Transtympanic Sodium Thiosulfate for Prevention of Cisplatin-Induced Ototoxicity: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine safety, feasibility, and preliminary activity of transtympanic injection of sodium thiosulfate (STS) against cisplatin-induced hearing loss (CIHL).DESIGN Randomized controlled trial.SETTING Tertiary cancer hospital.PATIENTS Adults to be treated with high-dose cisplatin (≥ 75 mg/m2).INTERVENTION Selected by randomization, 0.1 M STS gel on one side and placebo gel on the other side was transtympanically applied to the middle ear 3 hours before cisplatin administration. After amendment, the placebo ear was left untreated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Primary outcome was safety and feasibility. Secondary outcomes included pharmacokinetic analysis of systemic cisplatin and preliminary activity of STS. Clinically relevant CIHL was defined as a ≥ 10 dB threshold shift at pure-tone average 8-10-12.5 kHz (PTA8-12.5). Response to STS was defined as a threshold shift at PTA8-12.5 in the STS-treated ear of ≥ 10 dB smaller than the untreated ear. RESULTS: Twelve patients were treated. Average CIHL at PTA8-12.5 was 12.7 dB in untreated ears and 8.8 dB SPL in STS-treated ears (p = 0.403). Four patients did not develop CIHL. Four out of eight patients with CIHL responded to STS: CIHL at PTA8-12.5 in STS-treated ears was 18.4 dB less compared to untreated ears (p = 0.068). Grade 1 adverse events were reported. Pharmacokinetic results were available for 11 patients. CONCLUSION: Transtympanic application of STS was safe and feasible. Based on our pharmacokinetic analysis, we postulate that transtympanic STS does not interfere with the systemically available cisplatin. Our results provide a preliminary proof of concept for transtympanic application of STS in preventing CIHL and warrants further evaluation on a larger scale.

Investigating the influence of relevant pharmacogenetic variants on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of orally administered docetaxel combined with ritonavir.

The anticancer drug docetaxel exhibits large interpatient pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variability. In this study, we aimed to assess the functional significance of 14 polymorphisms in the CYP3A, CYP1B1, ABCB1, ABCC2, and SLCO1B3 genes for the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of oral docetaxel, co-administered with ritonavir. None of the tested CYP3A, ABCB1, ABCC2, and SLCO1B3 genotypes and diplotypes showed a significant relation with an altered bioavailability or clearance of either docetaxel or ritonavir. Similarly, no clear effect of CYP1B1 genotype on clinical outcomes was observed in a subgroup of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Our post hoc power analysis indicated that our pharmacogenetic-pharmacokinetic analysis was only powered for relatively high effect sizes, which were to be expected given the high interpatient variability. This makes it unlikely that future studies will explain the high observed interpatient variability in oral docetaxel pharmacokinetics as a result of any of these separate polymorphisms and diplotypes.

Pharmacokinetics and Toxicities of Oral Docetaxel Formulations Co-Administered with Ritonavir in Phase I Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Docetaxel is widely used as intravenous (IV) chemotherapy. Oral docetaxel is co-administered with the cytochrome P450 3A4 and P-glycoprotein inhibitor ritonavir to increase oral bioavailability. This research explores the relationship between the pharmacokinetics (PK) and toxicity of this novel oral chemotherapy. METHODS: The patients in two phase I trials were treated with different oral docetaxel formulations in combination with ritonavir in different dose levels, ranging from 20 to 80 mg docetaxel with 100 to 200 mg ritonavir a day. The patients were categorized based on the absence or occurrence of severe treatment-related toxicity (grade ≥3 or any grade leading to treatment alterations). The docetaxel area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) were associated with toxicity. RESULTS: Thirty-four out of 138 patients experienced severe toxicity, most frequently observed as mucositis, fatigue, diarrhea, nausea and vomiting. The severe toxicity group had a significantly higher docetaxel AUC (2231 ± 1405 vs 1011 ± 830 ng/mL*h, p<0.0001) and Cmax (218 ± 178 vs 119 ± 77 ng/mL, p<0.0001) as compared to the patients without severe toxicity. When extrapolated from IV PK data, the patients without severe toxicity had a similar cumulative docetaxel AUC as with standard 3-weekly IV docetaxel, while the Cmax was up to 10-fold lower with oral docetaxel and ritonavir. CONCLUSION: Severe toxicity was observed in 25% of the patients treated with oral docetaxel and ritonavir. This toxicity seems related to the PK, as the docetaxel AUC0-inf and Cmax were up to twofold higher in the severe toxicity group as compared to the non-severe toxicity group. Future randomized trials will provide a further evaluation of the toxicity and efficacy of the new weekly oral docetaxel and ritonavir regimen in comparison to standard IV docetaxel.

