European Network of Gynaecological Oncological Trial Groups' Requirements for Trials Between Academic Groups and Industry Partners--First Update 2015.

The first version of ENGOT's Requirements for Trials Between Academic Groups and Industry Partners in Europe was published 2010. This first update integrates the experiences made by the ENGOT network and the cooperative group studies while performing, analyzing, and publishing -among others - three large phase III trials. Furthermore, progress in European legislation and its impact on clinical studies in Europe have been considered in this update process.

Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) consensus review for mullerian adenosarcoma of the female genital tract.

Mullerian adenosarcomas of the female genital tract are rare malignancies, originally described in the uterus, the most common site of origin, but they may also arise in extrauterine locations. Uterine adenosarcomas make up 5% of uterine sarcomas and tend to occur in postmenopausal women. They are usually low-grade tumors and are characterized by a benign epithelial component with a malignant mesenchymal component, which is typically a low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma but can also be a high-grade sarcoma. Tumors that exhibit a high-grade sarcomatous overgrowth have a worse outcome. Adenosarcomas have been described as being midway along the spectrum between benign adenofibromas and carcinosarcomas. They generally have a good prognosis with the exception of deeply invasive tumors or those with high-grade sarcomatous overgrowth. Extrauterine adenosarcomas also have a higher risk for recurrence. In view of their rarity, there have not been any clinical trials in mullerian adenosarcomas and relatively little research. This article reviews the current knowledge and provides recommendation for the management of mullerian adenosarcomas.

Long-term neurocognitive, psychosocial, and physical outcomes after prenatal exposure to radiotherapy: a multicentre cohort study of the International Network on Cancer, Infertility, and Pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: The main data available on the safety of radiation during pregnancy originate from animal studies and from studies of survivors of atomic or nuclear disasters. The effect of radiotherapy to treat maternal cancer on fetal development is uncertain. This report presents a unique cohort and aims to determine the long-term neurocognitive, psychosocial and physical outcomes of offspring of mothers treated with radiotherapy during pregnancy. METHODS: In this international, multicentre, mixed retrospective-prospective cohort study, we recruited participants between Aug 5, 2006, and Aug 24, 2023, aged between 1·5 and 46 years, at three referral centres in Belgium, the Netherlands, and the USA. Participants were eligible if they were born from mothers treated with radiotherapy during pregnancy. Fetal radiation doses were obtained from medical records and participants were followed up at predefined ages (1·5, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 years) and 5-yearly in adulthood, based on age at enrolment, using a neurocognitive test battery (measuring intelligence, attention, and memory), parent-reported executive function and psychosocial questionnaires, and a medical assessment. Results were compared with test-specific normative data. Linear regression models investigated associations between radiotherapy factors (fetal radiation dose, gestational age at the start and end of radiotherapy, and radiotherapy duration) and outcomes. FINDINGS: 68 maternal cases of radiotherapy during pregnancy were registered by the three participating centres, of which 61 resulted in a livebirth and were therefore eligible to participate in the child follow-up study. After excluding those who did not give consent, 43 participants born from 42 mothers treated with radiotherapy during pregnancy were included in the study (median age at first assessment 3 years [IQR 2-11]; median age at last assessment 12 years [9-18]; median number of assessments two [1-4]). 18 (42%) of the included participants were female and 25 (58%) male, and 37 (86%) were of White ethnicity. Mean neurocognitive outcomes of the entire cohort were within normal ranges. No associations were found with fetal radiation dose or timing of radiotherapy during pregnancy. Six (16%) of 38 participants with neurocognitive outcomes scored lower than one SD on at least one neurocognitive outcome, three (7%) reported chronic medical conditions (spasmophilia, spastic diplegia, and IgG deficiency), and three (7%) were diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (of whom two scored lower on attention). Of ten (23%) participants with lower neurocognitive score(s), a chronic medical condition, or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, eight were born preterm. The remaining 33 (77%) participants showed no neurocognitive, psychosocial, or chronic physical problems. INTERPRETATION: We show on average normal neurocognitive, psychosocial, and physical outcomes after prenatal exposure to radiotherapy. Differences in outcomes could not be explained by exposure to radiotherapy during pregnancy. These results suggest that extra-abdomino-pelvic radiotherapy exposure during pregnancy in general does not adversely affect outcomes of liveborn children. Further research with a larger sample is necessary to confirm these findings. FUNDING: Kom Op Tegen Kanker, KWF Kankerbestrijding, Stichting Tegen Kanker, Research Foundation Flanders.

