Phase I Study of Lenalidomide and Sorafenib in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

LESSONS LEARNED: Combination therapies in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma can be associated with overlapping toxicity and are therefore poorly tolerated.Using sorafenib at the maximum tolerated dose can lead to a higher incidence of toxicities. Consequently, combination studies might evaluate sorafenib at alternative schedules or doses to improve tolerance, recognizing this could affect sorafenib efficacy.Although this combination was poorly tolerated, it does not exclude further evaluation of new-generation immunomodulator drugs or immune checkpoint inhibitors in the hope of optimizing tolerance and safety. BACKGROUND: Sorafenib is the standard treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and to date, no combination therapy has demonstrated superior survival compared with sorafenib alone. The immunosuppressive microenvironment in HCC is a negative predictor for survival. Lenalidomide is an immunomodulator and antiangiogenic agent, with limited single-agent efficacy in HCC. Based on these data, we designed a phase I study of sorafenib plus lenalidomide to determine the safety and preliminary antitumor activity of this combination. METHODS: This was an open-label, phase I study with a 3+3 dose escalation/de-escalation design. The starting dose of sorafenib was 400 mg p.o. b.i.d. and of lenalidomide was 15 mg p.o. daily with a planned dose escalation by 5 mg per cohort up to 25 mg daily. Dose de-escalation was planned to a sorafenib dose of 400 mg p.o. daily combined with two doses of lenalidomide: 10 mg p.o. daily for a 28-day cycle (cohort 1) and 10 mg p.o. daily for a 21- or 28-day cycle (cohort 2). Patients with cirrhosis, a Child-Pugh score of A-B7, and no previous systemic therapy were eligible. RESULTS: Five patients were enrolled. Their median age was 56 years (range 39-61), and the ECOG status was 0-2. Four patients were treated at dose level (DL) 1. Because of the poor tolerance to the combination associated with grade 2 toxicities, one more patient was treated at DL -1. No dose-limiting toxicity was observed as specified per protocol. The most common toxicities were nausea, anorexia, pruritus, elevated liver enzymes, and elevated bilirubin. Three patients experienced one or more of the following grade 3 toxicities: fatigue (DL 1), increased bilirubin (DL 1), skin desquamation (DL -1), and elevated transaminase levels (DL 1). The median duration of therapy was 1 cycle (range 1-3). All patients discontinued the study, 4 because of progressive disease and 1 by patient preference. The best confirmed response was progressive disease. The median progression-free survival was 1.0 month (95% confidence interval 0.9-2.8), and the median overall survival was 5.9 months (95% confidence interval 3.68-23.4). CONCLUSION: In our small study, the combination of lenalidomide and sorafenib was poorly tolerated and showed no clinical activity. Although the study was closed early because of toxicity concerns, future studies assessing combinations of sorafenib with new-generation immunomodulator drugs or other immunomodulatory agents, should consider lower starting doses of sorafenib to avoid excessive toxicity.

Phase 1 pharmacogenetic and pharmacodynamic study of sorafenib with concurrent radiation therapy and gemcitabine in locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: To define the safety, efficacy, and pharmacogenetic and pharmacodynamic effects of sorafenib with gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in locally advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients received gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) intravenously weekly × 3 every 4 weeks per cycle for 1 cycle before CRT and continued for up to 4 cycles after CRT. Weekly gemcitabine 600 mg/m(2) intravenously was given during concurrent intensity modulated radiation therapy of 50 Gy to gross tumor volume in 25 fractions. Sorafenib was dosed orally 400 mg twice daily until progression, except during CRT when it was escalated from 200 mg to 400 mg daily, and 400 mg twice daily. The maximum tolerated dose cohort was expanded to 15 patients. Correlative studies included dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and angiogenesis genes polymorphisms (VEGF-A and VEGF-R2 single nucleotide polymorphisms). RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were enrolled. No dose-limiting toxicity occurred during induction gemcitabine/sorafenib followed by concurrent CRT. The most common grade 3/4 toxicities were fatigue, hematologic, and gastrointestinal. The maximum tolerated dose was sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. The median progression-free survival and overall survival for 25 evaluable patients were 10.6 and 12.6 months, respectively. The median overall survival for patients with VEGF-A -2578 AA, -1498 CC, and -1154 AA versus alternate genotypes was 21.6 versus 14.7 months. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI demonstrated higher baseline K(trans) in responding patients. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent sorafenib with CRT had modest clinical activity with increased gastrointestinal toxicity in localized unresectable pancreatic cancer. Select VEGF-A/VEGF-R2 genotypes were associated with favorable survival.

