Clinical pharmacodynamic/exposure characterisation of the multikinase inhibitor ilorasertib (ABT-348) in a phase 1 dose-escalation trial.

BACKGROUND: Ilorasertib (ABT-348) inhibits Aurora and VEGF receptor (VEGFR) kinases. Patients with advanced solid tumours participated in a phase 1 dose-escalation trial to profile the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of ilorasertib. METHODS: Ilorasertib monotherapy was administered at 10-180 mg orally once daily (Arm I, n = 23), 40-340 mg orally twice daily (Arm II, n = 28), or 8-32 mg intravenously once daily (Arm III, n = 7), on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle. RESULTS: Dose-limiting toxicities were predominantly related to VEGFR inhibition. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events ( > 30%) were: fatigue (48%), anorexia (34%), and hypertension (34%). Pharmacodynamic markers suggested that ilorasertib engaged VEGFR2 and Aurora B kinase, with the VEGFR2 effects reached at lower doses and exposures than Aurora inhibition effects. In Arm II, one basal cell carcinoma patient (40 mg twice daily (BID)) and one patient with adenocarcinoma of unknown primary site (230 mg BID) had partial responses. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced solid tumours, ilorasertib treatment resulted in evidence of engagement of the intended targets and antitumour activity, but with maximum inhibition of VEGFR family kinases occurring at lower exposures than typically required for inhibition of Aurora B in tissue. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01110486.

First-in-human study of the antibody DR5 agonist DS-8273a in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Background DR5 is a transmembrane receptor that transduces extracellular ligand-binding to activate apoptosis signaling cascades. This phase 1 study evaluated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics of a new monoclonal antibody potent DR5 agonist, DS-8273a, in subjects with advanced solid tumors. Methods The study comprised dose escalation and dose expansion cohorts. The dose escalation cohorts intended to determine the safety and to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or maximum administered dose (MAD) and to characterize the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics by a conventional 3 + 3 design (starting at 2 mg/kg and escalating through 8, 16 and 24 mg/kg once every 3 weeks). In the dose expansion cohort, additional subjects were treated at the MAD for further evaluation of PK and safety. Results Thirty two subjects were enrolled and treated, 16 in the dose escalation cohorts and 16 in the dose expansion cohort. No subjects experienced a dose limiting toxicity (DLT). Treatment emergent adverse events were observed in 29 (91%) subjects, 14 (44%) of which were attributed to study-drug; all drug-related events were grade 1 and 2 in severity, and were mainly fatigue, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Measures of plasma exposure increased dose-proportionally and the mean terminal elimination half-life was 11 days. Blood samples available from a subset of patients treated at 24 mg/kg revealed declines in myeloid derived suppressor cells (MDSC) at 2 weeks. No objective responses were observed in any subjects. Conclusions DS-8273a was well tolerated and demonstrated linear pharmacokinetics. Decreases in MDSC were temporally associated with DS-8273a exposure. This agent could be studied further in combination with other agents, pending further proof-of-target-engagement.

A phase I study of continuous infusion cilengitide in patients with solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Cilengitide (EMD121974) is a cyclized pentapeptide that is a potent and selective integrin antagonist which has shown activity in malignant gliomas. In all previous studies, cilengitide has been administered in an intermittent fashion. However, cilengitide has a short half-life of 3-5 h with no evidence of drug accumulation. These data prompted the initiation of this phase I study of continuous infusion cilengitide. METHODS: Cilengitide was administered as a continuous infusion without break in 4-week cycles. Plasma samples for pharmacokinetic studies were obtained weekly in cycle 1 immediately prior to and 2 h after infusion bag change. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were treated (median age 56; 23 males) at dose levels of 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 18, 27, and 40 mg/h. Toxicities were limited to grade ≤ 2 and showed no relation to dose. Fatigue was most common (17%), while all other toxicities were reported in <10% of patients. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed, and therefore the maximum tolerated dose was not reached. Pharmacokinetic analysis showed that values for clearance and volume of distribution were comparable across dose levels, and the steady-state concentration increased proportionally with dose. CONCLUSIONS: Cilengitide can be safely administered as a continuous infusion at doses up to at least 40 mg/h, which represents the maximum feasible dose due to drug solubility and delivery limitations. The pharmacokinetics of continuous infusion cilengitide are linear and consistent with the results obtained using a twice weekly infusion.