Pharmacokinetics of chemotherapeutic agents in pregnancy: a preclinical and clinical study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of physiologic changes of pregnancy on pharmacokinetics of chemotherapeutic agents. DESIGN: A preclinical and a clinical case-control trial. SETTING: Institute of Primate Research Nairobi and collaborating hospitals in Belgium, the Netherlands and Czech Republic. POPULATION: Pregnant and nonpregnant women and baboons receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: Chemotherapy pharmacokinetics was compared between the pregnant and nonpregnant state. Standard-dosed chemotherapy regimens were administered in pregnant and nonpregnant baboons/women, followed by serial blood samplings. Drug plasma levels were determined using high performance liquid chromatography and atomic absorption spectrometry. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Area under the curve (AUC), maximal plasma concentration, terminal elimination half-life, clearance and distribution volume of each drug in pregnant and nonpregnant state. RESULTS: Intraindividual comparative pharmacokinetic data were obtained for doxorubicin and paclitaxel/platinum in three and two baboons, respectively. In the clinical trial, two patients were exposed to doxorubicin and one patient was exposed to paclitaxel/platinum during and after pregnancy. Furthermore, a pooled analysis was performed based on 16 cycles of pregnant and 11 cycles of nonpregnant women. Numbers of pregnant/nonpregnant patients were 5/2, 7/5, 4/4 and 2/2 for paclitaxel, doxorubicin, epirubicin and platinum, respectively. For all drugs tested in the preclinical and clinical study, a decreased AUC and maximal plasma concentration and an increased distribution volume and clearance were observed in pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Although numbers were too small for statistical significance, pregnancy-associated physiologic alterations appear to lead to a decrease in plasma exposure of chemotherapeutic drugs. The importance of long-term follow-up of women treated with chemotherapy during pregnancy is underscored.

Preferences to receive unsolicited findings of germline genome sequencing in a large population of patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: In precision medicine, somatic and germline DNA sequencing are essential to make genome-guided treatment decisions in patients with cancer. However, it can also uncover unsolicited findings (UFs) in germline DNA that could have a substantial impact on the lives of patients and their relatives. It is therefore critical to understand the preferences of patients with cancer concerning UFs derived from whole-exome (WES) or whole-genome sequencing (WGS). METHODS: In a quantitative multicentre study, adult patients with cancer (any stage and origin of disease) were surveyed through a digital questionnaire based on previous semi-structured interviews. Background knowledge was provided by showing two videos, introducing basic concepts of genetics and general information about different categories of UFs (actionable, non-actionable, reproductive significance, unknown significance). RESULTS: In total 1072 patients were included of whom 701 participants completed the whole questionnaire. Overall, 686 (85.1%) participants wanted to be informed about UFs in general. After introduction of four UFs categories, 113 participants (14.8%) changed their answer: 718 (94.2%) participants opted for actionable variants, 537 (72.4%) for non-actionable variants, 635 (87.0%) participants for UFs of reproductive significance and 521 (71.8%) for UFs of unknown significance. Men were more interested in receiving certain UFs than women: non-actionable: OR 3.32; 95% CI 2.05 to 5.37, reproductive significance: OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.05 to 3.67 and unknown significance: OR 2.00; 95% CI 1.25 to 3.21. In total, 244 (33%) participants conceded family members to have access to their UFs while still alive. 603 (82%) participants agreed to information being shared with relatives, after they would pass away. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that the vast majority of patients with cancer desires to receive all UFs of genome testing, although a substantial minority does not wish to receive non-actionable findings. Incorporation of categories in informed consent procedures supports patients in making informed decisions on UFs.

Clinical and pharmacologic study of the novel prodrug delimotecan (MEN 4901/T-0128) in patients with solid tumors.

