Decreased exposure to sunitinib due to concomitant administration of ifosfamide: results of a phase I and pharmacokinetic study on the combination of sunitinib and ifosfamide in patients with advanced solid malignancies.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to define the maximally tolerated dose (MTD) of sunitinib combined with two different infusion schedules of ifosfamide. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumours, good performance score, good organ function, and no standard therapy available were eligible. Continuous once daily sunitinib, in escalating doses per cohort, was combined with ifosfamide, 9 g m(-2) for 3 days or 6 g m(-2) for 5 days, administered every 3 weeks. Pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) assessments were performed. RESULTS: With growth-factor support, the MTD of sunitinib combined with either ifosfamide schedule was 12.5 mg in 32 patients enrolled. Neutropenia-related adverse events were dose-limiting toxicities. Sunitinib did not affect ifosfamide PK. Ifosfamide significantly decreased exposure to sunitinib and increased exposure to its metabolite, SU12662. No consistent changes in PD parameters were observed. CONCLUSION: With growth-factor support, the MTD of sunitinib with both ifosfamide schedules was 12.5 mg. Ifosfamide produced decreased sunitinib blood levels because of CYP3A induction. As PK interactions cannot explain the relatively low sunitinib doses that can be combined with ifosfamide, synergy in toxicity is likely. Whether this also holds true for anti-tumour activity needs to be further explored.

Pitfalls of the application of microdialysis in clinical oncology: controversial findings with docetaxel.

Microdialysis is a novel and minimally invasive sampling technique, based on the diffusion of analytes from the interstitial compartment through a semi-permeable membrane, and enables direct assessment of tissue disposition and penetration of drugs. Variable antitumor responses may be associated with differences in tumor vascularity, capillary permeability or tumor interstitial pressure resulting in variable delivery of anticancer agents. In preparation of pharmacokinetic studies, aimed at measuring docetaxel concentrations in healthy and malignant tissues in vivo, in pre-clinical as well as clinical studies, in vitro recovery experiments were performed. In contrast to published data, the recovery experiments suggest that docetaxel has a very low recovery as a result of non-specific binding to currently available microdialysis catheters. Here we discuss our findings with docetaxel in a historical perspective and we report on our experience using polysorbate 80 to eliminate the non-specific binding and its effects on the recovery of docetaxel.

A pharmacokinetic interaction study of docetaxel and cisplatin plus or minus 5-fluorouracil in the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to look at the pharmacokinetics of docetaxel, cisplatin-derived platinum and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), when used in combination, to exclude potential clinically relevant pharmacokinetic interactions. METHODS: Fifteen patients with recurrent or metastatic solid tumors were randomized to receive docetaxel 75 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 in the first treatment course on day 1 and the same combination plus 5-FU 750 mg/m2/day on days 1-5 in the second course, or the two treatment courses in reversed order. Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks. A pharmacokinetic analysis was performed during the first two cycles. RESULTS: Full pharmacokinetic data was available for 12 of the 15 patients. Treatment was tolerated well, with frequency of toxicity consistent with the safety profile known for docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-FU. Mean clearance values for docetaxel and cisplatin showed no statistically significant difference across the "triple" and the "double" combination treatments, and the mean pharmacokinetic parameters of all agents were within the ranges for previously reported single agent treatment. CONCLUSION: No clinically relevant pharmacokinetic interactions between docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-FU used in combination were noticed in this study.

Phase I and pharmacologic study of the novel indoloquinone bioreductive alkylating cytotoxic drug E09.