A Phase I dose-escalation study of two cycles carboplatin-olaparib followed by olaparib monotherapy in patients with advanced cancer.

Preclinical studies have shown synergistic effects when combining PARP1/2 inhibitors and platinum drugs in BRCA1/2 mutated cancer cell models. After a formulation change of olaparib from capsules to tablets, we initiated a dose finding study of olaparib tablets bidaily (BID) continuously with carboplatin to prepare comparative studies in this patient group. Patients were included in a 3 + 3 dose-escalation schedule: olaparib 25 mg BID and carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 3 mg*min/mL d1/d22, olaparib 25 mg BID and carboplatin AUC 4 mg*min/mL d1/d22, followed by increasing dose-levels of olaparib from 50 mg BID, 75 mg BID, to 100 mg BID with carboplatin at AUC 4 mg*min/mL d1/d22. After two cycles, patients continued olaparib 300 mg BID as monotherapy. Primary objective was to assess the maximum tolerable dose (MTD). Twenty-four patients with a confirmed diagnosis of advanced cancer were included. Most common adverse events were nausea (46%), fatigue (33%) and platelet count decrease (33%). Dose-level 3 (olaparib 75 mg BID and carboplatin AUC 4 mg*min/mL; n = 6) was defined as MTD. Fourteen out of 24 patients (56%) had a partial response as best response (RECIST 1.1). Systemic exposure of the olaparib tablet formulation appeared comparable to the previous capsule formulation with olaparib tablet AUC0-12 of 16.3 µg/mL*h at MTD. Polymers of ADP-ribose levels in peripheral blood mononuclear cells were reduced by 98.7% ± 0.14% at Day 8 compared to Day 1 for dose-level 3. Olaparib tablets 75 mg BID and carboplatin AUC 4 mg*min/mL for two cycles preceding olaparib monotherapy 300 mg is a feasible and tolerable treatment schedule for patients with advanced cancer.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Intracellular 5-Fluorouridine 5'-Triphosphate and its Relationship with Hand-and-Foot Syndrome in Patients Treated with Capecitabine.

Capecitabine is an oral pro-drug of 5-fluorouracil. Patients with solid tumours who are treated with capecitabine may develop hand-and-foot syndrome (HFS) as side effect. This might be a result of accumulation of intracellular metabolites. We characterised the pharmacokinetics (PK) of 5-fluorouridine 5'-triphosphate (FUTP) in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and assessed the relationship between exposure to capecitabine or its metabolites and the development of HFS. Plasma and intracellular capecitabine PK data and ordered categorical HFS data was available. A previously developed model describing the PK of capecitabine and metabolites was extended to describe the intracellular FUTP concentrations. Subsequently, a continuous-time Markov model was developed to describe the development of HFS during treatment with capecitabine. The influences of capecitabine and metabolite concentrations on the development of HFS were evaluated. The PK of intracellular FUTP was described by an one-compartment model with first-order elimination (ke,FUTP was 0.028 h-1 (95% confidence interval 0.022-0.039)) where the FUTP influx rate was proportional to the 5-FU plasma concentrations. The predicted individual intracellular FUTP concentration was identified as a significant predictor for the development and severity of HFS. Simulations demonstrated a clear exposure-response relationship. The intracellular FUTP concentrations were successfully described and a significant relationship between these intracellular concentrations and the development and severity of HFS was identified. This model can be used to simulate future dosing regimens and thereby optimise treatment with capecitabine.

Effect of Food on the Pharmacokinetics of the Oral Docetaxel Tablet Formulation ModraDoc006 Combined with Ritonavir (ModraDoc006/r) in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumours.

