Targeting KIT on innate immune cells to enhance the antitumor activity of checkpoint inhibitors.

Innate immune cells such as mast cells and myeloid-derived suppressor cells are key components of the tumor microenvironment. Recent evidence indicates that levels of myeloid-derived suppressor cells in melanoma patients are associated with poor survival to checkpoint inhibitors. This suggests that targeting both the innate and adaptive suppressive components of the immune system will maximize clinical benefit and elicit more durable responses in cancer patients. Preclinical data suggest that targeting signaling by the receptor tyrosine kinase KIT, particularly on mast cells, may modulate innate immune cell numbers and activity in tumors. Here, we review data highlighting the importance of the KIT signaling in regulating antitumor immune responses and the potential benefit of combining selective KIT inhibitors with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

The development of immunomodulatory monoclonal antibodies as a new therapeutic modality for cancer: the Bristol-Myers Squibb experience.

The discovery and increased understanding of the complex interactions regulating the immune system have contributed to the pharmacologic activation of antitumor immunity. The activity of effector cells, such as T and NK cells, is regulated by an array of activating and attenuating receptors and ligands. Agents that target these molecules can modulate immune responses by exerting antagonistic or agonistic effects. Several T- or NK-cell modulators have entered clinical trials, and two have been approved for use. Ipilimumab (Yervoy®, Bristol-Myers Squibb) and nivolumab (OPDIVO, Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd./Bristol-Myers Squibb) were approved for the treatment of metastatic melanoma, in March 2011 in the United States, and in July 2014 in Japan, respectively. The clinical activity of these two antibodies has not been limited to tumor types considered sensitive to immunotherapy, and promising activity has been reported in other solid and hematologic tumors. Clinical development of ipilimumab and nivolumab has presented unique challenges in terms of safety and efficacy, requiring the establishment of new evaluation criteria for adverse events and antitumor effects. Guidelines intended to help oncologists properly manage treatment in view of these non-traditional features have been implemented. The introduction of this new modality of cancer treatment, which is meant to integrate with or replace the current standards of care, requires additional efforts in terms of optimization of treatment administration, identification of biomarkers and application of new clinical trial designs. The availability of immune modulators with different mechanisms of action offers the opportunity to establish immunological combinations as new standards of care.

Ixabepilone-associated peripheral neuropathy: data from across the phase II and III clinical trials.

PURPOSE: Dose-limiting neuropathy is a major adverse event associated with most of the microtubule-stabilizing agent-based chemotherapy regimens. Ixabepilone, a semisynthetic analogue of the natural epothilone B, has activity against a wide range of tumor types. Peripheral neuropathy (PN), associated with ixabepilone treatment, is usually mild to moderate, predominantly sensory and cumulative. Preclinical studies demonstrate that ixabepilone and taxanes produce a similar neurotoxicity profile. METHODS: We searched databases of phase II/III clinical trials involving patients receiving ixabepilone as a monotherapy or in combination with capecitabine for incidences of neuropathy. Potential risk factors for grade 3/4 PN were identified by a Cox regression analysis on a dataset of 1,540 patients with different tumor types across multiple studies. RESULTS: Rates for incidence of ixabepilone-induced severe PN (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3/4) ranged from 1% in early untreated breast cancer up to 24% in heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer; grade 4 PN was rare (≤ 1%). Common symptoms included numbness, paresthesias, and sometimes dysesthesias. Cox regression analysis identified only preexisting neuropathy as a risk factor for increased ixabepilone-associated PN. The management of PN has been primarily through dose adjustments (dose delays and/or dose reduction). Patients had resolution of their neuropathy within a median time of 5 to 6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: PN is a dose-limiting toxicity associated with ixabepilone treatment, is reversible in most patients, and can be managed with dose reduction and delays.