PURPOSE: To investigate i.v. administration of delimotecan (MEN 4901/T-0128), a carboxymethyldextran polymer prodrug of the active camptothecin derivative T-2513, and to assess the maximum tolerated dose, safety profile, clinical pharmacology, and antitumor activity of delimotecan and metabolites. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with solid tumors refractory to standard therapy received i.v. delimotecan as 3-hour infusion once every 6 weeks. The starting dose was 150 mg/m2, followed by an accelerated dose escalation with at least one patient per dose level. The pharmacokinetics of delimotecan, T-2513, and its metabolites, SN-38, SN-38G, T-1335, T-0055, and T-3921, were assessed in plasma and urine, and their pharmacodynamics were determined by measuring the effect of the treatment on hematologic and nonhematologic toxicity. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients received 35 courses. Dose-limiting toxicities were observed at 5,400 mg/m2 (n = 1), 3,600 mg/m2 (n = 1), and 2,400 mg/m2 (n = 2). The dose level of 1,800 mg/m2 was determined as maximum tolerated dose. Two partial responses were observed in patients with anal cancer (1800 mg/m2) and head and neck cancer (2400 mg/m2). Delimotecan had a long terminal half-life of 109 h, and relatively high exposures to T-2513 and SN-38 were obtained. The percentage decrease in WBC and absolute neutrophil count significantly correlated with the dose of delimotecan. CONCLUSIONS: Based on its preliminary antitumor activity, safety profile, and pharmacokinetic profile, we recommend to evaluate delimotecan given as 3-hour infusion once every 6 weeks at a dose level of 1,800 mg/m2 in a phase II study.

A phase I, randomized, open-label, parallel-cohort, dose-finding study of elacridar (GF120918) and oral topotecan in cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer resistance protein (ABCG2) substantially limits the oral bioavailability of topotecan. Coadministration with elacridar, an inhibitor of breast cancer resistance protein-mediated drug transport, increases the bioavailability of topotecan. The aim of this study was to establish the lowest effective dose of elacridar to obtain maximum oral bioavailability of topotecan and to determine the optimal schedule of coadministration of oral topotecan and elacridar. In the second part of this study, dose-limiting toxicities and maximum tolerated dose of oral topotecan coadministered with elacridar, at a daily times five regimen administered every 21 days, were established. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In part I, 20 patients were randomized to receive 100, 300, 500, 700, or 1,000 mg of elacridar on days 1 and 8 1 h before or simultaneously with 2.0 mg oral topotecan, which was also randomized. On day 15, all patients were treated with 1.5 mg/m(2) i.v. topotecan. In part II of the study, patients were treated daily with oral topotecan and with the lowest effective dose of elacridar following from part I. The maximum tolerated dose and dose-limiting toxicity were determined in cohorts of three patients. Blood samples were taken on days 1, 8, and 15 of part I and on day 1 of cycles 1 and 2 of part II. RESULTS: Complete apparent oral bioavailability of topotecan (102 +/- 7%) for all treatment arms with elacridar in both schedules was seen in part I. In the topotecan dose escalation part, two dose-limiting toxicities were seen at the 2.5 mg topotecan dose level. CONCLUSION: The recommended schedule is 2.0 mg oral topotecan plus 100 mg elacridar administered concomitantly daily times five every 21 days.

Phase I pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of the oral protein kinase C beta-inhibitor enzastaurin in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: Enzastaurin targets the protein kinase C and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/AKT pathways to reduce tumor angiogenesis and cell proliferation and to induce cell death. A phase I trial was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of combining enzastaurin with gemcitabine and cisplatin. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with advanced cancer received a 14-day lead-in treatment with oral enzastaurin followed by subsequent 21-day cycles of daily enzastaurin, gemcitabine on days 1 and 8, and cisplatin on day 1. Enzastaurin doses were escalated between 350 mg once daily to 500 mg twice daily, whereas gemcitabine doses were either 1,000 or 1,250 mg/m(2) and cisplatin doses were either 60 or 75 mg/m(2). Circulating endothelial cell numbers and CD146 and CD133 mRNA expression were evaluated as pharmacodynamic markers. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients (median age, 58 years) were enrolled in seven dose levels. The maximum tolerated dose was not identified. Two dose-limiting toxicities (grade 2 QT interval corrected for heart rate prolongation and grade 3 fatigue) were reported. Other toxicities included grade 3/4 neutropenia (3 of 6 patients), thrombocytopenia (1 of 6 patients), grade 3 leukopenia (2 patients), and fatigue (5 patients). Enzastaurin twice daily (> or =250 mg) resulted in more discontinuations and low-grade toxicities. In the combination, enzastaurin exposures decreased slightly but remained above the target of 1,400 nmol/L, whereas gemcitabine/cisplatin exposures were unaltered. Three patients (9.1%) had partial responses and 13 (39.4%) had stable disease. Measurement of circulating endothelial cell numbers and CD146 and CD133 mRNA expression did not contribute to decision-making on dose escalation. CONCLUSIONS: Recommended phase II dose is 500 mg enzastaurin once daily, 1,250 mg/m(2) gemcitabine, and 75 mg/m(2) cisplatin. This regimen is well tolerated with no significant alterations in the pharmacokinetic variables of any drug.

