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.

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.

Pharmacokinetic, metabolic, and pharmacodynamic profiles in a dose-escalating study of irinotecan and cisplatin.

PURPOSE: To investigate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of irinotecan and cisplatin administered once every 3 weeks in a dose-escalating study in patients with solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-two cancer patients were treated with irinotecan administered as a 90-minute infusion at doses ranging from 175 to 300 mg/m(2) followed by cisplatin administered as a 3-hour intravenous infusion at doses ranging from 60 to 80 mg/m(2). After reaching the maximum-tolerated dose, the sequence of drug administration was revised. For pharmacokinetic analysis, serial plasma samples were obtained on days 1 through 3 of the first cycle. Forty-five patients were assessable for irinotecan pharmacokinetics, and 46 were assessable for cisplatin pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: Irinotecan and cisplatin demonstrated linear pharmacokinetics comparable to that observed with single-agent administration, which suggests an absence of pharmacokinetic interaction. SN-38G constituted the major plasma metabolite of irinotecan, whereas 7-ethyl-10-[4-N-(1-piperidino)1-amino]-carbonyloxycamptothecine (NPC) was only a minor metabolite in plasma, possibly indicating a rapid conversion of NPC to SN-38. The terminal elimination phases of SN-38 and SN-38G were similar and relatively delayed when compared with the elimination of irinotecan. Maximal DNA adduct formation did not significantly differ from that observed with single-agent administration. The percentage decrease in WBC was significantly related to the areas under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUCs) of the lactone form of irinotecan (P =.0245) and SN-38 (P =. 0123). The severity of diarrhea was not significantly related to the AUCs of irinotecan and SN-38, nor to the systemic glucuronidation rate of SN-38. CONCLUSION: There was no apparent pharmacokinetic interaction between irinotecan and cisplatin in this study. Reversion of the administration sequence of the drugs did not seem to have any influence on the pharmacokinetics. The incidence and severity of delayed-type diarrhea was not related to any of the studied parameters.

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 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.

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 study of subcutaneously administered recombinant human interleukin 12 in patients with advanced renal cell cancer.

A phase I study was conducted to characterize the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), and pharmacokinetics of a single dose followed by three times weekly s.c. injections of recombinant human interleukin 12 (rHuIL-12). The study encompassed 28 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. rHuIL-12 was administered on day 1, followed by an observation period of 7 days. Starting on day 8, repeated s.c. injections were administered 3 times a week for 2 weeks. The MTD of the initial injection was evaluated at dose levels of 0.1, 0.5, and 1.0 microg/kg. DLT was observed at 1.0 microg/kg and consisted of fever, perivasculitis of the skin, and leukopenia. The MTD of the subsequent repeated injections after 1 week of rest was studied at dose levels 0.5, 1.0, and 1.25 microg/kg. DLT at 1.25 microg/kg comprised deterioration of performance status, fever, vomiting, mental depression, and leukopenia. Other notable toxicities were oral mucositis and elevation of hepatic enzymes. Fever, leukopenia, and elevation of hepatic enzymes were more severe after the initial injection than after repeated injections at the same dose level. At dose level 0.5 microg/kg, the mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve decreased from 7.4 ng/h/ml after the first injection to 3.3 ng x h/ml (P = 0.034) after repeated administrations, and at dose level 1.0 microg/kg, it ranged from 31.8 ng/h/ml to 6.0 ng x h/ml (P = 0.041). One patient had a partial response and seven had stable disease. The MTD of a single s.c. injection of rHuIL-12 was 0.5 microg/kg, and the MTD of three subsequent administrations per week was 1.0 microg/kg. In comparison with a single administration, the three times weekly administrations at the same dose level was accompanied with a milder pattern of side effects and a reduction of the area under the plasma concentration-time curve.

Phase II study of a short course of weekly high-dose cisplatin combined with long-term oral etoposide in metastatic malignant melanoma.

The results of cytostatic therapy in metastatic melanoma are very disappointing. In phase II studies with high-dose cisplatin regimens, a remarkably high response rate was observed. In a phase I study with a short course of weekly cisplatin, combined with oral etoposide, we were able to reach, in most patients, a cisplatin dose intensity of 60 mg/m2/week. We performed a phase II study with this schedule in metastatic malignant melanoma. 15 consecutive patients were entered in the study. Treatment consisted of cisplatin 70 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15 and days 29, 36, 43 combined with oral etoposide 50 mg daily, days 1-15 and days 29-43. Patients with a response or stable disease continued treatment with oral etoposide 50 mg/m2 daily, days 1-21 every 4 weeks. All patients were evaluable for response and toxicity. The majority of the patients received six cycles of cisplatin with the planned cisplatin dose intensity of 60 mg/m2/week. A partial response was observed in 2 patients (13%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2-44%) of, respectively, 22 and 12 weeks; stable disease was observed in 6 patients. Toxicity consisted mainly of alopecia and bone marrow suppression. 4 patients had tinnitus, one patient had neurotoxicity grade 1. The regimen studied has only limited activity in metastatic melanoma in spite of the high-dose intensity of cisplatin reached with this schedule.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of topotecan administered daily for 5 days every 3 weeks.

Topotecan is a novel semisynthetic derivative of the anticancer agent camptothecin and inhibits the intranuclear enzyme topoisomerase I. The lactone structure of topotecan, which is in equilibrium with the inactive ring-opened hydroxy acid, is essential for this activity. The open form predominates at physiological pH. We performed a pharmacokinetic study as part of a phase I study in patients with various types of solid tumors, where topotecan was administered in a 30-min infusion daily on 5 consecutive days every 3 weeks. The plasma kinetics of topotecan could be described best using an open two-compartment model with t1/2(alpha) and t1/2(beta) of 8.1 (range 0.3 to 40.7) min and 132 (range 49 to 286) min, respectively. The plasma concentration-time profiles of the metabolite, however, could be described using a one-compartment model with t1/2(formation) of 29.0 (range 5.6-99.5) min and t1/2 (elimination of 123.2 (range 32-265) min, respectively. The lactone was the predominate form during the first hour from the start of infusion, but was rapidly converted into its ring-opened structure. The elimination rate of topotecan was independent of the dose. There were linear relationships between the dose (mg m-2 day-1), the area under the plasma concentration versus time curve (AUC) of topotecan and its metabolite, the total AUC, peak plasma lactone concentrations, and the time period that the topotecan concentrations remained above 10 nM. Different models were used to correlate pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters. The percentage decrease in absolute neutrophil count (ANC) was related to these parameters and plots were well fitted by linear and sigmoidal Emax models.

The venotonic drug hydroxyethylrutosiden does not prevent or reduce docetaxel-induced fluid retention: results of a comparative study.

PURPOSE: Fluid retention, which includes peripheral edema, ascites, pleural or pericardial effusion, or a combination of these that is sometimes associated with significant weight gain, is one of the most troublesome cumulative side effects of docetaxel. A suggestive observation from the data base available at the manufacturer (Rhone-Poulenc Rorer) was that patients who received venotonic drugs appeared to tolerate more courses of docetaxel. This prompted a comparative study to investigate whether the venotonic drug hydroxyethylrutosiden could reduce or delay docetaxel-related fluid retention. METHODS: A total of 85 patients with metastatic breast cancer who were treated with docetaxel at a dose of 100 mg/m2 with corticoid comedication were allocated to receive either 300 mg hydroxyethylrutosiden given orally four times daily (group A) or no hydroxyethylrutosiden (group B). The end point for analysis was the development of fluid retention of > or = grade 2. RESULTS: Fluid retention of > or = grade 2 was reported in 14 of 42 patients (33%) in group A and in 15 of 43 patients (35%) in group B and occurred after a median of 4 cycles of docetaxel in both groups. Weight gain was similar in groups A and B. CONCLUSION: We conclude that hydroxyethylrutosiden does not reduce or delay the incidence and severity of docetaxel-related fluid retention.

