A phase 1 and pharmacodynamic study of decitabine in combination with carboplatin in patients with recurrent,platinum‐resistant,epithelial ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND:

Aberrant DNA methylation is a hallmark of cancer, and DNA methyltransferase inhibitors have demonstrated clinical efficacy in hematologic malignancies. On the basis of preclinical studies indicating that hypomethylating agents can reverse platinum resistance in ovarian cancer cells, the authors conducted a phase 1 trial of low‐dose decitabine combined with carboplatin in patients with recurrent, platinum‐resistant ovarian cancer.

METHODS:

Decitabine was administered intravenously daily for 5 days, before carboplatin (area under the curve, 5) on Day 8 of a 28‐day cycle. By using a standard 3 + 3 dose escalation, decitabine was tested at 2 dose levels: 10 mg/m² (7 patients) or 20 mg/m² (3 patients). Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and plasma collected on Days 1 (pretreatment), 5, 8, and 15 were used to assess global (LINE‐1 repetitive element) and gene‐specific DNA methylation.

RESULTS:

Dose‐limiting toxicity (DLT) at the 20‐mg/m² dose was grade 4 neutropenia (2 patients), and no DLTs were observed at 10 mg/m². The most common toxicities were nausea, allergic reactions, neutropenia, fatigue, anorexia, vomiting, and abdominal pain, the majority being grades 1‐2. One complete response was observed, and 3 additional patients had stable disease for ≥6 months. LINE‐1 hypomethylation on Days 8 and 15 was detected in DNA from PBMCs. Of 5 ovarian cancer‐associated methylated genes, HOXA11 and BRCA1 were demethylated in plasma on Days 8 and 15.

CONCLUSIONS:

Repetitive low‐dose decitabine is tolerated when combined with carboplatin in ovarian cancer patients, and demonstrates biological (ie, DNA‐hypomethylating) activity, justifying further testing for clinical efficacy. Cancer 2010. © 2010 American Cancer Society.     

Phase 1 study of oxaliplatin and irinotecan in pediatric patients with refractory solid tumors

BACKGROUND:

For this report, the authors estimated the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and investigated the toxicities of oxaliplatin combined with irinotecan in children with refractory solid tumors.

METHODS:

Oxaliplatin was administered on Days 1 and 8 in combination with irinotecan on Days 1 through 5 and Days 8 through 12 of a 21‐day cycle. An oral cephalosporin was administered daily to ameliorate irinotecan‐associated diarrhea. Pharmacokinetic studies of oxaliplatin and uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase 1 family, polypeptide A1 (UGT1A1) genotyping were performed.

RESULTS:

Thirteen patients were enrolled. Dose‐limiting diarrhea (n = 3), serum lipase elevation (n = 3), serum amylase elevation (n = 2), colitis, abdominal pain, and headache (n = 1 each) occurred at the first dose level (oxaliplatin at a dose of 60 mg/m²; irinotecan at a dose of 20 mg/m²). Only 1 of 7 patients who received reduced doses of both agents (40 mg/m²/dose oxaliplatin; 15 mg/m²/dose irinotecan) experienced a dose‐limiting toxicity (DLT): diarrhea. When the oxaliplatin dose was re‐escalated (60 mg/m²) with irinotecan at a dose of 15 mg/m², 2 of 3 patients had a DLT (1 episode of diarrhea, 1 episode of hypokalemia). Myelosuppression was minimal. One patient had a complete response, and another patient had stable disease for 6 cycles of therapy. The median oxaliplatin area under the concentration versus time curve (AUC_0→∞) was 5.9 μg · hour/mL (range, 1.8‐7.6 μg · hour/mL). The frequency of the 6/6, 6/7, and 7/7 UGT1A1 promoter genotypes was 5 of 10, 4 of 10, and 1 of 10, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS:

The oxaliplatin MTD was 40 mg/m² per dose on Days 1 and 8 in combination with irinotecan 15 mg/m² per dose on Days 1‐5 and Days 8‐12. There was some evidence of antitumor activity; however, severe toxicity, both expected (diarrhea) and unexpected (elevation in pancreatic enzymes), was observed. Cancer 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society.     

A phase 1 study of hepatic arterial infusion of oxaliplatin in combination with systemic 5‐fluorouracil,leucovorin, and bevacizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors metastatic to the liver

BACKGROUND:

Liver metastases in patients with cancer are associated with poor survival. The authors of this report conducted a phase 1 study of hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) oxaliplatin combination therapy in patients with advanced cancer and liver metastases.

METHODS:

Treatment consisted of escalating doses of HAI oxaliplatin 60 mg/m² to 175 mg/m² and intra‐arterial heparin 3000 IU (Day 1); leucovorin 200 mg/m² intravenously (iv) and 5‐fluorouracil 300 mg/m² bolus plus 600 mg/m² iv (Days 1 and 2); and bevacizumab 10 mg/kg iv (Day 3). A conventional “3 + 3” design was used.

RESULTS:

Fifty‐seven patients were treated, including 30 women and 27 men. The median age was 57 years, and the patients had received a median of 3 prior therapies (range, 1‐7 prior therapies). The most common cancer was colorectal (n = 29). Overall, 204 cycles were administered (median per patient, 2 cycles; range, 1‐17 cycles). The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of HAI oxaliplatin was 140 mg/m². Dose‐limiting toxicities were grade 4 thrombocytopenia (n = 1) and grade 4 hypokalemia (n = 1) at 150 mg/m² (n = 5). Thirty‐three patients (58%) had no toxicity greater than grade 1. The most common toxicities were thrombocytopenia (n = 19), fatigue (n = 15), nausea/vomiting (n = 6), constipation (n = 6), and diarrhea (n = 4). Of 55 patients who were evaluable for response (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors), 4 patients (7%) had a partial response (PR), and 32 patients (58%) had stable disease (SD), including 15 patients (48%) who had SD for ≥4 months. Of 28 patients with colorectal cancer, 3 patients (11%) had a PR, and 9 patients (32%) had SD for ≥4 months.

CONCLUSIONS:

HAI oxaliplatin combined with systemic 5‐fluorouracil, leucovorin, and bevacizumab had antitumor activity in patients with advanced cancer and liver metastases, and the current results indicated that this combination warrants further study. Cancer 2010. © 2010 American Cancer Society.     

A multi‐institution experience comparing the clinical and physiologic differences between upper extremity and lower extremity melphalan‐based isolated limb infusion

BACKGROUND:

Although studies of melphalan‐based isolated limb infusion (ILI) combine data from upper extremity (UE) treatments with those from lower extremity (LE) treatments, differences between the 2 may be clinically important.

METHODS:

Candidates for UE ILI (n = 51) and LE ILI (n = 192) were identified from prospective databases at 2 institutions. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and Wieberdink toxicity scale were used as appropriate.

RESULTS:

The following patients had indications for UE ILI: melanoma, 36 of 47 patients (77%); sarcoma, 5 of 47 patients (11%); Merkel cell sarcoma, 3 of 47 patients (6%), and squamous cell carcinoma, 3 of 47 patients (6%). The patients who underwent UE ILI, as expected, had lower limb volumes (mean, 2.5 L vs 8.6 L; P < .001) and lower mean melphalan doses (20.7 mg vs 49.5 mg; P < .001). On perfusate blood gas analysis, the mean base excess at 30 minutes (?13.9 vs ?9.1; P < .001) and the mean pH at 30 minutes (7.06 vs 7.15; P < .001) were lower for UE procedures than for LE procedures, although the mean ischemic time was longer in LE procedures (67.2 minutes) than in UE procedures (61.6 minutes; P = .03). The rate of regional toxicity grade ≥3 for UE ILI was 7% compared with 24% (P = .005) for LE ILI. There was no difference in the complete response rate for melanoma UE procedures (28%; 95% confidence interval, 16%‐44%) compared with LE ILI procedures (32%; 95% confidence interval, 25%‐39%).

CONCLUSIONS:

ILI for UE disease was associated with similar complete response rates but lower toxicity than ILI for LE disease and with different physiologic sequelae despite comparable methods. The UE appears relatively resistant to toxic effects of melphalan‐based ILI as currently performed, which suggests a potential for further optimization of drug dosing for UE ILI. Cancer 2012. © 2012 American Cancer Society.     

Phase 1 study of an oxaliplatin and etoposide regimen in pediatric patients with recurrent solid tumors

BACKGROUND:

The combination of a platinating agent and etoposide has induced responses in various pediatric tumors. The study estimated the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of an oxaliplatin and etoposide regimen in children with recurrent solid tumors.

METHODS:

Oxaliplatin was administered on Day 1 and etoposide on Days 1 to 3 of each 21‐day course. Cohorts of 3 to 6 patients were enrolled at 3 dose levels: 1) oxaliplatin at a dose of 130 mg/m² and etoposide at a dose of 75 mg/m², 2) oxaliplatin at a dose of 130 mg/m² and etoposide at a dose of 100 mg/m², and 3) oxaliplatin at a dose of 145 mg/m² and etoposide at a dose of 100 mg/m². Calcium and magnesium infusions were used at dose level 3 in an attempt to escalate the oxaliplatin dose past the single‐agent MTD.