BACKGROUND: A novel bioreductive alkylating indoloquinone compound, E09 [3-hydroxy-5-aziridinyl-1-methyl-2-(1H-indole-4,7-indione)- prop-F128b-en-alpha-ol], has been shown to have distinct antitumor activity against solid tumors, excellent activity under hypoxic conditions, but no notable bone marrow toxicity in preclinical models. PURPOSE: A phase I study was carried out to determine the toxicity, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacology, and antitumor response of E09. METHODS: E09 was administered as a 5-minute intravenous infusion once every 3 weeks to 32 patients with solid tumors. The starting dose of 2.7 mg/m2 was one tenth of the mouse equivalent of lethal dose to 10% of animals (MELD10). Dose was escalated by 100% until the area under the curve (AUC) at the MELD10 was reached, following a Fibonacci-like schedule. The pharmacokinetics of E09 and its metabolite E05A with an open aziridine ring was determined using a new high-pressure liquid chromatographic method and noncompartmental calculation of kinetic parameters. The sigmoid Emax model was used to fit pharmacokinetic parameters to toxicity. The renal function and proteinuria were quantitated and were further evaluated by determining renal clearance ratios of immunoglobulin G (IgG) to albumin and pancreatic amylase to salivary amylase. RESULTS: The 32 patients were treated with a total of 85 assessable courses of E09. The dose-limiting toxicity was proteinuria, which was accompanied by sodium and water retention. All symptoms were reversible on day 15 except in two patients, who developed acute renal failure. The ratios of IgG to albumin and pancreatic amylase to salivary amylase suggested a loss of glomerular negative charge consistent with a minimal change glomerulopathy. The pharmacokinetics of E09 showed its rapid elimination from the central compartment but with wide interpatient variation in the overall disposition of the drug. Total plasma clearance of E09 ranged from 3.2 to 24 L/min. The AUC of E09 was linearly related to the administered dose. The relationship between the AUC and proteinuria was best fitted by the sigmoid Emax model (r = .98). In two patients with adenocarcinoma of unknown primary site and in a third patient with bile duct cancer, a partial response was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD of E09 was determined to be 27 mg/m2. The standard approach of drug administration is considered unsuitable because of potential renal toxicity and wide variability in the pharmacokinetics of E09. Individual dose adjustments based on plasma concentration measurements are recommended to combine maximally achievable exposure with tolerable toxicity.

Cremophor EL-mediated alteration of paclitaxel distribution in human blood: clinical pharmacokinetic implications.

We have determined the in vitro and in vivo cellular distribution of the antineoplastic agent paclitaxel (Taxol) in human blood and the influence of Cremophor EL (CrEL), the vehicle used for i.v. drug administration. In the absence of CrEL, the blood:plasma concentration ratio was 1.07+/-0.004 (mean+/-SD). The addition of CrEL at concentrations corresponding to peak plasma levels achieved after the administration of paclitaxel (175 mg/m2 i.v. over a 3-h period; ie., 0.50%) resulted in a significant decrease in the concentration ratio (0.690+/-0.005; P < 0.05). Kinetic experiments revealed that this effect was caused by reduced erythrocyte uptake of paclitaxel by polyoxyethyleneglycerol triricinoleate, the major compound present in CrEL. Using equilibrium dialysis, it was shown that the affinity of paclitaxel for tested matrices was (in decreasing order) CrEL > plasma > human serum albumin, with CrEL present at or above the critical micellar concentration (approximately 0.01%). Our findings in the present study demonstrate a profound alteration of paclitaxel accumulation in erythrocytes caused by a trapping of the compound in CrEL micelles, thereby reducing the free drug fraction available for cellular partitioning. It is proposed that the nonlinearity of paclitaxel plasma disposition in patients reported previously should be reevaluated prospectively by measuring the free drug fractions and whole blood:plasma concentration ratios.

Body-surface area-based dosing does not increase accuracy of predicting cisplatin exposure.

