Growth Characteristics of Polyporales Mushrooms for the Mycelial Mat Formation.

Mushroom strains of Polyporales from the genera Coriolus, Trametes, Pycnoporus, Ganoderma, and Formitella were explored in terms of mycelial growth characteristics for the application of mushroom mycelia as alternative sources of materials replacing fossil fuel-based materials. Among the 64 strains of Polyporales, G. lucidum LBS5496GL was selected as the best candidate because it showed fast mycelial growth with high mycelial strength in both the sawdust-based solid medium and the potato dextrose liquid plate medium. Some of the Polyporales in this study have shown good mycelial growth, however, they mostly formed mycelial mat of weak physical strength. The higher physical strength of mycelial mat by G. lucidum LBS5496GL was attributed to its thick hyphae with the diameter of 13 µm as revealed by scanning electron microscopic analysis whereas the hyphae of others exhibited less than 2 µm. Glycerol and skim milk supported the best mycelial growth of LBS5496GL as a carbon and a nitrogen source, respectively.

Phase 1 study of MRX34, a liposomal miR-34a mimic, in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: In this first-in-human, Phase 1 study of a microRNA-based cancer therapy, the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) of MRX34, a liposomal mimic of microRNA-34a (miR-34a), was determined and evaluated in patients with advanced solid tumours. METHODS: Adults with various solid tumours refractory to standard treatments were enrolled in 3 + 3 dose-escalation cohorts and, following RP2D determination, expansion cohorts. MRX34, with oral dexamethasone premedication, was given intravenously daily for 5 days in 3-week cycles. RESULTS: Common all-cause adverse events observed in 85 patients enrolled included fever (% all grade/G3: 72/4), chills (53/14), fatigue (51/9), back/neck pain (36/5), nausea (36/1) and dyspnoea (25/4). The RP2D was 70 mg/m2 for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and 93 mg/m2 for non-HCC cancers. Pharmacodynamic results showed delivery of miR-34a to tumours, and dose-dependent modulation of target gene expression in white blood cells. Three patients had PRs and 16 had SD lasting ≥4 cycles (median, 19 weeks, range, 11-55). CONCLUSION: MRX34 treatment with dexamethasone premedication demonstrated a manageable toxicity profile in most patients and some clinical activity. Although the trial was closed early due to serious immune-mediated AEs that resulted in four patient deaths, dose-dependent modulation of relevant target genes provides proof-of-concept for miRNA-based cancer therapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01829971.

Phase I study of MRX34, a liposomal miR-34a mimic, administered twice weekly in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Purpose Naturally occurring tumor suppressor microRNA-34a (miR-34a) downregulates the expression of >30 oncogenes across multiple oncogenic pathways, as well as genes involved in tumor immune evasion, but is lost or under-expressed in many malignancies. This first-in-human, phase I study assessed the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics, and clinical activity of MRX34, a liposomal miR-34a mimic, in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients and Methods Adult patients with solid tumors refractory to standard treatment were enrolled in a standard 3 + 3 dose escalation trial. MRX34 was given intravenously twice weekly (BIW) for three weeks in 4-week cycles. Results Forty-seven patients with various solid tumors, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC; n = 14), were enrolled. Median age was 60 years, median prior therapies was 4 (range, 1-12), and most were Caucasian (68%) and male (57%). Most common adverse events (AEs) included fever (all grade %/G3%: 64/2), fatigue (57/13), back pain (57/11), nausea (49/2), diarrhea (40/11), anorexia (36/4), and vomiting (34/4). Laboratory abnormalities included lymphopenia (G3%/G4%: 23/9), neutropenia (13/11), thrombocytopenia (17/0), increased AST (19/4), hyperglycemia (13/2), and hyponatremia (19/2). Dexamethasone premedication was required to manage infusion-related AEs. The MTD for non-HCC patients was 110 mg/m2, with two patients experiencing dose-limiting toxicities of G3 hypoxia and enteritis at 124 mg/m2. The half-life was >24 h, and Cmax and AUC increased with increasing dose. One patient with HCC achieved a prolonged confirmed PR lasting 48 weeks, and four patients experienced SD lasting ≥4 cycles. Conclusion MRX34 treatment with dexamethasone premedication was associated with acceptable safety and showed evidence of antitumor activity in a subset of patients with refractory advanced solid tumors. The MTD for the BIW schedule was 110 mg/m2 for non-HCC and 93 mg/m2 for HCC patients. Additional dose schedules of MRX34 have been explored to improve tolerability.

