Preoperative chemoradiation with capecitabine in locally advanced rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative radiation therapy in combination with 5-fluoracil (5-FU) improves local tumour control in locally advanced rectal cancer. The aim of our study was to evaluate the toxicity and efficacy of preoperative chemoradiation using the oral 5-FU prodrug capecitabine in locally advanced rectal cancer. METHODS: Sixty patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were treated with preoperative chemoradiation. Radiotherapy consisted of a total dose of 50 Gy delivered in 25 fractions to the pelvis. Chemotherapy was concurrently administered and consisted of oral capecitabine only on radiotherapy days. Surgery was performed six to ten weeks after completion of chemoradiation. RESULTS: The patient population consisted of 19 females and 41 males, with a median age of 61 years. All but two patients received the full dose of chemoradiation. No grade 3 or 4 haematological toxicities developed. Two patients (3%) developed grade 3 radiation dermatitis and one a grade 3 diarrhoea. All patients underwent definitive surgery; 19 patients underwent an abdominal perineal resection (APR), 25 a low anterior resection (LAR) and 16 patients a Hartmann's procedure. One patient with a low anterior resection developed an anastomotic leakage (4%). Final pathology demonstrated eight patients (13%) with a complete pathological response. Primary tumour and nodal downstaging occurred in 67 and 84% of the patients, respectively. Two patients (3%) had an R1 resection, one after an APR and one after an LAR. CONCLUSION: Preoperative chemoradiation with oral capecitabine is safe and well tolerated in locally advanced rectal cancer patients. This preoperative treatment has a considerable downstaging effect on the tumour and lymph nodes.

[Imaging in the diagnosis of colorectal liver metastases and extrahepatic abnormalities]. / Beeldvormende diagnostiek van colorectale levermetastasen en extrahepatische afwijkingen.

Imaging using ultrasonography, spiral CT, MRI and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET), plays a major role at two situations during the management of patients with colorectal liver metastases: (a) at the time of the diagnosis and treatment of the primary colorectal tumour, and (b) during the follow-up for the detection of liver metastases and assessing the resectability of these metastases. At the time of the diagnosis and the treatment of the primary tumour, imaging comprising spiral CT or MRI to detect and characterize liver lesions is considered to be the modality of choice. Due to their low prevalence, imaging for the evaluation of lung metastases may be limited to conventional chest radiography. For evaluation of the extrahepatic abnormalities, abdominal and chest CT may be performed in combination with CT of the liver; alternatively a FDG-PET may be performed. During the follow-up of patients treated for colorectal carcinoma, ultrasonography is the most important imaging modality. However, if the liver cannot be adequately imaged by ultrasonography, if there is a raised level ofcarcinoembryonic antigen or irresectability cannot be determined, additional CT or MRI examination will result in more information.

Evidence-base guideline on management of colorectal liver metastases in the Netherlands.

A dutch national evidence-based guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of patients with colorectal liver metastases has been developed. The most important recommendations are as follows. For synchronous liver metastases, spiral computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) should be used as imaging. For evaluation of lung metastases, imaging can be limited to chest radiography. For detection of metachronous liver metastases, ultrasonography could be performed as initial modality if the entire liver is adequately visualised. In doubtful cases or potential candidates for surgery, CT or MRI should be performed as additional imaging. For evaluation of extrahepatic disease, abdominal and chest CT could be performed. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography could be valuable in patients selected for surgery based on CT (liver/abdomen/chest), for identifying additional extrahepatic disease. Surgical resection is the treatment of choice with a five-year survival of 30 to 40%. Variation in selection criteria for surgery is caused by inconclusive data in the literature concerning surgical margins.

[Myocardial ischaemia as a result of treatment with capecitabine]. / Myocardischemie als gevolg van behandeling met capecitabine.