Phase I Study of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy plus Nivolumab and Urelumab or Cabiralizumab in Advanced Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: CD137 agonism and CSF1R blockade augment stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and anti-programmed death-1 in preclinical models. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of SBRT with nivolumab+urelumab (CD137 agonist) or nivolumab+cabiralizumab (CSF1R inhibitor). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase I clinical trial enrolled patients with advanced solid tumors that had progressed on standard therapies. SBRT was delivered to 1-4 metastases with nivolumab+urelumab or nivolumab+cabiralizumab given concurrently and following SBRT. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was the primary endpoint with anatomic location-specific SBRT doses deemed safe if ≤33% DLT frequency was observed. Secondary endpoints included RECISTv1.1 response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and molecular correlative studies. RESULTS: Sixty patients were enrolled, and median follow-up for living patients is 13.8 months. Of these, 23 (38%) received SBRT+nivolumab+urelumab and 37 (62%) received SBRT+nivolumab+cabiralizumab. Seven patients (12%) experienced a DLT (n = 3 grade 3, n = 4 grade 4) in the following anatomic cohorts: abdominal/pelvic (3/17, 18%), liver (1/13, 8%), central lung (2/14, 14%), and peripheral lung (1/12, 8%). Of 41 patients radiographically evaluable for best overall response including 55 radiated and 23 unirradiated RECIST target lesions, 2 had complete responses (5%), 7 had partial responses (17%), 12 had stable disease (29%), and 20 had progression (49%). Median estimated PFS and OS are 3.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.9-4.8] and 17.0 months (95% CI, 6.8-undetermined), respectively. No patients with elevated pre-SBRT serum IL8 experienced a response. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT to ≤4 sites with nivolumab+urelumab or nivolumab+cabiralizumab for treating advanced solid tumors is feasible with acceptable toxicity and modest antitumor activity.See related commentary by Rodriguez-Ruiz et al., p. 5443.

A phase I trial to determine the safety, tolerability, and maximum tolerated dose of deforolimus in patients with advanced malignancies.

PURPOSE: This was a phase I trial to determine the maximum tolerated dose and toxicity of deforolimus (AP23573, MK-8669), an inhibitor of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR). The pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antineoplastic effects were also studied. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Deforolimus was administered intravenously over 30 min every 7 days according to a flat dosing schedule. Dose was escalated according to an accelerated titration design. Patients remained on study until disease progression as long as they tolerated the drug without significant toxicities. RESULTS: Forty-six patients were enrolled on the study. Common side effects included fatigue, anorexia, and mucositis. The maximum tolerated dose was 75 mg and mucositis was the dose-limiting toxicity. Similar to other mTOR inhibitors, deforolimus exhibited nonlinear pharmacokinetics and a prolonged half-life. Among 34 patients evaluable for response, 1 patient had a partial response, 21 patients had stable disease, and 12 had progressed. Percent change in tumor size was significantly associated with AUC (P=0.015). A significant association was also detected for maximum change in cholesterol within the first two cycles of therapy and change in tumor size (r=-0.38; P=0.029). CONCLUSIONS: Deforolimus was well tolerated on the schedule tested in this trial with toxicity and pharmacokinetic profiles that were similar to that of other mTOR inhibitors. Additional phase II studies are needed to determine if deforolimus is superior to other mTOR inhibitors in terms of efficacy. The change in serum cholesterol as a potential biomarker of activity should be studied further.

Improved Survival Associated with Local Tumor Response Following Multisite Radiotherapy and Pembrolizumab: Secondary Analysis of a Phase I Trial.