PURPOSE: Most anticancer drugs are dosed based on body-surface area (BSA) to reduce interindividual variability of drug effects. We evaluated the relevance of this concept for cisplatin by analyzing cisplatin pharmacokinetics obtained in prospective studies in a large patient population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were obtained from 268 adult patients (163 males/105 females; median age, 54 years [range, 21 to 74 years]) with advanced solid tumors treated in phase I/II trials with cisplatin monotherapy or combination chemotherapy with etoposide, irinotecan, topotecan, or docetaxel. Cisplatin was administered either weekly (n = 93) or once every 3 weeks (n = 175) at dose levels of 50 to 100 mg/m(2) (3-hour infusion). Analysis of 485 complete courses was based on measurement of total and non-protein-bound cisplatin in plasma by atomic absorption spectrometry. RESULTS: No pharmacokinetic interaction was found between cisplatin and the anticancer drugs used in combination therapies. A linear correlation was observed between area under the curves of unbound and total cisplatin (r = 0.63). The mean plasma clearance of unbound cisplatin (CL(free)) was 57.1 +/- 14.7 L/h (range, 31.0 to 116 L/h), with an interpatient variability of 25.6%. BSA varied between 1.43 and 2.40 m(2) (mean, 1.86 +/- 0.19 m(2)), with an interpatient variability of 10.4%. When CL(free) was corrected for BSA, interindividual variability remained in the same order (23.6 v 25.6%). Only a weak correlation was found between CL(free) and BSA (r = 0.42). Intrapatient variability in CL(free), calculated from 90 patients was 12.1% +/- 7.8% (range, 0.30% to 32.7%). CONCLUSION: In view of the high interpatient variability in CL(free) relative to variation in observed BSA, no rationale for continuing BSA-based dosing was found. We recommend fixed-dosing regimens for cisplatin.

Phase I and pharmacologic study of oral topotecan administered twice daily for 21 days to adult patients with solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Topotecan is a specific inhibitor of topoisomerase I. Recently bioavailability of an oral formulation of approximately 30% with limited variability was reported. We conducted a phase I and pharmacokinetic study of the oral formulation of topotecan to characterize the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), toxicities, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor effects in patients with refractory malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were treated with oral topotecan given twice daily for 21 days, with cycles repeated every 28 days. In subsequent cohorts, the dose was escalated from 0.15 to 0.6 mg/m2 twice daily. Pharmacokinetics were performed on day 1 and 8 of the first course using a validated high-performance liquid chromatographic assay and noncompartmental pharmacokinetic methods. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients entered the study; one patient was not assessable for toxicity and response as therapy was prematurely interrupted on request of the patient who had not experienced toxicity. Thirty patients received a total of 59 courses. The dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was reached at a dose of 0.6 mg/m2 twice daily and consisted of diarrhea, which started subacutely at a median onset on day 15 (range, 12 to 20) and resolved after a median of 8 days (range, 7 to 16). Other toxicities were mild, including leukocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea, and vomiting. The MTD was 0.5 mg/m2 twice daily. No responses were observed. Pharmacokinetics showed a substantial variation of the area under the plasma concentration-time curve at time point "t" [AUC(t)] of topotecan and ring-opened product hydroxyacid. A significant correlation was observed between the percentage of decrease in WBC count versus the AUC(t) of topotecan (r = .75), which was modeled by a sigmoidal maximal effect concentration (Emax) function. CONCLUSION: The DLT in this phase I study for chronic oral topotecan for 21 days was diarrhea. The recommended dose for phase II studies is 0.5 mg/m2 twice daily.

Phase I pharmacologic study of oral topotecan and intravenous cisplatin: sequence-dependent hematologic side effects.

PURPOSE: In in vitro studies, synergism and sequence-dependent effects were reported for the combination of topotecan and cisplatin. Recently, an oral formulation of topotecan became available. This phase I study was performed to assess the feasibility of the combination of oral topotecan and cisplatin, the pharmacokinetic interaction, and sequence-dependent effects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Topotecan was administered orally (PO) daily for 5 days in escalating doses and cisplatin was given intravenously (IV) at a fixed dose of 75 mg/m(2) either before topotecan administration on day 1 (sequence CT) or after topotecan administration on day 5 (sequence TC) once every 3 weeks. Patients were treated in a randomized cross-over design. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients were entered onto the study; one patient was not eligible. Sequence CT induced significantly more severe myelosuppression than did sequence TC, and the maximum-tolerated dosage of topotecan in sequence CT was 1.25 mg/m(2)/d x 5. In sequence TC, the maximum-tolerated dosage of topotecan was 2.0 mg/m(2)/d x 5. Dose-limiting toxicity consisted of myelosuppression and diarrhea. Pharmacokinetics of topotecan and cisplatin were linear over the dose range studied; no sequence-dependent effects were observed. In addition, topotecan did not influence the protein binding of cisplatin or the platinum-DNA adduct formation in peripheral leukocytes in either sequence. CONCLUSION: The recommended dosages for phase II studies involving patients like the patients in our study are topotecan 1.25 mg/m(2)/d PO x 5 preceded by cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) IV day 1 once every 3 weeks, and topotecan 2.0 mg/m(2)/d PO followed by cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) IV day 5. No pharmacokinetic interaction could be discerned in our study. The antitumor efficacy of both schedules should be evaluated in a randomized phase II study.