Novel nuclear targeting coiled-coil protein of Helicobacter pylori showing Ca(2+)-independent, Mg(2+)-dependent DNase I activity.

HP0059, an uncharacterized gene of Helicobacter pylori, encodes a 284-aa-long protein containing a nuclear localization sequence (NLS) and multiple leucine-rich heptad repeats. Effects of HP0059 proteins in human stomach cells were assessed by incubation of recombinant HP0059 proteins with the AGS human gastric carcinoma cell line. Wild-type HP0059 proteins showed cytotoxicity in AGS cells in a concentration-dependent manner, whereas NLS mutant protein showed no effect, suggesting that the cytotoxicity is attributed to host nuclear localization. AGS cells transfected with pEGFP-HP0059 plasmid showed strong GFP signal merged to the chromosomal DNA region. The chromosome was fragmented into multiple distinct dots merged with the GFP signal after 12 h of incubation. The chromosome fragmentation was further explored by incubation of AGS chromosomal DNA with recombinant HP0059 proteins, which leaded to complete degradation of the chromosomal DNA. HP0059 protein also degraded circular plasmid DNA without consensus, being an indication of DNase I activity. The DNase was activated by MgCl2, but not by CaCl2. The activity was completely blocked by EDTA. The optimal pH and temperature for DNase activity were 7.0-8.0 and 55°C, respectively. These results indicate that HP0059 possesses a novel DNase I activity along with a role in the genomic instability of human gastric cells, which may result in the transformation of gastric cells.

Axitinib versus sorafenib as a second-line therapy in Asian patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from a randomized registrational study.

BACKGROUND: This registrational trial evaluated the efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes of axitinib versus sorafenib as a second-line treatment in Asian patients with clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter study, previously treated Asian patients with clear-cell mRCC were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and prior therapy and randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive axitinib (5 mg twice daily) or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by a masked independent review committee. RESULTS: A total of 204 Asian patients received axitinib (n=135) or sorafenib (n=69). Median PFS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 6.5 (4.7-9.1) months with axitinib versus 4.8 (3.0-6.5) months with sorafenib (hazard ratio, 0.731; 95% CI, 0.506-1.058; one-sided P=0.0531). The objective response rate (95% CI) was 23.7% (16.8%-31.8%) with axitinib versus 10.1% (4.2%-19.8%) with sorafenib. Common, grade ≥3, all-causality adverse events were hypertension (19.3%), weight decrease (5.2%), and proteinuria (5.2%) with axitinib and hypertension (8.7%) and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (7.2%) with sorafenib. In a time-to-deterioration composite end point of death, progression, and worsening of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index score, patients treated with axitinib demonstrated a 17%-24% risk reduction compared with sorafenib-treated patients. CONCLUSION: Axitinib is clinically active and well tolerated in previously treated Asian patients with mRCC, consistent with the results from the global Phase III trial. These results establish axitinib as a second-line treatment option for Asian patients with mRCC.

