of 2 and 3 point as "during the study period."

Comment 6-5: Please expand on the “uncontrolled thyroid dysfunction” that could lead to an exclusion from the study.

Response to Comment 6-5: We have now changed “thyroid dysfunction” to “thyroid dysfunction including hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism”.

Comment 6-6: Discussion: consider changing the word “penetrability” to “shorter range in water”; the sentence “have a shorter half-life of At-211” referred to alpha-radiation is confusing and must be corrected or removed.

Response to Comment 6-6: Accordingly, we have changed the word “penetrability” to “shorter range in water”, and revised the sentence as follows:

“[211At] At is an α-emitting nuclide with short half-life, and because α-rays have shorter range in water than β-rays, there is no need to isolate patients treated with this drug for long periods in an isotope treatment room.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: renamed_c01a4.docx

pone.0303623.s004.docx (21.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Margo Dona

1 Feb 2024

PONE-D-23-24585R1Evaluation of pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy of [211At] meta-astatobenzylguanidine ([211At] MABG) in patients with pheochromocytoma or paraganglioma (PPGL): A study protocolPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kobayakawa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 17 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: 

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Margo Dona

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments: Please address the following points of reviewer 2:Include a comprehensive statistical analysis plan. Include details for determining the MTD and RD. Also, state the statistical methods that will be used to analyze the secondary endpoints. Identify the software that will be used to capture the data as well as the software that will be used for the statistical analysis.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for addressing my comments. I have no further concerns against publication.

Reviewer #2: In this protocol, a phase I clinical trial is currently underway with 3 + 3 dose escalation design to evaluate the pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy of [211At] MABG at 3 dose levels in patients with unresectable or metastatic PPGI. The primary endpoint is dose-limiting toxicity to determine the maximum tolerated dose and recommended doses. The secondary endpoints include radiopharmacokinetics, urinary radioactive excretion rate, urinary catecholamine response rate, objective response rate, progression free survival, [123I] MIBG scintigraphy on reducing tumor accumulation, and quality of life.

Major revisions:

Include a comprehensive statistical analysis plan. Include details for determining the MTD and RD. Also, state the statistical methods that will be used to analyze the secondary endpoints.

Minor revisions:

1-Identify the software that will be used to capture the data as well as the software that will be used for the statistical analysis.

2-To assist in the review process, add line numbering to the document.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 May 28;19(5):e0303623. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303623.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


25 Mar 2024

Responses to Reviewer’s

Comment of Reviewer 2.

Major revisions: Include a comprehensive statistical analysis plan. Include details for determining the MTD and RD. Also, state the statistical methods that will be used to analyze the secondary endpoints.

Minor revisions. 1-Identify the software that will be used to capture the data as well as the software that will be used for the statistical analysis. 2-To assist in the review process, add line numbering to the document.

Response to all Comments of Reviewer 2: Thanks for your valuable comments. We have added following sentences to the “Statistical analysis” section (pages 20 to 21):

“MTD is determined as the highest dose level at which none of the three cases developed DLT or only one of the six cases developed DLT. RD is determined as the same dose of MTD. All secondary endpoints are described as descriptive statistics, no formal statistical hypothesis test is performed. Statistical analyses are performed with SAS software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute).”

“PK/PD analyses are performed with Phoenix WinNonlin software (version 8.1, Certara, Inc.).”

Attachment

Submitted filename: renamed_657e6.docx

pone.0303623.s005.docx (14.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Margo Dona

30 Apr 2024

Evaluation of pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy of [211At] meta-astatobenzylguanidine ([211At] MABG) in patients with pheochromocytoma or paraganglioma (PPGL): A study protocol

PONE-D-23-24585R2

Dear Dr. Kobayakawa,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Margo Dona

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been adequately addressed.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Margo Dona

10 May 2024

PONE-D-23-24585R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kobayakawa,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Margo Dona

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. SPIRIT 2013 checklist: Recommended items to address in a clinical trial protocol and related documents*.

    (DOC)

    pone.0303623.s001.doc (122.5KB, doc)
    S1 File

    (PDF)

    pone.0303623.s002.pdf (1.5MB, pdf)
    S2 File

    (PDF)

    pone.0303623.s003.pdf (1.3MB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: renamed_c01a4.docx

    pone.0303623.s004.docx (21.5KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: renamed_657e6.docx

    pone.0303623.s005.docx (14.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES