[Acute abdomen in renal transplant recipients. Epidemiology and treatment in not referral transplantation centers]. / L'addome acuto nel paziente trapiantato renale. Considerazioni epidemiologiche, diagnostiche e terapeutiche in DEA non dedicati.

The incidence of gastrointestinal complications in renal transplant recipients is relatively high while about 10% is related to acute abdomen. Data concerning gastrointestinal (GI) complications were reported in literature mainly from referral center studies. A multicenter retrospectively survey was performed in Lazio, Italy, in order to evaluate the incidence of acute abdomen in renal transplant recipients observed to the emergency departments of not referral transplantation centers. Clinical and demographic findings regarding 14 patients who experienced acute abdomen between February 2005 and Dicember 2008 have been collected. The following data was investigated: etiology, diagnostic workup, duration of symptoms, elapsed time between admission and emergency operation if performed, morbility and mortality. The severity of disease at presentation was assessed by mean of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score (APACHE II). Acute abdomen was due to pancreatitis in three patients (23.1%); to cholecystitis in three (23.1%); to acute diverticolitis with colon perforation in two patients (15.4%); to acute appendicitis in two (15.4%) and to intestinal obstruction in 2 patients (15.4%). Small bowel perforation was observed in two patients (15.4%) which one case, upon pathological examination, showed malignant lymphoma. The mean APACHE II score was 14.0 ± 5.9. Ten patients (71.4%) were submitted to surgery. Overall mortality and morbidity were 35% and 42% respectively. Statistical analysis showed admission APACHE II score (p<0.01), duration of symptoms (p<0.05), and total time elapsed between the onset of symptoms and treatment (p<0.04) as factors significantly related to mortality.

A Phase I clinical and pharmacological evaluation of sodium phenylbutyrate on an 120-h infusion schedule.

PURPOSE: Sodium phenylbutyrate (PB) demonstrates potent differentiating capacity in multiple hematopoietic and solid tumor cell lines. We conducted a Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of PB by continuous infusion to characterize the maximum tolerated dose, toxicities, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor effects in patients with refractory solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were treated with a 120-h PB infusion every 21 days. The dose was escalated from 150 to 515 mg/kg/day. Pharmacokinetics were performed during and after the first infusion period using a validated high-performance liquid chromatographic assay and single compartmental pharmacokinetic model for PB and its principal metabolite, phenylacetate. RESULTS: A total of 24 patients were enrolled on study, with hormone refractory prostate cancer being the predominant tumor type. All patients were evaluable for toxicity and response. A total of 89 cycles were administered. The dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was neuro-cortical, exemplified by excessive somnolence and confusion and accompanied by clinically significant hypokalemia, hyponatremia, and hyperuricemia. One patient at 515 mg/kg/day and another at 345 mg/kg/day experienced this DLT. Toxicity resolved < or =12 h of discontinuing the infusion. Other toxicities were mild, including fatigue and nausea. The maximum tolerated dose was 410 mg/kg/day for 5 days. Pharmacokinetics demonstrated that plasma clearance of PB increased in a continuous fashion beginning 24 h into the infusion. In individuals whose V(max) for drug elimination was less than their drug-dosing rate, the active metabolite phenylacetate accumulated progressively. Plasma PB concentrations (at 410 mg/kg/day) remained above the targeted therapeutic threshold of 500 micromol/liter required for in vitro activity. CONCLUSION: The DLT in this Phase I study for infusional PB given for 5 days every 21 days is neuro-cortical in nature. The recommended Phase II dose is 410 mg/kg/day for 120 h.

Clinical conduct and nursing quality of life in prostate cancer.

Recent advances in cancer therapy and supportive care have increased patient survival and improved quality of life. These advances have led to an increase in the responsibilities of nurses caring for these patients. Knowledge of new drugs, mode of action, expected side effects, and benefits, including effects on QOL, are essential. Nurses are vital to the safety and the quality of life that patients may experience while participating in clinical trials.

Complete androgen blockade for prostate cancer: what went wrong?

PURPOSE: We summarized and critically assessed all available data from phase III clinical trials on complete androgen blockade versus surgical or medical castration alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Published results in journals and abstracts of phase III trials, and published meta-analyses were reviewed. We also reviewed quality of life and toxicity issues associated with the addition of antiandrogens to medical or surgical castration. Finally, we discuss the original rationale for complete androgen blockade in the context of current knowledge. RESULTS: A total of 27 clinical trials using various combinations of androgen deprivation were identified, of which 3 showed a statistically significant benefit for the complete androgen blockade arm. There were 5 publications of meta-analyses that each used different selection criteria for the inclusion of studies in the final analysis. Toxicity and quality of life have not been widely investigated in prospective fashion but the available data suggest a higher toxicity rate and decreased quality of life with complete androgen blockade. CONCLUSIONS: The extensive body of data does not support routine use of antiandrogens in combination with medical or surgical castration as first line hormonal therapy in patients with metastatic prostate cancer.

Preliminary evaluation of a short course of estramustine phosphate and docetaxel (Taxotere) in the treatment of hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Preclinical data suggest that small quantities of estramustine phosphate are synergistic with taxanes and may be useful in the treatment of hormone-refractory prostate cancer. The current trial was designed to reduce the duration of exposure to estramustine phosphate, which carries with it the risk of anorexia and gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, and thromboembolic toxicity during long-term treatment. Patients with histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate showing evidence of progressing disease 4 to 6 weeks after antiandrogen withdrawal were enrolled into the study. Patients may have received up to two prior chemotherapy regimens. Patients received estramustine phosphate 280 mg orally every 6 hours for a total of five doses (24-hour exposure), docetaxel (Taxotere; Rhône-Poulenc Rorer, Collegeville, PA) 70 mg/m2 intravenously over 1 hour, coumadin 2 mg orally every day, and dexamethasone as premedication for docetaxel. Cycles were repeated every 21 days, up to a maximum of 6. Of the 18 evaluable patients, seven showed more than 50% declines in prostate-specific antigen for a duration > or =4 weeks; two of eight patients had soft tissue partial responses. Nine of 11 had improvement in pain and/or urinary symptoms. In a total of 98 cycles, grade 3 toxicities observed included leukopenia (N = 7), neutropenia (N = 6), fatigue (N = 13), headache (N = 1), local skin reactions after extravasation (N = 2), nail changes (N = 1), diarrhea (N = 2), and hyperglycemia (N = 3); grade 4 toxicities included neutropenia/fever requiring admission (N = 2), leukopenia (N = 2), and neutropenia (N = 6). No thromboembolic complications were seen. All toxicities were reversible within 1 week after occurrence. Thus, preliminary evidence suggests that in this heavily pretreated patient population 1-day treatment with an estramustine/docetaxel combination is active and has acceptable toxicity.

Eligibility and response guidelines for phase II clinical trials in androgen-independent prostate cancer: recommendations from the Prostate-Specific Antigen Working Group.

PURPOSE: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a glycoprotein that is found almost exclusively in normal and neoplastic prostate cells. For patients with metastatic disease, changes in PSA will often antedate changes in bone scan. Furthermore, many but not all investigators have observed an association between a decline in PSA levels of 50% or greater and survival. Since the majority of phase II clinical trials for patients with androgen-independent prostate cancer (AIPC) have used PSA as a marker, we believed it was important for investigators to agree on definitions and values for a minimum set of parameters for eligibility and PSA declines and to develop a common approach to outcome analysis and reporting. We held a consensus conference with 26 leading investigators in the field of AIPC to define these parameters. RESULT: We defined four patient groups: (1) progressive measurable disease, (2) progressive bone metastasis, (3) stable metastases and a rising PSA, and (4) rising PSA and no other evidence of metastatic disease. The purpose of determining the number of patients whose PSA level drops in a phase II trial of AIPC is to guide the selection of agents for further testing and phase III trials. We propose that investigators report at a minimum a PSA decline of at least 50% and this must be confirmed by a second PSA value 4 or more weeks later. Patients may not demonstrate clinical or radiographic evidence of disease progression during this time period. Some investigators may want to report additional measures of PSA changes (ie, 75% decline, 90% decline). Response duration and the time to PSA progression may also be important clinical end point. CONCLUSION: Through this consensus conference, we believe we have developed practical guidelines for using PSA as a measurement of outcome. Furthermore, the use of common standards is important as we determine which agents should progress to randomized trials which will use survival as an end point.

Rapid disease progression after the administration of bicalutamide in patients with metastatic prostate cancer.

We report 5 patients with advanced metastatic prostate cancer who took bicalutamide 50 mg/day for "second-line" hormonal manipulation and demonstrated a rapid rise in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) shortly after the initiation of bicalutamide. After discontinuation of the drug, PSA levels declined in 4 patients and stabilized in the fifth. In 2 of the patients, the PSA rise was associated with an increase in pain level, which subsided after the treatment was stopped. The timing of the rapid changes in PSA and pain levels suggests a direct effect of bicalutamide. The most probable explanation for this observation is a very early agonist activation of androgen receptor by bicalutamide, similar to the underlying mechanism of the "antiandrogen withdrawal syndrome."

Evaluation of biomarkers of survival response in hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients treated with suramin.

Hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC) patients often have nonmeasurable disease. In such patients, predictive biomarkers other than tumor response may be required to compare therapeutic effects. We examined the predictive value for survival of various clinical and laboratory parameters, including prostate-specific antigen (PSA), in HRPC patients treated with suramin. Data from 103 HRPC patients were analyzed using various survival analyses, the likelihood ratio approach, and logistic regression analyses. When pretreatment factors, percentage decrease in PSA at 4 weeks from start of treatment (deltaPSA), and updated survival data were fit by a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model, acid phosphatase, lactate dehydrogenase, and deltaPSA were significant, with risk ratios close to 1. There was a decrease in likelihood ratio with increasing APSA. A logistic regression model was developed to predict the probability of <1 year of survival from the start of treatment. Hemoglobin and deltaPSA were found to be significant variables. However, in view of the complexities involving the relationship between PSA expression and prostate cancer growth and possible selective effect of treatment on PSA, further prospective testing is necessary. Therefore, deltaPSA cannot necessarily be used as a biomarker for survival response in individual patients during the evaluation of the therapeutic response of HRPC to new antineoplastic drugs.

Prostate cancer treatment strategies based on tumor-specific biological principles: future directions.

Prostate cancer represents a heterogeneous disease entity with varying degrees of behavior, aggressiveness, patterns of metastasis, and response to therapy. Progressive metastatic prostate cancer is associated with a formidable array of morbidity that ultimately contributes to death of the patient. Thus far, there has been no convincing evidence to support routine use of non-hormonal chemotherapeutic agents or combinations over symptomatic treatment only. Furthermore, no single compound or combination has shown a dramatic improvement in conventional quality of life parameters over symptomatic treatment only. Androgen ablation remains the primary systemic therapeutic modality for this disease, yet the intense delineation of mechanisms involved in tumor cell metastasis has lead to new therapeutic strategies, ranging from cytotoxic to cytostatic, including immunomodulators. Among those strategies currently being studied are granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor-transduced prostate cancer vaccines, differentiation therapy, gene therapy, inducers of apoptosis, antimetastatic agents, angiogenesis inhibitors, radiation therapy (local and systemic), and systemic approaches targeted at prostate cancer morbidity. The difficult issue is which agents should be developed and how should we best assess the response using standard and newly identified endpoints. Certainly, the future of advanced prostate cancer therapy will undergo dramatic changes as a result of the continued interaction between the laboratory and the clinic.

A prospective study of suramin-induced peripheral neuropathy.

Suramin is an investigational drug that has shown therapeutic activity in hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer in Phase I/II trials. Dose-limiting neurotoxicity remains the most serious complication of suramin treatment. We performed a prospective study to define the incidence, severity, characteristics, and dose relationships of suramin-induced peripheral neuropathy. Twenty-two patients who received suramin in a Phase-I trial underwent baseline and serial follow-up neurological evaluations consisting of history, examination, nerve conduction studies and quantitative sensory testing (QST). Suramin was administered intravenously in escalating dosages by using a 5-day schedule (repeated monthly), with the dose, determined by a population pharmacokinetic model, to accomplish 30-min post-infusion concentrations of 300 micrograms ml-1 (cohort I), 350 micrograms m-1 (cohort II) and 400 micrograms ml-1 (cohort III). Twelve patients developed a mild, axonal, length-dependent, sensory-motor poly-neuropathy. Three other patients developed a subacutely progressive, functionally disabling, demyelinating neuropathy; sural nerve biopsy in two patients showed lymphocytic inflammation. These three patients improved after drug discontinuation and plasmapheresis. Although there was no apparent correlation between the cumulative dose and the severity of the neuropathy, no patient from cohort I, but 88% of patients from cohorts II and III, developed neuropathy. We conclude that when suramin is used at peak concentrations of > or = 350 micrograms ml-1 its administration is associated with two patterns of neuropathy, a distal axonal neuropathy and an inflammatory demyelinating neuropathy that is partially reversible. Neurological monitoring for development of neuropathy will improve the safety of suramin use in future clinical studies.

Ocular symptoms and signs associated with suramin sodium treatment for metastatic cancer of the prostate.

PURPOSE: Therapy with suramin sodium has been associated with photophobia, iritis, optic atrophy, and vortex keratopathy. We studied the ocular findings in patients who underwent treatment with suramin sodium for metastatic cancer of the prostate. METHODS: In a prospective study, 114 patients who underwent treatment with suramin sodium for cancer of the prostate had an ophthalmologic examination with two weeks of onset of treatment and two weeks after termination of therapy. Additional examinations were performed on patients who developed ocular symptoms during suramin sodium therapy. RESULTS: Nineteen (16.6%) of 114 patients developed ocular symptoms and signs while taking suramin sodium. Thirteen of these patients developed bilateral corneal epithelial whorllike deposits. In ten patients, the corneal deposits were associated with foreign body sensation and lacrimation. Symptoms in all of these patients resolved with topical lubricants. Three patients developed asymptomatic corneal deposits. Seven patients had blurred vision and were found to have a mean hyperopic shift in refractive error of 1.13 +/- 0.45 diopters (range, 0.75 to 2.00 diopters) that persisted throughout their treatment course. None of these patients had a decrease in best-corrected visual acuity. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, ocular symptoms and signs associated with suramin sodium were common but were not considered a dose-limiting toxicity. Hyperopic shift in refractive error is a previously unreported ocular finding in association with suramin sodium therapy.

Evaluation of prostate-specific antigen as a surrogate marker for response of hormone-refractory prostate cancer to suramin therapy.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the surrogate role of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) using prospectively collected information from patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC) treated with suramin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 103 patients were analyzed using survival analysis, exploratory analysis, and regression analysis. RESULTS: There was a significant survival difference between groups of patients with a PSA decrease of < or = 0% or greater than 0% (P = .018). There were no significant overall survival differences between groups of patients with PSA decreases less than 50% or > or = 50% and less than 75% or > or = 75%. Tree-based modeling did not define a specific threshold percentage PSA change as a response criterion. For a response of 1-year survival, sensitivity increased (0.91 v 0.69), but specificity decreased (0.37 v 0.62), with a 75% versus 50% PSA decrease used as classification criterion. Differences between the area under the receiver-operating curves (ROCs) with 50% and 75% PSA decreases as threshold values were small. For a response of 1-year survival, attributable proportions were 0.38 and 0.68, respectively, with 50% and 75% PSA decreases as threshold values. When pretreatment variables were assessed by Cox proportional hazards model, hemoglobin level was the most significant predictor of survival. When percentage PSA change was included in the model, hemoglobin level remained the most significant factor, but percentage PSA change was also a weak, but statistically significant, factor. PSA was a weak, but statistically significant, predictor of survival in Cox proportional hazards model with PSA as a time-variant covariate. CONCLUSION: Reduction in PSA level has weak prognostic significance with respect to survival in HRPC patients, but, currently, PSA reduction cannot be used as a reliable response criterion to evaluate treatment efficacy in individual patients. Prospective, randomized studies, including prospective measurement of other indices related to symptomatic clinical benefits, are required.

Phase I and clinical evaluation of a pharmacologically guided regimen of suramin in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: This phase I study was designed with the following objectives: (1) to describe the overall and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of suramin administered by intermittent short intravenous infusions until DLT or disease progression; (2) to determine the ability of an adaptive control with feedback (ACF) dosing strategy to maintain suramin plasma concentrations within a preselected range; (3) to develop a population model of suramin pharmacokinetics; and (4) to identify preliminary evidence of antitumor activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-three patients with advanced, incurable, solid tumors (including 69 with hormone-refractory prostate cancer) received an initial 5- to 7-day daily loading treatment followed by intermittent infusions individually determined by ACF using a Bayesian algorithm and relying on population models of suramin pharmacokinetics. Treatment was given to three cohorts of patients based on target plasma suramin concentration ranges (peak, 30 minutes postsuramin, and trough on morning of the treatment day), as follows: cohort 1, 175 to 300 micrograms/mL (27 patients); cohort 2, 150 to 250 micrograms/mL (23 patients); and cohort 3, 100 to 200 micrograms/mL (23 patients). All patients were to receive suramin until DLT or disease progression. RESULTS: The DLT was most commonly seen in cohort 1 and included a syndrome of malaise and fatigue, associated with weight loss, anorexia, and changes in taste. Other reversible toxicities were neurologic, renal, cutaneous, edema, lymphopenia and anemia, ophthalmologic, and alopecia. Forty of 67 assessable patients (60%) had a 50% reduction and 25 of 67 (37%) a 75% reduction in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels that lasted more than 4 weeks, seven of 18 (40%) had measurable responses, and 18 of 37 (49%) demonstrated major pain improvement. The overall times to disease progression and survival were 170 and 492 days, respectively. CONCLUSION: We have characterized all toxicities with suramin in a pharmacologically guided phase I study designed to maintain plasma suramin concentrations of 100 to 300 micrograms/mL (cohorts 1 to 3). The incidence of grade 3 to 4 neurologic abnormalities was relatively low, particularly in cohorts 2 and 3 (100 to 250 micrograms/mL). Evidence of significant and durable antitumor activity was seen in all three cohorts.

Development and validation of a pharmacokinetically based fixed dosing scheme for suramin.