Q-TWiST analysis of ixabepilone in combination with capecitabine on quality of life in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Combination therapy with ixabepilone and capecitabine (cape) is approved for use in patients with locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer that is resistant to treatment with anthracyclines or taxanes. The current study evaluated the trade-off between quality and quantity of life using quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) outcomes. METHODS: Within the trial, 752 women were randomly assigned to receive either the combination of ixabepilone and cape (once every 21 days) or cape alone (on days 1-14). The area under the survival curve was partitioned into 3 health states: toxicity (TOX), time without symptoms of disease progression or toxicity, and recurrence (relapse [REL]). The mean time in each health state was weighted by a range of utilities and summed to estimate quality-adjusted survival (QAS). Patient-reported outcomes were also evaluated using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT)-Breast Symptom Index (FBSI). RESULTS: A statistically significant difference between groups with regard to change from baseline FBSI scores favoring the cape group was observed (P = .0002), but no differences were observed after adjusting for deaths in the analysis. All combinations of utilities for REL and TOX resulted in an observed difference in QAS favoring combination therapy. Differences were found to be statistically significant for comparisons, with higher tolerance for TOX. QAS was found to be greater for the combination therapy group (42.2 weeks vs 38.4 weeks), assuming the base case scenario of utility equal to 0.5 for both TOX and REL (P = .0227). CONCLUSIONS: The Q-TWiST analysis supports a positive benefit-risk ratio for the combination of ixabepilone plus cape in patients with advanced/metastatic breast cancer that is refractory to anthracyclines and taxanes versus cape alone, despite the potential for added toxicities with combination therapy.

Ixabepilone plus capecitabine in advanced breast cancer patients with early relapse after adjuvant anthracyclines and taxanes: a pooled subset analysis of two phase III studies.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients with rapid disease relapse after neo/adjuvant chemotherapy including anthracyclines and taxanes have limited treatment options and their efficacy is marginal. Two phase III studies compared ixabepilone plus capecitabine vs. capecitabine alone as first-line treatment in MBC patients pretreated with anthracyclines and taxanes in the neo/adjuvant setting. Here we report the efficacy and safety of these treatments in a prespecified subset of patients whose disease relapsed within 12 months. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of 1973 patients across two studies, 293 relapsed within 12 months of neo/adjuvant treatment and received ixabepilone plus capecitabine (n = 149) or capecitabine alone (n = 144) as first-line chemotherapy for MBC. Analysis included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and toxicity. RESULTS: In 293 patients, ixabepilone plus capecitabine, as compared to capecitabine alone, increased PFS (median: 5.6 months vs. 2.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.58; p < 0.0001), ORR (46% vs. 24%) and OS (median: 15.1 months vs. 12.5 months; hazard ratio, 0.84; p = 0.208). Major toxicities of this regimen included neuropathy, neutropenia and hand-foot syndrome, but were manageable. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with breast cancer with early relapse following neo/adjuvant treatment with anthracyclines and taxanes may benefit from ixabepilone plus capecitabine. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00080301 and NCT00082433.).

Ixabepilone plus capecitabine in metastatic breast cancer patients with reduced performance status previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes: a pooled analysis by performance status of efficacy and safety data from 2 phase III studies.

Patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes often have decreased performance status secondary to extensive tumor involvement. Here, we report the pooled analysis of efficacy and safety data from two similarly designed phase III studies to provide a more precise estimate of benefit of ixabepilone plus capecitabine in MBC patients with Karnofsky's performance status (KPS) 70-80. Across the studies, anthracycline/taxane-pretreated MBC patients were randomized to receive ixabepilone plus capecitabine or capecitabine alone. Individual patient data for KPS 70-80 subset (n = 606) or KPS 90-100 subset (n = 1349) from the two studies were pooled by treatment. Analysis included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. In patients with reduced performance status (KPS 70-80), ixabepilone plus capecitabine was associated with improvements in OS (median: 12.3 vs. 9.5 months; HR, 0.75; P = 0.0015), PFS (median: 4.6 vs. 3.1 months; HR, 0.76; P = 0.0021) and ORR (35 vs. 19%) over capecitabine alone. Corresponding results in patients with high performance status (KPS 90-100) were median OS of 16.7 versus 16.2 months (HR, 0.98; P = 0.8111), median PFS of 6.0 versus 4.4 months (HR, 0.58; P = 0.0009), and ORR of 45 versus 28%. The safety profile of combination therapy was similar between the subgroups. Ixabepilone plus capecitabine appeared to show superior efficacy compared to capecitabine alone in MBC patients previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes, regardless of performance status, with a possible OS benefit favoring KPS 70-80 patients (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00080301 and NCT00082433).