INTRODUCTION: ModraDoc006 is a novel docetaxel tablet formulation that is co-administrated with the cytochrome P450 3A4 and P-glycoprotein inhibitor ritonavir (r): ModraDoc006/r. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the effect of food consumed prior to administration of ModraDoc006/r on the pharmacokinetics of docetaxel and ritonavir. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumours were enrolled in this randomized crossover study to receive ModraDoc006/r in a fasted state in week 1 and after a standardized high-fat meal in week 2 and vice versa. Pharmacokinetic sampling was conducted until 48 h after both study drug administrations. Docetaxel and ritonavir plasma concentrations were determined using liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry. Safety was evaluated with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.03. RESULTS: In total, 16 patients completed the food-effect study. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) for the docetaxel area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC)0-48, AUC0-inf and maximum concentration (Cmax) were 1.11 (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.93-1.33), 1.19 (90% CI 1.00-1.41) and 1.07 (90% CI 0.81-1.42) in fed versus fasted conditions, respectively. For the ritonavir Cmax, the GMR was 0.79 (90% CI 0.69-0.90), whereas the AUC0-48 and AUC0-inf were bioequivalent. The most frequent treatment-related toxicities were grade ≤ 2 diarrhoea and fatigue. Hypokalaemia was the only observed treatment-related grade 3 toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: The docetaxel and ritonavir exposure were not bioequivalent, as consumption of a high-fat meal prior to administration of ModraDoc006/r resulted in a slightly higher docetaxel exposure and lower ritonavir Cmax. Since docetaxel exposure is the only clinically relevant parameter in our patient population, the overall conclusion is that combined ModraDoc006 and ritonavir treatment may be slightly affected by concomitant intake of a high-fat meal. In view of the small effect, it is most likely that the intake of a light meal will not affect the systemic exposure to docetaxel. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03147378, date of registration: May 10 2017.

A Phase 1 Dose-Escalation Study of Low-Dose Metronomic Treatment With Novel Oral Paclitaxel Formulations in Combination With Ritonavir in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors.

ModraPac001 (MP1) and ModraPac005 (MP5) are novel oral paclitaxel formulations that are coadministered with the cytochrome P450 3A4 inhibitor ritonavir (r), enabling daily low-dose metronomic (LDM) treatment. The primary aim of this study was to determine the safety, pharmacokinetics and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of MP1/r and MP5/r. The second aim was to establish the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) as LDM treatment. This was an open-label phase 1 trial. Patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled according to a classical 3+3 design. After initial employment of the MP1 capsule, the MP5 tablet was introduced. Safety was assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.02. Pharmacokinetic sampling was performed on days 1, 2, 8, and 22 for determination of paclitaxel and ritonavir plasma concentrations. In this study, 37 patients were treated with up to twice-daily 30-mg paclitaxel combined with twice-daily 100-mg ritonavir (MP5/r 30-30/100-100) in 9 dose levels. Dose-limiting toxicities were nausea, (febrile) neutropenia, dehydration and vomiting. At the MTD/RP2D of MP5/r 20-20/100-100, the maximum paclitaxel plasma concentration and area under the concentration-time curve until 24 hours were 34.6 ng/mL (coefficient of variation, 79%) and 255 ng • h/mL (coefficient of variation, 62%), respectively. Stable disease was observed as best response in 15 of 31 evaluable patients. Based on these results, LDM therapy with oral paclitaxel coadministrated with ritonavir was considered feasible and safe. The MTD and RP2D were determined as MP5/r 20-20/100-100. Further clinical development of MP5/r as an LDM concept, including potential combination treatment, is warranted.

Phase I Study of Afatinib and Selumetinib in Patients with KRAS-Mutated Colorectal, Non-Small Cell Lung, and Pancreatic Cancer.