Phase II and gene expression analysis trial of neoadjuvant capecitabine plus irinotecan followed by capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: Hoosier Oncology Group GI03-53.

PURPOSE: We designed this study in locally advanced rectal cancer to determine the pathological response, toxicity, and disease-free survival (DFS) with induction capecitabine plus irinotecan followed by capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and analyze the gene expression of enzymes involved in the metabolism of capecitabine and irinotecan for associations with response and toxicity. METHODS: Patients with T3/T4 or node positive rectal cancer were treated with capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily (BID) days 1-14, and irinotecan 200 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 21 days for 2 cycles, followed by capecitabine 825 mg/m(2) BID days 1-5 per week with concurrent radiotherapy 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions. Surgical resection occurred a median of 7.4 weeks after CRT. Gene expression levels or sequencing were used to analyze carboxylesterase-converting enzymes (CES1, CES2), thymidylate synthase (TS), thymidine phosphorylase (TP), dehydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), topoisomerase I (TOPO I), and uridine-diphosphate (UDP) glucuronosyl transferase 1A1 in pre- and post-treatment tumor and normal tissue samples. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were enrolled, and 18 completed neoadjuvant therapy and underwent R0 resection. Two patients with UGT1A1 7/7 had grade 3 and 4 neutropenic fever and sepsis. Pathological complete response (pCR) occurred in 6 of 18 patients (33 %) and 10 (56 %) had tumor and/or nodal downstaging. The 3-year DFS was 75.5 % (95 % CI, 39.7-91.8 %). Locoregional control rate was 100 %. We observed higher TP gene expression in pCR patients, but no correlations with toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: This neoadjuvant regimen was safe and demonstrated significant antitumor activity. High TP tumor gene expression was associated with obtaining pCR.

Pemetrexed plus cetuximab in patients with recurrent non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a phase I/II study from the Hoosier Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: Pemetrexed is a standard treatment against recurrent non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and cetuximab has single-agent activity against NSCLC. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of the combination of these agents in patients with advanced NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with recurrent NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1 were entered. Patients on the phase I portion of the study received cetuximab 400 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) on day -7 followed by weekly doses of cetuximab at 250 mg/m2 IV with escalating doses of pemetrexed every 3 weeks (dose levels: 500, 600, 750, 900 mg/m2) in a standard 3 + 3 design. Once the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination was determined, patients were enrolled on the phase II portion. The primary end point was to determine the median time to disease progression (TTP) (null hypothesis 12 weeks, alternative hypothesis 24 weeks). RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were enrolled (phase I: n = 13, phase II: n = 23). Patient characteristics included 60.6% men, median age 64 years (range, 37-80 years), 57.6% had performance status 0 and 54.6% had adenocarcinoma histology. The median number of previous regimens was 2 (range, 1-6). The maximum tolerated dose of pemetrexed in combination with cetuximab was determined to be 750 mg/m2. The median TTP was 14.6 weeks. The median survival time was 42 weeks and 1-year survival was 38.5%. CONCLUSION: The combination of pemetrexed at 750 mg/m2 every 21 days with weekly cetuximab at 250 mg/m2 was feasible; however, in this unselected patient population, the combination regimen does not seem to improve TTP compared with historical controls of either single agent.

