A phase 1 trial of E7974 administered on day 1 of a 21-day cycle in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: E7974, a synthetic analog of hemiasterlin, interacts with the tubulin molecule and overcomes resistance to other antitubulin drugs (taxanes and vinca alkaloids). METHODS: In a phase 1 study, E7974 was given intravenously over a 2- to 5-minute infusion on day 1 of every 21-day cycle. Adult patients with advanced refractory solid tumors who had adequate organ function and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 2 were eligible for this study. A modified Fibonacci schema was used. The maximal tolerated dose (MTD) was the dose where <2 of 6 patients developed a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients (19 men and 9 women; median age, 64 years) treated at different cohort dose levels (0.18 mg/m(2) , 0.27 mg/m(2) , 0.36 mg/m(2) , 0.45 mg/m(2) , and 0.56 mg/m(2) ) received a total of 66 courses of E7974. The MTD was established at 0.45 mg/m(2) , where 1 of 6 patients experienced DLT (grade 4 febrile neutropenia). Of the 17 refractory colon cancer patients with a median of 3 prior treatments, stable disease was seen in 7 patients (41%). There were no tumor responses. Median progression-free survival was 1.2 months, and median overall survival was 6.7 months. In pharmacokinetic analysis, E7974 was characterized by a fast and moderately large distribution (37.95-147.93 L), slow clearance (2.23-7.15 L/h), and moderate to slow elimination (time to half-life, 10.4-30.5 hours). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that E7974 once every 21-day cycle shows antitumor activity in patients with refractory solid tumors. The recommended phase 2 dose is 0.45 mg/m(2).

Phase I study of gemcitabine, docetaxel and imatinib in refractory and relapsed solid tumors.

PURPOSE: In a phase I study, the combination of gemcitabine and imatinib was well tolerated with broad anticancer activity. This phase I trial evaluated the triplet of docetaxel, gemcitabine and imatinib. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Imatinib was administered at 400 mg daily on days 1-5, 8-12 and 15-19. Gemcitabine was started at 600 mg/m(2) at a rate of 10 mg/min on days 3 and 10 and docetaxel at 30 mg/m(2) on day 10, on a 21-day cycle. Diffusion and dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI was performed in selected patients. RESULTS: Twenty patients with relapsed/refractory solid tumors were enrolled in this IRB-approved study. The mean age was 64, and mean ECOG PS was 1. Two patients were evaluated by diffusion/perfusion MRI. After two grade 3 hematological toxicities at dose level 1, the protocol was amended to reduce the dose of imatinib. MTDs were 600 mg/ m(2) on days 3 and 10 for gemcitabine, 30 mg/ m(2) on day 10 for docetaxel, and 400 mg daily on days 1-5 and 8-12 for imatinib. Dose limiting toxicities after one cycle were neutropenic fever, and pleural and pericardial effusions. The best response achieved was stable disease, for six cycles, in one patient each with mesothelioma and non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at the MTD. Two patients with NSCLC had stable disease for four cycles. DISCUSSION: An unexpectedly low MTD for this triplet was identified. Our results suggest drug-drug interactions that amplify toxicities with little evidence of improved tumor control.

Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of imatinib mesylate (Gleevec) and gemcitabine in patients with refractory solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Preclinical data shows improvements in response for the combination of imatinib mesylate (IM, Gleevec) and gemcitabine (GEM) therapy compared with GEM alone. Our goals were to determine the maximum tolerated dose of GEM and IM in combination, the pharmacokinetics of GEM in the absence and in the presence of IM, and IM pharmacokinetics in this combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with refractory malignancy, intact intestinal absorption, measurable/evaluable disease, adequate organ function, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS 0-2, and signed informed consent were eligible. Initially, treatment consisted of 600 mg/m2 of GEM (10 mg/m2/min) on days 1, 8, and 15, and 300 mg of IM daily every 28 days. Due to excessive toxicity, the schedule was altered to IM on days 1 to 5 and 8 to 12, and GEM on days 3 and 10 every 21 days. Two final cohorts received IM on days 1 to 5, 8 to 12, and 15 to 19. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were treated. IM and GEM given daily at 500 to 600 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 produced frequent dose-limiting toxicities. With the modified scheduling, GEM given at 1,500 mg/m2/150 min was deliverable, along with 400 mg of IM, without dose-limiting toxicities. Three partial (laryngeal, renal, and mesothelioma) and two minor (renal and pancreatic) responses were noted at GEM doses of 450 to 1,500 mg/m2. Stable disease >24 weeks was seen in 17 patients. CA19-9 in 7 of 10 patients with pancreatic cancer was reduced by approximately 90%. IM did not significantly alter GEM pharmacokinetics. CONCLUSION: The addition of intermittently dosed IM to GEM at low to full dose was associated with broad antitumor activity and little increase in toxicity.

Pharmacokinetics of cetuximab after administration of escalating single dosing and weekly fixed dosing in patients with solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Previous studies of cetuximab pharmacokinetics did not fully characterize its elimination phase. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of cetuximab given as a single dose followed by weekly fixed repeated dosing in patients with solid tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with a single 2-hour infusion of cetuximab at doses of 50, 100, 250, 400, or 500 mg/m2 followed 3 weeks later by weekly 1-hour infusions of cetuximab at a fixed dose of 250 mg/m2. Extended pharmacokinetic sampling was collected through 504 hours after the first drug administration. Trough samples were obtained before each fixed weekly dose. Single and multidose pharmacokinetic variables were correlated with clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled. Pharmacokinetic analysis confirmed previous reports of nonlinear pharmacokinetics for cetuximab. Modeling studies predicted a 90% saturation of clearance at a dose of 260 mg/m2. Analyses of weekly trough concentrations indicated a slight accumulation of drug concentrations following repeated weekly dosing. Correlative studies indicated a significant association between cetuximab clearance and both body surface area (P=0.002) and weight (P=0.002). The occurrence of rash was significantly associated with disease stability (P<0.002) but not with cetuximab pharmacokinetic variables. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacokinetic results support using body surface area or weight in calculating individual cetuximab doses. A weekly dose of 250 mg/m2 is predicted to nearly fully saturate cetuximab clearance and, by inference, epidermal growth factor receptors. The association between rash and disease stability supports further prospective studies of this relationship.