Identifying patients with a history of ovarian cancer for referral for genetic counselling: non-randomised comparison of two case-finding strategies in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines recommend genetic counselling and DNA testing (GCT) for patients with ovarian cancer and survivors of ovarian cancer. Finding survivors of ovarian cancer is challenging. Detecting and referring them for GCT via primary care, to allow proper screening recommendations for patients and their family, may be a solution. AIM: To compare the effectiveness and acceptance of two pilot strategies directed at case finding women with a history of ovarian cancer for referral for GCT by their GP. DESIGN AND SETTING: Non-randomised comparison of the pilot implementation of two case-finding strategies for women with a history of ovarian cancer in Dutch primary care from May 2016 to April 2017. METHOD: Strategy A (unsupported) asked GPs to identify and refer eligible patients with a history of ovarian cancer. Strategy B (ICT-supported) provided GPs with information and communication technology (ICT) support to identify patients with a history of ovarian cancer electronically. The effectiveness of each strategy was assessed as the proportion of patients who were approached, referred for GCT, and seen by the clinical geneticist. Acceptance of each strategy was assessed by the intervention uptake of GP practices and GP and patient questionnaires. RESULTS: Nineteen out of 30 (63%) patients identified with a history of ovarian cancer were deemed eligible for referral for strategy A, and 39 out of 94 (41%) for strategy B. For each strategy, eight patients were referred and five (63%) were seen for GCT. The intervention uptake by GP practices was 31% (11 out of 36) for strategy A and 46% (21 out of 46) for strategy B. GPs considered 'relevance' and 'workability' as facilitators across both strategies whereas, for strategy B, technical barriers hindered implementation. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness and acceptance of both strategies for case finding of survivors of ovarian cancer in primary care for GCT is promising, but larger studies are required before wide-scale implementation is warranted.

Pharmacogenetic screening of CYP3A and ABCB1 in relation to population pharmacokinetics of docetaxel.

PURPOSE: Despite the extensive clinical experience with docetaxel, unpredictable interindividual variability in efficacy and toxicity remain important limitations associated with the use of this anticancer drug. Large interindividual pharmacokinetic variability has been associated with variation in toxicity profiles. Genetic polymorphisms in drug-metabolizing enzymes and drug transporters could possibly explain the observed pharmacokinetic variability. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate the influence of polymorphisms in the CYP3A and ABCB1 genes on the population pharmacokinetics of docetaxel. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Whole blood samples were obtained from patients with solid tumors and treated with docetaxel to quantify the exposure to docetaxel. DNA was collected to determine polymorphisms in the CYP3A and ABCB1 genes with DNA sequencing. A population pharmacokinetic analysis of docetaxel was done using nonlinear mixed-effect modeling. RESULTS: In total, 92 patients were assessable for pharmacokinetic analysis of docetaxel. A three-compartmental model adequately described the pharmacokinetics of docetaxel. Several polymorphisms in the CYP3A and ABCB1 genes were found, with allele frequencies of 0.54% to 48.4%. The homozygous C1236T polymorphism in the ABCB1 gene (ABCB1*8) was significantly correlated with a decreased docetaxel clearance (-25%; P = 0.0039). No other relationships between polymorphisms and pharmacokinetic variables reached statistical significance. Furthermore, no relationship between haplotypes of CYP3A and ABCB1 and the pharmacokinetics could be identified. CONCLUSIONS: The polymorphism C1236T in the ABCB1 gene was significantly related to docetaxel clearance. Our current finding may provide a meaningful tool to explain interindividual differences in docetaxel treatment in daily practice.