RESULTS:

The 16 patients received a total of 63 courses. At dose level 1, dose‐limiting epistaxis, neuropathy, and neutropenia occurred in 1 of 6 patients. No dose‐limiting toxicity (DLT) occurred at dose level 2 (n = 6). At dose level 3, 2 of 4 patients experienced dose‐limiting neutropenia; none experienced grade 3 or 4 acute neuropathy. Six patients required prolongation of the oxaliplatin infusion because of acute sensory neuropathy. Responses were observed in patients with medulloblastoma (1 complete response) and pineoblastoma (1 partial response); 3 others with atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor, ependymoma, and soft tissue sarcoma had prolonged disease stabilization.

CONCLUSIONS:

The MTD of this regimen was found to be oxaliplatin at a dose of 130 mg/m² given on Day 1 and etoposide at a dose of 100 mg/m²/d given on Days 1 to 3. Neutropenia was found to be the DLT. Calcium and magnesium infusions did not allow escalation of the oxaliplatin dose. The combination was well‐tolerated and demonstrated antitumor activity. Cancer 2009. © 2008 American Cancer Society.     

Phase 1 dose‐escalation study of single‐agent veliparib in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors

Veliparib (ABT‐888) is a potent, orally bioavailable poly(ADP‐ribose) polymerase‐1 and ‐2 inhibitor. This phase 1 study evaluated the tolerability, pharmacokinetic profile, safety, and preliminary antitumor activity of single‐agent veliparib in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors. Eligible patients were assigned to treatment with veliparib at 200 or 400 mg dose; veliparib was self‐administered orally twice daily on days 1–28 of 28‐day cycles. Dose escalation, following a 3 + 3 design, defined dose‐limiting toxicities, the maximum tolerated dose, and the recommended phase 2 dose. Sixteen patients were enrolled (median age, 59 years). Fourteen patients had high‐grade serous ovarian cancer, one had primary peritoneal cancer, and one had BRCA‐mutated breast cancer. The most frequent treatment‐emergent adverse events were nausea and vomiting (93.8% each), decreased appetite (62.5%), abdominal pain, diarrhea, and malaise (31.3% each). A grade ≥3 toxicity was observed in 50% of patients; one patient each in the 200 mg (n = 4) and 400 mg (n = 12) cohorts experienced serious adverse events. Dose‐limiting toxicities were observed for one patient at the 400 mg dose. No toxicities leading to death were reported. The recommended phase 2 dose was defined as 400 mg twice daily. The veliparib pharmacokinetic profile was consistent with that reported for the Western population. Two patients, both with ovarian cancer, had a RECIST partial response. Veliparib monotherapy showed manageable tolerability and safety profiles and a predictable pharmacokinetic profile at a 400 mg twice‐daily dose, and supports the inclusion of Japanese patients in the multinational phase 3 study (NCT02470585).     

Phase 1 trial of temozolomide plus irinotecan plus O6‐benzylguanine in adults with recurrent malignant glioma

BACKGROUND:

The current study was a phase 1 clinical trial conducted with patients who had recurrent or progressive malignant glioma (MG). The trial was designed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and toxicity of irinotecan (CPT‐11) when administered with temozolomide (TMZ) and O⁶‐benzylguanine (O⁶‐BG).

METHODS:

All 3 drugs, CPT‐11, TMZ, and O⁶‐BG, were administered on Day 1 of a 21‐day treatment. First, patients were treated with a 1‐hour bolus infusion of O⁶‐BG at a dose of 120 mg/m² followed immediately by a 48‐hour continuous infusion of O⁶‐BG at a dose of 30 mg/m²/d. Second, within 60 minutes of the end of the 1‐hour bolus infusion of O⁶‐BG, TMZ was administered orally at a dose of 355 mg/m². Third, 1 hour after administration of TMZ, CPT‐11 was infused over 90 minutes. Patients were accrued to 1 of 2 strata based on CYP3A1‐ and CYP3A4‐inducing antiepileptic drug (EIAED) use; dose escalation was conducted independently within these strata.

RESULTS:

Fifty‐five patients were enrolled. In both strata, the dose‐limiting toxicities were hematologic and included grade 4 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, leukopenia, and/or thrombocytopenia. For Stratum 1 (EIAEDs), when TMZ was administered at a dose of 355 mg/m², the MTD of CPT‐11 was determined to be 120 mg/m². In contrast, for Stratum 2 (no EIAEDs), when TMZ was administered at a dose of 200 mg/m², the MTD of CPT‐11 was determined to be 80 mg/m².

CONCLUSIONS:

The authors believe that the results of the current study provide the foundation for a phase 2 trial of O⁶‐BG in combination with CPT‐11 and TMZ in patients with MG. Cancer 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society.     

Daily palonosetron is superior to ondansetron in the prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia

BACKGROUND:

Nausea and vomiting in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) can be from various causes, including the use of high‐dose cytarabine.