Randomized phase III trial of ixabepilone plus capecitabine versus capecitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline and a taxane.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine whether the combination of ixabepilone plus capecitabine improved overall survival (OS) compared with capecitabine alone in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 1,221 patients with MBC previously treated with anthracycline and taxanes were randomly assigned to ixabepilone (40 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1) plus capecitabine (2,000 mg/m(2) orally on days 1 through 14) or capecitabine alone (2,500 mg/m(2) on the same schedule) given every 21 days. The trial was powered to detect a 20% reduction in the hazard ratio (HR) for death. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in OS between the combination and capecitabine monotherapy arm, the primary end point (median, 16.4 v 15.6 months; HR = 0.9; 95% CI, 078 to 1.03; P = .1162). The arms were well balanced with the exception of a higher prevalence of impaired performance status (Karnofsky performance status 70% to 80%) in the combination arm (32% v 25%). In a secondary Cox regression analysis adjusted for performance status and other prognostic factors, OS was improved for the combination (HR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.98; P = .0231). In 79% of patients with measurable disease, the combination significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS; median, 6.2 v 4.2 months; HR = 0.79; P = .0005) and response rate (43% v 29%; P < .0001). Grade 3 to 4 neuropathy occurred in 24% treated with the combination, but was reversible. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed a previous trial demonstrating improved PFS and response for the ixabepilone-capecitabine combination compared with capecitabine alone, although this did not result in improved survival.

Analysis of overall survival from a phase III study of ixabepilone plus capecitabine versus capecitabine in patients with MBC resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes.

Limited proven treatment options exist for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) resistant to anthracycline and taxane treatment. Ixabepilone, a novel semisynthetic analog of epothilone B, has demonstrated single-agent activity in MBC resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes. In combination with capecitabine in a phase III trial (CA163-046) in this setting, ixabepilone prolonged progression-free survival and increased objective response rate relative to capecitabine (Thomas et al. J Clin Oncol 25:5210-5217, 2007). Here, we report the results of overall survival (OS), a secondary efficacy endpoint from the CA163-046 trial. Seven hundred fifty-two patients with MBC resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes were randomized to ixabepilone (40 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 of a 21-day cycle) plus capecitabine (2,000 mg/m(2) orally on days 1 through 14 of a 21-day cycle) or capecitabine alone (2,500 mg/m(2) on the same schedule). Patients receiving ixabepilone plus capecitabine treatment had a median survival of 12.9 months compared to 11.1 months for patients receiving capecitabine alone (HR = 0.9; 95%CI: 077-1.05; P = 0.19). This observed increase in median OS favored the combination; however, the difference was not statistically significant. Predefined subset analyses showed a clinically meaningful increase in OS in KPS 70-80 patients receiving ixabepilone plus capecitabine (HR = 0.75; 95% CI: 0.58-0.98). Ixabepilone plus capecitabine did not show a significant improvement in survival compared to capecitabine alone in patients with MBC resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes. The observed differences in survival favored the combination arm. A clinical benefit was also seen in patients in the KPS 70-80 subgroup.

Phase I dose escalation study of weekly ixabepilone, an epothilone analog, in patients with advanced solid tumors who have failed standard therapy.