Docetaxel and paclitaxel inhibit DNA-adduct formation and intracellular accumulation of cisplatin in human leukocytes.

The purpose of this study was to determine the mechanism of the pharmacodynamic interaction between docetaxel/paclitaxel and cisplatin. Cisplatin-induced DNA-adducts and cisplatin accumulation were quantitated in peripheral blood leukocytes (WBC). The WBC were obtained from patients treated with docetaxel or paclitaxel in phase I/II studies and were incubated in vitro with cisplatin. In addition, blank whole-blood samples were obtained from patients and healthy subjects and incubated in intro with cisplatin or docetaxel/paclitaxel and cisplatin. The cisplatin-induced DNA-adduct levels measured in WBC after treatment with docetaxel or paclitaxel were significantly lower than those determined in non-pretreated WBC. Docetaxel and paclitaxel reduced the intracellular accumulation of cisplatin in WBC by 46-47%. If the pharmacodynamic interaction between docetaxel/paclitaxel and cisplatin also occurs in other normal tissues such as bone marrow, it may well contribute to the sequence dependent toxicity that has been observed in clinical studies.

A phase II study of weekly high-dose cisplatin combined with oral etoposide in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

As a dose-response relationship has been suggested for cisplatin, it appeared attractive to explore high-dose-intensity regimens in non-small-cell lung cancer. In a phase I study of weekly administration of cisplatin combined with oral etoposide we achieved a cisplatin dose intensity of 52.5-60 mg/m2 per week in most patients. We subsequently explored this regimen in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients were treated with cisplatin infused at 70 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15 and 29, 36, 43 in combination with oral etoposide given at 50 mg on days 1-15 and 29-43. Patients showing stable disease or a better response were continued on treatment with oral etoposide given at 50 mg/m2 per day on days 1-21 every 28 days for a maximum of four cycles. In all, 22 patients with stage III disease and 31 patients with stage IV disease entered the study. The median number of cisplatin administration was 6 per patient; 17 patients reached the planned cisplatin dose intensity of 60 mg/m2 per week, 11 patients achieved 52.5 mg/m2 per week, and 7 patients reached 47 mg/m2 per week. Overall, 11 of 21 stage III patients had a partial response [response rate 51%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 36-81%], as did 9 of 28 patients with stage IV disease (32%; 95% CI 15-49%). Toxicity was mainly hematologic, with leukocytopenia being the most frequent cause of treatment delay. Nephrotoxicity of grade 1 was observed in seven patients. Two patients developed clinical hearing loss. With this schedule a high median cisplatin dose intensity of 52.5-60 mg/m2 per week was reached. The 51% response rate achieved in stage III disease makes this schedule attractive for further exploration; however, it is not recommended for routine use in stage IV disease.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of topotecan given on a daily-times-five schedule in phase II clinical trials using a limited-sampling procedure.

Topotecan is a novel semisynthetic derivative of the anticancer agent camptothecin and inhibits the intranuclear enzyme topoisomerase I. The lactone structure of topotecan, which is in equilibrium with the inactive ring-opened hydroxy acid, is essential for this activity. We performed a pharmacokinetics study as part of phase II clinical trials in patients with various types of solid tumors, giving topotecan at 1.5 mg/m2 per day by 30-min infusion for 5 consecutive days, with courses being repeated every 3 weeks. Previously validated limited-sampling models, using concentration measurements in samples obtained 2 h after infusion, were used to calculate the area under the plasma concentration-time curves (AUCs) for both chemical forms. Samples were obtained from a total of 36 patients over 136 treatment days. The mean AUC of the closed-ring form (AUC(closed)) was 8.74 (range 2.3-16.3 microM min per day, and the mean AUC of the ring-opened form (AUC(open)) was 11.5 (range 3.2-46.0) microM min per day (interpatient variability 34-61%). In each patient the AUC values achieved on the 1st day of administration were similar to and, thus, predictive for those achieved during the following days, with a day-to-day variation of 7.39% being recorded for the AUC(closed) and that of 12.6% for the AUC(open). There was no drug accumulation during the 5 consecutive treatment days of each cycle. However, despite the large interpatient pharmacokinetic variability, the importance of regular drug monitoring on this schedule can be questioned, as the pharmacodynamic variability was relatively small.

Phase I study of weekly high-dose cisplatin combined with long-term oral etoposide in advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: In a previous phase I study we showed that single-agent cisplatin can be given weekly for six weeks at a dose of 80 mg/m2/wk. It has been suggested that etoposide has synergistic activity with cisplatin and the drug can be given orally continuously. We therefore performed a phase I study with weekly cisplatin combined with oral etoposide. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Nineteen patients with metastases of a solid tumor were entered in the study. Cisplatin was administered in hypertonic saline (NaCl 3%). Etoposide was administered as 50-mg capsules. RESULTS: The starting dose was cisplatin weekly at a dose of 70 mg/m2 for six weeks combined with daily oral etoposide at a dose of 50 mg. At the maximum tolerable dose of cisplatin 75 mg/m2/wk and etoposide 50 mg/m2 daily, leukocytopenia and thrombocytopenia were dose-limiting toxic effects which resulted in frequent treatment delays. Other toxicities were mild. Finally, a dose of cisplatin 70 mg/m2/wk weeks 1-2-3 and weeks 5-6-7 in combination with etoposide 50 mg orally days 1-15 and days 29-43 combined a high median cisplatin dose intensity of 52.5 mg/m2/wk with a good patient tolerance. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to administer frequently dosed cisplatin in combination with oral etoposide. Leukocytopenia and thrombocytopenia are dose-limiting toxicities. The schedule will be explored further in phase II studies.

Phase I/II study of a short course of weekly cisplatin in patients with advanced solid tumours.

Twenty-five patients with advanced solid tumours were entered in a phase I/II study of six, weekly cycles of cisplatin. Nineteen patients were chemonaive and six were previously treated. The starting dose was 50 mg m-2 week-1. This dose could be escalated without major toxicity to 70 mg m-2 week-1. At a dose of 80 mg m-2 myelosuppression grade 3 occurred as well as grade 1 nephro- and neurotoxicity. The maximum tolerated dose was 85 mg m-2 with dose limiting thrombocytopenia. Hypertonic saline was effective in preventing nephrotoxicity. Ondansetron was a very effective antiemetic in the first weeks of treatment but its efficacy waned later on. Responses were observed in head and neck cancer, melanoma and mesothelioma. At the dose level of 80 mg m-2 the optimal dose intensity was reached. This schedule will be tested further in phase II studies.

Pharmacokinetic profile and clinical efficacy of a once-daily ondansetron suppository in cyclophosphamide-induced emesis: a double blind comparative study with ondansetron tablets.

We investigated the pharmacokinetic profile and the efficacy of ondansetron (day 1) given as 16 mg suppository once a day, as compared with ondansetron 8 mg tablets twice daily, in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The study was primarily aimed at investigating the pharmacokinetics and was part of a large multinational, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy efficacy trial. Pharmacokinetic data were obtained in a total of 20 patients, 11 of whom had received a suppository containing ondansetron, and nine patients had received the oral formulation. The median area under the plasma concentration curve (AUC) obtained with the oral formulation was 226 ng ml-1h-1 (range 91-750), and the median maximum plasma level (Cmax) was 50.5 ng ml-1 (range 24.7-199.6) after a dose of 8 mg. For the ondansetron suppository the median AUC was 140 ng ml-1h-1 range (77-405) and the median Cmax was 17.1 ng ml-1 (range 13-48.3) after a dose of 16 mg. The systemic exposure after correction for the dose difference after the suppository was on average 70% lower than after the tablet. The median time to reach the maximum level (Tmax) was 60 min (range 28-120) with the oral formulation and 209 min (range 90-420) with the suppository. For both the tablet and suppository, there was no apparent relationship between either Cmax or AUC, and efficacy. Although the patient numbers were too small for a formal exposure-response relationship to be derived, the slightly poorer pharmacokinetic performance of the suppository did not appear to be associated with a lessening of control of emesis following chemotherapy. The study demonstrates that the pharmacokinetic analysis of a once-daily 16 mg ondansetron suppository results in appropriate plasma concentrations and AUC, and that this rectal formulation is effective in the protection against nausea and vomiting associated with cyclophosphamide chemotherapy. This formulation will provide a useful alternative to the currently available oral formulation.