Phase II study of axitinib with doublet chemotherapy in patients with advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Axitinib is an orally active and potent tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2 and 3. This phase II study assessed the efficacy and safety of axitinib combined with cisplatin/gemcitabine in chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced/metastatic (stage IIIB/IV) squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Axitinib (starting dose 5 mg twice daily [bid]; titrated up or down to 2-10 mg bid) was administered orally on a continuous schedule with cisplatin (80 mg/m(2) intravenously [i.v.] every 3 weeks) and gemcitabine (1,250 mg/m(2) i.v. on days 1 and 8 of each 3-week cycle), and was continued as monotherapy after completion of six cycles (maximum) of chemotherapy. The primary study endpoint was objective response rate, as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours. RESULTS: Of the 38 patients treated, one (2.6%) patient achieved a complete response and 14 (36.8%) patients had a partial response; nine (23.7%) patients showed stable disease and three (7.9%) patients had disease progression. Median progression-free survival was 6.2 months, and median overall survival was 14.2 months. The estimated probability of survival at 12 months and 24 months was 63.2% and 30.8%, respectively. The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicities were neutropaenia and hypertension (13.2% each). Three (7.9%) patients experienced haemoptysis, of which one case (2.6%) was fatal. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with the combination of axitinib and cisplatin/gemcitabine demonstrated anti-tumour activity in patients with advanced/metastatic squamous NSCLC and the fatal haemoptysis rate was low. However, without a reference arm (cisplatin/gemcitabine alone), it is not conclusive whether the combination is better than chemotherapy alone. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, registration # NCT00735904, on August 13, 2008.

Genotype Correlations With Blood Pressure and Efficacy From a Randomized Phase III Trial of Second-Line Axitinib Versus Sorafenib in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III axitinib second-line (AXIS) trial, axitinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus sorafenib in patients with previously treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Analyses of associations between germline single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and outcomes are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: DNA samples from blood were genotyped using TaqMan allelic discrimination. Logistic/Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate association of 15 SNPs in vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A, VEGF receptor (VEGFR)1, VEGFR2, or hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF)-1α with outcomes for blood pressure (BP; Grade ≥ 3 hypertension, diastolic BP > 90 mm Hg, and increase ≥ 15 mm Hg from baseline) and efficacy (independent review committee-assessed objective response rate and PFS, and overall survival [OS]). Multivariate analyses assessed SNPs and baseline characteristics as potential predictors of PFS and OS. RESULTS: Genotype data were available for 305 (42.7%) of 714 patients; 159 received axitinib and 146 sorafenib. After Bonferroni adjustment, no SNP was associated with BP outcomes. In axitinib-treated patients, VEGF-A rs699947 (A/A vs. C/C) and rs833061 (C/C vs. T/T) were associated with longer OS (27.0 vs. 13.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; Padjusted = .015). In sorafenib-treated patients, VEGFR2 rs2071559 (G/G vs. A/A) was associated with longer OS (26.8 vs. 13.8 months; HR, 0.41; Padjusted = .030). In multivariate analyses, no SNP predicted axitinib efficacy; VEGFR2 rs2071559 predicted PFS (P = .0053) and OS (P = .0027) for sorafenib. Sensitivity/specificity of VEGFR2 rs2071559 for OS was < 80%. CONCLUSION: No SNP predicted axitinib outcomes. Although VEGFR2 rs2071559 predicted sorafenib efficacy in patients with mRCC, sensitivity/specificity limitations preclude its use for selecting individual patients for sorafenib treatment.

Hypertension among patients with renal cell carcinoma receiving axitinib or sorafenib: analysis from the randomized phase III AXIS trial.

Inhibitors of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway frequently induce hypertension when used to treat patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This analysis characterizes hypertension and hypertension-related events in patients treated with the VEGF pathway inhibitors axitinib or sorafenib in the AXIS trial. AXIS was a randomized phase III study of axitinib versus sorafenib in patients with metastatic RCC following failure of one prior systemic regimen. Patients with uncontrolled hypertension were excluded, but patients with hypertension controlled with antihypertensive medication were allowed to participate. Guidelines for hypertension management included adjustment or addition of antihypertensive medications and/or axitinib or sorafenib dose reductions, interruptions, or discontinuations. Treatment-emergent all-causality hypertension occurred in 145 (40.4 %) axitinib-treated patients (N = 359) and 103 (29.0 %) sorafenib-treated patients (N = 355), with grade 3 hypertension reported in 55 (15.3 %) and 38 (10.7 %) patients, respectively, and grade 4 hypertension reported in one (0.3 %) patient in each arm. Hypertension-related events led to axitinib dose interruptions (n = 46; 12.8 %), dose reductions (n = 16; 4.5 %), or discontinuations (n = 1; 0.3 %). Approximately 50 % of axitinib-treated patients with grade 3 or 4 hypertension continued treatment for ≥ 9 months. Hypertension-related sequelae occurred in <1 % of axitinib-treated patients. Hypertension was more frequently observed during treatment with axitinib than sorafenib in patients with RCC, but axitinib-induced hypertension rarely led to treatment discontinuation or cardiovascular sequelae. Recommendations for monitoring blood pressure and managing hypertension during axitinib therapy are presented.