LESSONS LEARNED: Afatinib and selumetinib can be combined in continuous and intermittent dosing schedules, albeit at lower doses than approved for monotherapy. Maximum tolerated dose for continuous and intermittent schedules is afatinib 20 mg once daily and selumetinib 25 mg b.i.d. Because the anticancer activity was limited, further development of this combination is not recommended until better biomarkers for response and resistance are defined. BACKGROUND: Antitumor effects of MEK inhibitors are limited in KRAS-mutated tumors because of feedback activation of upstream epidermal growth factor receptors, which reactivates the MAPK and the phosphoinositide 3-kinase-AKT pathway. Therefore, this phase I trial was initiated with the pan-HER inhibitor afatinib plus the MEK inhibitor selumetinib in patients with KRAS mutant, PIK3CA wild-type tumors. METHODS: Afatinib and selumetinib were administered according to a 3+3 design in continuous and intermittent schedules. The primary objective was safety, and the secondary objective was clinical efficacy. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were enrolled with colorectal cancer (n = 19), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (n = 6), and pancreatic cancer (n = 1). Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in six patients, including grade 3 diarrhea, dehydration, decreased appetite, nausea, vomiting, and mucositis. The recommended phase II dose (RP2D) was 20 mg afatinib once daily (QD) and 25 mg selumetinib b.i.d. (21 days on/7 days off) for continuous afatinib dosing and for intermittent dosing with both drugs 5 days on/2 days off. Efficacy was limited with disease stabilization for 221 days in a patient with NSCLC as best response. CONCLUSION: Afatinib and selumetinib can be combined in continuous and intermittent schedules in patients with KRAS mutant tumors. Although target engagement was observed, the clinical efficacy was limited.

No relation between docetaxel administration route and high-grade diarrhea incidence.

Oral administration of docetaxel in combination with the CYP3A4 inhibitor ritonavir is used in clinical trials to improve oral bioavailability of docetaxel. Diarrhea was the most commonly observed and dose-limiting toxicity. This study combined preclinical and clinical data and investigated incidence, severity and cause of oral docetaxel-induced diarrhea. In this study, incidence and severity of diarrhea in patients were compared to exposure to orally administered docetaxel. Intestinal toxicity after oral or intraperitoneal administration of docetaxel was further explored in mice lacking Cyp3a and mice lacking both Cyp3a and P-glycoprotein. In patients, severity of diarrhea increased significantly with an increase in AUC and Cmax (P = .035 and P = .025, respectively), but not with an increase in the orally administered dose (P = .11). Furthermore, incidence of grade 3/4 diarrhea after oral docetaxel administration was similar as reported after intravenous docetaxel administration. Intestinal toxicity in mice was only observed at high systemic exposure to docetaxel and was similar after oral and intraperitoneal administration of docetaxel. In conclusion, our data show that the onset of severe diarrhea after oral administration of docetaxel in humans is similar after oral and intravenous administration of docetaxel and is caused by the concentration of docetaxel in the systemic blood circulation. Mouse experiments confirmed that intestinal toxicity is caused by a high systemic exposure and not by local intestinal exposure. Severe diarrhea in patients after oral docetaxel is reversible and is not related to the route of administration of docetaxel.

Phase I pharmacological study of continuous chronomodulated capecitabine treatment.

PURPOSE: Capecitabine is an oral pre-pro-drug of the anti-cancer drug 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). The biological activity of the 5-FU degrading enzyme, dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), and the target enzyme thymidylate synthase (TS), are subject to circadian rhythmicity in healthy volunteers. The aim of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of capecitabine therapy adapted to this circadian rhythm (chronomodulated therapy). METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years with advanced solid tumours potentially benefitting from capecitabine therapy were enrolled. A classical dose escalation 3 + 3 design was applied. Capecitabine was administered daily without interruptions. The daily dose was divided in morning and evening doses that were administered at 9:00 h and 24:00 h, respectively. The ratio of the morning to the evening dose was 3:5 (morning: evening). PK and PD were examined on treatment days 7 and 8. RESULTS: A total of 25 patients were enrolled. The MTD of continuous chronomodulated capecitabine therapy was established at 750/1250 mg/m2/day, and was generally well tolerated. Circadian rhythmicity in the plasma PK of capecitabine, dFCR, dFUR and 5-FU was not demonstrated. TS activity was induced and DPD activity demonstrated circadian rhythmicity during capecitabine treatment. CONCLUSION: The MTD of continuous chronomodulated capecitabine treatment allows for a 20% higher dose intensity compared to the approved regimen (1250 mg/m2 bi-daily on day 1-14 of every 21-day cycle). Chronomodulated treatment with capecitabine is promising and could lead to improved tolerability and efficacy of capecitabine.