A 53-year-old man and a 76-year-old woman were treated with the cytotoxic drug capecitabine as palliative treatment and adjuvant treatment, respectively, because of colorectal carcinoma. Both developed myocardial ischaemia within a few days. In the man, the capecitabine dosage was reduced and metoprolol was prescribed, while in the woman the capecitabine was stopped. According to the literature, the risk of myocardial ischaemia during treatment with capecitabine is approximately 0.4%, irrespective of the patient's medical history. Except in clinical trials, a history of coronary disease is not considered a contraindication for capecitabine treatment. In case stable angina pectoris develops during treatment, continuation of treatment with a reduced dosage of capecitabine can be considered. A switch to treatment with an alternative fluoropyrimidine, such as fluorouracil or raltitrexed, also appears to be safe. However, raltitrexed is no longer available in The Netherlands.

Phase I and pharmacologic study of the novel indoloquinone bioreductive alkylating cytotoxic drug E09.

BACKGROUND: A novel bioreductive alkylating indoloquinone compound, E09 [3-hydroxy-5-aziridinyl-1-methyl-2-(1H-indole-4,7-indione)- prop-F128b-en-alpha-ol], has been shown to have distinct antitumor activity against solid tumors, excellent activity under hypoxic conditions, but no notable bone marrow toxicity in preclinical models. PURPOSE: A phase I study was carried out to determine the toxicity, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacology, and antitumor response of E09. METHODS: E09 was administered as a 5-minute intravenous infusion once every 3 weeks to 32 patients with solid tumors. The starting dose of 2.7 mg/m2 was one tenth of the mouse equivalent of lethal dose to 10% of animals (MELD10). Dose was escalated by 100% until the area under the curve (AUC) at the MELD10 was reached, following a Fibonacci-like schedule. The pharmacokinetics of E09 and its metabolite E05A with an open aziridine ring was determined using a new high-pressure liquid chromatographic method and noncompartmental calculation of kinetic parameters. The sigmoid Emax model was used to fit pharmacokinetic parameters to toxicity. The renal function and proteinuria were quantitated and were further evaluated by determining renal clearance ratios of immunoglobulin G (IgG) to albumin and pancreatic amylase to salivary amylase. RESULTS: The 32 patients were treated with a total of 85 assessable courses of E09. The dose-limiting toxicity was proteinuria, which was accompanied by sodium and water retention. All symptoms were reversible on day 15 except in two patients, who developed acute renal failure. The ratios of IgG to albumin and pancreatic amylase to salivary amylase suggested a loss of glomerular negative charge consistent with a minimal change glomerulopathy. The pharmacokinetics of E09 showed its rapid elimination from the central compartment but with wide interpatient variation in the overall disposition of the drug. Total plasma clearance of E09 ranged from 3.2 to 24 L/min. The AUC of E09 was linearly related to the administered dose. The relationship between the AUC and proteinuria was best fitted by the sigmoid Emax model (r = .98). In two patients with adenocarcinoma of unknown primary site and in a third patient with bile duct cancer, a partial response was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD of E09 was determined to be 27 mg/m2. The standard approach of drug administration is considered unsuitable because of potential renal toxicity and wide variability in the pharmacokinetics of E09. Individual dose adjustments based on plasma concentration measurements are recommended to combine maximally achievable exposure with tolerable toxicity.

Simple prognostic model to predict survival in patients with undifferentiated carcinoma of unknown primary site.

PURPOSE: We performed this study to identify prognostic factors in a subgroup of patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site treated with cisplatin combination chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-nine patients with poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma or undifferentiated carcinoma of unknown primary site were treated on two consecutive phase II chemotherapy protocols. The first protocol consisted of treatment with 3-week courses of cisplatin, etoposide, and bleomycin (BEP). In the second protocol, cisplatin was administered weekly combined with oral administration of etoposide (DDP/VP). To identify prognostic factors, univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. RESULTS: In the univariate analysis, performance status, histology, liver or bone metastases, and serum levels of alkaline phosphatase and AST were significant variables to predict survival. In the multivariate analysis, performance status and alkaline phosphatase were the most important prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: Good-prognosis patients had a performance score of 0 (World Health Organization [WHO]) and an alkaline phosphatase serum level less than 1.25 times the upper limit of normal (N). These patients had a median survival duration greater than 4 years. Intermediate-prognosis patients were characterized by either a WHO performance status < or = 1 or an alkaline phosphatase level > or = 1.25 N. These patients had a median survival duration of 10 months and a 4-year survival rate of only 15%. The poor-prognosis group had both a WHO performance status > or = 1 and an alkaline phosphatase level > or = 1.25 N. These patients had a median survival duration of only 4 months and none survived beyond 14 months. Treatment strategies for these three groups are discussed. It is suggested that this prognostic model be validated in other patients series.