Recombinant human angiostatin by twice-daily subcutaneous injection in advanced cancer: a pharmacokinetic and long-term safety study.

PURPOSE: A clinical study was performed to evaluate the pharmacokinetics (PK) and toxicity of three dose levels of the angiogenesis inhibitor recombinant human (rh) angiostatin when administered twice daily by s.c. injection. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Eligible patients had cancer not amenable to standard treatments. Three groups of 8 patients received 7.5, 15, or 30 mg/m(2)/day divided in two s.c. injections for 28 consecutive days followed by a 7-day washout period. PK assessment was done at days 1 and 28. Thereafter, in absence of toxicity or a 100% increase in tumor size, treatment was continued without interruption. RESULTS: Median age was 53 years (range, 43-75), male:female ratio 10:14, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance 0-1. At the range of doses evaluated, serum PK of all 24 of the patients showed linear relation between dose and area under the curve (0- infinity) and C(max) (reached after 2 h). Thirteen of 24 patients developed erythema at injection sites (11 patients, CTC grade 1; 2 patients, CTC grade 2) without pain or itching, spontaneously resolving within 2-3 weeks of treatment. Two patients went off study after developing hemorrhage in brain metastases, and 2 patients developed deep venous thrombosis. No other relevant treatment-related toxicities were seen, even during prolonged treatment. A panel of coagulation parameters was not influenced by rhAngiostatin treatment. Long-term (>6 months) stable disease (<25% growth of measurable uni- or bidimensional tumor size) was observed in 6 of 24 patients. Five patients received rhAngiostatin treatment for >1 year (overall median time on treatment 99 days). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term twice-daily s.c. treatment with rhAngiostatin is well tolerated and feasible at the selected doses, and merits additional evaluation. Systemic exposure to rhAngiostatin is within the range of drug exposure that has biological activity in preclinical models.

Late release of circulating endothelial cells and endothelial progenitor cells after chemotherapy predicts response and survival in cancer patients.

We and others have previously demonstrated that the acute release of progenitor cells in response to chemotherapy actually reduces the efficacy of the chemotherapy. Here, we take these data further and investigate the clinical relevance of circulating endothelial (progenitor) cells (CE(P)Cs) and modulatory cytokines in patients after chemotherapy with relation to progression-free and overall survival (PFS/OS). Patients treated with various chemotherapeutics were included. Blood sampling was performed at baseline, 4 hours, and 7 and 21 days after chemotherapy. The mononuclear cell fraction was analyzed for CE(P)C by FACS analysis. Plasma was analyzed for cytokines by ELISA or Luminex technique. CE(P)Cs were correlated with response and PFS/OS using Cox proportional hazard regression analysis. We measured CE(P)Cs and cytokines in 71 patients. Only patients treated with paclitaxel showed an immediate increase in endothelial progenitor cell 4 hours after start of treatment. These immediate changes did not correlate with response or survival. After 7 and 21 days of chemotherapy, a large and consistent increase in CE(P)C was found (P < .01), independent of the type of chemotherapy. Changes in CE(P)C levels at day 7 correlated with an increase in tumor volume after three cycles of chemotherapy and predicted PFS/OS, regardless of the tumor type or chemotherapy. These findings indicate that the late release of CE(P)C is a common phenomenon after chemotherapeutic treatment. The correlation with a clinical response and survival provides further support for the biologic relevance of these cells in patients' prognosis and stresses their possible use as a therapeutic target.

The molecular basis of class side effects due to treatment with inhibitors of the VEGF/VEGFR pathway.