PURPOSE: We used population pharmacokinetic-parameter estimates and designed a fixed dosing schedule to maintain plasma suramin concentrations between 100 and 300 micrograms/mL and then evaluated its performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: On day 1, patients received a 200-mg test dose and 1,000-mg/m2 loading dose. On days 2, 3, 4, and 5, patients received 1-hour infusions of 400, 300, 250, and 200 mg/m2, respectively. Subsequent 1-hour infusions of 275 mg/m2 were given on days 8, 11, 15, 19, 22, 29, 36, 43, 50, 57, 67, and 78. Therapy was discontinued for dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) or progressive disease (PD). Patients were to be removed from the fixed dosing schedule if, after day 5, three consecutive peak plasma suramin concentrations were greater than 300 micrograms/mL. RESULTS: Forty-two patients, including 40 with hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC), received 700 infusions. Forty patients were assessable for toxicity; 38 were assessable for response. Two patients with preexisting pulmonary disease died early of respiratory insufficiency. Treatment was discontinued in five patients due to DLT and in seven due to PD. No patient had treatment discontinued due to repeated peak plasma suramin concentrations > or = 300 micrograms/mL. The fixed dosing schedule was precise, unbiased, and well tolerated. DLT consisted of grade 4 nephrotoxicity (n = 2), neurotoxicity (n = 2), and corticosteroid-induced psychosis (n = 1). Three patients, who received all 18 doses of suramin per protocol, developed severe, but not dose-limiting, malaise, fatigue, and lethargy. Twenty-four of 36 assessable patients with elevated serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels had a > or = 50% reduction, lasting more than 4 weeks, and 18 had a > or = 75% reduction, lasting more than 4 weeks. Twelve of 23 (52%) symptomatic HRPC patients noted a subjective improvement in pain. There were no measurable responses in four patients with measurable disease. The estimated median survival time in 38 assessable patients with HRPC was 18.8 months. The estimated median time to progression in 35 patients, for whom data were available, was 10.1 months. CONCLUSION: This easily implemented schedule allowed suramin to be administered safely as an intermittent bolus injection. Toxicity was manageable and reversible.

Combined carboplatin plus bleomycin and conventional radiotherapy for advanced carcinomas of the head and neck.

In a previous study, we reported a 72% response rate (CR = 52%) in patients with unresectable head and neck (H&N) carcinomas treated with simultaneous carboplatin (CBDCA) and radiotherapy (RT). Bleomycin (Bleo), a known radiosensitizing agent, has been shown to increase response rates when given together with RT in similar patients. To explore the nonoverlapping toxicities of these two agents, we combined i.v. CBDCA (100 mg/m2/week), Bleo (5 units on day 1 and 4/weekly) and standard doses of RT in patients with unresectable H&N carcinomas. Chemotherapy (CT) was continued until completion of RT. Twenty-three (13 males, 10 females) previously untreated patients with stage IV squamous cell carcinoma of the H&N were treated at the University of Maryland Medical Center: 61% had oropharyngeal cancers; 26%, hypopharynx; 9%, oral cavity; and 4%, an unknown primary. Moderate to severe mucositis developed in 90%, which required RT interruptions of up to 3 weeks. After a median follow-up (FU) of 18 months, 35% achieved a complete response (CR) and 65% died from progressive disease. These preliminary data suggest that the addition of Bleo increases mucosal toxicity substantially and, while a moderate response rate was observed, it is unlikely that the CR rate will be higher than CBDCA/RT, which was also better tolerated and hence more suitable to multimodal approaches.

Suramin: development of a population pharmacokinetic model and its use with intermittent short infusions to control plasma drug concentration in patients with prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to (1) develop a population pharmacokinetic model for suramin; (2) use Bayesian methods to assess suramin pharmacokinetics in individual patients; (3) use individual patients' pharmacokinetic parameter estimates to individualize suramin dose and schedule and maintain plasma suramin concentrations within predetermined target ranges; and (4) assess the feasibility of outpatient administration of suramin by intermittent, short infusions. METHODS: Plasma suramin concentrations were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), and compartmental pharmacokinetic models were fit using a Bayesian algorithm. Population pharmacokinetic models were developed using an iterative two-stage approach. Estimates of each patient's central-compartment volume were used to calculate suramin dosage. Simulation of that patient's suramin clearance was used to predict the time of his next dose. Using this approach, plasma suramin concentration was maintained at between 200 and 300, 175 and 275, 150 and 250, or 100 and 200 microgram/mL in four sequential patient cohorts. The ability of two- and three-compartment, open, linear models to fit the pharmacokinetic data was compared. Population pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated, using both two- and three-compartment structural models in 69 hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients. RESULTS: Target plasma suramin concentrations in individual patients were rapidly achieved. Concentrations were maintained within desired ranges for > or = 85% of treatment duration in all cohorts. A three-compartment, open, linear model described suramin pharmacokinetics better than did a two-compartment, open, linear model. Population pharmacokinetic estimates generated for two- and three-compartment pharmacokinetic models demonstrated modest interpatient pharmacokinetic variability and the long terminal half-life of suramin. CONCLUSION: Suramin can be administered by intermittent short infusion. Adaptive-control-with-feedback dosing facilitated precise control of plasma suramin concentrations and allowed a number of different concentration ranges to be studied. This approach is expensive and labor-intensive. Although we have demonstrated the ability to control drug exposure, simpler dosing schedules require critical evaluation. Population pharmacokinetic parameters generated in men with hormone-refractory prostate cancer will facilitate rational design of such schedules.