Body-surface area-based dosing does not increase accuracy of predicting cisplatin exposure.

PURPOSE: Most anticancer drugs are dosed based on body-surface area (BSA) to reduce interindividual variability of drug effects. We evaluated the relevance of this concept for cisplatin by analyzing cisplatin pharmacokinetics obtained in prospective studies in a large patient population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were obtained from 268 adult patients (163 males/105 females; median age, 54 years [range, 21 to 74 years]) with advanced solid tumors treated in phase I/II trials with cisplatin monotherapy or combination chemotherapy with etoposide, irinotecan, topotecan, or docetaxel. Cisplatin was administered either weekly (n = 93) or once every 3 weeks (n = 175) at dose levels of 50 to 100 mg/m(2) (3-hour infusion). Analysis of 485 complete courses was based on measurement of total and non-protein-bound cisplatin in plasma by atomic absorption spectrometry. RESULTS: No pharmacokinetic interaction was found between cisplatin and the anticancer drugs used in combination therapies. A linear correlation was observed between area under the curves of unbound and total cisplatin (r = 0.63). The mean plasma clearance of unbound cisplatin (CL(free)) was 57.1 +/- 14.7 L/h (range, 31.0 to 116 L/h), with an interpatient variability of 25.6%. BSA varied between 1.43 and 2.40 m(2) (mean, 1.86 +/- 0.19 m(2)), with an interpatient variability of 10.4%. When CL(free) was corrected for BSA, interindividual variability remained in the same order (23.6 v 25.6%). Only a weak correlation was found between CL(free) and BSA (r = 0.42). Intrapatient variability in CL(free), calculated from 90 patients was 12.1% +/- 7.8% (range, 0.30% to 32.7%). CONCLUSION: In view of the high interpatient variability in CL(free) relative to variation in observed BSA, no rationale for continuing BSA-based dosing was found. We recommend fixed-dosing regimens for cisplatin.

Phase I study of 3-week schedule of irinotecan combined with cisplatin in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility, pharmacokinetic interaction, and possible sequence-dependent effects of the irinotecan/cisplatin combination given every 3 weeks, and to assess the influence of additional granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) on the hematologic toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who had received no more than one prior combination chemotherapy regimen or two single-agent regimens were entered. Treatment consisted of a 90-minute irinotecan infusion followed by a 3-hour cisplatin infusion on day 1, with cycles repeated once every 3 weeks. After the maximum-tolerated dose was determined, the sequence of administration was reversed. In a separate cohort of six patients, we assessed the effect of G-CSF on the experienced hematologic toxicity and dose-intensity. Irinotecan doses ranged from 175 to 300 mg/m(2) and cisplatin doses ranged from 60 to 80 mg/m(2). RESULTS: Fifty-two patients entered the study; one was not eligible, and two were not assessable for response. Twenty-five patients were pretreated, and 26 were not. Fifty-one patients received a total of 223 courses. The dose-limiting toxicity was a combination of neutropenic fever, diarrhea, and fatigue at a dose level combining irinotecan 300 mg/m(2) with cisplatin 80 mg/m(2). Neutropenia was common (grades 3 to 4, 68%). Irinotecan pharmacokinetics were linear over the dose range studied. No sequence-dependent side effects were observed. Tumor responses included three complete responses and eight partial responses. CONCLUSION: For phase II studies, we recommend irinotecan 260 mg/m(2) combined with cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) once every 3 weeks for chemotherapy-naive patients in good physical condition, and irinotecan 200 mg/m(2) combined with cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) for other patients.

Analysis of cumulative probabilities shows that the efficacy of 5HT3 antagonist prophylaxis is not maintained.