PURPOSE: Multisite stereotactic body radiotherapy followed by pembrolizumab (SBRT+P) has demonstrated safety in advanced solid tumors (ASTs). However, no studies have examined the relationships between irradiated tumor response, SBRT-induced tumor gene expression, and overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with AST received SBRT (30-50 Gy in 3-5 fractions) to two to four metastases followed by pembrolizumab (200 mg i.v. every 3 weeks). SBRT was prescribed to a maximum tumor volume of 65 mL. Small metastases received the complete prescribed coverage (complete-Rx), while larger metastases received partial coverage (partial-Rx). Treated metastasis control (TMC) was defined as a lack of progression for an irradiated metastasis. Landmark analysis was used to assess the relationship between TMC and OS. Thirty-five biopsies were obtained from 24 patients: 19 pre-SBRT and 16 post-SBRT (11 matched) prior to pembrolizumab and were analyzed via RNA microarray. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients (139 metastases) were enrolled with a median follow-up of 10.4 months. One-year TMC was 89.5% with no difference between complete-Rx or partial-Rx. On multivariable analysis, TMC was independently associated with a reduced risk for death (HR, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.75; P = 0.006). SBRT increased expression of innate and adaptive immune genes and concomitantly decreased expression of cell cycle and DNA repair genes in the irradiated tumors. Elevated post-SBRT expression of DNASE1 correlated with increased expression of cytolytic T-cell genes and irradiated tumor response. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of SBRT+P, TMC independently correlates with OS. SBRT impacts intratumoral immune gene expression associated with TMC. Randomized trials are needed to validate these findings.

Prolonged Pharmacokinetic Interaction Between Capecitabine and a CYP2C9 Substrate, Celecoxib.

This study investigated the time course and magnitude of the pharmacokinetic interaction between capecitabine and the cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C9 substrate celecoxib, with implications for coadministration of fluoropyrimidines with CYP2C9 substrates such as warfarin. Patients received celecoxib 200 mg orally twice daily continuously, with capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 orally twice daily for 14 days every 21 days) starting 7 days later. Assessment of the drug-drug interaction (DDI) potential was performed using equivalence testing, which assumes that there is no clinically relevant DDI when the calculated 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the drug exposure ratios fall within the range of 0.80 to 1.25. Comparison of steady-state pharmacokinetic parameters of celecoxib between day 7 (cycle 0, celecoxib only) and day 14 (cycle 1, celecoxib + capecitabine) showed geometric mean ratios of 1.24 (90%CI, 1.04-1.49), 1.30 (1.11-1.53) and 1.28 (1.11-1.47) for maximum plasma concentration, minimum plasma concentration, and area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to 8 hours, respectively. Comparison of day 7 vs day 21 (cycle 1, after 1 week washout of capecitabine) showed a further increase in the geometric mean ratio of maximum plasma concentration (1.39; 90%CI, 1.16-1.66), minimum plasma concentration (1.53; 1.10-2.12) and area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to 8 hours (1.41; 1.19-1.68). Because the 90%CIs fell outside the prespecified equivalence margin, we conclude that coadministration results in a DDI (increased celecoxib exposure) that persists for at least 7 days after capecitabine discontinuation. Close monitoring should be undertaken when administering fluoropyrimidines with CYP2C9 substrates with narrow therapeutic indexes while also weighing the benefits and risks for individual patients.