Pharmacokinetics of single-agent axitinib across multiple solid tumor types.

PURPOSE: Axitinib, a potent and selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors, showed antitumor activity as a single agent against several solid tumor types in Phase II and III trials. This study was conducted to evaluate axitinib pharmacokinetics across a variety of solid tumors. METHODS: The current study analyzed the pharmacokinetics of axitinib in 110 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), thyroid cancer, or melanoma from three Phase II trials plus 127 healthy volunteers, using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling. Boxplots of maximum observed plasma concentration (C max) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of data from these tumor populations was compared to C max and AUC from the final population pharmacokinetic model developed for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) to compare axitinib pharmacokinetics across different tumor types. RESULTS: Axitinib disposition based on data from 237 subjects was best described using a two-compartment model with first-order absorption and lag time. Population estimates for systemic clearance, central volume of distribution, absorption rate constant, absolute bioavailability, and lag time were 20.1 L/h, 56.2 L, 1.26/h(-1), 0.663, and 0.448 h, respectively. Statistically significant covariates included gender on clearance, and body weight on central volume of distribution. However, predicted changes due to gender and body weight were found not clinically meaningful. The final analysis indicated that the pharmacokinetic model for mRCC was able to successfully describe axitinib pharmacokinetics in patients with NSCLC, thyroid cancer, and melanoma. CONCLUSION: The pharmacokinetics of axitinib appears to be similar across a variety of tumor types.

Treatment of advanced thyroid cancer with axitinib: Phase 2 study with pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic and quality-of-life assessments.

BACKGROUND: In a previous phase 2 trial, axitinib was active and well tolerated in patients with advanced thyroid cancer. In this second phase 2 trial, the efficacy and safety of axitinib were evaluated further in this population, and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships and patient-reported outcomes were assessed. METHODS: Patients (N = 52) with metastatic or unresectable, locally advanced medullary or differentiated thyroid cancer that was refractory or not amenable to iodine-131 received a starting dose of axitinib 5 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety, pharmacokinetic parameters, and patient-reported outcomes assessed with the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory questionnaire. RESULTS: The overall ORR was 35% (18 partial responses), and 18 patients had stable disease for ≥16 weeks. The median PFS was 16.1 months, and the median OS was 27.2 months. All-causality, grade ≥3 adverse events (>5%) were fatigue, dyspnea, diarrhea, decreased weight, pain in extremity, hypertension, decreased appetite, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, hypocalcemia, and myalgia. Patients who had greater axitinib exposure had a longer median PFS. Quality of life was maintained during treatment with axitinib, and no significant deterioration in symptoms or interference in daily life caused by symptoms, assessed on MD Anderson Symptom Inventory subscales, were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Axitinib has activity and a manageable safety profile while maintaining quality of life, and it represents an additional treatment option for patients with advanced thyroid cancer.

Randomized phase II study of pemetrexed/cisplatin with or without axitinib for non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of axitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3 in combination with pemetrexed and cisplatin was evaluated in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Overall, 170 patients were randomly assigned to receive axitinib at a starting dose of 5-mg twice daily continuously plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 of up to six 21-day cycles (arm I); axitinib on days 2 through 19 of each cycle plus pemetrexed/cisplatin (arm II); or pemetrexed/cisplatin alone (arm III). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Median PFS was 8.0, 7.9, and 7.1 months in arms I, II, and III, respectively (hazard ratio: arms I vs. III, 0.89 [P = 0.36] and arms II vs. III, 1.02 [P = 0.54]). Median overall survival was 17.0 months (arm I), 14.7 months (arm II), and 15.9 months (arm III). Objective response rates (ORRs) for axitinib-containing arms were 45.5% (arm I) and 39.7% (arm II) compared with 26.3% for pemetrexed/cisplatin alone (arm III). Gastrointestinal disorders and fatigue were frequently reported across all treatment arms. The most common all-causality grade ≥3 adverse events were hypertension in axitinib-containing arms (20% and 17%, arms I and II, respectively) and fatigue with pemetrexed/cisplatin alone (16%). CONCLUSION: Axitinib in combination with pemetrexed/cisplatin was generally well tolerated. Axitinib combinations resulted in non-significant differences in PFS and numerically higher ORR compared with chemotherapy alone in advanced NSCLC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00768755 (October 7, 2008).