PURPOSE: Several investigators have reported that the efficacy of 5HT3 receptor antagonists is maintained over repeated cycles of chemotherapy. These investigators presented conditional probabilities of protection. Because conditional analyses by definition only include patients with protection in previous cycles, the results are flattered. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We applied a novel statistical approach to investigate whether the efficacy of the 5HT3 receptor antagonist ICS 205-930 (tropisetron) is maintained over repeated cycles of weekly high-dose cisplatin. Overall protection was determined based on cumulative probabilities with the Kaplan-Meier method. Complete protection was calculated with a three state model for transitional probabilities. Eighty-three patients were studied. RESULTS: Over six consecutive cycles, protection against both acute and delayed emesis decreased significantly. The initial complete and overall protection rates against acute emesis of 71% and 95%, respectively, decreased to 43% and 72% in the sixth cycle of chemotherapy. Similarly, the protection rates of 31% and 68% against delayed emesis decreased to 6% and 40%, respectively. CONCLUSION: We conclude that overall and complete long-term protection is more accurately measured by cumulative probabilities than with a method that is based on conditional probabilities. Our statistical approach shows that the efficacy of 5HT3 antagonists is not maintained.

Phase II and pharmacologic study of topotecan administered as a 21-day continuous infusion to patients with colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Topotecan is a specific inhibitor of topoisomerase I. Preclinical data have indicated that topoisomerase I inhibitors demonstrate more efficacy and have a greater therapeutic index with prolonged continuous exposure. The feasibility of this concept in humans using a 21-day continuous infusion of topotecan has been reported. We conducted a phase II study of this 21-day continuous topotecan administration schedule in patients with locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Topotecan, initially applied at a dose of 0.6 mg/m2/d, was administered as a continuous infusion via an ambulatory pump for 21 days repeated every 4 weeks. The starting dose was reduced to 0.5 mg/m2/d, because in five of the first 11 patients, the second course had to be delayed due to prolonged myelosuppression. Forty-two patients entered the study; one patient was ineligible and was excluded from further analyses. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 10%, with one complete and three partial responses. The median response duration was 7 months (range, 4 to 11). With this schedule, the major toxicity was prolonged cumulative myelosuppression, including a marked inhibition of erythropoiesis. A total transfusion of 250 U of erythrocytes was needed to maintain a hemoglobin level greater than 6.0 mmol/L. Other side effects were mild, and included alopecia (47%), periodic nausea (40%)/vomiting (22%), and fatigue (16%). Pharmacokinetic evaluation showed a mean steady-state plasma concentration (Css) of topotecan of 0.62 ng/mL (range, 0.33 to 1.1), with a significant relationship between the Css of topotecan and common cytotoxicity criteria (CTC) grade of leukocytopenia. CONCLUSION: Topotecan administered as a 21-day continuous infusion exerts minor activity as single-agent therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Phase I and pharmacologic study of oral topotecan administered twice daily for 21 days to adult patients with solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Topotecan is a specific inhibitor of topoisomerase I. Recently bioavailability of an oral formulation of approximately 30% with limited variability was reported. We conducted a phase I and pharmacokinetic study of the oral formulation of topotecan to characterize the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), toxicities, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor effects in patients with refractory malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were treated with oral topotecan given twice daily for 21 days, with cycles repeated every 28 days. In subsequent cohorts, the dose was escalated from 0.15 to 0.6 mg/m2 twice daily. Pharmacokinetics were performed on day 1 and 8 of the first course using a validated high-performance liquid chromatographic assay and noncompartmental pharmacokinetic methods. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients entered the study; one patient was not assessable for toxicity and response as therapy was prematurely interrupted on request of the patient who had not experienced toxicity. Thirty patients received a total of 59 courses. The dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was reached at a dose of 0.6 mg/m2 twice daily and consisted of diarrhea, which started subacutely at a median onset on day 15 (range, 12 to 20) and resolved after a median of 8 days (range, 7 to 16). Other toxicities were mild, including leukocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea, and vomiting. The MTD was 0.5 mg/m2 twice daily. No responses were observed. Pharmacokinetics showed a substantial variation of the area under the plasma concentration-time curve at time point "t" [AUC(t)] of topotecan and ring-opened product hydroxyacid. A significant correlation was observed between the percentage of decrease in WBC count versus the AUC(t) of topotecan (r = .75), which was modeled by a sigmoidal maximal effect concentration (Emax) function. CONCLUSION: The DLT in this phase I study for chronic oral topotecan for 21 days was diarrhea. The recommended dose for phase II studies is 0.5 mg/m2 twice daily.