METHODS:

The authors compared 2 schedules of palonosetron versus ondansetron in the treatment of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with AML receiving high‐dose cytarabine. Patients were randomized to: 1) ondansetron, 8 mg intravenously (IV), followed by 24 mg continuous infusion 30 minutes before high‐dose cytarabine and until 12 hours after the high‐dose cytarabine infusion ended; 2) palonosetron, 0.25 mg IV 30 minutes before chemotherapy, daily from Day 1 of high‐dose cytarabine up to Day 5; or 3) palonosetron, 0.25 mg IV 30 minutes before high‐dose cytarabine on Days 1, 3, and 5.

RESULTS:

Forty‐seven patients on ondansetron and 48 patients on each of the palonosetron arms were evaluable for efficacy. Patients in the palonosetron arms achieved higher complete response rates (no emetic episodes plus no rescue medication), but the difference was not statistically significant (ondansetron, 21%; palonosetron on Days 1‐5, 31%; palonosetron on Days 1, 3, and 5, 35%; P = .32). Greater than 77% of patients in each arm were free of nausea on Day 1; however, on Days 2 through 5, the proportion of patients without nausea declined similarly in all 3 groups. On Days 6 and 7, significantly more patients receiving palonosetron on Days 1 to 5 were free of nausea (P = .001 and P = .0247, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS:

The daily assessments of emesis did not show significant differences between the study arms. Patients receiving palonosetron on Days 1 to 5 had significantly less severe nausea and experienced significantly less impact of CINV on daily activities on Days 6 and 7. Cancer 2010. © 2010 American Cancer Society.     

Dose‐finding study of 153Sm‐EDTMP in patients with poor‐prognosis osteosarcoma

BACKGROUND:

Samarium‐153 ethylenediaminetetramethylene phosphonic acid (¹⁵³Sm‐EDTMP) has been used to treat patients with high‐risk osteosarcoma. The purpose of the current study was to determine the maximally tolerated dose of ¹⁵³Sm‐EDTMP that permits hematopoietic recovery within 6 weeks.

METHODS:

Patients with recurrent or refractory osteosarcoma with bone metastases were enrolled in this study. Subjects were treated with increasing doses of ¹⁵³Sm‐EDTMP, beginning with 1.0 millicuries (mCi)/kg and followed initially with 40% increment dose level escalations, using a continual reassessment method for dose escalation and de‐escalation with a target dose–limiting toxicity (DLT) rate of 30%. Complete blood counts were monitored weekly, and the primary DLT was defined as failure to achieve an absolute neutrophil count >750/mm³ and a platelet count >75,000/mm³ within 6 weeks of treatment. In addition to assessing toxicity, dosimetry measurements were made to estimate the radiation dose delivered to target lesions.

RESULTS:

The maximally tolerated dose of ¹⁵³Sm‐EDTMP was 44.8 megabecquerel (MBq)/kg (1.21 mCi/kg). DLTs were confined to hematologic toxicities, particularly delayed platelet recovery in 2 patients treated at a dose of 51.8 MBq/kg (1.4 mCi/kg). Grade 2 and 3 pulmonary toxicity (graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria [version 3.0]) as reported in 2 patients (at administered activities of 44.8 MBq/kg and 51.8 MBq/kg) was attributable to progressive pulmonary disease. No other significant nonhematologic toxicities were observed.

CONCLUSIONS:

Patients with osteosarcoma who have previously been heavily treated with chemotherapy can be safely administered ¹⁵³Sm‐EDTMP with rapid hematologic recovery. The data from the current study support the development of a future trial to assess the efficacy of combining targeted radiotherapy with cytotoxic chemotherapy as a treatment option for patients with high‐risk osteosarcoma. Cancer 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society.     

Efficacy and toxicity of 2 schedules of frontline rituximab plus cyclophosphamide,doxorubicin, vincristine,and prednisone plus bortezomib in patients with B‐cell lymphoma

BACKGROUND:

Bortezomib demonstrated promising activity in lymphomas. The authors conducted a randomized phase 2 trial of frontline rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R‐CHOP) with the addition of bortezomib in patients with B‐cell lymphoma.

METHODS:

Patients were randomized between 2 schedules of bortezomib, Arm A (Days 1, 4, 8, and 11) and Arm B (Days 1 and 8), combined with 6 cycles of R‐CHOP. For the first patients (Step 1), bortezomib was given at a dose of 1 mg/m² in Arm A and 1.3 mg/m² in Arm B. For the next patients (Step 2), doses were increased to 1.3 mg/m² and 1.6 mg/m² in Arms A and B, respectively. The primary endpoint was the rate of complete response (CR) and unconfirmed CR (CR/CRu) after 6 cycles.

