Scientific Review Committees as part of institutional review of human participant research: Initial implementation at institutions with Clinical and Translational Science Awards.

INTRODUCTION: Scientific quality and feasibility are part of ethics review by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). Scientific Review Committees (SRCs) were proposed to facilitate this assessment by the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) SRC Consensus Group. This study assessed SRC feasibility and impact at CTSA-affiliated academic health centers (AHCs). METHODS: SRC implementation at 10 AHCs was assessed pre/post-intervention using quantitative and qualitative methods. Pre-intervention, four AHCs had no SRC, and six had at least one SRC needing modifications to better align with Consensus Group recommendations. RESULTS: Facilitators of successful SRC implementation included broad-based communication, an external motivator, senior-level support, and committed SRC reviewers. Barriers included limited resources and staffing, variable local mandates, limited SRC authority, lack of anticipated benefit, and operational challenges. Research protocol quality did not differ significantly between study periods, but respondents suggested positive effects. During intervention, median total review duration did not lengthen for the 40% of protocols approved within 3 weeks. For the 60% under review after 3 weeks, review was lengthened primarily due to longer IRB review for SRC-reviewed protocols. Site interviews recommended designing locally effective SRC processes, building buy-in by communication or by mandate, allowing time for planning and sharing best practices, and connecting SRC and IRB procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The CTSA SRC Consensus Group recommendations appear feasible. Although not conclusive in this relatively short initial implementation, sites perceived positive impact by SRCs on study quality. Optimal benefit will require local or federal mandate for implementation, adapting processes to local contexts, and employing SRC stipulations.

A survey of practices for the use of electronic health records to support research recruitment.

Electronic health records (EHRs) provide great promise for identifying cohorts and enhancing research recruitment. Such approaches are sorely needed, but there are few descriptions in the literature of prevailing practices to guide their use. A multidisciplinary workgroup was formed to examine current practices in the use of EHRs in recruitment and to propose future directions. The group surveyed consortium members regarding current practices. Over 98% of the Clinical and Translational Science Award Consortium responded to the survey. Brokered and self-service data warehouse access are in early or full operation at 94% and 92% of institutions, respectively, whereas, EHR alerts to providers and to research teams are at 45% and 48%, respectively, and use of patient portals for research is at 20%. However, these percentages increase significantly to 88% and above if planning and exploratory work were considered cumulatively. For most approaches, implementation reflected perceived demand. Regulatory and workflow processes were similarly varied, and many respondents described substantive restrictions arising from logistical constraints and limitations on collaboration and data sharing. Survey results reflect wide variation in implementation and approach, and point to strong need for comparative research and development of best practices to protect patients and facilitate interinstitutional collaboration and multisite research.

A Phase I study of intermittently dosed vorinostat in combination with bortezomib in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence shows evidence of efficacy with the combination of vorinostat and bortezomib in solid tumors. We previously examined a once-daily continuous dosing schedule of vorinostat in combination with bortezomib which was well tolerated in cycles 1 and 2; however, there was concern regarding the tolerability through multiple cycles. This study was conducted to evaluate an intermittent dosing schedule of vorinostat with bortezomib. METHODS: Vorinostat was initially administered orally twice daily on days 1-14 with bortezomib IV on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of a 21 day cycle. Two DLTs (elevated ALT and fatigue) were observed at dose level 1, thus the protocol was amended to administer vorinostat intermittently twice daily on days 1-4 and 8-11. RESULTS: 29 patients were enrolled; 13 men and 16 women. Common cancer types included sarcoma, pancreatic, colorectal, GIST, and breast. The most common Grade 3-4 toxicities at any dose level included thrombocytopenia, fatigue, increased ALT, elevated INR, and diarrhea. DLTs in the intermittent dosing scheduled included thrombocytopenia and fatigue. The Cmax and AUC for the intermittent dosing regimen were similar to those observed in the daily dosing. In this heavily pretreated population, stable disease was observed in patients with sarcoma, colorectal adenocarcinoma and GIST. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD was established at vorinostat 300 mg BID on days 1-4 and 8-11 and bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) IV on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of a 21 day cycle. Tolerability was not improved with the intermittent dosing schedule of vorinostat when compared to continuous dosing.

