Doublet and Triplet Combinations of Eribulin, Fulvestrant, and Palbociclib in Preclinical Breast Cancer Models.

BACKGROUND/AIM: This study investigated in vivo synergism between eribulin and palbociclib in a breast cancer patient-derived xenograft (PDX) model, with expanded scope to include fulvestrant as a third drug. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eribulin plus palbociclib combinations were tested in vitro in six cell lines each of estrogen receptor positive and triple-negative breast cancer, and in vivo in the OD-BRE-0192 PDX model using weekly eribulin plus 5×/week or 7×/week palbociclib (holiday or no-holiday schedules, respectively). When included as a third drug, fulvestrant was dosed weekly. RESULTS: In vitro, combining palbociclib with eribulin led to increased eribulin IC50s in 11 of 12 cell lines, suggesting that the drugs antagonized each other due to mutual exclusion of the mitotic and G1/S cell cycle block points for eribulin and palbociclib. An in vivo study in the OD-BRE-0192 PDX model compared weekly eribulin plus either palbociclib holiday or no-holiday schedules to gauge the importance of post-palbociclib cell cycle synchronization. Results showed no advantage of holiday over no-holiday schedules, arguing that differing pharmacokinetics of the drugs were sufficient to overcome cell cycle-based mechanistic antagonism. In vivo comparisons of doublet and triplet combinations of eribulin, palbociclib, and fulvestrant showed that all three doublets were superior to individual monotherapies, and that the triplet combination was markedly superior to all three doublets, being the only group to show tumor regression in 100% of the mice. CONCLUSION: Results show complex synergistic interactions between eribulin, fulvestrant, and palbociclib, and point to a particularly robust synergy when combining all three drugs.

Liposomal Irinotecan Shows a Larger Therapeutic Index than Non-liposomal Irinotecan in Patient-Derived Xenograft Models of Pancreatic Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Liposomal irinotecan promotes controlled sustained release of irinotecan (CPT-11), therefore, we hypothesize that the therapeutic index (quantitative measurement of the relative efficacy/safety ratio of a drug) will be higher for liposomal than non-liposomal irinotecan. METHODS: We compared the therapeutic indexes of liposomal and non-liposomal irinotecan in mice bearing subcutaneous patient-derived xenograft (PDX) pancreatic tumors under dosing regimens approximating the clinical setting. Following preliminary drug sensitivity/antitumor activity analyses on three PDX tumor models, one model was selected for analyses of efficacy, biomarker, toxicology, pharmacokinetics in mice receiving liposomal irinotecan (2.5, 10, 50 mg/kg/week) or non-liposomal irinotecan (10, 25, 50 mg/kg/week). The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) for each treatment was 50 mg/kg/week. RESULTS: Using the selected IM-PAN-001 model at the MTD (both treatments, 50 mg/kg/week), antitumor activity, phospho-histone gamma-H2AX protein staining in cancer cell nuclei, histological tumor regression, and plasma levels of CPT-11 and its active metabolite SN-38 after 24 h were greater with liposomal than non-liposomal irinotecan, but tumor SN-38 levels were similar. At the lowest doses assessed, antitumor activity, histological tumor regression, and jejunum and bone marrow toxicity were similar. Based on these findings, liposomal and non-liposomal irinotecan had therapeutic indexes of 20 and 5, respectively. CONCLUSION: This non-clinical study showed a fourfold broader therapeutic index with liposomal than non-liposomal irinotecan in mice bearing IM-PAN-001 PDX pancreatic tumors, even at optimal dosing for the two drugs. These findings support the clinical benefit observed with liposomal irinotecan in patients with pancreatic cancer.

Broad-spectrum Preclinical Antitumor Activity of Eribulin (Halaven®): Combination with Anticancer Agents of Differing Mechanisms.

BACKGROUND: Eribulin is used in many countries to treat patients with advanced breast cancer or liposarcoma and exerts in vivo anticancer activity under monotherapy conditions against various human tumor xenograft models. Here, eribulin in combination with mechanistically different anticancer agents was evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eribulin was combined with cytotoxic agents (capecitabine, carboplatin, cisplatin, doxorubicin, gemcitabine) or targeted agents (bevacizumab, BKM-120, E7449, erlotinib, everolimus, lenvatinib, palbociclib) in tumor xenograft models of breast cancer, melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and ovarian cancer. RESULTS: Across nearly all models, eribulin with either cytotoxic or targeted agents demonstrated combination activity, defined as the activity demonstrably greater than that of either agent alone. Combination activity was absent only with doxorubicin (MDA-MB-435 model) and with lenvatinib (NCI-H1975 model), both of which responded to the agents as monotherapy. CONCLUSION: Eribulin has combination activity with multiple agents from different mechanistic classes in several human cancer models, including breast, NSCLC, ovarian, and melanoma.