Phase II randomised discontinuation trial of brivanib in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: Brivanib is a selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor and fibroblast growth factor (FGF) signalling. We performed a phase II randomised discontinuation trial of brivanib in 7 tumour types (soft-tissue sarcomas [STS], ovarian cancer, breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer [NSCLC], gastric/esophageal cancer and transitional cell carcinoma [TCC]). PATIENTS AND METHODS: During a 12-week open-label lead-in period, patients received brivanib 800 mg daily and were evaluated for FGF2 status by immunohistochemistry. Patients with stable disease at week 12 were randomised to brivanib or placebo. A study steering committee evaluated week 12 response to determine if enrolment in a tumour type would continue. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) for brivanib versus placebo in patients with FGF2-positive tumours. RESULTS: A total of 595 patients were treated, and stable disease was observed at the week 12 randomisation point in all tumour types. Closure decisions were made for breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, NSCLC, gastric cancer and TCC. Criteria for expansion were met for STS and ovarian cancer. In 53 randomised patients with STS and FGF2-positive tumours, the median PFS was 2.8 months for brivanib and 1.4 months for placebo (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.58, p = 0.08). For all randomised patients with sarcomas, the median PFS was 2.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4-4.0) for those treated with brivanib compared with 1.4 months (95% CI: 1.3-1.6) for placebo (HR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.38-1.07; p = 0.09). In the 36 randomised patients with ovarian cancer and FGF2-positive tumours, the median PFS was 4.0 (95% CI: 2.6-4.2) months for brivanib and 2.0 months (95% CI: 1.2-2.7) for placebo (HR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.26-1.22). For all randomised patients with ovarian cancer, the median PFS in those randomised to brivanib was 4.0 months (95% CI: 2.6-4.2) and was 2.0 months (95% CI: 1.2-2.7) in those randomised to placebo (HR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.25-1.17; p = 0.11). CONCLUSION: Brivanib demonstrated activity in STS and ovarian cancer with an acceptable safety profile. FGF2 expression, as defined in the protocol, is not a predictive biomarker of the efficacy of brivanib.

Capecitabine and Celecoxib as a Promising Therapy for Thymic Neoplasms.

OBJECTIVES: For patients with unresectable or metastatic thymic epithelial neoplasms, few therapy options are available and outcomes are poor. This case series demonstrates that the combination of capecitabine and celecoxib may be a promising therapeutic option for these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The current report describes the outcomes of 5 patients with thymic neoplasms treated on a drug-drug interaction study of capecitabine and celecoxib in patients with advanced solid malignancies (NCT01705106) conducted at the University of Chicago, plus a sixth patient treated with the same regimen outside of the protocol. RESULTS: Six patients with thymic neoplasms were treated with capecitabine 1000 mg/m twice daily and celecoxib 200 mg twice daily, day 1 to day 14 on a 21-day cycle. This included 3 patients with thymic carcinoma, 1 with thymic neuroendocrine tumor, and 2 with thymomas. Objective response rates were noted in 3 of 6 patients. Two of the 3 thymic carcinoma patients had complete responses, and the third had a partial response. Best response for the other patients included stable disease for both thymoma patients and progressive disease for the thymic neuroendocrine patient. Other than grade 3 palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, which developed in 4 of 6 patients and required dose reductions, the regimen was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: This case series suggests that capecitabine plus celecoxib may be an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for patients with thymic carcinoma. Further studies should be carried out to establish the efficacy of capecitabine plus celecoxib in thymic carcinoma, and to determine whether monotherapy with capecitabine would be similarly effective.

A pharmacodynamic study of sirolimus and metformin in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Sirolimus is a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor. Metformin may potentiate mTOR inhibition by sirolimus while mitigating its adverse effects. We conducted a pilot study to test this hypothesis. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumor were treated with sirolimus for 7 days followed by randomization to either sirolimus with metformin (Arm A) or sirolimus (Arm B) until day 21. From day 22 onwards, all patients received sirolimus and metformin. The primary aim was to compare the change in phospho-p70S6K (pp70S6K) in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) from day 8 to day 22 using a two-sample t test. Secondary aims were objective response rate, toxicity, and other serum pharmacodynamic biomarkers (e.g., fasting glucose, triglycerides, insulin, C-peptide, IGF-1, IGF-1R, IGF-BP, and leptin). RESULTS: 24 patients were enrolled, with 18 evaluable for the primary endpoint. There was no significant difference in mean change in pp70S6K in arm A vs. arm B (- 0.12 vs. - 0.16; P = 0.64). Similarly, there were no significant differences in other serum pharmacodynamic biomarkers. There were no partial responses. There were no dose-limiting or unexpected toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: Adding metformin to sirolimus, although well tolerated, was not associated with significant changes in pp70S6K in PBMC or other serum pharmacodynamic biomarkers. IMPACT: Combining metformin with sirolimus did not improve mTOR inhibition.

Safety and Clinical Activity of Pembrolizumab and Multisite Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors.