Phase I pharmacologic study of oral topotecan and intravenous cisplatin: sequence-dependent hematologic side effects.

PURPOSE: In in vitro studies, synergism and sequence-dependent effects were reported for the combination of topotecan and cisplatin. Recently, an oral formulation of topotecan became available. This phase I study was performed to assess the feasibility of the combination of oral topotecan and cisplatin, the pharmacokinetic interaction, and sequence-dependent effects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Topotecan was administered orally (PO) daily for 5 days in escalating doses and cisplatin was given intravenously (IV) at a fixed dose of 75 mg/m(2) either before topotecan administration on day 1 (sequence CT) or after topotecan administration on day 5 (sequence TC) once every 3 weeks. Patients were treated in a randomized cross-over design. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients were entered onto the study; one patient was not eligible. Sequence CT induced significantly more severe myelosuppression than did sequence TC, and the maximum-tolerated dosage of topotecan in sequence CT was 1.25 mg/m(2)/d x 5. In sequence TC, the maximum-tolerated dosage of topotecan was 2.0 mg/m(2)/d x 5. Dose-limiting toxicity consisted of myelosuppression and diarrhea. Pharmacokinetics of topotecan and cisplatin were linear over the dose range studied; no sequence-dependent effects were observed. In addition, topotecan did not influence the protein binding of cisplatin or the platinum-DNA adduct formation in peripheral leukocytes in either sequence. CONCLUSION: The recommended dosages for phase II studies involving patients like the patients in our study are topotecan 1.25 mg/m(2)/d PO x 5 preceded by cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) IV day 1 once every 3 weeks, and topotecan 2.0 mg/m(2)/d PO followed by cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) IV day 5. No pharmacokinetic interaction could be discerned in our study. The antitumor efficacy of both schedules should be evaluated in a randomized phase II study.

Phase I and pharmacologic study of docetaxel and cisplatin in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: This phase I study was performed to assess the feasibility of the combination of docetaxel and cisplatin and to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and the side effects with an emphasis on sequence-dependent side effects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who were not pretreated with taxanes or cisplatin derivatives and who had received no more than one prior combination chemotherapy regimen or two single-agent regimens were entered. Treatment consisted of docetaxel given as a 1-hour infusion followed by cisplatin as a 3-hour infusion (schedule A), or cisplatin followed by docetaxel (schedule B). Docetaxel doses ranged from 55 to 100 mg/m2 and cisplatin doses from 50 to 100 mg/m2. RESULTS: Leukocytopenia and granulocytopenia were common (overall, 90%; grade 3 or 4, 87%), short-lasting, and docetaxel dose-dependent. Infections and neutropenic fever occurred in 10% and 4.5% of courses, respectively. Nonhematologic toxicities were mild to moderate and included alopecia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, mucositis, neurotoxicity, fluid retention, and skin and nail toxicity. There were no significant differences in pharmacokinetic parameters between schedules A and B. Tumor responses included one complete response (CR) and nine partial responses (PRs). CONCLUSION: The dose levels docetaxel 100 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 and docetaxel 85 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m2 appeared to be manageable. At these dose levels, the median relative dose-intensity was high and 81% and 88% of all cycles, respectively, could be given at full dose. Schedule A is advocated for further treatment.

Phase I and pharmacologic study of oral (PEG-1000) 9-aminocamptothecin in adult patients with solid tumors.