Quantification of the pharmacokinetic-toxicodynamic relationship of oral docetaxel co-administered with ritonavir.

Introduction Oral formulations of docetaxel have successfully been developed as an alternative for intravenous administration. Co-administration with the enzyme inhibitor ritonavir boosts the docetaxel plasma exposure. In dose-escalation trials, the maximum tolerated doses for two different dosing regimens were established and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were recorded. The aim of current analysis was to develop a pharmacokinetic (PK)-toxicodynamic (TOX) model to quantify the relationship between docetaxel plasma exposure and DLTs. Methods A total of 85 patients was included in the current analysis, 18 patients showed a DLT in the four-week observation period. A PK-TOX model was developed and simulations based on the PK-TOX model were performed. Results The final PK-TOX model was characterized by an effect compartment representing the toxic effect of docetaxel, which was linked to the probability of developing a DLT. Simulations of once-weekly, once-daily 60 mg and once-weekly, twice-daily 30 mg followed by 20 mg of oral docetaxel suggested that 14% and 34% of patients, respectively, would have a probability >25% to develop a DLT in a four-week period. Conclusions A PK-TOX model was successfully developed. This model can be used to evaluate the probability of developing a DLT following treatment with oral docetaxel and ritonavir in different dosing regimens.

Phase I study of lapatinib plus trametinib in patients with KRAS-mutant colorectal, non-small cell lung, and pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: KRAS oncogene mutations cause sustained signaling through the MAPK pathway. Concurrent inhibition of MEK, EGFR, and HER2 resulted in complete inhibition of tumor growth in KRAS-mutant (KRASm) and PIK3CA wild-type tumors, in vitro and in vivo. In this phase I study, patients with advanced KRASm and PIK3CA wild-type colorectal cancer (CRC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and pancreatic cancer, were treated with combined lapatinib and trametinib to assess the recommended phase 2 regimen (RP2R). METHODS: Patients received escalating doses of continuous or intermittent once daily (QD) orally administered lapatinib and trametinib, starting at 750 mg and 1 mg continuously, respectively. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients (16 CRC, 15 NSCLC, three pancreatic cancers) were enrolled across six dose levels and eight patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities, including grade 3 diarrhea (n = 2), rash (n = 2), nausea (n = 1), multiple grade 2 toxicities (n = 1), and aspartate aminotransferase elevation (n = 1), resulting in the inability to receive 75% of planned doses (n = 2) or treatment delay (n = 2). The RP2R with continuous dosing was 750 mg lapatinib QD plus 1 mg trametinib QD and with intermittent dosing 750 mg lapatinib QD and trametinib 1.5 mg QD 5 days on/2 days off. Regression of target lesions was seen in 6 of the 24 patients evaluable for response, with one confirmed partial response in NSCLC. Pharmacokinetic results were as expected. CONCLUSION: Lapatinib and trametinib could be combined in an intermittent dosing schedule in patients with manageable toxicity. Preliminary signs of anti-tumor activity in NSCLC have been observed and pharmacodynamic target engagement was demonstrated.

Phase 1 study of the pan-HER inhibitor dacomitinib plus the MEK1/2 inhibitor PD-0325901 in patients with KRAS-mutation-positive colorectal, non-small-cell lung and pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Mutations in KRAS result in a constitutively activated MAPK pathway. In KRAS-mutant tumours existing treatment options, e.g. MEK inhibition, have limited efficacy due to resistance through feedback activation of epidermal growth factor receptors (HER). METHODS: In this Phase 1 study, the pan-HER inhibitor dacomitinib was combined with the MEK1/2 inhibitor PD-0325901 in patients with KRAS-mutant colorectal, pancreatic and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients received escalating oral doses of once daily dacomitinib and twice daily PD-0325901 to determine the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D). (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02039336). RESULTS: Eight out of 41 evaluable patients (27 colorectal cancer, 11 NSCLC and 3 pancreatic cancer) among 8 dose levels experienced dose-limiting toxicities. The RP2D with continuous dacomitinib dosing was 15 mg of dacomitinib plus 6 mg of PD-0325901 (21 days on/7 days off), but major toxicity, including rash (85%), diarrhoea (88%) and nausea (63%), precluded long-term treatment. Therefore, other intermittent schedules were explored, which only slightly improved toxicity. Tumour regression was seen in eight patients with the longest treatment duration (median 102 days) in NSCLC. CONCLUSIONS: Although preliminary signs of antitumour activity in NSCLC were seen, we do not recommend further exploration of this combination in KRAS-mutant patients due to its negative safety profile.