A phase I study of AT-101 with cisplatin and etoposide in patients with advanced solid tumors with an expanded cohort in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: A phase I, dose-escalation study of AT-101 with cisplatin and etoposide was conducted to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD)/recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), safety and pharmacokinetics in patients with advanced solid tumors, with an expanded cohort in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) to assess preliminary activity. METHODS: In the dose escalation portion, increasing doses of AT-101 were administered orally BID on days 1-3 along with cisplatin on day 1 and etoposide on days 1-3 of a 21 day cycle. At the RP2D, an additional 7 patients with untreated ES-SCLC were enrolled. RESULTS: Twenty patients were enrolled in the dose-escalation cohort, and 7 patients with ES-SCLC were enrolled in the expanded cohort. The MTD/RP2D was established at AT-101 40 mg BID days 1-3 with cisplatin 60 mg/m2 and etoposide 120 mg/m2 on day 1 of a 21 day cycle with pegfilgrastim support. Two DLTs of neutropenic fever were seen at dose level 1. After the addition of pegfilgrastim, no additional DLTs were observed. Grade 3/4 treatment-related toxicities included: diarrhea, increased AST, neutropenia, hypophosphatemia, hyponatremia, myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism. No apparent PK interactions were observed between the agents. Preliminary activity was observed with PRs in patients with ES-SCLC, high-grade neuroendocrine tumor, esophageal cancer and NSCLC. CONCLUSIONS: AT-101 with cisplatin and etoposide is well tolerated with growth factor support. Anti-tumor activity was observed in a variety of cancers including ES-SCLC, supporting further investigation with BH-3 mimetics in combination with standard chemotherapy for ES-SCLC.

A phase I study of vorinostat in combination with bortezomib in patients with advanced malignancies.

BACKGROUND: A phase I study to assess the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), pharmacokinetics (PK) and antitumor activity of vorinostat in combination with bortezomib in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Patients received vorinostat orally once daily on days 1-14 and bortezomib intravenously on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 of a 21-day cycle. Starting dose (level 1) was vorinostat (400 mg) and bortezomib (0.7 mg/m(2)). Bortezomib dosing was increased using a standard phase I dose-escalation schema. PKs were evaluated during cycle 1. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients received 57 cycles of treatment on four dose levels ranging from bortezomib 0.7 mg/m(2) to 1.5 mg/m(2). The MTD was established at vorinostat 400 mg daily and bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2). DLTs consisted of grade 3 fatigue in three patients (1 mg/m(2),1.3 mg/m(2) and 1.5 mg/m(2)) and grade 3 hyponatremia in one patient (1.5 mg/m(2)). The most common grade 1/2 toxicities included nausea (60.9%), fatigue (34.8%), diaphoresis (34.8%), anorexia (30.4%) and constipation (26.1%). Objective partial responses were observed in one patient with NSCLC and in one patient with treatment-refractory soft tissue sarcoma. Bortezomib did not affect the PKs of vorinostat; however, the Cmax and AUC of the acid metabolite were significantly increased on day 2 compared with day 1. CONCLUSIONS: This combination was generally well-tolerated at doses that achieved clinical benefit. The MTD was established at vorinostat 400 mg daily × 14 days and bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 of a 21-day cycle.

Pharmacodynamic study using FLT PET/CT in patients with renal cell cancer and other solid malignancies treated with sunitinib malate.

PURPOSE: To characterize proliferative changes in tumors during the sunitinib malate exposure/withdrawal using 3'-deoxy-3'-[(18)F]fluorothymidine (FLT) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) imaging. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced solid malignancies and no prior anti-VEGF exposure were enrolled. All patients had metastatic lesions amenable to FLT PET/CT imaging. Sunitinib was initiated at the standard dose of 50 mg p.o. daily either on a 4/2 or 2/1 schedule. FLT PET/CT scans were obtained at baseline, during sunitinib exposure, and after sunitinib withdrawal within cycle #1 of therapy. VEGF levels and sunitinib pharmacokinetic (PK) data were assessed at the same time points. RESULTS: Sixteen patients (8 patients on 4/2 schedule and 8 patients on 2/1 schedule) completed all three planned FLT PET/CT scans and were evaluable for pharmacodynamic imaging evaluation. During sunitinib withdrawal (change from scans 2 to 3), median FLT PET standardized uptake value (SUV(mean)) increased +15% (range: -14% to 277%; P = 0.047) for the 4/2 schedule and +19% (range: -5.3% to 200%; P = 0.047) for the 2/1 schedule. Sunitinib PK and VEGF ligand levels increased during sunitinib exposure and returned toward baseline during the treatment withdrawal. CONCLUSIONS: The increase of cellular proliferation during sunitinib withdrawal in patients with renal cell carcinoma and other solid malignancies is consistent with a VEGF receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) withdrawal flare. Univariate and multivariate analysis suggest that plasma VEGF is associated with this flare, with an exploratory analysis implying that patients who experience less clinical benefit have a larger withdrawal flare. This might suggest that patients with a robust compensatory response to VEGFR TKI therapy experience early "angiogenic escape."