RESULTS:

Forty‐nine patients were included in the study, and 41 patients (84%) achieved a CR/CRu, ie, 18 of 20 patients (90%) in Arm A and 23 of 29 patients (79%) in Arm B. There were 6 partial responses and 2 patients with progressive disease. Neurologic toxicity occurred in 21 patients (43%) and was grade 2 in 11 patients (7 patients in Step 2) and grade 3 in 10 patients (9 patients in Step 2). Other grade 3 and 4 toxicities included constipation (n = 1), infections (n = 3), and cardiac events (n = 2). Grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia and leucopenia occurred in 14% and 41% of cycles, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS:

R‐CHOP + bortezomib was an effective regimen and produced an 84% CR rate. However, the dose‐limiting neurotoxicity should be kept in mind for further trials with vinca alkaloids or other potentially neurotoxic drugs combination therapies. Cancer 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society.     

Phase 1 multicenter study of vincristine sulfate liposomes injection and dexamethasone in adults with relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia

BACKGROUND:

Dose intensification of chemotherapy has improved outcome for younger adults with de novo acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Novel formulations of standard chemotherapy agents may further reduce the incidence of disease recurrence after frontline chemotherapy. Vincristine (VCR) sulfate liposomes injection (VSLI) is a sphingomyelin/cholesterol nanoparticle encapsulated VCR formulation that improves the pharmacokinetic profile of VCR without augmenting neurotoxicity.

METHODS:

A phase 1 trial of weekly, intravenous VSLI at 1.5 mg/m², 1.825 mg/m², 2.0 mg/m², 2.25 mg/m², or 2.4 mg/m² was conducted to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) using a standard, 3 + 3 dose‐escalation design. Dexamethasone (40 mg) was given on Days 1 through 4 and on Days 11 through 14 of each 4‐week cycle.

RESULTS:

Thirty‐six adults with relapsed/refractory ALL, all previously treated with conventional VCR, received at least 1 dose of VSLI. The MTD of VSLI was 2.25 mg/m² based on dose‐limiting toxicities of grade 3 motor neuropathy, grade 4 seizure, and grade 4 hepatotoxicity in 1 patient each at the 2.4 mg/m² dose level. The most common toxicities attributed to VSLI included peripheral neuropathy (55%) and constipation (53%). A complete response (CR) was achieved in 7 of 36 patients (19%) based on an intent‐to‐treat analysis; the CR rate was 29% for the 14 patients who underwent therapy as their first salvage attempt. Four of 7 patients who achieved a CR underwent subsequent allogeneic stem cell transplantation in remission.

CONCLUSIONS:

In this study, VSLI plus dexamethasone appeared to be an effective salvage therapy option for relapsed/refractory ALL. A phase 2, international, multicenter clinical trial assessing the efficacy of single‐agent VSLI as second salvage therapy for patients with previously treated ALL is underway. Cancer 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society.     

A phase 1 study of efatutazone,an oral peroxisome proliferator‐activated receptor gamma agonist,administered to patients with advanced malignancies

BACKGROUND:

Efatutazone (CS‐7017), a novel peroxisome proliferator‐activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) agonist, exerts anticancer activity in preclinical models. The authors conducted a phase 1 study to determine the recommended phase 2 dose, safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of efatutazone.

METHODS:

Patients with advanced solid malignancies and no curative therapeutic options were enrolled to receive a given dose of efatutazone, administered orally (PO) twice daily for 6 weeks, in a 3 + 3 intercohort dose‐escalation trial. After the third patient, patients with diabetes mellitus were excluded. Efatutazone dosing continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, with measurement of efatutazone pharmacokinetics and plasma adiponectin levels.

RESULTS:

Thirty‐one patients received efatutazone at doses ranging from 0.10 to 1.15 mg PO twice daily. Dose escalation stopped when maximal impact on PPARγ‐related biomarkers had been reached before any protocol‐defined maximum‐tolerated dose level. On the basis of a population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis, the recommended phase 2 dose was 0.5 mg PO twice daily. A majority of patients experienced peripheral edema (53.3%), often requiring diuretics. Three episodes of dose‐limiting toxicities, related to fluid retention, were noted in the 0.10‐, 0.25‐, and 1.15‐mg cohorts. Of 31 treated patients, 27 were evaluable for response. A sustained partial response (PR; 690 days on therapy) was observed in a patient with myxoid liposarcoma. Ten additional patients had stable disease (SD) for ≥60 days. Exposures were approximately dose proportional, and adiponectin levels increased after 4 weeks of treatment at all dose levels. Immunohistochemistry of archived specimens demonstrated that PPARγ and retinoid X receptor expression levels were significantly greater in patients with SD for ≥60 days or PR (P = .0079), suggesting a predictive biomarker.

CONCLUSIONS:

Efatutazone demonstrates acceptable tolerability with evidence of disease control in patients with advanced malignancies. Cancer 2012. © 2012 American Cancer Society.     