Axitinib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: a randomised open-label phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In previous clinical trials of patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma, patients treated with axitinib as second-line therapy had longer median progression-free survival than those treated with sorafenib. We therefore undertook a phase 3 trial comparing axitinib with sorafenib in patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, patients with treatment-naive, measurable, clear-cell metastatic renal-cell carcinoma from 13 countries were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and then randomly assigned (2:1) by a centralised registration system to receive axitinib 5 mg twice daily, or sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed by masked independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00920816. FINDINGS: Between June 14, 2010, and April 21, 2011, we randomly assigned 192 patients to receive axitinib, and 96 patients to receive sorafenib. The cutoff date for this analysis was July 27, 2012, when 171 (59%) of 288 patients died or had disease progression, as assessed by the independent review committee. There was no significant difference in median progression-free survival between patients treated with axitinib or sorafenib (10·1 months [95% CI 7·2-12·1] vs 6·5 months [4·7-8·3], respectively; stratified hazard ratio 0·77, 95% CI 0·56-1·05). Any-grade adverse events that were more common (≥10% difference) with axitinib than with sorafenib were diarrhoea (94 [50%] of 189 patients vs 38 [40%] of 96 patients), hypertension (92 [49%] vs 28 [29%]), weight decrease (69 [37%] vs 23 [24%]), decreased appetite (54 [29%] vs 18 [19%]), dysphonia (44 [23%] vs ten [10%]), hypothyroidism (39 [21%] vs seven [7%]), and upper abdominal pain (31 [16%] vs six [6%]); those more common with sorafenib than with axitinib included palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (PPE; 37 [39%] of 96 patients vs 50 [26%] of 189), rash (19 [20%] vs 18 [10%]), alopecia (18 [19%] vs eight [4%]), and erythema (18 [19%] vs five [3%]). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in patients treated with axitinib included hypertension (26 [14%] of 189 patients), diarrhoea (17 [9%]), asthenia (16 [8%]), weight decrease (16 [8%]), and PPE (14 [7%]); common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in patients treated with sorafenib included PPE (15 [16%] of 96 patients), diarrhoea (five [5%]), and asthenia (five [5%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 64 (34%) of 189 patients receiving axitinib, and 24 (25%) of 96 patients receiving sorafenib. INTERPRETATION: Axitinib did not significantly increase progression-free survival in patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal-cell carcinoma compared with those treated with sorafenib, but did demonstrate clinical activity and an acceptable safety profile. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc.

Axitinib or bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI or modified FOLFOX-6 after failure of first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase II study.

OBJECTIVE: Axitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3, shows activity in multiple tumor types, including those refractory to previous antiangiogenic therapy. This randomized, multicenter, parallel-group, open-label phase II trial compared axitinib with bevacizumab each in combination with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/irinotecan (FOLFIRI) for second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to axitinib 5 mg twice daily or bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus modified FOLFOX-6 (if previously treated with irinotecan) or FOLFIRI (if previously treated with oxaliplatin) and were stratified by performance status and prior bevacizumab therapy. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival. RESULTS: In 171 patients, progression-free survival was 7.6 months with axitinib/FOLFOX vs. 6.4 months with bevacizumab/FOLFOX (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-1.96; 1-sided P = .55) and 5.7 months with axitinib/FOLFIRI vs. 6.9 months with bevacizumab/FOLFIRI (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.77-2.11; 1-sided P = .83). Overall survival was 17.1 vs. 14.1 months with axitinib/FOLFOX and bevacizumab/FOLFOX (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.37-1.27; 1-sided P = .12) and 12.9 vs. 15.7 months with axitinib/FOLFIRI and bevacizumab/FOLFIRI (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.82-2.24; 1-sided P = .88). More grade ≥ 3 adverse events (eg, diarrhea, fatigue, decreased appetite) and treatment discontinuations due to adverse events occurred with axitinib. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with bevacizumab, axitinib did not improve outcomes when added to second-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. With current dosing regimens, axitinib plus FOLFOX or FOLFIRI seems to be less well tolerated than bevacizumab-based regimens.

