A phase II study of sorafenib, oxaliplatin, and 2 days of high-dose capecitabine in advanced pancreas cancer.

PURPOSE: Fluoropyrimidines and oxaliplatin have demonstrated some efficacy against pancreatic adenocarcinoma, but survival remains brief. Sorafenib is an oral multikinase inhibitor which we sought to combine with a unique capecitabine and oxaliplatin regimen for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. METHODS: We performed a multicenter phase II study of sorafenib 200 mg orally twice daily along with oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) IV on days 1 and 15, followed by capecitabine 2250 mg/m(2) orally every 8 h for six doses starting on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle in patients who had no more than one previous chemotherapy regimen for their pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The primary objective was response rate; secondary objectives were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were enrolled; median age was 63 years (range 48-83). The most common related toxicities were fatigue, neuropathy, anemia, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, nausea, leukopenia, and hand-foot syndrome. Grade 3 hand-foot syndrome was rare (4 %). Other grade 4 toxicities included abdominal pain (8 %), pulmonary embolism (4 %), and anemia (4 %). Three partial responses were seen (13 %), and 11 patients had stable disease (46 %) as their best response. Median PFS was 6.0 months (range 1.5-13 months). Median OS was 8.1 months (range 1.5-13.6 months). CONCLUSIONS: Sorafenib, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine produced partial responses in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer including previously treated patients and demonstrated a PFS of 6 months with few grade 3/4 toxicities.

Yttrium 90-ibritumomab tiuxetan plus rituximab maintenance as initial therapy for patients with high-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma: a Wisconsin Oncology Network study.

INTRODUCTION: Yttrium 90-ibritumomab tiuxetan (90Y-IT) radioimmunotherapy has proved to be effective in relapsed follicular lymphoma (FL). We conducted a clinical trial in which 90Y-IT followed by maintenance rituximab (MR) was evaluated as initial therapy for high-tumor-burden FL. METHODS: Eligible patients had histologically confirmed FL and met the GELF (Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomes Folliculaires) criteria for high tumor burden. All patients received a single dose of 90Y-IT. Patients with platelet counts of 150,000/mm³ or higher received 0.4 mCi/kg, and patients with platelet counts between 100,000/mm³ and 149,000/mm³ received 0.3 mCi/kg. At 6 months, patients without progressive disease (PD) received rituximab weekly for 4 weeks at a dose of 375 mg/m² (consolidation therapy), followed by MR consisting of the same dose every 3 months for a planned 5 years. RESULTS: From January 2005 through November 2007, a total of 16 patients were enrolled. The median age was 52 years (range, 37-75). The major toxicity from 90Y-IT was myelosuppression, with 88% and 31% of the patients experiencing grade 3 and grade 4 hematologic toxicity, respectively. The responses to 90Y-IT induction therapy were as follows: 7 patients with complete response/unconfirmed complete response (CR/Cru), 4 with partial response (PR), 3 with stable disease (SD), and 2 with progressive disease (PD). We identified 6 patients with early PD (range, 4-16 months) and 10 patients with prolonged remission (range, 37-101+ months). Compared with the patients who had prolonged remission, the patients who had early PD tended to have larger baseline nodal masses. The median progression-free survival (PFS) has not been reached after a median follow-up period of 48 months. The 3-year PFS and overall survival (OS) rates were 56% (95% CI, 37%-87%) and 93% (95% CI, 80%-100%), respectively. CONCLUSION: The overall response rate (ORR) to 90Y-IT was 69% in patients who had previously untreated, high-tumor-burden FL, which is lower than what is observed with contemporary rituximab/chemotherapy combinations. MR after 90Y-IT did convert all PRs to CRs. Alternative therapies should be considered for patients who have FL with large nodal masses (>9 cm), whereas very durable responses are possible in patients who have intermediate-size masses (>9 cm).

Targeting AKT with the allosteric AKT inhibitor MK-2206 in non-small cell lung cancer cells with acquired resistance to cetuximab.

The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is a central regulator of tumor progression in human cancers. Cetuximab is an anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody that has been approved for use in oncology. Despite clinical success the majority of patients do not respond to cetuximab and those who initially respond frequently acquire resistance. To understand how tumor cells acquire resistance to cetuximab we developed a model of resistance using the non-small cell lung cancer line NCI-H226. We found that cetuximab-resistant (Ctx (R) ) clones manifested strong activation of EGFR, PI3K/AKT and MAPK. To investigate the role of AKT signaling in cetuximab resistance we analyzed the activation of the AKT pathway effector molecules using a human AKT phospho-antibody array. Strong activation was observed in Ctx (R) clones for several key AKT substrates including c-jun, GSK3ß, eIF4E, rpS6, IKKα, IRS-1 and Raf1. Inhibition of AKT signaling by siAKT1/2 or by the allosteric AKT inhibitor MK-2206 resulted in robust inhibition of cell proliferation in all Ctx (R) clones. Moreover, the combinational treatment of cetuximab and MK-2206 resulted in further decreases in proliferation than either drug alone. This combinatorial treatment resulted in decreased activity of both AKT and MAPK thus highlighting the importance of simultaneous pathway inhibition to maximally affect the growth of Ctx (R) cells. Collectively, our findings demonstrate that AKT activation is an important pathway in acquired resistance to cetuximab and suggests that combinatorial therapy directed at both the AKT and EGFR/MAPK pathways may be beneficial in this setting.