Phase I study of continuous olaparib capsule dosing in combination with carboplatin and/or paclitaxel (Part 1).

Background The PARP inhibitor olaparib has shown acceptable toxicity at doses of up to 400 mg twice daily (bid; capsule formulation) with encouraging signs of antitumor activity. Based on its mode of action, olaparib may sensitize tumor cells to DNA-damaging agents. This Phase I trial (NCT00516724) evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and preliminary efficacy of olaparib combined with carboplatin and/or paclitaxel. Methods Patients with advanced solid tumors received olaparib (capsule bid) plus carboplatin (Part A), carboplatin and paclitaxel (Part B), or paclitaxel (Part C). In each part of the study, different drug doses were given to define the most appropriate dose/drug combination to use in further studies. Safety assessments included evaluation of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs; cycle 1 only), adverse events (AEs) and physical examinations. PK assessments of olaparib, carboplatin and paclitaxel were performed. Tumor responses (RECIST) were assessed every two cycles. Results Fifty-seven patients received treatment. DLTs were reported in two patients (both receiving olaparib 100 mg bid and carboplatin AUC 4; Part A, cohort 2): grade 1 thrombocytopenia with grade 2 neutropenia lasting for 16 days, and grade 2 neutropenia lasting for 7 days. Non-hematologic AEs were predominantly grade 1-2 and included fatigue (70%) and nausea (40%). Bone marrow suppression, mainly neutropenia (51%) and thrombocytopenia (25%), frequently led to dose modifications. Conclusions Olaparib in combination with carboplatin and/or paclitaxel resulted in increased hematologic toxicities, making it challenging to establish a dosing regimen that could be tolerated for multiple cycles without dose modifications.

Phase I study of intermittent olaparib capsule or tablet dosing in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel (part 2).

Background In the first part of this extensive phase I study (NCT00516724), continuous olaparib twice daily (bid) with carboplatin and/or paclitaxel resulted in myelosuppression and dose modifications. Here, we report the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of intermittent olaparib dosing combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel. Methods Patients with advanced solid tumors (part D) and enriched for ovarian and breast cancer (part E) received olaparib (capsule and tablet formulations) using intermittent schedules (2 to 10 days of a 21-day cycle) combined with carboplatin/paclitaxel. Safety assessments included evaluation of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs; cycle 1 only), adverse events (AEs), and physical examinations. Pharmacokinetic assessments of olaparib capsule and tablet combined with carboplatin/paclitaxel were performed. Tumor responses (RECIST) were assessed every 2 cycles. Results In total, 132 heavily pre-treated patients were included. One DLT of grade 3 elevated alanine aminotransferase lasting for 8 days was reported (olaparib tablet 100 mg bid days 3-12, carboplatin area under the curve 4 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m2). The most common hematological AEs were neutropenia (47%) and thrombocytopenia (39%), which frequently led to dose modifications. Non-hematological AEs were predominantly grade 1-2, including alopecia (89%) and fatigue (84%). Overall objective response rate was 46%. Conclusions Discontinuous dosing of olaparib resulted in significant myelosuppression leading to dose interruptions and/or delays. Anti-tumor activity was encouraging in patients enriched with BRCA-mutated breast and ovarian cancer. The most appropriate olaparib tablet dose for use in further studies evaluating olaparib in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel is 50 mg bid (days 1-5).

A Phase I Dose Escalation Study of Once-Weekly Oral Administration of Docetaxel as ModraDoc001 Capsule or ModraDoc006 Tablet in Combination with Ritonavir.