Phase I and pharmacokinetics study of topotecan, a new topoisomerase I inhibitor.

PURPOSE: A phase I study with topotecan (SKF 104864-A, NSC 609699), a semisynthetic analog of camptothecin, was performed using a daily-times-5 regimen, given i.v. q 3 weeks, to evaluate the pharmacokinetics and toxicities of the compound. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of a solid tumor no longer amenable to established forms of treatment were eligible for the study. Topotecan was given as a 30 min. infusion daily on 5 successive days, repeated every three weeks. In subsequent patient cohorts the dose was escalated from 0.5 to 1.5 mg/m2/day. Weekly evaluations included hematology and biochemistry. Response to treatment was assessed every 2 cycles. Pharmacokinetics were performed using a HPLC method. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were entered. The maximal tolerated dose was 1.5 mg/m2/day. The dose limiting toxicity was leucocytopenia. Other major toxicities were alopecia and moderate nausea/vomiting. Partial remissions were observed in one patient with pretreated small-cell lung cancer, one with non-small-cell lung cancer and one with no-pretreated pancreatic cancer, lasting 130-240 days. Pharmacokinetics showed a t 1/2 (alpha) of 8.1 +/- 7.6 min., t 1/2 (beta) of 132 +/- 48 min., Vd,ss 72.7 +/- 26.9 L/m2 and Cltot of 0.57 +/- 0.16 L/min/m2. CONCLUSION: Topotecan is an interesting new topoisomerase I inhibitor exerting antitumor activity in this phase I trial. Leucocytopenia is dose-limiting. The recommended dose for phase II studies is 1.5 mg/m2/day for 5 consecutive days every 3 weeks.

Adaptive intrapatient dose escalation of cisplatin in patients with advanced head and neck cancer.

The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility and toxicity of intrapatient dose adjustment using predefined levels of exposure to cisplatin, with the ultimate goal to further improve the antitumor activity of the treatment. The primary parameter for adaptive dosing was the level of platinum DNA adducts in peripheral white blood cells (WBC) and the secondary parameter the area under the curve (AUC) of unbound platinum in plasma, which were determined during the applied courses. Target levels had been defined in a previously performed pharmacologic study. The concept of adaptive dosing was tested in 16 patients with locally advanced head and neck (H/N) cancer who would receive six weekly courses of cisplatin at a starting dose level of 80 mg/m(2), which was previously investigated in a phase II study. Forty-seven percent of patients received a dose increase varying from 10 to 40%. Only two patients had exposure levels significantly below the defined target levels for DNA adducts and AUC. The majority of patients reached the defined target levels by modest dose increases of 10-20% during course 2. Relevant but reversible ototoxicity (temporary grade 3 in two patients) and renal toxicity (temporary grade 2 in two other patients) were observed. The pattern and severity of the toxicity was comparable to that encountered in the previous phase II study in H/N cancer patients. We conclude that the strategy of intrapatient dose adjustment for cisplatin is practically feasible in a research setting even when a short turn around time of 1 week is the limit for reporting results. Although in some patients the dose increase that had to be applied to reach target levels was substantial (up to 40%), this approach in H/N cancer patients is not expected to improve the response rate significantly, because these significantly underdosed patients represented only a small percentage of the investigated population. The great majority of patients needed only limited (10-20%) dose increases which very likely will not improve the response rate to a clinically significant extent. The outlined concept is currently being explored in other tumor types and schedules of cisplatin.