PURPOSE: 9-Amino-20(S)-camptothecin (9-AC) is a specific inhibitor of topoisomerase-I. Recently, a bioavailability of approximately 48% for the oral PEG-1000 formulation was reported. We conducted a phase I and pharmacokinetic study of the oral PEG-1000 formulation of 9-AC to define the maximum-tolerated dose, toxicity profiles, pharmacokinetic-dynamic relationships, and preliminary antitumor activity in patients with solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were treated with oral (PEG-1000) 9-AC given once a day for 7 or 14 days at doses ranging from 0.25 to 1.1 mg/m(2)/d; cycles were repeated every 21 days. For pharmacokinetic analysis, plasma sampling was performed on days 1 and 6 or 8 of the first course using a validated high-performance liquid chromatographic assay. RESULTS: Thirty patients were entered onto the study; three patients were not assessable for toxicity and response. Twenty-seven patients received a total of 89 courses. The dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were myelosuppression and diarrhea at a dose of 1.1 mg/m(2)/d for 14 days. Pharmacokinetics showed a substantial interpatient variation of the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of 9-AC. The intrapatient variability was extremely small. A significant correlation was observed between the percentage decrease in WBC count and the AUC of 9-AC lactone (r(2) = 0.86). One partial response was noted in a patient with metastatic colorectal cancer. CONCLUSION: DLTs in this phase I study of oral 9-AC daily for 14 days every 21 days were myelosuppression and diarrhea. The recommended dose for phase II studies is 0.84 mg/m(2)/d. In view of the substantial interpatient variability in AUC and the availability of a limited sampling model, a pharmacokinetic guided phase II study should be considered.

A phase I and pharmacologic study of the MDR converter GF120918 in combination with doxorubicin in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Resistance to chemotherapy can partly be explained by the activity of membrane bound P-glycoprotein. Competitive inhibition of P-glycoprotein, by multidrug resistance (MDR) converters, may overcome this MDR. Previously studied MDR converters either have serious intrinsic side effects or considerably influence the pharmacokinetics of cytotoxic agents at concentrations theoretically required to convert MDR. GF120918 is a third-generation MDR converter with high affinity for P-glycoprotein and can be given orally. We performed a phase 1 study with escalating doses of GF120918 in combination with doxorubicin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study group comprised 46 patients with advanced solid tumors. Doxorubicin was administered on day 1 (cycle 1), GF120918 on days 22-24 (cycle 2), and on days 29-33 with doxorubicin administered on day 31 (cycle 3). Pharmacokinetics of both GF120918 and doxorubicin were studied. The starting daily dose of GF120918 was 50 mg and was to be increased in subsequent cohorts until a steady state plasma level of 100 ng/ml was reached. The starting dose of doxorubicin was 50 mg/m2 and was to be increased after reaching the target dose level of GF120918. RESULTS: In 37 of the 46 patients, full pharmacokinetic data from the three scheduled cycles were obtained. Pharmacokinetics of GF120918 showed a less than linear increase in Cmax with increasing doses, with considerable interpatient variation. The target steady-state plasma level for GF120918 was exceeded in 12 out of 19 patients who received 400 mg GF120918 alone twice daily and in 12 of 17 patients who received 400 mg GF120918 twice daily in combination with doxorubicin. GF120918 pharmacokinetics were not influenced by coadministration of doxorubicin. The doxorubicin AUC was only marginally influenced by GF120918 and only at the highest dose levels. In these patients there was a significant increase in the AUC of doxorubicinol in cycle 3 as compared to cycle 1. Hematologic toxicity mainly consisted of neutropenia and was more severe in cycle 3 than in cycle 1 (13 vs 5 patients with grade 4 neutropenia, P=0.003). Neutropenic fever was the dose-limiting toxicity at a doxorubicin dose of 75 mg/m2 with 400 mg GF120918 twice daily. The toxicity of GF120918 was limited to somnolence in eight patients and occasional gastrointestinal complaints. CONCLUSION: GF120918 is an MDR converter with only minimal side effects at a dose level yielding concentrations able to convert the action of P-glycoprotein in vitro. A doxorubicin dose of 60 mg/m2 on day 3 in combination with 400 mg GF120918 twice daily on days 1-5 is an acceptable regimen for further clinical trials.

Drug-administration sequence does not change pharmacodynamics and kinetics of irinotecan and cisplatin.