The maximum tolerated dose and biologic effects of 3-aminopyridine-2-carboxaldehyde thiosemicarbazone (3-AP) in combination with irinotecan for patients with refractory solid tumors.

PURPOSE: 3-AP is a ribonucleotide reductase inhibitor and has been postulated to act synergistically with other chemotherapeutic agents. This study was conducted to determine the toxicity and antitumor activity of 3-AP with irinotecan. Correlative studies included pharmacokinetics and the effects of ABCB1 and UGT1A1 polymorphisms. METHODS: The treatment plan consisted of irinotecan on day 1 with 3-AP on days 1-3 of a 21-day cycle. Starting dose was irinotecan 150 mg/m(2) and 3-AP 85 mg/m(2) per day. Polymorphisms of ABCB1 were evaluated by pyrosequencing. Drug concentrations were determined by HPLC. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were enrolled, 10 men and 13 women. Tumor types included seven patients with pancreatic cancer, four with lung cancer, two with cholangiocarcinoma, two with mesothelioma, two with ovarian cancer, and six with other malignancies. Two patients experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) at dose level 1, requiring amendment of the dose-escalation scheme. Maximal tolerated dose (MTD) was determined to be 3-AP 60 mg/m(2) per day and irinotecan 200 mg/m(2). DLTs consisted of hypoxia, leukopenia, fatigue, infection, thrombocytopenia, dehydration, and ALT elevation. One partial response in a patient with refractory non-small cell lung cancer was seen. Genotyping suggests that patients with wild-type ABCB1 have a higher rate of grade 3 or 4 toxicity than those with ABCB1 mutations. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD for this combination was 3-AP 60 mg/m(2) per day on days 1-3 and irinotecan 200 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 21 days. Antitumor activity in a patient with refractory non-small cell lung cancer was noted at level 1.

Safety and immunological efficacy of a DNA vaccine encoding prostatic acid phosphatase in patients with stage D0 prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Prostatic acid phosphatase (PAP) is a prostate tumor antigen. We have previously demonstrated that a DNA vaccine encoding PAP can elicit antigen-specific CD8+ T cells in rodents. We report here the results of a phase I/IIa trial conducted with a DNA vaccine encoding human PAP in patients with stage D0 prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients were treated in a dose-escalation trial with 100 microg, 500 microg, or 1,500 microg plasmid DNA, coadministered intradermally with 200 microg granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor as a vaccine adjuvant, six times at 14-day intervals. All patients were observed for 1 year after treatment. RESULTS: No significant adverse events were observed. Three (14%) of 22 patients developed PAP-specific IFN gamma-secreting CD8+ T-cells immediately after the treatment course, as determined by enzyme-linked immunospot. Nine (41%) of 22 patients developed PAP-specific CD4+ and/or CD8+ T-cell proliferation. Antibody responses to PAP were not detected. Overall, the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time was observed to increase from a median 6.5 months pretreatment to 8.5 months on-treatment (P = .033), and 9.3 months in the 1-year post-treatment period (P = .054). CONCLUSION: The demonstration that a DNA vaccine encoding PAP is safe, elicits an antigen-specific T-cell response, and may be associated with an increased PSA doubling time suggests that a multi-institutional phase II trial designed to evaluate clinical efficacy is warranted.