Bendamustine is effective therapy in patients with rituximab‐refractory,indolent B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma

BACKGROUND:

Bendamustine hydrochloride is a novel alkylating agent. In this multicenter study, the authors evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of single‐agent bendamustine in patients with rituximab‐refractory, indolent B‐cell lymphoma.

METHODS:

Eligible patients (N = 100, ages 31‐84 years) received bendamustine at a dose of 120 mg/m² by intravenous infusion on Days 1 and 2 every 21 days for 6 to 8 cycles. Histologies included follicular (62%), small lymphocytic (21%), and marginal zone (16%) lymphomas. Patients had received a median of 2 previous regimens (range, 0‐6 previous regimens), and 36%were refractory to their most recent chemotherapy regimen. Primary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR). Secondary endpoints were safety and progression‐free survival (PFS).

RESULTS:

An ORR of 75% (a 14% complete response rate, a 3% unconfirmed complete response rate, and a 58% partial response rate) was observed. The median DOR was 9.2 months, and median PFS was 9.3 months. Six deaths were considered to be possibly treatment related. Grade 3 or 4 (determined using National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria [version 3.0.19]. reversible hematologic toxicities included neutropenia (61%), thrombocytopenia (25%), and anemia (10%). The most frequent nonhematologic adverse events (any grade) included nausea (77%), infection (69%), fatigue (64%), diarrhea (42%), vomiting (40%), pyrexia (36%), constipation (31%), and anorexia (24%).

CONCLUSIONS:

Single‐agent bendamustine produced a high rate of objective responses with acceptable toxicity in patients with recurrent, rituximab‐refractory indolent B‐cell lymphoma. Cancer 2010. © 2010 American Cancer Society.     

A phase 1‐2 study of imexon plus dacarbazine in patients with unresectable metastatic melanoma

BACKGROUND:

Imexon (Amplimexon) is an aziridine compound that increases reactive oxygen species, disrupts mitochondrial membranes, and induces apoptosis. Preclinical studies showed activity against melanoma cell lines and models in mice, and synergy with dacarbazine. The authors evaluated standard doses of dacarbazine combined with increasing doses of imexon to determine the maximal tolerated dose (MTD), toxicities, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy.

METHODS:

Sixty‐eight chemotherapy‐naive melanoma patients (1 inoperable stage III and 67 stage IV) were treated with dacarbazine (250 mg/m²) and imexon (570‐1300 mg/m²), both daily for 5 days every 3 weeks.

RESULTS:

There were 18 patients in the phase 1, and 50 in the phase 2 component of the study. The MTD of imexon with dacarbazine was 1000 mg/m². Dose‐limiting toxicities were pulmonary edema and hepatorenal failure. At the MTD, therapy was well tolerated. The most common toxicities (any grade) were vomiting, diarrhea, anemia, thrombocytopenia, anorexia, fever, and constipation. Among 68 patients, there were 7 treatment‐related serious adverse events. Partial response and stable disease rates were 5.9% and 25% for all subjects and 2% and 30% for the phase 2 patients, respectively. Median progression‐free and overall survival of all patients were 2.0 and 11.7 months and 2 and 7.5 months for the phase 2 patients, respectively. Overall survival of the 31 patients with normal lactate dehydrogenase levels was >22.5 months. Pharmacokinetics of both drugs were similar to previous reports.

CONCLUSIONS:

Imexon plus dacarbazine was well tolerated. The survival data suggest further evaluation in a randomized phase 2 study. Cancer 2010. © 2010 American Cancer Society.     

Phase I trial of volasertib,a Polo‐like kinase inhibitor,in Japanese patients with acute myeloid leukemia

This phase I trial conducted in Japanese patients with acute myeloid leukemia evaluated the safety, maximum tolerated dose and pharmacokinetics of volasertib (BI 6727), a selective Polo‐like kinase inhibitor. The primary endpoints were the maximum tolerated dose of volasertib and the incidence of dose‐limiting toxicities. Secondary endpoints were best response and remission duration. Other endpoints included safety and pharmacokinetics. Patients who were ineligible for standard induction therapy or with relapsed or refractory disease received volasertib monotherapy as a 2‐h infusion on days 1 and 15 of a 28‐day cycle, with dose escalation following a 3 + 3 design. A total of 19 patients were treated with three volasertib doses: 350, 400 and 450 mg. One patient receiving volasertib 450 mg reported a dose‐limiting toxicity of grade 4 abnormal liver function test and 450 mg was determined as the maximum tolerated dose. The most frequently reported adverse events were febrile neutropenia (78.9%), decreased appetite (42.1%), nausea and rash (36.8% each), and sepsis, fatigue, hypokalemia, stomatitis and epistaxis (26.3% each). Best responses were complete remission (n = 3), complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery (n = 3) and partial remission (n = 1). The median remission duration of the six patients with complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery was 85 days (range 56–358). Volasertib exhibited multi‐compartmental pharmacokinetic behavior with a fast distribution after the end of infusion followed by slower elimination phases. Volasertib monotherapy was clinically manageable with acceptable adverse events and anti‐leukemic activity.     