In this study, 11 patients with solid tumors were randomized to receive irinotecan (CPT-11; 200 mg/m2) as a 90-min i.v. infusion, immediately followed by cisplatin (CDDP; 80 mg/m2) as a 3-h i.v. infusion in the first course and the reversed sequence in the second course or vice versa. No significant differences in any toxicity were observed between the treatment schedules (decrease in absolute neutrophil count, 74.7 +/- 18.3 versus 80.3 +/- 18.0%; P = 0.41). CPT-11 lactone clearance was similar to single agent data and not significantly different between study courses (60.4 +/- 17.1 versus 65.5 +/- 16.3 liter/h/m2; P = 0.66). The kinetic profiles of the major CPT-11 metabolites SN-38, SN-38 glucuronide, 7-ethyl-10-[4-N-(5-aminopentanoic acid)-1-piperidinolcarbonyloxycamptothecine (APC), and 7-ethyl-10-[4-N-(1-piperidino)-1-amino]carbonyloxycamptothecine (NPC) were also sequence independent (P > or = 0.20). In addition, CPT-11 had no influence on the clearance of nonprotein-bound CDDP (40.8 +/- 16.7 versus 50.3 +/- 18.6 liter/h/m2; P = 0.08) and the platinum DNA-adduct formation in peripheral leukocytes in either sequence (1.94 +/- 2.20 versus 2.42 +/- 1.62 pg Pt/microg DNA; P = 0.41). These data indicate that the toxicity of the combination CPT-11 and CDDP is schedule independent and that there is no mutual pharmacokinetic interaction.

Phase I and pharmacological study of weekly administration of the polyamine synthesis inhibitor SAM 486A (CGP 48 664) in patients with solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Early Clinical Studies Group.

A single-agent dose-escalating Phase I and pharmacological study of the polyamine synthesis inhibitor SAM 486A was performed. A dosing regimen of four weekly infusions followed by 2 weeks off therapy was studied. Fifty patients were entered into the study. Dose levels studied were 1.25, 2.5, 5, 8, 16, 32, 48, 70, 110, 170, 270, and 325 mg/m2/week. Pharmacokinetic sampling was done on day 1, and trough samples were taken weekly during the first treatment cycle. Pharmacodynamic sampling was done on days 1 and 22. At 325 mg/m2/week, dose-limiting toxicity was seen (one patient each with grade 4 febrile neutropenia, grade 3 neurotoxicity, and grade 3 hypotension with syncope and T-wave inversions on electrocardiogram). The recommended dose for further testing was set at 270 mg/m2/week. Infusion time was increased from 10 to 180 min due to facial paresthesias and flushing and somnolence. Drug exposure increased linearly with dose. Mean +/- SD t1,2 at 70-325 mg/m2 doses was 61.4+/-26.2 h, with a large volume of distribution at steady state. In peripheral blood leukocytes, a clear relationship between dose and inhibitory effect on S-adenosylmethionine decarboxylase or changes in intracellular polyamine pools was not recorded. SAM 486A can be administered safely using a dosing regimen of four weekly infusions followed by 2 weeks off therapy. The recommended dose for Phase II studies using this regimen is 270 mg/m2/week.

Oral topotecan given once or twice daily for ten days: a phase I pharmacology study in adult patients with solid tumors.

Prolonged exposure to topotecan (TPT) in in vitro experiments and in vivo studies in animals yielded the highest antitumor efficacy. An oral bioavailability of TPT of 32-44% enables convenient prolonged administration. Because of unpredictable diarrhea in the third week of the twice daily (b.i.d.) 21-day schedule of p.o. administered TPT and the finding of optimal down-regulation of topoisomerase I level after 10-14 days in mononuclear peripheral blood cells, a shorter period of administration (10 days) was chosen for Phase I and pharmacological studies of oral administration of TPT. Adult patients with malignant solid tumors that were refractory to standard forms of chemotherapy were entered. Two dose schedules were studied: once daily (o.d.) and b.i.d. administration for 10 days every 3 weeks. TPT o.d. for 10 days was studied at dose levels 1.0, 1.4, and 1.6 mg/m2/day, and dose levels were 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8 mg/m2 with the 10-day b.i.d. schedule. Pharmacokinetics were performed on days 1 and 8 of the first course using a validated high-performance liquid chromatographic assay and noncompartmental pharmacokinetic methods. Nineteen patients were entered in the 10-day o.d. schedule, with a total of 48 courses given. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was reached at 1.6 mg/m2/day and consisted of common toxicity criteria (CTC) grade IV thrombocytopenia and CTC grade III diarrhea. The maximum tolerated dose was 1.4 mg/m2/day. In the 10-day b.i.d. administration of TPT, a total of 64 courses were studied in 20 patients. DLT was reached at a dose of 0.8 mg/m2 b.i.d. and consisted of CTC grade IV myelosuppression and CTC grade IV diarrhea. The maximum tolerated dose was 0.7 mg/m2 b.i.d. Nonhematological toxicities with both schedules included mild nausea and vomiting, fatigue, and anorexia. Pharmacokinetics revealed a substantial variation of the area under the plasma concentration-time curve of TPT lactone in both schedules. Significant correlations were observed between the myelotoxicity parameters and the area under the plasma concentration-time curve at day 1 of TPT lactone o.d. and b.i.d. The DLT of 10 daily administrations of oral topotecan every 3 weeks consisted of a combination of myelosuppression and diarrhea for both schedules studied. The recommended doses for Phase II studies are 1.4 mg/m2/day for 10 days for the o.d. administration and 0.7 mg/m2 for the b.i.d. schedule.