A randomized, double-blind, phase II study of two doses of pemetrexed as first-line chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Pemetrexed has shown varied response rates in advanced breast cancer. This randomized, double-blind, phase II study was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of two doses of pemetrexed in a homogeneous population. A secondary objective was to identify molecular biomarkers correlating with response and toxicity. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with newly diagnosed metastatic breast cancer or locally recurrent breast cancer received 600 mg/m(2) (P600 arm) or 900 mg/m(2) (P900 arm) of pemetrexed on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. All patients received folic acid and vitamin B(12) supplementation. RESULTS: The P600 (47 patients) and P900 (45 patients) arms had response rates of 17.0% (95% confidence interval, 7.7-30.8%) and 15.6% (95% confidence interval, 6.5-29.5%) with approximately 50% stable disease per arm, median progression-free survival of 4.2 and 4.1 months, and median times to tumor progression of 4.2 and 4.6 months, respectively. Both arms exhibited minimal toxicity (grade 3/4 neutropenia <20%, leukopenia <9%, and other toxicities <5%). Tumor samples from 49 patients were assessed for the expression levels of 12 pemetrexed-related genes. Folylpolyglutamate synthetase and thymidine phosphorylase correlated with efficacy. Best response rates and median time to tumor progression for high versus low thymidine phosphorylase expression were 27.6% versus 6.3% (P = 0.023) and 5.4 versus 1.9 months (P = 0.076), and for folylpolyglutamate synthetase were 37.5% versus 10.0% (P = 0.115) and 8.6 versus 3.0 months (P = 0.019), respectively. gamma-Glutamyl hydrolase expression correlated with grade 3/4 toxicities: 78.6% for high versus 27.3% for low gamma-glutamyl hydrolase (P = 0.024). CONCLUSION: The two pemetrexed doses yielded similar efficacy and safety profiles. Exploratory biomarker analysis identified efficacy and toxicity correlations and warrants further evaluation.

Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of pemetrexed with high-dose folic acid supplementation or multivitamin supplementation in patients with locally advanced or metastatic cancer.

PURPOSE: This phase I study evaluated the effect of folate supplementation on the toxicity, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of pemetrexed in patients with locally advanced or metastatic cancer. It also examined two different types of vitamin supplementation and whether the extent of prior myelosuppressive therapy affected pemetrexed tolerability. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received a 10-min infusion of 600 to 14,00 mg/m(2) pemetrexed every 3 weeks. Patients were stratified into cohorts by pretreatment status [lightly pretreated (LPT) or heavily pretreated (HPT)] and were supplemented with intermittent high-dose folic acid (HDFA) or with continuous daily multivitamins (MVI) containing nutritional doses of folic acid. Pemetrexed plasma pharmacokinetics were evaluated for cycle 1. RESULTS: Sixty-two HDFA patients (28 HPT and 34 LPT) were treated with 204 cycles of pemetrexed, and 43 MVI patients (20 HPT and 23 LPT) were treated with 182 cycles. Hematologic dose-limiting toxicities included grade 4 neutropenia (5 of 105 patients), grade 4 thrombocytopenia (4 of 105 patients), and febrile neutropenia (3 of 105 patients). Nonhematologic toxicities included fatigue, vomiting, diarrhea, and nausea. Pemetrexed doses of 800 and 1,050 mg/m(2) were well tolerated when administered with vitamin supplementation to HPT and LPT patients, respectively. There were no clinically relevant differences in toxicities or pemetrexed pharmacokinetics for LPT versus HPT patients or for patients receiving HDFA versus daily MVI supplementation. CONCLUSIONS: The pemetrexed doses tolerated in this study with vitamin supplementation were significantly higher than those tolerated in earlier studies without supplementation, and toxicities were independent of the type of vitamin supplementation or prior myelosuppressive treatment. The recommended dose of pemetrexed is 1,050 mg/m(2) in LPT patients and 800 mg/m(2) in HPT patients, irrespective of the type of vitamin supplementation.