Phase I and pharmacologic study of oral (PEG-1000) 9-aminocamptothecin in adult patients with solid tumors.

PURPOSE: 9-Amino-20(S)-camptothecin (9-AC) is a specific inhibitor of topoisomerase-I. Recently, a bioavailability of approximately 48% for the oral PEG-1000 formulation was reported. We conducted a phase I and pharmacokinetic study of the oral PEG-1000 formulation of 9-AC to define the maximum-tolerated dose, toxicity profiles, pharmacokinetic-dynamic relationships, and preliminary antitumor activity in patients with solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were treated with oral (PEG-1000) 9-AC given once a day for 7 or 14 days at doses ranging from 0.25 to 1.1 mg/m(2)/d; cycles were repeated every 21 days. For pharmacokinetic analysis, plasma sampling was performed on days 1 and 6 or 8 of the first course using a validated high-performance liquid chromatographic assay. RESULTS: Thirty patients were entered onto the study; three patients were not assessable for toxicity and response. Twenty-seven patients received a total of 89 courses. The dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were myelosuppression and diarrhea at a dose of 1.1 mg/m(2)/d for 14 days. Pharmacokinetics showed a substantial interpatient variation of the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of 9-AC. The intrapatient variability was extremely small. A significant correlation was observed between the percentage decrease in WBC count and the AUC of 9-AC lactone (r(2) = 0.86). One partial response was noted in a patient with metastatic colorectal cancer. CONCLUSION: DLTs in this phase I study of oral 9-AC daily for 14 days every 21 days were myelosuppression and diarrhea. The recommended dose for phase II studies is 0.84 mg/m(2)/d. In view of the substantial interpatient variability in AUC and the availability of a limited sampling model, a pharmacokinetic guided phase II study should be considered.

Topotecan lacks third space sequestration.

The objective of this study was to determine the influence of pleural and ascitic fluid on the pharmacokinetics of the antitumor camptothecin derivative topotecan. Four patients with histological proof of malignant solid tumor received topotecan (0.45 or 1.5 mg/m2) p.o. on several occasions in both the presence and absence of third space volumes. Serial plasma and pleural or ascitic fluid samples were collected during each dosing and analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography for both the intact lactone form of topotecan and its ring-opened carboxylate form. The apparent topotecan clearance demonstrated substantial interpatient variability but remained unchanged within the same patient in the presence [110 +/- 55.6 liters/ h/m2 (mean +/- SD of eight courses)] or absence of pleural and ascitic fluid [118 +/- 31.1 liters/h/m2 (mean +/- SD of seven courses)]. Similarly, terminal half-lives and area under the concentration-time curve ratios of lactone:total drug in plasma were similar between courses within each patient. Topotecan penetration into pleural and ascitic fluid demonstrated a mean lag time of 1.61 h (range, 1.37-1.86 h), and ratios with plasma concentration increased with time after dosing in all patients. The mean ratio of third space topotecan total drug area under the concentration-time curve to that in plasma was 0.55 (range, 0.26-0.87). These data indicate that topotecan can be safely administered to patients with pleural effusions or ascites and that there is substantial penetration of topotecan into these third spaces, which may prove beneficial for local antitumor effects.