PURPOSE: To establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), safety and recommended Phase II dose of ixabepilone, administered weekly as an intravenous (IV) infusion to patients with solid tumors who have failed standard therapy. METHOD: This was an open-label, single-arm, Phase I, dose-escalation study. RESULTS: The MTD of ixabepilone [30-min, weekly IV infusion on a 21-day schedule (N = 33)] was established at 25 mg/m(2). Grade 3 fatigue was the DLT in 2/4 patients treated at 30 mg/m(2). Ixabepilone was well tolerated at the MTD. Myelosuppression was rare, with no Grade 3/4 neutropenia. Due to the potential for cumulative neurotoxicity, the protocol was amended to a 1-h infusion, weekly for 3 weeks with a 1-week break. No DLT occurred at starting doses of 15, 20 and 25 mg/m(2) on this modified schedule (N = 51), although overall toxicity was less at 15 and 20 mg/m(2) than 25 mg/m(2). Five patients (2 on the 30-min/21-day schedule and 3 on the 60-min/28-day schedule) achieved durable objective partial responses across a variety of tumor types. CONCLUSIONS: Ixabepilone had an acceptable safety profile at the MTD of 25 mg/m(2) (as a 30-min weekly infusion on a continuous 21-day schedule) and at 20 mg/m(2) (as a 1-h weekly infusion on a modified 28-day schedule). The clinical activity and acceptable tolerability profile warrant further single- or combination-agent evaluation.

Phase I/II study of ixabepilone plus capecitabine in anthracycline-pretreated/resistant and taxane-resistant metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), recommended phase II dose, and efficacy of the epothilone B analogue ixabepilone plus capecitabine in anthracycline-pretreated/ resistant and taxane-resistant metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 106 patients were enrolled. The study consisted of a dose-escalation phase (phase I) and a tumor response rate evaluation phase (phase II). Seventy-four patients were treated in phase I with schedule A (ixabepilone 40 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 plus capecitabine 1650-2000 mg/m2 on days 1-14 of a 21-day cycle) or schedule B (ixabepilone 8-10 mg/m2 on days 1-3 plus capecitabine 1650 mg/m2 on days 1-14 of a 21- day cycle). RESULTS: No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed in the 8/1650 mg/m2 and 10/1650 mg/m2 cohorts; 1 of 30 patients in the 40/1650 mg/m2 cohort and 2 of 30 patients in the 40/2000 mg/m2 cohort had a DLT consisting of grade 3 plantar-palmar erythrodysesthesia (PPE). The 40/2000 mg/m2 dose was defined as the MTD for schedule A, and a total of 62 patients were treated for the phase II portion of the trial, which examined tumor response. The objective response rate was 30%, median time-to-response was 6 weeks, median duration of response was 6.9 months, and median progression-free survival was 3.8 months. Grade 3/4 treatment-related events in phase II included fatigue (34%), PPE (34%), myalgia (23%), nausea (16%), peripheral neuropathy (19%), and diarrhea/vomiting (10%). Grades 3/4 neutropenia (69%) and leukopenia (55%) were managed primarily by dose reduction/treatment interruption. CONCLUSION: Ixabepilone plus capecitabine demonstrated clinical activity and an acceptable safety profile in patients with anthracycline-pretreated/resistant and taxane-resistant MBC. Ixabepilone was recently approved in the United States for the treatment of resistant/refractory locally advanced or MBC.

Safety of repeated administrations of ixabepilone given as a 3-hour infusion every other week in combination with irinotecan in patients with advanced malignancies.

Epothilones are active tubulin-interacting agents that warrant combinations in clinical studies. This phase I combination study explored ixabepilone administered as a 3-h infusion followed by a 90-minute infusion irinotecan, on days 1 and 14 of every 28-day cycle. Forty-one patients received doses of ixabepilone and irinotecan ranging from 15-30 mg/m(2) and 120-180 mg/m(2) every 2 weeks for a total of 173 cycles, respectively. Dose limiting toxicities reported at doses 25 mg/m(2) ixabepilone and 180 mg/m(2) irinotecan consisted of acute grade 3 diarrhoea and asthenia, eventually associated with neutropenia and sepsis, and/or delayed grade 3 peripheral neuropathy. Therefore, the recommended doses were 20 mg/m(2) ixabepilone and 180 mg/m(2) irinotecan. At this dose level, acute side effects were neutropenia, anaemia, nausea-vomiting, diarrhoea, asthenia, and alopecia. Delayed neuropathy was mostly restricted to reversible grade I-II. Pharmacokinetic data suggested no drug-drug interaction. Five objective responses were observed in four patients with lung cancer and one unknown primary epidermoid carcinoma patient. In conclusion, toxicity including peripheral neuropathy was manageable at the recommended doses of 20 mg/m(2) ixabepilone combined with 180 mg/m(2) irinotecan on days 1 and 14 every 28 days. Promising antitumour activity was observed in patients with platinum-pretreated lung cancer.