A comparison of clinical pharmacodynamics of different administration schedules of oral topotecan (Hycamtin)

Prolonged exposure to topotecan in in vitro and in vivo experiments has yielded the highest antitumor efficacy. An oral formulation of topotecan with a bioavailability of 32-44% in humans enables convenient prolonged administration. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships from four Phase I studies with different schedules of administration of oral topotecan in 99 adult patients with malignant solid tumors refractory to standard forms of chemotherapy were compared. Topotecan was administered as follows: (a) once daily (o.d.) for 5 days every 21 days (29 patients); (b) o.d. for 10 days every 21 days (19 patients); (c) twice daily (b.i.d.) for 10 days every 21 days (20 patients); and (d) b.i.d. for 21 days every 28 days (31 patients). Pharmacokinetic analysis was performed in 55 patients using a validated high-performance liquid chromatographic assay and noncompartmental pharmacokinetic methods. Totals of 109, 48, 64, and 59 courses were given, respectively. Dose-limiting toxicity consisted of granulocytopenia for the o.d. x 5-day dosage, a combination of myelosuppression and diarrhea in both of the 10-day schedules, and only diarrhea in the 21-day schedule. Pharmacokinetics revealed a substantial variation of the area under curve (AUC) of topotecan lactone in all of the dose schedules with a mean intrapatient variation of 25.4 +/- 31.0% (o.d. x 5), 34.5 +/- 25.0% (o.d. x 10), 96.5 +/- 70.1% (b.i.d. x 10), and 59.5 +/- 51.0% (b.i.d. x 21). Significant correlations were observed between myelotoxicity parameters and AUC(t) day 1 and AUC(t) per course of topotecan lactone. In all of the studies, similar sigmoidal relationships could be established between AUC(t) per course and the percentage decrease of WBCs. At maximum-tolerated dose level, no significant difference in AUC(t) per course was found [AUC(t) per course was 107.4 +/- 33.7 ng x h/ml (o.d. x 5), 145.3 +/- 23.8 ng x h/ml (o.d. x 10), 100.0 +/- 41.5 ng x h/ml (b.i.d. x 10), and 164.9 +/- 92.2 ng x h/ml (b.i.d. x 21), respectively.] For oral topotecan, the schedule rather than the AUC(t)-per-course seemed to be related to the type of toxicity. Prolonged oral administration resulted in intestinal side effects as a dose-limiting toxicity, and short-term administration resulted in granulocytopenia. On the basis of this pharmacokinetic study, no schedule preference could be expressed, but based on patient convenience, administration once daily for 5 days could be favored.

Phase II study of daily oral miltefosine (hexadecylphosphocholine) in advanced colorectal cancer.

34 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer were treated with the ether lipid miltefosine (hexadecylphosphocholine). Most patients received 3 x 50 mg daily, while in 11 patients the dose could be escalated to 4 x 50 mg daily. Nausea and vomiting were the most frequent side-effects occurring in all but 3 patients, nephrotoxicity was observed in 11 patients. Leucocytosis was observed in 24 and thrombocytosis in 17 patients. 28 patients are evaluable for response. 1 patient obtained a partial response of liver metastases for a duration of 8 months. 3 patients had stable disease while 24 progressed during treatment. We conclude that miltefosine in this dose and schedule has limited activity in colorectal cancer.