Axitinib with or without dose titration for first-line metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: a randomised double-blind phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Population pharmacokinetic data suggest axitinib plasma exposure correlates with efficacy in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. Axitinib dose titration might optimise exposure and improve outcomes. We prospectively assessed the efficacy and safety of axitinib dose titration in previously untreated patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 2 study, patients were enrolled from 49 hospitals and outpatient clinics in the Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Russia, Spain, and USA. Patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal-cell carcinoma received axitinib 5 mg twice daily during a 4 week lead-in period. Those patients with blood pressure 150/90 mm Hg or lower, no grade 3 or 4 treatment-related toxic effects, no dose reductions, and no more than two antihypertensive drugs for 2 consecutive weeks were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 vs 1), and then randomly assigned (1:1) to either masked titration with axitinib to total twice daily doses of 7 mg, and then 10 mg, if tolerated, or placebo titration. Patients who did not meet these criteria continued without titration. The primary objective was comparison of the proportion of patients achieving an objective response between randomised groups. Safety analyses were based on all patients who received at least one dose of axitinib. FINDINGS: Between Sept 2, 2009, and Feb 28, 2011, we enrolled 213 patients, of whom 112 were randomly assigned to either the axitinib titration group (56 patients) or the placebo titration group (56 patients). 91 were not eligible for titration, and ten withdrew during the lead-in period. 30 patients (54%, 95% CI 40-67) in the axitinib titration group had an objective response, as did 19 patients (34%, 22-48]) in the placebo titration group (one-sided p=0·019). 54 (59%, 95% CI 49-70) of non-randomised patients achieved an objective response. Common grade 3 or worse, all-causality adverse events in treated patients were hypertension (ten [18%] of 56 in the axitinib titration group vs five [9%] of 56 in the placebo titration group vs 45 [49%] of 91 in the non-randomised group), diarrhoea (seven [13%] vs two [4%] vs eight [9%]), and decreased weight (four [7%] vs three [5%] vs six [7%]). One or more all-causality serious adverse events were reported in 15 (27%) patients in the axitinib titration group, 13 (23%) patients in the placebo titration group, and 35 (38%) non-randomised patients. The most common serious adverse events in all 213 patients were disease progression and dehydration (eight each [4%]), and diarrhoea, vomiting, pneumonia, and decreased appetite (four each [2%]). INTERPRETATION: The greater proportion of patients in the axitinib titration group achieving an objective response supports the concept of individual axitinib dose titration in selected patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. Axitinib shows clinical activity with a manageable safety profile in treatment-naive patients with this disease.

Efficacy and safety of axitinib versus sorafenib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: subgroup analysis of Japanese patients from the global randomized Phase 3 AXIS trial.

OBJECTIVE: Axitinib is a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2 and 3. The efficacy and safety of axitinib in Japanese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma were evaluated. METHODS: A subgroup analysis was conducted in Japanese patients enrolled in the randomized Phase III trial of axitinib versus sorafenib after failure of one prior systemic therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. RESULTS: Twenty-five (of 361) and 29 (of 362) patients randomized to the axitinib and sorafenib arms, respectively, were Japanese and included in this analysis. Median progression-free survival in Japanese patients was 12.1 months (95% confidence interval 8.6 to not estimable) for axitinib and 4.9 months (95% confidence interval 2.8-6.6) for sorafenib (hazard ratio 0.390; 95% confidence interval 0.130-1.173; stratified one-sided P = 0.0401). The objective response rate was 52.0% for axitinib and 3.4% for sorafenib (P = 0.0001). The common all-causality adverse events (all grades) in Japanese patients were dysphonia (68%), hypertension (64%), hand-foot syndrome (64%) and diarrhea (56%) for axitinib, and hand-foot syndrome (86%), hypertension (62%) and diarrhea (52%) for sorafenib. The safety profiles of axitinib and sorafenib in Japanese patients were generally similar to those observed in the overall population, with the exceptions of higher incidences of hypertension, dysphonia, hand-foot syndrome, hypothyroidism and stomatitis. CONCLUSIONS: Axitinib is efficacious and well tolerated in Japanese patients with previously treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma, consistent with the results in the overall population, providing a new targeted therapy for these Japanese patients.