PURPOSE: Oral bioavailability of docetaxel is poor. Absorption could be improved by development of pharmaceutical formulations based on docetaxel solid dispersions, denoted ModraDoc001 capsule and ModraDoc006 tablet (both 10 mg) and coadministration of ritonavir, an inhibitor of CYP3A4 and P-glycoprotein. In this study, the safety, MTD, recommended phase II dose (RP2D), pharmacokinetics, and preliminary antitumor activity of oral docetaxel combined with ritonavir in a once-weekly continuous schedule was investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic solid tumors were included. Dose escalation was performed using a classical 3+3 design. Pharmacokinetic sampling was performed for up to 48 hours after drug administration. Safety was evaluated using CTCAE v3.0. Antitumor activity was assessed according to RECIST v1.0. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients were treated at weekly docetaxel dosages ranging from 30 to 80 mg in combination with 100- or 200-mg ritonavir. Most common toxicities were nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and fatigue, mostly of grade 1-2 severity. No hypersensitivity reactions were observed. The area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC0-48) of docetaxel at the RP2D of once-weekly 60-mg ModraDoc001 capsule with 100-mg ritonavir was 1,000 ± 687 ng/mL/hour and for once-weekly 60-mg ModraDoc006 tablet with 100-mg ritonavir, the AUC0-48 was 1,790 ± 819 ng/mL/hour. Nine partial responses were reported as best response to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Oral administration of once-weekly docetaxel as ModraDoc001 capsule or ModraDoc006 tablet in combination with ritonavir is feasible. The RP2D for both formulations is 60-mg ModraDoc with 100-mg ritonavir. Antitumor activity is considered promising.

A dose-escalation study of bi-daily once weekly oral docetaxel either as ModraDoc001 or ModraDoc006 combined with ritonavir.

INTRODUCTION: Two solid dispersions of docetaxel (denoted ModraDoc001 capsule and ModraDoc006 tablet (both 10 mg)) were co-administered with 100 mg ritonavir (/r) and investigated in a bi-daily once weekly (BIDW) schedule. Safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics (PK) and preliminary activity were explored. METHODS: Adult patients with metastatic solid tumours were included in two dose-escalation arms. PK sampling was performed during the first week and the second or third week. Safety was evaluated using US National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) version 3.0. Antitumour activity was assessed every 6 weeks according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.0. RESULTS: ModraDoc001 capsule/r and ModraDoc006 tablet/r were administered to 17 and 28 patients, respectively. The most common adverse events were nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and fatigue, mostly of grade 1-2 severity. Grade 3/4 neutropenia/neutropenic fever was observed in 2 patients (4%). The MTD was determined as 20/20 mg ModraDoc001/r and 30/20 mg ModraDoc006/r (morning/afternoon dose) once weekly. The mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC0-48) ± standard deviation at the MTD for ModraDoc001/r and ModraDoc006/r were 686 ± 388 ng/ml*h and 1126 ± 382 ng/ml*h, respectively. Five partial responses were reported as best response to treatment. CONCLUSION: Oral administration of BIDW ModraDoc001/r or ModraDoc006/r is feasible. The once weekly 30/20 mg ModraDoc006 tablet/r dose-level was selected for future clinical development. Antitumour activity is promising.

Phase II Study of WEE1 Inhibitor AZD1775 Plus Carboplatin in Patients With TP53-Mutated Ovarian Cancer Refractory or Resistant to First-Line Therapy Within 3 Months.

Purpose AZD1775 is a first-in-class, potent, and selective inhibitor of WEE1 with proof of chemopotentiation in p53-deficient tumors in preclinical models. In a phase I study, the maximum tolerated dose of AZD1775 in combination with carboplatin demonstrated target engagement. We conducted a proof-of-principle phase II study in patients with p53 tumor suppressor gene ( TP53)-mutated ovarian cancer refractory or resistant (< 3 months) to first-line platinum-based therapy to determine overall response rate, progression-free and overall survival, pharmacokinetics, and modulation of phosphorylated cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK1) in skin biopsies. Patients and Methods Patients were treated with carboplatin (area under the curve, 5 mg/mL⋅min) combined with AZD1775 225 mg orally twice daily over 2.5 days every 21-day cycle until disease progression. Results AZD1775 plus carboplatin demonstrated manageable toxicity; fatigue (87%), nausea (78%), thrombocytopenia (70%), diarrhea (70%), and vomiting (48%) were the most common adverse events. The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (48%) and neutropenia (37%). Of 24 patients enrolled, 21 patients were evaluable for efficacy end points. The overall response rate was 43% (95% CI, 22% to 66%), including one patient (5%) with a prolonged complete response. Median progression-free and overall survival times were 5.3 months (95% CI, 2.3 to 9.0 months) and 12.6 months (95% CI, 4.9 to 19.7), respectively, with two patients with ongoing response for more than 31 and 42 months at data cutoff. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first report providing clinical proof that AZD1775 enhances carboplatin efficacy in TP53-mutated tumors. The encouraging antitumor activity observed in patients with TP53-mutated ovarian cancer who were refractory or resistant (< 3 months) to first-line therapy warrants further development.