Purpose Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) may stimulate innate and adaptive immunity to augment immunotherapy response. Multisite SBRT is an emerging paradigm for treating metastatic disease. Anti-PD-1-treatment outcomes may be improved with lower disease burden. In this context, we conducted a phase I study to evaluate the safety of pembrolizumab with multisite SBRT in patients with metastatic solid tumors. Patients and Methods Patients progressing on standard treatment received SBRT to two to four metastases. Not all metastases were targeted, and metastases > 65 mL were partially irradiated. SBRT dosing varied by site and ranged from 30 to 50 Gy in three to five fractions with predefined dose de-escalation if excess dose-limiting toxicities were observed. Pembrolizumab was initiated within 7 days after completion of SBRT. Pre- and post-SBRT biopsy specimens were analyzed in a subset of patients to quantify interferon-γ-induced gene expression. Results A total of 79 patients were enrolled; three patients did not receive any treatment and three patients only received SBRT. Patients included in the analysis were treated with SBRT and at least one cycle of pembrolizumab. Most (94.5%) of patients received SBRT to two metastases. Median follow-up for toxicity was 5.5 months (interquartile range, 3.3 to 8.1 months). Six patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities with no radiation dose reductions. In the 68 patients with imaging follow-up, the overall objective response rate was 13.2%. Median overall survival was 9.6 months (95% CI, 6.5 months to undetermined) and median progression-free survival was 3.1 months (95% CI, 2.9 to 3.4 months). Expression of interferon-γ-associated genes from post-SBRT tumor biopsy specimens significantly correlated with nonirradiated tumor response. Conclusion Multisite SBRT followed by pembrolizumab was well tolerated with acceptable toxicity. Additional studies exploring the clinical benefit and predictive biomarkers of combined multisite SBRT and PD-1-directed immunotherapy are warranted.

Genetic variants in the UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 gene predict the risk of severe neutropenia of irinotecan.

PURPOSE: Severe toxicity is commonly observed in cancer patients receiving irinotecan. UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 (UGT1A1) catalyzes the glucuronidation of the active metabolite SN-38. This study prospectively evaluated the association between the prevalence of severe toxicity and UGT1A1 genetic variation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-six cancer patients with advanced disease refractory to other treatments received irinotecan 350 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. Toxicity and pharmacokinetic data were measured during cycle 1. UGT1A1 variants (-3279G>T, -3156G>A, promoter TA indel, 211G>A, 686C>A) were genotyped. RESULTS: The prevalence of grade 4 neutropenia was 9.5%. Grade 4 neutropenia was much more common in patients with the TA indel 7/7 genotype (3 of 6 patients; 50%) compared with 6/7 (3 of 24 patients; 12.5%) and 6/6 (0 of 29 patients; 0%) (P =.001). The TA indel genotype was significantly associated with the absolute neutrophil count nadir (7/7 < 6/7 < 6/6, P =.02). The relative risk of grade 4 neutropenia was 9.3 (95% CI, 2.4 to 36.4) for the 7/7 patients versus the rest of the patients. Pretreatment total bilirubin levels (mean +/- standard deviation) were significantly higher in patients with grade 4 neutropenia (0.83 +/- 0.08 mg/dL) compared to those without grade 4 neutropenia (0.47 +/- 0.03 mg/dL; P <.001). The -3156G>A variant seemed to distinguish different phenotypes of total bilirubin within the TA indel genotypes. The -3156 genotype and the SN-38 area under the concentration versus time curve were significant predictors of ln(absolute neutrophil count nadir; r(2) = 0.51). CONCLUSION: UGT1A1 genotype and total bilirubin levels are strongly associated with severe neutropenia, and could be used to identify cancer patients predisposed to the severe toxicity of irinotecan. The hypothesis that the -3156G>A variant is a better predictor of UGT1A1 status than the previously reported TA indel requires further testing.

Serum C-Telopeptide Collagen Crosslinks and Plasma Soluble VEGFR2 as Pharmacodynamic Biomarkers in a Trial of Sequentially Administered Sunitinib and Cilengitide.