Suramin, an active drug for prostate cancer: interim observations in a phase I trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies indicate that suramin may be an active agent for treatment of solid tumors. The clinical use of suramin is complicated by a broad spectrum of toxic effects and complex pharmacology. Studies have suggested that the dose-limiting neurotoxicity of this agent is closely related to sustained plasma drug concentrations of 350 micrograms/mL or more. PURPOSE: This phase I clinical trial in patients with solid tumors was designed to determine whether plasma concentrations resulting in both antitumor activity and manageable toxicity could be achieved with short, intermittent infusions of suramin. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients, including 33 with metastatic, hormone-refractory prostate cancer, collectively received 43 courses of suramin designed to maintain a plasma concentration range of 200-300, 175-275, or 150-250 micrograms/mL. Patients received a test dose of 200 mg and an initial loading dose of 1000 mg/m2 on day 1 of therapy. Subsequent suramin doses and schedules were individually determined using a strategy of adaptive control with feedback, which used a maximum a posteriori Bayesian algorithm to estimate individual pharmacokinetic parameters. Patients were treated until dose-limiting toxicity or progressive disease developed. RESULTS: Thirty-five of the 37 study patients and 31 of the 33 with prostate cancer were assessable for toxicity and response. Treatment was discontinued in 28 patients because of dose-limiting toxicity consisting of a syndrome of malaise, fatigue, and lethargy; recurrent reduction in creatinine clearance of 50% or more; or axonal neuropathy. Evidence of major antitumor activity was observed in patients with prostate cancer treated at all three plasma drug concentrations. Measurable responses (one complete response and five partial responses) were noted in six of 12 patients with measurable disease. Twenty-four (77%) of 31 patients had a reduction in prostate-specific antigen of 50% or more, and 17 (55%) of 31 had a reduction of 75% or more. Twenty (83%) of 24 patients reported reduction in pain. CONCLUSIONS: Suramin can be safely administered as an intermittent bolus injection by use of adaptive control with feedback to control plasma drug concentrations; toxicity is significant but manageable and reversible. Suramin is active against hormone-refractory prostate cancer. IMPLICATIONS: Future trials should address the role and necessary extent of therapeutic drug monitoring; the optimal plasma drug concentration range and duration of therapy; and the activity of suramin in combination with other agents, in earlier stages of prostate cancer, and in other tumor types.

Phase II trial of 5 day continuous intravenous infusion of 6-thioguanine in patients with recurrent and metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

Fifteen patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck received a 5 day continuous I.V. infusion of 6-thioguanine repeated every five weeks. Dose limiting toxicity was primarily hematological with grade III/IV leucopenia and thrombocytopenia seen in seven patients. Nausea and vomiting was moderate and well controlled with antiemetics. No complete or partial responses were observed, with a median time to progression of 58 days and a median survival of 227+ days for the entire group. Based on these results we do not recommend I.V. 6-thioguanine for the treatment of this disease.