A phase I followed by a randomized phase II trial of two cycles carboplatin-olaparib followed by olaparib monotherapy versus capecitabine in BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer as first line treatment (REVIVAL): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies in breast cancer models showed that BRCA1 or BRCA2 deficient cell lines, when compared to BRCA proficient cell lines, are extremely sensitive to PARP1 inhibition. When combining the PARP1 inhibitor olaparib with cisplatin in a BRCA1-mutated breast cancer mouse model, the combination induced a larger response than either of the two compounds alone. Several clinical studies have investigated single agent therapy or combinations of both drugs, but no randomized clinical evidence exists for the superiority of carboplatin-olaparib versus standard of care therapy in patients with BRCA1- or BRCA2--mutated metastatic breast cancer. METHODS/DESIGN: This investigator-initiated study contains two parts. Part 1 is a traditional 3 + 3 dose escalation study of the carboplatin-olaparib combination followed by olaparib monotherapy. The carboplatin dose will be escalated from area under the curve (AUC) 3 to AUC 4 with an olaparib dose of 25 mg BID. Olaparib is subsequently escalated to 50, 75, and 100 mg BID until >1/6 of patients develop dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). The dose level below will be the maximum tolerable dose (MTD). It is expected that 15-20 patients are needed in Part I. In Part 2 BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated HER2-negative breast cancer patients will be randomized between standard capecitabine 1250 mg/m(2) BID day 1-14 q day 22, versus 2 cycles carboplatin-olaparib followed by olaparib monotherapy 300 mg BID. In total 104 events in 110 patients need to be observed to detect a 75 % clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), from a median of 4 months (control) to 7 months (experimental) assuming a 2-year accrual and ≥6 months of follow-up with 80 % power (5 %, two-sided significance level). After progression on first line treatment, patients will receive physician's best choice of paclitaxel, vinorelbine, eribulin, or capecitabine (experimental arm only) at standard dose. A compassionate use program of olaparib is available for patients in the standard arm after progression on second line treatment. DISCUSSION: Results might be pivotal for registration of olaparib as standard first line treatment in advanced BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated breast cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02418624 . Registered on 9 March 2015. EudraCT number: 2013-005590-41. Registered on 15 October 2014. Protocol version 3.0.

A phase 0 clinical trial of novel candidate extended-release formulations of capecitabine.

PURPOSE: To examine the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of several candidate extended-release (ER) formulations of capecitabine in patients. METHODS: In a phase 0 clinical study, PK profiles of several oral candidate ER formulations of capecitabine were compared to the PK profile of capecitabine after administration of the commercially available immediate-release (IR) tablet. A single dose of 1000 mg IR formulation (two 500 mg tablets) was administered on day 1, and a single dose of a 1000 mg candidate ER formulation of capecitabine (two 500 mg tablets) was administered on day 2. Candidate ER formulations of capecitabine differed with regard to the amount of the ER excipient (Kollidon(®) SR) in tablet matrix (0-5 % w/w) and coating (0-12 mg/cm(2)). RESULTS: PK profiles of nine different candidate ER formulations were examined. The tablet coating seemed the main determinant for ER of capecitabine and tablet integrity. Average (±standard deviation) AUC0-2h, relative to AUC0-2h after oral administration of the IR tablet, were 43.3 % (±34.9 %) and 1.2 % (±1.2 %) for candidate ER formulations coated with 3 and 6 mg/cm(2), respectively. Corresponding AUC0-last were 93.6 % (±40.2 %) and 44.0 % (±5.4 %). CONCLUSION: Modulation of capecitabine release in patients can be accomplished by varying tablet coating content. Proof of principle was demonstrated for candidate ER formulations with coating content of 3 mg/cm(2).