PURPOSE: Fit-for-purpose pharmacodynamic biomarkers could expedite development of combination antiangiogenic regimens. Plasma sVEGFR2 concentrations ([sVEGFR2]) mark sunitinib effects on the systemic vasculature. We hypothesized that cilengitide would impair microvasculature recovery during sunitinib withdrawal and could be detected through changes in [sVEGFR2]. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Advanced solid tumor patients received 50 mg sunitinib daily for 14 days. For the next 14 days, patients were randomized to arm A (cilengitide 2,000 mg administered intravenously twice weekly) or arm B (no treatment). The primary endpoint was change in [sVEGFR2] between days 14 and 28. A candidate pharmacodynamic biomarker of cilengitide inhibition of integrin αvß3, serum c-telopeptide collagen crosslinks (CTx), was also measured. RESULTS: Of 21 patients, 14 (7 per arm) received all treatments without interruption and had all blood samples available for analysis. The mean change and SD of [sVEGFR2] for all sunitinib-treated patients was consistent with previous data. There was no significant difference in the mean change in [sVEGFR2] from days 14 to 28 between the arms [arm A: 2.8 ng/mL; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.1-3.6 vs. arm B: 2.0 ng/mL; 95% CI, 0.72-3.4; P = 0.22, 2-sample t test]. Additional analyses suggested (i) prior bevacizumab therapy to be associated with unusually low baseline [sVEGFR2] and (ii) sunitinib causes measurable changes in CTx. CONCLUSIONS: Cilengitide had no measurable effects on any circulating biomarkers. Sunitinib caused measurable declines in serum CTx. The properties of [sVEGFR2] and CTx observed in this study inform the design of future combination antiangiogenic therapy trials.

A phase I study of suramin with once- or twice-monthly dosing in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: The optimal schedule of administration of suramin has not been well defined. The purpose of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose and toxicities of suramin when administered using a fixed dosing scheme on a once- or twice-monthly schedule. METHODS: A total of 40 patients were treated on this phase I dose-escalation study employing a once-monthly (day 1 of each 28-day cycle) and a twice-monthly (days 1 and 8 of each 28-day cycle) schedule. RESULTS: The most common dose-limiting events included fatigue, neuropathy, and anorexia. We identified the 1440 mg/m(2) dose level to be the maximal tolerated dose for both schedules, with 83% of patients developing dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) on the twice-monthly schedule, and 67% developing DLT on the monthly schedule. At the 1200 mg/m(2) dose level, only 25% developed DLT on the twice-monthly schedule and 33% developed DLT on the monthly schedule. Trough suramin levels gradually increased with higher dose levels but fell well below the putative toxic concentration of 350 microg/ml. CONCLUSION: Suramin can be safely administered using a monthly schedule without using plasma concentrations to guide dosing.

A phase I trial of pharmacokinetic modulation of carboxyamidotriazole (CAI) with ketoconazole in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: Carboxyamidotriazole (CAI) is a novel antineoplastic agent in clinical development with limited oral bioavailability. In vitro, ketoconazole has been demonstrated to inhibit CYP3A4-mediated metabolism of CAI. We performed this phase I trial to determine if ketoconazole-mediated CYP3A4 inhibition would lead to favorable alteration of CAI pharmacokinetics, and to evaluate the safety, toxicity and tolerability of the proposed combination. DESIGN: Forty-seven patients were treated using a standard three patients per cohort CAI dose-escalation scheme. In cycle 1, CAI was administered alone on day-6 followed by a single dose of ketoconazole (200 mg) on day 0. CAI and ketoconazole (200 mg/day) were subsequently coadministered on days 1 and 3-28. Plasma samples for pharmacokinetic analysis were obtained following the doses on days-6 and 1. All subsequent cycles were of 28-day duration, and consisted of daily CAI and ketoconazole coadministration. RESULTS: Pharmacokinetic analysis was performed on samples from 44 patients. In most patients administration of ketoconazole produced an increase in CAI AUC and Cmax with a decrease in CAI clearance. Seven patients experienced stable disease for up to 12 months. Gastrointestinal and constitutional toxicities were the most common toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: Coadministration of CAI with ketoconazole increased CAI exposure in most of the patients without altering the toxicity profile of CAI. The highest CAI dose administered on the trial was 300 mg/day. The clinical utility of such a modulation strategy might be explored in future clinical trials of CAI.