UNLABELLED: Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) is considered to be one of the most important regulators of angiogenesis and a new key target in anti-cancer treatment. Various clinical trials have validated the clinical importance of anti-VEGF or anti-VEGF receptor (VEGFR) therapy. Currently the humanized monoclonal antibody bevacizumab (blocks VEGF-A), and the tyrosine kinase inhibitors sunitinib and sorafenib (inhibit VEGFRs) are approved for patients with various malignancies and several others are expected in the coming years. Unfortunately, anti-VEGF/VEGFR treatment is not void of side effects. An array of unexpected side effects is now seen in clinical practice. Management of these side effects is extremely important in the development of the various anti-VEGF/VEGFR therapies and their optimal use. This review provides an overview of the toxicity profile of this class of agents, the molecular basis behind these side effects and indicates potential options for management. VEGF and its receptors play an important role in normal tissues and are widely expressed. It is likely that interference with this pathway induces an array of side effects due to the lack of normal function of VEGF. A consistent pattern of side effects is now emerging. Hypertension, gastro-intestinal toxicity, hypothyroidism, proteinuria, coagulation disorders and neurotoxicity are side effects observed with both anti-VEGF and anti-VEGFR inhibitors. For these side effects the role of VEGF/VEGFR pathway in normal tissue was reviewed in order to provide a molecular mechanism that linked side effect with physiological activity of VEGF/VEGFR. Insight into the molecular basis may aid specific supportive care measures to ensure optimal use of this class of agents. CONCLUSION: Inhibiting the VEGF/VEGFR pathway is an effective approach to treat cancer. It has also provided new insight into the physiological role of this pathway in various organs. Integrating the knowledge in daily oncological practice will be a challenge for the future.

The outcomes of ovarian cancer treatment are better when provided by gynecologic oncologists and in specialized hospitals: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: There is much debate on the effect of specialized care for ovarian cancer patients. In this review we present an overview and summary of the recent literature on this subject. METHODS: The Pubmed database was searched for studies on the relationship between care setting (type of gynecologist or hospital) and care outcomes which were published between January 1991 and November 2006. Studies were included if they were of sufficient quality and included patients treated from 1990 onwards. RESULTS: Nineteen articles were retrieved. There were no randomized controlled trials on this subject. Staging and debulking were consistently found to be performed more adequately by gynecologic oncologists (pooled relative risk of optimal debulking by a gynecologic oncologist to <2 cm residual disease 1.4 (95%CI 1.2-1.5) and to no macroscopic disease 2.3 (95%CI 1.5-3.5)) and in specialized hospitals (odds ratios for optimal debulking varied between 1.9 and 6.0). There were no differences in postoperative complication rates between different providers. Chemotherapy was given 1-15% more often in specialized settings. Differences in chemotherapy did not lead to differences in survival of patients treated by gynecologic oncologists, but did influence the effect of hospital on survival. Long-term survival was better after treatment in a specialized hospital. Surgery by a gynecologic oncologist resulted in longer survival in subgroups of patients, leading to a 5- to 8-month median survival benefit for patients with advanced stage disease. CONCLUSIONS: The outcome of ovarian cancer is better when treatment is provided by a gynecologic oncologist or in a specialized hospital.

Phase I clinical evaluation of weekly administration of the novel vascular-targeting agent, ZD6126, in patients with solid tumors.

PURPOSE: ZD6126 is a novel vascular-targeting agent that induces selective effects on the morphology of endothelial cells by disrupting the tubulin cytoskeleton. This leads to cell detachment and tumor vessel congestion, resulting in extensive central necrosis in a range of tumor xenograft models. Results from a phase I dose-escalation study of ZD6126 are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-two patients with advanced cancer received weekly ZD6126 infusion (5 to 28 mg/m2). Assessments for safety and pharmacokinetics were performed. Circulating endothelial cells (CECs) were quantified as a pharmacodynamic marker of vascular damage. RESULTS: Maximum concentrations of the active species were observed 5 to 25 minutes from the start of infusion, and decayed in a biexponential manner with a half-life of 1 to 3 hours. Maximum serum concentration and area under the time-concentration curve increased with dose in a linear fashion across the dose range of 5 to 28 mg/m2. One patient treated at 10 mg/m2 with a history of ischemic heart disease experienced acute myocardial infarction 2 weeks after drug discontinuation. Four others had asymptomatic creatine phosphokinase-muscle-brain elevation. Maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) was reached at 20 mg/m2/wk. Dose-limiting toxicities at 28 mg/m2 were hypoxia caused by pulmonary embolism and an asymptomatic decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction. No objective antitumor responses were observed. CEC levels increased in the hours after infusion, indicating potential effect of the compound on the vasculature. CONCLUSION ZD6126 administered as a weekly infusion was clinically well tolerated. The MTD was reached at 20 mg/m2.