Phase 1 and pharmacokinetic study of everolimus,a mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor,in combination with docetaxel for recurrent/refractory nonsmall cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND:

Everolimus is a novel inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin pathway, which is aberrantly activated in nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The authors conducted a phase 1 and pharmacokinetic study of everolimus and docetaxel for recurrent NSCLC.

METHODS:

Patients with advanced stage NSCLC and progression after prior platinum‐based chemotherapy were eligible. Sequential cohorts were treated with escalating doses of docetaxel (Day 1) and everolimus (orally daily, Days 1‐19) every 3 weeks. Pharmacokinetic sampling of everolimus and docetaxel was done in Cycle 1. The primary endpoint was determination of the recommended phase 2 doses of the combination.

RESULTS:

Twenty‐four patients were enrolled (median age, 62 years; women, 11; number of prior regimens, 1 [n = 13], 2 [n = 6], ≥3 [n = 5]; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, 0 [n = 6], 1 [n = 17]). The dose‐limiting toxicities (DLTs) were fever with grade 3/4 neutropenia, grade 3 fatigue, and grade 3 mucositis. None of the 7 patients treated at the recommended phase 2 dose (docetaxel 60 mg/m² and everolimus 5 mg daily) experienced DLT. Everolimus area under the concentration time curve (AUC) was not different with 60 or 75 mg/m² docetaxel. Mean ± standard deviation AUC‐based accumulation factors for everolimus on Days 8 and 15 were 1.16 ± 0.37 and 1.42 ± 0.42, respectively. Docetaxel Day 1 half‐life was 9.4 ± 3.4 hours. Among 21 patients evaluable, 1 had a partial response, and 10 had disease stabilization.

CONCLUSIONS:

The recommended phase 2 doses of docetaxel and everolimus for combination therapy are 60 mg/m² and 5 mg orally daily, respectively. Promising anticancer activity has been noted. Cancer 2010. © 2010 American Cancer Society.     

Pilot study of huachansu in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma,nonsmall‐cell lung cancer,or pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND:

Huachansu, a Chinese medicine that comes from dried toad venom from the skin glands of Bufo gargarizans or B. melanostictus, has been used in the treatment of various cancers in China. The authors conducted a pilot study, using a phase 1 trial design, of huachansu in patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS:

Huachansu was administered intravenously for 14 days followed by 7 days off (1 cycle). Without significant adverse events or progressive disease, treatment continued beyond 2 cycles. The dose of huachansu was escalated as follows with 3 patients per cohort: 10 (level 1), 20 (level 2), 40 (level 3), 60 (level 4), and 90 (level 5) mL/m².

RESULTS:

Fifteen patients (hepatocellular cancer, n = 11; nonsmall cell lung cancer, n = 2; pancreatic cancer, n = 2) were enrolled in the trial, and no dose‐limiting toxicities (DLTs) were found. Eleven patients had no drug‐related toxicity greater than grade 1. Six (40%) had stable disease (median duration, 6.0 months; range, 3.5‐11.1 months). One of these patients (with hepatocellular cancer) had 20% regression (duration, 11 months) (dose level 1). Quality of life improved for patients with stable disease. Plasma bufalin concentration reached maximal levels at the end of the 2‐hour infusion and was proportional to the amount of drug being administered (0.81‐3.38 ng/mL).

CONCLUSIONS:

No DLT was observed with the use of huachansu at doses up to 8× higher than typically used in China. Six patients had prolonged stable disease or minor tumor shrinkage. Cancer 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society.     

Phase 1 dose‐escalation trial evaluating the combination of the selective MET (mesenchymal‐epithelial transition factor) inhibitor tivantinib (ARQ 197) plus erlotinib

BACKGROUND:

Amplification of the mesenchymal‐epithelial transition factor (MET) gene can promote tumor resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibition. Dual EGFR‐MET inhibition may overcome this resistance. Tivantinib (ARQ 197) is a selective, oral, non–ATP‐competitive, small‐molecule inhibitor of the MET receptor tyrosine kinase. This phase 1 trial assessed the safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary antitumor activity of tivantinib combined with the EGFR inhibitor erlotinib.

METHODS:

Patients with advanced solid malignancies were administered oral tivantinib at escalating doses of 120, 240, 360, and 480 mg twice daily (BID) plus 150 mg erlotinib once daily (QD). Single or multiple intrapatient dose escalation was planned in the absence of dose‐limiting toxicity in the first cycle of therapy (21 days).