A phase I trial of gemcitabine plus cladribine in patients with advanced hematologic malignant diseases.

PURPOSE: Gemcitabine and cladribine (2CdA) are nucleoside analogues that decrease DNA synthesis via inhibition of ribonucleotide reductase; the combination could be additive or synergistic. We conducted a dose escalation study to establish the maximum tolerable doses (MTD) of gemcitabine and 2CdA when given in combination in patients with advanced hematologic malignancies and to describe the toxicity profile of this combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 45 patients with advanced hematologic diseases were enrolled into two groups. Group A had adequate baseline hematopoiesis, defined as absolute neutrophil count (ANC) >1 x 10(9)/l and platelet count >50 x 10(9)/l. Group B did not meet these criteria. Hematologic dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) for group A was defined as grade 4 neutropenia or thrombocytopenia lasting >28 days; group B was not evaluated for hematologic toxicity. Nonhematologic DLT was defined similarly for both groups. Death occurring during the first cycle of treatment was considered a DLT event only if it was related to drug toxicity. Gemcitabine was administered as a 4-h intravenous infusion once every 28 days. 2CdA was administered over 1 h daily for the first 3 days of each 28-day cycle. RESULTS: The MTD was not reached in either group. Myelosuppression was common, but not dose-limiting. Febrile neutropenia and infections were also common, particularly in group B, and judged in most cases to be due to bone marrow failure at baseline. Nonhematologic toxicities were generally mild, and skin rash, the most frequently observed, was dose-limiting in one patient enrolled in each group. Four deaths (three during the first cycle of treatment) occurred at the highest dose level tested in group B (gemcitabine 5000 mg/m2 and 2CdA 16 mg/m2). Although only one of these deaths was dose-limiting by stated criteria, this dose level did not appear to be safely tolerated in this patient population. Several responses were observed in patients with Hodgkin's disease. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of gemcitabine and 2CdA is feasible in patients with hematologic malignancies. Phase II studies of this combination should be considered, particularly in patients with Hodgkin's disease.

Estimation of the effect of food on the disposition of oral 5-fluorouracil in combination with eniluracil.

AIMS: To determine the effect of food on the pharmacokinetics of 5-fluoruracil (5-FU) taken orally with eniluracil and to compare the performance of different pharmacokinetic analysis methods in the detection a potential food-drug interaction. METHODS: In a randomized, open-label, two-way crossover study, 12 patients received eniluracil (50 mg, orally) on days 1 and 2 and 5-FU (20 mg/m(2), orally) on day 2 following either a 2-h fast or 20 min after a standard meal. Treatments were separated by 7 days. Timed blood samples were collected during the first two treatment periods and 5-FU concentrations determined by GC/MS. Data were analyzed and pharmacokinetic parameter estimates were obtained using a noncompartmental, two-stage and population analysis methods. RESULTS: In fasted individuals, the clearance/bioavailability of 5-FU was estimated to be 5.6 l/h. The mean absorption lag-time was 0.24 h and was followed by rapid absorption of 5-FU. Administration of 5-FU and eniluracil with food resulted in a decrease in the 5-FU absorption rate constant by 90%. As a result, the peak plasma concentration (C(max)) of 5-FU was decreased by 21% and the time to C(max) was increased 2.9-fold. Clearance of 5-FU, relative bioavailability, and area under the plasma concentration vs time curve (AUC) remained unchanged with coadministration of food. Similar results were obtained using all three data analysis methods. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of food with oral 5-FU and eniluracil slowed absorption of 5-FU and decreased 5-FU C(max), but did not effect AUC. Further investigation of the incorporation of population pharmacokinetic approaches in food effect studies is warranted.