A phase I study of sorafenib, oxaliplatin and 2 days of high dose capecitabine in advanced pancreatic and biliary tract cancer: a Wisconsin oncology network study.

Chemotherapy has yielded minimal clinical benefit in pancreatic and biliary tract cancer. A high-dose, short course capecitabine schedule with oxaliplatin, has shown some efficacy with a lower incidence of palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia. Achieving high exposures of the targeted agent sorafenib may be possible with this shorter schedule of capecitabine by avoiding dermatologic toxicity. All patients had pancreatic or biliary tract cancer. Patients in both cohorts received oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 followed by capecitabine 2,250 mg/m2 PO every 8 h x 6 doses starting on days 1 and 15 of a 28 day cycle, or 2DOC (2 Day Oxaliplatin/Capecitabine). Cohort 1 used sorafenib 200 mg BID, and cohort 2 used sorafenib 400 mg BID. Sixteen patients were enrolled. Across all cycles the most common grade 1 or 2 adverse events were fatigue (10 pts), diarrhea (10 pts), nausea (9 pts), vomiting (8 pts), sensory neuropathy (8 pts), thrombocytopenia (7 pts), neutropenia (5 pts), and hand-foot syndrome (5 pts). Grade 3 toxicites included neutropenia, mucositis, fatigue, vomiting and diarrhea. Cohort 1 represented the MTD. Two partial responses were seen, one each in pancreatic and biliary tract cancers. The recommended phase II dose of sorafenib in combination with 2DOC is 200 mg BID. There were infrequent grade 3 toxicities, most evident with sorafenib at 400 mg BID.

A double-blind randomized discontinuation phase-II study of sorafenib (BAY 43-9006) in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer patients: eastern cooperative oncology group study E2501.

INTRODUCTION: Sorafenib is a raf kinase and angiogenesis inhibitor with activity in multiple cancers. This phase-II study in heavily pretreated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients (≥ 2 prior therapies) used a randomized discontinuation design. METHODS: Patients received 400 mg of sorafenib orally twice daily for two cycles (2 months) (step 1). Responding patients on step 1 continued on sorafenib; progressing patients went off study, and patients with stable disease were randomized to placebo or sorafenib (step 2), with crossover from placebo allowed upon progression. The primary endpoint of this study was the proportion of patients having stable or responding disease 2 months after randomization. RESULTS: There were 299 patients evaluated for step 1; of these, 81 eligible patients were randomized on step 2 and received sorafenib (n = 50) or placebo (n = 31). The 2-month disease control rates after randomization were 54% and 23% for patients initially receiving sorafenib and placebo, respectively, p = 0.005. The hazard ratio for progression on step 2 was 0.51 (95% [confidence interval] CI 0.30, 0.87, p = 0.014) favoring sorafenib. A trend in favor of overall survival with sorafenib was also observed (13.7 versus 9.0 months from time of randomization), hazard ratio 0.67 (95% CI 0.40-1.11), p = 0.117. A dispensing error occurred, which resulted in the unblinding of some patients, but not before completion of the 8-week initial step 2 therapy. Toxicities were manageable and as expected. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this randomized discontinuation trial suggest that sorafenib has single-agent activity in a heavily pretreated, enriched patient population with advanced NSCLC. These results support further investigation with sorafenib as a single agent in larger, randomized studies in NSCLC.

Pemetrexed plus gemcitabine as first-line chemotherapy for patients with peritoneal mesothelioma: final report of a phase II trial.

PURPOSE: Pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin is approved for the treatment of pleural mesothelioma and is active in malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPeM). Pemetrexed and gemcitabine are synergistic in preclinical models, but the activity of this combination in MPeM is unknown. This clinical study assessed safety and efficacy of pemetrexed plus gemcitabine in chemotherapy-naïve patients with MPeM. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Treatment consisted of gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8, and pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 8, administered immediately before gemcitabine. Treatment was repeated every 21 days for six cycles or until disease progression. All patients received folic acid, vitamin B(12), and dexamethasone supplementation. End points included tumor response, toxicity, time to disease progression (TTPD), and overall survival (OS). Disease control rate (DCR) was also calculated. RESULTS: Twenty patients were enrolled between December 2002 and May 2004. The confirmed response rate was 15% (95% CI, 3.2% to 37.9%), with three patients experiencing a partial response. The DCR was 50% (95% CI, 27.2% to 72.8%). The most common grade 3 to 4 nonhematologic toxicities included fatigue (20%), constipation (10%), vomiting (10%), and dehydration (10%). Hematologic toxicities included grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (60%) and febrile neutropenia (10%). One patient death was attributed to treatment. Median TTPD and OS times were 10.4 months and 26.8 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: The combination of pemetrexed plus gemcitabine was active in patients with MPeM with a notably high incidence of neutropenia. Median TTPD and OS seem promising. This regimen may provide an alternative to standard therapies, especially for patients who cannot tolerate a platinum-based regimen.