Axitinib and/or bevacizumab with modified FOLFOX-6 as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: In this multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 2 trial, the authors evaluated the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor axitinib, bevacizumab, or both in combination with chemotherapy as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: Patients with previously untreated mCRC were randomized 1:1:1 to receive continuous axitinib 5 mg twice daily, bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or axitinib 5 mg twice daily plus bevacizumab 2 mg/kg every 2 weeks, each in combination with modified 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-6). The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: In all, 126 patients were enrolled from August 2007 to September 2008. The ORR was numerically inferior in the axitinib arm (n = 42) versus the bevacizumab arm (n = 43; 28.6% vs 48.8%; 1-sided P = .97). Progression-free survival (PFS) (11.0 months vs 15.9 months; 1-sided P = .57) and overall survival (OS) (18.1 months vs 21.6 months; 1-sided P = .69) also were numerically inferior in the axitinib arm. Similarly, efficacy endpoints for the axitinib/bevacizumab arm (n = 41) were numerically inferior (ORR, 39%; PFS, 12.5 months; OS, 19.7 months). The patients who received axitinib had fewer treatment cycles compared with other arms. Common all-grade adverse events across all 3 treatment arms were fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea (all ≥49%). Hypertension and headache were more frequent in the patients who received axitinib. Patients in the bevacizumab arm had the longest treatment exposures and the highest rates of peripheral neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS: Neither the addition of continuous axitinib nor the axitinib/bevacizumab combination to FOLFOX-6 improved ORR, PFS, or OS compared with bevacizumab as first-line treatment of mCRC.

Axitinib versus sorafenib as second-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: overall survival analysis and updated results from a randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of axitinib versus sorafenib as second-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, patients given axitinib had a longer progression-free survival (PFS). Here, we report overall survival and updated efficacy, quality of life, and safety results. METHODS: Eligible patients had clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma, progressive disease after one approved systemic treatment, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0-1. 723 patients were stratified by ECOG PS and previous treatment and randomly allocated (1:1) to receive axitinib (5 mg twice daily; n=361) or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily; n=362). The primary endpoint was PFS assessed by a masked, independent radiology review committee. We assessed patient-reported outcomes using validated questionnaires. Baseline characteristics and development of hypertension on treatment were studied as prognostic factors. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This ongoing trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00678392. FINDINGS: Median overall survival was 20.1 months (95% CI 16.7-23.4) with axitinib and 19.2 months (17.5-22.3) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.969, 95% CI 0.800-1.174; one-sided p=0.3744). Median investigator-assessed PFS was 8.3 months (95% CI 6.7-9.2) with axitinib and 5·7 months (4.7-6.5) with sorafenib (HR 0.656, 95% CI 0.552-0.779; one-sided p<0.0001). Patient-reported outcomes scores were similar in the treatment groups at baseline, were maintained during treatment, but decreased at end-of-treatment. Common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (60 [17%]), diarrhoea (40 [11%]), and fatigue (37 [10%]) in 359 axitinib-treated patients and hand-foot syndrome (61 [17%]), hypertension (43 [12%]), and diarrhoea (27 [8%]) in 355 sorafenib-treated patients. In a post-hoc 12-week landmark analysis, median overall survival was longer in patients with a diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or greater than in those with a diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg: 20.7 months (95% CI 18.4-24.6) versus 12.9 months (10.1-20.4) in the axitinib group (p=0.0116), and 20.2 months (17.1-32.0) versus 14.8 months (12.0-17.7) in the sorafenib group (one-sided p=0.0020). INTERPRETATION: Although overall survival, a secondary endpoint for the study, did not differ between the two groups, investigator-assessed PFS remained longer in the axitinib group compared with the sorafenib group. These results establish axitinib as a second-line treatment option for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc.

Axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results of a pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis.

Axitinib is a potent and selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3, approved for second-line therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Axitinib population pharmacokinetic and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships were evaluated. Using nonlinear mixed effects modeling with pooled data from 383 healthy volunteers, 181 patients with metastatic RCC, and 26 patients with other solid tumors in 17 trials, the disposition of axitinib was best described by a 2-compartment model with first-order absorption and a lag time, with estimated mean systemic clearance (CL) of 14.6 L/h and central volume of distribution (V(c)) of 47.3 L. Of 12 covariates tested, age over 60 years and Japanese ethnicity were associated with decreased CL, whereas V(c) increased with body weight. However, the magnitude of predicted changes in exposure based on these covariates does not warrant dose adjustments. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression and logistic regression analyses showed that higher exposure and diastolic blood pressure were independently associated with longer progression-free and overall survivals and higher probability of partial response in metastatic RCC patients. These findings support axitinib dose titration to increase plasma exposure in patients who tolerate axitinib, and also demonstrate diastolic blood pressure as a potential marker of efficacy.

Five-year survival in patients with cytokine-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with axitinib.

BACKGROUND: In a phase II study of axitinib for cytokine-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma, median overall survival (OS) was 29.9 months (95% CI, 20.3 to not estimable months). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Long-term survival data were collected retrospectively from 52 patients with cytokine-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received axitinib in a completed phase II study (protocol 1), 11 of whom enrolled in a continuing access protocol (protocol 2), for the current observational study (protocol 3). In a post hoc analysis, the patients were grouped into quartiles based on cycle 1 day 1, 1- to 2-hour post-dose axitinib plasma levels to explore the impact of drug exposure on efficacy. RESULTS: The 5-year survival rate was 20.6% (95% CI, 10.9%-32.4%), with a median follow-up of 5.9 years. Frequent all-grade adverse events were fatigue (n = 38; 73.1%), diarrhea (n = 34; 65.4%), hypertension (n = 33; 63.5%), and nausea (n = 33; 63.5%). Quartile 3 patients (axitinib level, 45.2-56.4 ng/mL; n = 12) had the best clinical outcome: objective response rate 82%, median progression-free survival (PFS) 28.3 months, and median OS that was not reached after 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Axitinib was well tolerated and provided an estimated 5-year survival rate of 20.6% for cytokine-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Exploratory analyses showed numerically higher objective response rate and longer OS and PFS in patients who achieved post-first-dose axitinib plasma concentrations within a specific range.

Phase I study of axitinib (AG-013736) in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: Axitinib (AG-013736), an oral, potent, and selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors 1, 2, and 3, is under investigation for treatment of various solid tumors. The safety and pharmacokinetics of axitinib in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer was evaluated in the phase I portion of this trial. The randomized phase II portion was reported separately. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who had received no prior chemotherapy were eligible for this study. Pharmacokinetic profiles of the drugs were obtained on cycle (C) 1 day (D) 1 (gemcitabine alone 1,000 mg/m(2)), C1D14 (steady state, axitinib alone 5 mg twice daily [BID]), and C1D15 (gemcitabine plus steady-state axitinib). Adverse events were monitored weekly at the clinic. RESULTS: Eight patients participated in the phase IB portion of the trial. Patients received gemcitabine on D1, D8, and D15 and continuous axitinib in a 28 day-cycle beginning C1D3. There was no dose-limiting toxicity. Common treatment-related adverse events included fatigue, diarrhea, dysphonia, and hypertension. Myelosuppression was similar to gemcitabine monotherapy. No apparent major pharmacokinetic interactions between gemcitabine and axitinib were observed. Of six patients evaluable for efficacy, three had confirmed partial responses. CONCLUSIONS: Axitinib (5 mg BID) and gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2)) were well tolerated when administered together, without any pharmacokinetic interactions, and showed encouraging antitumor activity.