Pemetrexed in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had received previous anthracycline and taxane treatment: phase II study.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed in pretreated patients with advanced-stage breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced-stage or metastatic breast cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, and progressive or relapsed disease after treatment with regimens containing anthracyclines and taxanes were eligible. Pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 was administered as a 10-minute intravenous infusion on day 1 every 21 days. RESULTS: Seventy-nine women were enrolled. After protocol amendment, 43 patients received folic acid and vitamin B12 supplementation to control pemetrexed-related toxicity. A median of 4 cycles (range, 1-23 cycles) was administered. Overall response rate was 9% (95% confidence interval, 3.7%-17.6%), median duration of response was 5.5 months, median progression-free survival was 3.1 months, and median survival was 10.5 months. Major grade 3/4 toxicities were lymphopenia (53.3%), neutropenia (36.4%), leukopenia (26.9%), and anemia (7.7%). In general, the toxicities were less frequent in patients who received vitamin supplementation than in those who did not receive vitamin supplementation. CONCLUSION: The response to pemetrexed salvage treatment was low in this study of heavily pretreated patients with breast cancer. Pemetrexed was generally well tolerated in patients with previously treated breast cancer. Vitamin supplementation appeared to ameliorate toxicity.

Phase II study of pemetrexed in patients pretreated with an anthracycline, a taxane, and capecitabine for advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: This phase II study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and health outcomes of pemetrexed treatment in heavily pretreated patients with advanced breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with metastatic breast cancer, Karnofsky performance status > or = 70, and previous treatment with > or = 3 regimens containing anthracyclines, taxanes, and capecitabine were eligible. Pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 intravenous infusion was administered on day 1 of a 21-day treatment cycle. RESULTS: Eighty patients were enrolled, and 60 received concurrent folic acid and vitamin B12 supplements per protocol amendment to minimize possible pemetrexed-related toxicity. The median numbers of cycles delivered were 3 for vitamin-supplemented patients and 2 for non-vitamin-supplemented patients. Regardless of vitamin supplementation, the overall response rate was 8% (95% CI, 3%-16.6%), stable disease was exhibited in 36% of patients, median time to disease progression was 2.9 months, and median survival was 8.2 months. Improvements in patient-reported symptoms ranged from 16.2% for pain intensity to 32.1% for nausea. Major grade 3/4 toxicities were hematologic, with grade 4 neutropenia in 10% of patients and grade 3 toxicities consisting primarily of neutropenia (29%) and leukopenia (21%). There were no clear trends of the effect of supplementation on toxicity. CONCLUSION: Pemetrexed has modest antitumor activity and is well tolerated in heavily pretreated patients with breast cancer. Further evaluation of this multitargeted antifolate in advanced breast cancer is warranted.

Phase I study of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin and gemcitabine in patients with advanced malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PEG-LD) and gemcitabine have single-agent activity in breast and ovarian carcinoma patients. We conducted a Phase I trial to evaluate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and toxicities of this combination in patients with advanced malignancies. METHODS: Twenty-six patients with refractory or recurrent malignancies were enrolled in this dose escalation trial. Dose escalation proceeded from a starting level of PEG-LD 20 mg/m(2) and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) administered on Days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. RESULTS: The MTD was PEG-LD 20 mg/m(2) and gemcitabine 2000 mg/m(2) administered on Days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Dose-limiting toxicity, a Grade 3 rash, was observed in one patient during Cycle 1 and Grade 3 stomatitis and a rash were observed in a second patient during Cycle 2 after administration of PEG-LD 25 mg/m(2) and gemcitabine 2000 mg/m(2). Other side effects included palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, nausea, and fatigue. One complete and two partial responses were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended Phase II dose is PEG-LD 20 mg/m(2) with gemcitabine 2000 mg/m(2) on Days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. A trial with this combination is currently ongoing at this institution comprising patients with refractory ovarian carcinoma.