Ixabepilone plus capecitabine for metastatic breast cancer progressing after anthracycline and taxane treatment.

PURPOSE: Effective treatment options for patients with metastatic breast cancer resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes are limited. Ixabepilone has single-agent activity in these patients and has demonstrated synergy with capecitabine in this setting. This study was designed to compare ixabepilone plus capecitabine versus capecitabine alone in anthracycline-pretreated or -resistant and taxane-resistant locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seven hundred fifty-two patients were randomly assigned to ixabepilone 40 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 of a 21-day cycle plus capecitabine 2,000 mg/m(2) orally on days 1 through 14 of a 21-day cycle, or capecitabine alone 2,500 mg/m(2) on the same schedule, in this international phase III study. The primary end point was progression-free survival evaluated by blinded independent review. RESULTS: Ixabepilone plus capecitabine prolonged progression-free survival relative to capecitabine (median, 5.8 v 4.2 months), with a 25% reduction in the estimated risk of disease progression (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.88; P = .0003). Objective response rate was also increased (35% v 14%; P < .0001). Grade 3/4 treatment-related sensory neuropathy (21% v 0%), fatigue (9% v 3%), and neutropenia (68% v 11%) were more frequent with combination therapy, as was the rate of death as a result of toxicity (3% v 1%, with patients with liver dysfunction [>/= grade 2 liver function tests] at greater risk). Capecitabine-related toxicities were similar for both treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Ixabepilone plus capecitabine demonstrates superior efficacy to capecitabine alone in patients with metastatic breast cancer pretreated or resistant to anthracyclines and resistant to taxanes.

Phase II clinical trial of ixabepilone (BMS-247550), an epothilone B analog, as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracycline chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: There is a need for new agents to treat metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in patients for whom anthracycline therapy has failed or is contraindicated. This study was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of the novel antineoplastic, the epothilone B analog ixabepilone, in patients with MBC previously treated with an adjuvant anthracycline. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were age >or= 18 years and had received a prior anthracycline-based regimen as adjuvant treatment. Ixabepilone as first-line metastatic chemotherapy was administered as a 40 mg/m(2) intravenous infusion during 3 hours every 3 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary efficacy end points included duration of response, time to response, time to progression, and survival. RESULTS: All 65 patients were assessable for response. Their median age was 52 years (range, 33 to 80 years). ORR was 41.5% (95% CI, 29.4% to 54.4%), median duration of response was 8.2 months (95% CI, 5.7 to 10.2 months), and median time to response was 6 weeks (range, 5 to 17 weeks). Median survival was 22.0 months (95% CI, 15.6 to 27.0 months). Treatment-related adverse events were manageable and mostly grades 1/2: the most common of these (other than alopecia) was mild to moderate neuropathy, which was primarily sensory and mostly reversible in nature. CONCLUSION: Ixabepilone is efficacious and has a predictable and manageable safety profile in women with MBC previously treated with an adjuvant anthracycline.