Dose-finding and pharmacokinetic study to optimize the dosing of irinotecan according to the UGT1A1 genotype of patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: The risk of severe neutropenia from treatment with irinotecan is related in part to UGT1A1*28, a variant that reduces the elimination of SN-38, the active metabolite of irinotecan. We aimed to identify the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of irinotecan in patients with advanced solid tumors stratified by the *1/*1, *1/*28, and *28/*28 genotypes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-eight patients received an intravenous flat dose of irinotecan every 3 weeks. Forty-six percent of the patients had the *1/*1 genotype, 41% had the *1/*28 genotype, and 13% had the *28/*28 genotype. The starting dose of irinotecan was 700 mg in patients with the *1/*1 and *1/*28 genotypes and 500 mg in patients with the *28/*28 genotype. Pharmacokinetic evaluation was performed at cycle 1. RESULTS: In patients with the *1/*1 genotype, the MTD was 850 mg (four DLTs per 16 patients), and 1,000 mg was not tolerated (two DLTs per six patients). In patients with the *1/*28 genotype, the MTD was 700 mg (five DLTs per 22 patients), and 850 mg was not tolerated (four DLTs per six patients). In patients with the *28/*28 genotype, the MTD was 400 mg (one DLT per six patients), and 500 mg was not tolerated (three DLTs per three patients). The DLTs were mainly myelosuppression and diarrhea. Irinotecan clearance followed linear kinetics. At the MTD for each genotype, dosing by genotype resulted in similar SN-38 areas under the curve (AUCs; r(2) = 0.0003; P = .97), but the irinotecan AUC was correlated with the actual dose (r(2) = 0.39; P < .001). Four of 48 patients with disease known to be responsive to irinotecan achieved partial response. CONCLUSION: The UGT1A1*28 genotype can be used to individualize dosing of irinotecan. Additional studies should evaluate the effect of genotype-guided dosing on efficacy in patients receiving irinotecan.

The effect of thalidomide on the pharmacokinetics of irinotecan and metabolites in advanced solid tumor patients.

PURPOSE: Irinotecan and thalidomide are commonly administered antineoplastic drugs. Combination treatment may potentiate their antitumor effect and protect against irinotecan's intestinal toxicity. We investigated whether thalidomide can modulate the pharmacokinetics of irinotecan and metabolites. METHODS: The study employed a crossover design in which advanced solid tumor patients were randomized to two arms and treated with irinotecan 350 mg/m(2) intravenously (IV) every 3 weeks and thalidomide orally (p.o.) 400 mg daily. Pharmacokinetic data when irinotecan was administered as a single agent in each arm were compared to data when the two study agents were co-administered using paired t tests. Eighty percent and 90% confidence intervals for the true difference were also calculated. RESULTS: The differences in pharmacokinetic parameters and metabolic markers after thalidomide administration were small and unlikely to be clinically significant. With the exception of APC T (1/2), none of the upper confidence limits exceeds a 50% increase. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not find any clinically meaningful effects of thalidomide on the pharmacokinetics of irinotecan or its metabolites.

Two drug interaction studies of sirolimus in combination with sorafenib or sunitinib in patients with advanced malignancies.

PURPOSE: Sirolimus is the prototypical mTOR inhibitor. Sorafenib and sunitinib are small molecule inhibitors of multiple kinases including VEGF receptor (VEGFR) kinases. These agents have different mechanisms of action, providing a strong rationale for combination. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with advanced cancer were assigned to receive either sirolimus or the VEGFR inhibitor alone for a 2-week lead-in period, followed by combination therapy. The primary end point of each trial was to determine whether a drug interaction exists between sirolimus and either sorafenib or sunitinib, as defined by a difference in C(max) for each drug alone compared with its C(max) during combination therapy. RESULTS: The sorafenib and sunitinib trials enrolled 34 and 23 patients, respectively. There were no clinically significant differences in C(max) for any of the drugs alone compared with the C(max) during combination therapy. Toxicity profiles were similar to those expected for each drug alone. One patient with adrenal cortical cancer had a partial response to sirolimus and sunitnib. CONCLUSIONS: Sirolimus can be safely combined with sorafenib or sunitinib. Our trial design is feasible and informative in screening for potential drug-drug interactions, using a relatively small number of patients and limited pharmacokinetic sampling.