RESULTS:

Thirty‐two patients received combination treatment. Tivantinib serum concentrations were not dose‐proportional. The most common (≥20%) adverse events (AEs) regardless of causality included rash (n = 17), fatigue (n = 12), nausea (n = 10), abdominal pain (n = 10), diarrhea (n = 9), bradycardia (n = 9), and anemia (n = 7). AEs considered related to study treatment occurred in 28 patients (87.5%), and 5 patients (15.6%) had treatment‐related serious AEs, including neutropenia, leukopenia, syncope, sinus bradycardia, and sick sinus syndrome. Fifteen of 32 patients (46.8%) had a partial response (n = 1) or stable disease (n = 14) as assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Six of 8 patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer achieved stable disease. The recommended phase 2 dose is tivantinib 360 mg BID plus erlotinib 150 mg QD.

CONCLUSIONS:

Tivantinib plus erlotinib was well tolerated with encouraging clinical activity, especially in patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer. Cancer 2012. © 2012 American Cancer Society.     

Efficacy of imatinib dose escalation in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase

BACKGROUND:

Imatinib mesylate given orally at a daily dose of 400 mg is the standard of care as initial therapy for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in chronic phase (CML‐CP). Treatment guidelines propose dose escalation based on clinical assessments of disease response.

METHODS:

Response and survival were analyzed in a cohort of patients (n = 106) with newly diagnosed CML‐CP who were enrolled on the International Randomized Study of Interferon and STI571 (IRIS) trial, who began treatment with imatinib at a dose of 400 mg daily, and who subsequently underwent dose escalation to either 600 mg or 800 mg daily. Reasons for dose escalation were evaluated retrospectively based on 2 sets of criteria: the IRIS protocol‐defined criteria (n = 39 patients) and the European LeukemiaNet (ELN) recommendations (n = 48 patients).

RESULTS:

Among all 106 patients who underwent dose escalation, the rates of freedom from progression to accelerated phase or blast phase and overall survival were 89% and 84% at 3 years after dose increase, respectively. A cytogenetic response was obtained in 42% of patients who had their dose escalated based on protocol criteria and in 38% of patients who had their dose escalated according to the ELN recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS:

The results from this retrospective analysis supported imatinib dose escalation as an appropriate initial option for patients with CML‐CP who were experiencing suboptimal cytogenetic response or resistance. Cancer 2009. © 2008 American Cancer Society.     

Phase 1 and pharmacokinetic study of concurrent carboplatin and irinotecan in subjects aged 1 to 21 years with refractory solid tumors

BACKGROUND:

Preclinical testing suggests the combination of carboplatin and irinotecan has at least additive antitumor activity. The primary objectives of the current study were to determine the maximum tolerated doses (MTDs) and recommended phase 2 doses of carboplatin administered with irinotecan to pediatric patients with refractory solid tumors.

METHODS:

This was a multicenter, open‐label, single‐arm dose escalation study in which subjects with refractory solid tumors received 21‐day treatment cycles of intravenous carboplatin on Day 1 followed by intravenous irinotecan administered daily for 10 days within 2 consecutive weeks. The plasma pharmacokinetics of ultrafiltrable platinum, irinotecan, and 2 irinotecan metabolites were determined during Cycle 1. The interpatient plan for dose escalation at study initiation was to increase irinotecan first followed by increases in carboplatin.

RESULTS:

Twenty‐eight patients with a median age of 8.5 years (range, 1‐21 years) were enrolled with a variety of solid tumors. Two of 6 subjects at the first dose level (carboplatin target area under the curve [AUC], 4.0 mg/mL*min; irinotecan, 18 mg/m²/dose) experienced dose‐limiting gastrointestinal toxicities requiring a dose de‐escalation scheme (carboplatin AUC, 4.0 mg/mL*min; irinotecan, 15 mg/m²/dose). Three of 6 subjects at the second dose level experienced dose‐limiting gastrointestinal complications and bone marrow suppression. A further dose de‐escalation to carboplatin AUC of 4.0 mg/mL*min and irinotecan of 12 mg/m²/dose resulted in dose‐limiting bone marrow suppression in 1 of 13 patients treated at that dose, and therefore was determined to be the MTD. One complete response (in a patient with medulloblastoma) and 3 partial responses (in patients with neuroblastoma, medulloblastoma, and lymphoendothelial carcinoma, respectively) were observed.

CONCLUSIONS:

The recommended phase 2 dose in heavily pretreated pediatric patients is carboplatin (AUC, 4 mg/mL*min on Day 1) and irinotecan (12 mg/m²/ day × 10 days) given every 21 days. Cancer 2009. © 2008 American Cancer Society.