Phase II clinical trial of the epothilone B analog, ixabepilone, in patients with non small-cell lung cancer whose tumors have failed first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Ixabepilone is the first in a new class of antineoplastic agents, the epothilones and their analogs. This international, randomized, phase II trial assessed two administration schedules of ixabepilone as second-line therapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had experienced disease progression after one prior cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy regimen. Ixabepilone was administered as a single 32 mg/m(2) 3-hour infusion (77 patients; arm A) or a 6 mg/m(2) 1-hour infusion daily for 5 consecutive days (69 patients; arm B) in a 3-week cycle. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat objective response rate was 14.3% in arm A and 11.6% in arm B. Median duration of response was 8.7 months (95% CI, 5.3 to 9.5 months) in arm A and 9.6 months (95% CI, 6.1 to 19.7 months) in arm B. Median time to progression was 2.1 months (95% CI, 1.4 to 2.8 months) for arm A and 1.5 months (95% CI, 1.4 to 2.8 months) for arm B. Median survival was 8.3 months (95% CI, 5.8 to 11.5 months) for arm A, and 7.3 months (95% CI, 5.7 to 11.7 months) for arm B; the 1-year survival rate (both cohorts) was 38%. Responses occurred in patients with taxane-pretreated and platinum-refractory tumors. Both regimens had an acceptable toxicity profile. Myelosuppression was manageable, manifesting primarily as neutropenia and leukopenia. Neuropathy was primarily sensory, generally mild to moderate in severity, and mostly reversible (both regimens). CONCLUSION: Single-agent ixabepilone had clinically relevant activity and an acceptable safety profile in patients with advanced NSCLC whose tumors had failed one prior platinum-based chemotherapy regimen.

Efficacy and safety of ixabepilone (BMS-247550) in a phase II study of patients with advanced breast cancer resistant to an anthracycline, a taxane, and capecitabine.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ixabepilone in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) resistant to anthracycline, taxane, and capecitabine, in this multicenter, phase II study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with measurable disease who had tumor progression while receiving prior anthracycline, taxane, and capecitabine were enrolled. Ixabepilone 40 mg/m(2) monotherapy was administered as a 3-hour intravenous infusion on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR), assessed by an independent radiology facility (IRF). RESULTS: A total of 126 patients were treated and 113 were assessable for response. Patients were heavily pretreated: 88% had received at least two lines of prior chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. IRF-assessed ORR was 11.5% (95% CI, 6.3% to 18.9%) for response-assessable patients. Investigator-assessed ORR for all treated patients was 18.3% (95% CI, 11.9% to 26.1%). Fifty percent of patients achieved stable disease (SD); 14.3% achieved SD >or= 6 months. Median duration of response and progression-free survival were 5.7 and 3.1 months, respectively. Median overall survival was 8.6 months. Patients received a median of 4.0 treatment cycles (range, one to 16 cycles), and 25% of patients received >or= eight cycles. Grade 3/4 treatment-related events included peripheral sensory neuropathy (14%), fatigue/asthenia (13%), myalgia (8%), and stomatitis/mucositis (6%). Resolution of grade 3/4 peripheral sensory neuropathy occurred after a median period of 5.4 weeks. CONCLUSION: Ixabepilone demonstrated clear activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with MBC resistant to anthracycline, taxane, and capecitabine. Responses were durable and notable in patients who had not previously responded to multiple prior therapies.

Phase I study of the novel epothilone analog ixabepilone (BMS-247550) in patients with advanced solid tumors and lymphomas.

PURPOSE: To establish the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of ixabepilone when administered as a 1-hour infusion every 3 weeks to patients with advanced solid tumors or relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Dosing schedules of 40 mg/m2 and 50 mg/m2 over 3 hours were also evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-one patients were enrolled using an initial accelerated dose-escalation phase followed by a standard dose-escalation phase, with doses of ixabepilone ranging from 7.4 to 65 mg/m2. The pharmacokinetics of ixabepilone and two of its chemical degradation products were evaluated. Plasma pharmacodynamics were evaluated for both 1- and 3-hour infusions using an assay that measures the amount of endogenous tubulin in peripheral-blood mononuclear cells that exists in the polymerized versus the unpolymerized state. Response evaluation was performed every 6 weeks. RESULTS: The most common DLTs were neutropenia, stomatitis/pharyngitis, myalgia, and arthralgia. The MTD of ixabepilone as a 1-hour infusion every 3 weeks was established as 50 mg/m2. The maximum plasma concentration and area under the plasma concentration time curve appeared to increase less than proportionally to dose. Durable objective responses were seen in eight patients, including two complete responses. Five of the responders had experienced treatment failure with a taxane. CONCLUSION: The recommended dose of ixabepilone for the initiation of phase II studies on the basis of these results is 50 mg/m2 over 1 hour every 3 weeks. The promising efficacy and tolerability results demonstrated by ixabepilone in this study warrant its continued development.