Phase III Southwest Oncology Group 9415/Intergroup 0153 randomized trial of fluorouracil, leucovorin, and levamisole versus fluorouracil continuous infusion and levamisole for adjuvant treatment of stage III and high-risk stage II colon cancer.

PURPOSE: Modest toxicity and possibly enhanced activity makes continuous-infusion fluorouracil (FU) an attractive alternative to FU plus leucovorin (FU/LV) for the adjuvant treatment of colorectal cancer. Intergroup trial 0153 (Southwest Oncology Group trial 9415) was developed to compare the efficacy of continuous-infusion FU (CIFU) plus levamisole to FU/LV plus levamisole in the adjuvant treatment of high-risk Dukes' B2 and C1 or C2 colon cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: After surgery, patients were randomly assigned to CIFU 250 mg/m(2)/d for 56 days every 9 weeks for three cycles or FU 425 mg/m(2) and LV 20 mg/m(2) daily for 5 days every 28 to 35 days for six cycles. All patients received levamisole 50 mg tid for 3 days every other week. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The study closed in December 1999 after an interim analysis demonstrated little likelihood of CIFU showing superiority to FU/LV within the stipulated hazard ratio. A total of 1,135 patients were registered. At least one grade 4 toxicity occurred in 39% of patients receiving FU/LV and 5% of patients receiving CIFU. However, almost twice as many patients receiving CIFU discontinued therapy early compared with those receiving FU/LV. The 5-year OS is 70% (95% CI, 66% to 74%) for FU/LV and 69% (95% CI, 64% to 73%) for CIFU. The corresponding 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) is 61% (95% CI, 56% to 65%) and 63% (95% CI, 59% to 68%), respectively. For all patients, 5-year OS is 83%, 74%, and 55%; 5-year DFS is 78%, 67%, and 47% for N0, N1, and N2-3, respectively. CONCLUSION: CIFU had less severe toxicity but did not improve DFS or OS in comparison with bolus FU/LV.

A Multi-institutional Phase 2 Study of Imatinib Mesylate and Gemcitabine for First-Line Treatment of Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The pancreatic tumor microenvironment is rich in receptors for platelet-derived growth factor (PDGFRs). Imatinib mesylate (IM) inhibits PDGFRs and decreases tumor interstitial fluid pressure, potentially improving drug access. These data and promising results in a phase 1 trial formed the rationale for a phase 2 trial combining IM and gemcitabine (GEM) in pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Eligibility criteria included chemotherapy-naïve, locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer; ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status ≤2; and adequate end-organ function. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included response rate, toxicity, and overall survival (OS). GEM was given at 1200 mg/m(2)/120 min on days 3 and 10. IM (400 mg) was taken orally on days 1 to 5 and 8 to 12 of a 21-day cycle. Response was assessed every 3 cycles. RESULTS: Forty-four patients from 7 centers were enrolled from October 2005 through July 2009. Median age was 62 years. The median number of cycles completed was 3 (range, 0-17). Common adverse effects included neutropenia, nausea, anemia, and fatigue. Half the patients required dose reductions. There were no complete responses to therapy. During treatment, 1 patient showed a partial response, 16 had stable disease, and 18 had progressive disease. The median PFS was 3.9 months (95% confidence interval, 2.1-5.1), the median OS was 6.3 months (95% confidence interval, 5.2-8.5), and the 1-year survival rate was 25.6% (95% confidence interval, 13.8-39.1). CONCLUSION: IM in combination with GEM is tolerated in locally advanced, metastatic, or recurrent pancreatic cancer, but does not show a statistically significant PFS or OS benefit over chemotherapy with GEM alone.

Expression of epiregulin and amphiregulin and K-ras mutation status predict disease control in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with cetuximab.

PURPOSE: The antiepidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibody cetuximab shows activity in multiple epithelial tumor types; however, responses are seen in only a subset of patients. This study was conducted to identify markers that are associated with disease control in patients treated with cetuximab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred ten patients with metastatic colorectal cancer were enrolled onto a cetuximab monotherapy trial. Transcriptional profiling was conducted on RNA from mandatory pretreatment metastatic biopsies to identify genes whose expression correlates with best clinical responses. EGFR and K-ras mutation analyses and EGFR gene copy number analyses were performed on DNA from pretreatment biopsies. RESULTS: Gene expression profiles showed that patients with tumors that express high levels of the EGFR ligands epiregulin and amphiregulin are more likely to have disease control with cetuximab (EREG, P = .000015; AREG, P = .000025). Additionally, patients whose tumors do not have K-ras mutations have a significantly higher disease control rate than patients with K-ras mutations (P = .0003). Furthermore, patients with tumors that have high expression of EREG or AREG also have significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) than patients with low expression (EREG: P = .0002, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.47, and median PFS, 103.5 v 57 days, respectively; AREG: P < .0001, HR = 0.44, and median PFS, 115.5 v 57 days, respectively). CONCLUSION: Patients with tumors that have high gene expression levels of epiregulin and amphiregulin and patients with wild-type K-ras are more likely to have disease control on cetuximab treatment. The identified markers could be developed further to select patients for cetuximab therapy.