A phase I study of Triapine in combination with doxorubicin in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: To assess the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), pharmacokinetics and antitumor activity of Triapine administered in combination with doxorubicin. STUDY DESIGN: Patients were treated with doxorubicin intravenously (IV) on day 1 and Triapine IV on days 1-4 of a 21-day cycle. The starting dose (level 1) was doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) and Triapine 25 mg/m(2). PK analysis was performed at various time-points before and after treatment. RESULTS: Twenty patients received a total of 49 courses of treatment on study. At dose level 2 (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2), Triapine 45 mg/m(2)), two patients experienced DLTs (febrile neutropenia, grade 4 thrombocytopenia). An additional three patients were enrolled at dose level 1 without initial toxicity. Enrollment then resumed at dose level 2a with a decreased dose of doxorubicin (45 mg/m(2)) with Triapine 45 mg/m(2). The two patients enrolled on this level had two DLTs (diarrhea, CVA). Enrollment was planned to resume at dose level 1; however, the sixth patient enrolled to this cohort developed grade 5 heart failure (ejection fraction 20%, pretreatment EF 62%) after the second course. Thus, doxorubicin and Triapine were reduced to 45 and 25 mg/m(2), respectively (level 1a), prior to resuming enrollment at dose level 1, the MTD. The main drug-related toxicity was myelosuppression. Non-hematologic toxicities included mild-to-moderate fatigue, grade 3 diarrhea and grade 4 CVA. There was one treatment-related death due to heart failure. While no objective responses were observed, subjective evidence of clinical activity was observed in patients with refractory melanoma and prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Pretreated patients with advanced malignancies can tolerate the combination of Triapine and doxorubicin at doses that achieve subjective clinical benefit with the main treatment-related toxicities being myelosuppression and fatigue. The MTD was determined to be doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) on day 1 and Triapine 25 mg/m(2) on days 1-4 of a 21-day cycle.

A phase I pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic correlative study of the antisense Bcl-2 oligonucleotide g3139, in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel, in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: This phase I trial assessed the safety and tolerability of G3139 when given in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy. The effect of G3139 treatment on Bcl-2 expression in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and paired tumor biopsies was also determined. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with advanced solid malignancies received various doses of G3139 (continuous i.v. infusion days 1-7), carboplatin (day 4), and paclitaxel (day 4), repeated in 3-week cycles, in a standard cohort-of-three dose-escalation schema. Changes in Bcl-2/Bax transcription/expression were assessed at baseline and day 4 (prechemotherapy) in both PBMCs and paired tumor biopsies. The pharmacokinetic interactions between G3139 and carboplatin/paclitaxel were measured. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were evaluable for safety analysis. Primary toxicities were hematologic (myelosuppression and thrombocytopenia). Dose escalation was stopped with G3139 at 7 mg/kg/d, carboplatin at area under the curve of 6, and paclitaxel at 175 mg/m(2) due to significant neutropenia seen in cycle 1 and safety concerns in further escalating chemotherapy in this phase I population. With G3139 at 7 mg/kg/d, 13 patients underwent planned tumor biopsies, of which 12 matched pairs were obtained. Quantitative increases in intratumoral G3139 with decreases in intratumoral Bcl-2 gene expression were seen. This paralleled a decrease in Bcl-2 protein expression observed in PBMCs. CONCLUSIONS: Although the maximal tolerated dose was not reached, the observed toxicities were consistent with what one would expect from carboplatin and paclitaxel alone. In addition, we show that achievable intratumoral G3139 concentrations can result in Bcl-2 down-regulation in solid tumors and PBMCs.

Randomized, double-blinded phase II evaluation of docetaxel with or without doxercalciferol in patients with metastatic, androgen-independent prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Docetaxel is standard of care for androgen-independent prostate cancer (AIPC). Doxercalciferol (1 alpha-hydroxyvitamin D2) had modest activity in phase I/II trials. Preclinical data support combining vitamin D analogues with docetaxel to treat AIPC. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Chemotherapy-naive men with metastatic AIPC were randomized 1:1 to receive, on a 4-week cycle, docetaxel (35 mg/m2 i.v., days 1, 8, and 15) with or without doxercalciferol (10 microg orally, days 1-28). The primary end point was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response. Secondary end points were progression-free survival, overall survival, objective response, and toxicity. Survival was analyzed as intent to treat. RESULTS: Seventy patients were randomized. Median follow-up was 17.6 months (range, 3.3-45.2). PSA response rate was 46.7% [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 30-64] in the doxercalciferol arm and 39.4% (95% CI, 25-56) with placebo (P = 0.560). Median progression-free survival in the doxercalciferol arm was 6.17 months (95% CI, 4.20-10.7) versus 6.20 months (95% CI, 4.83-9.07) with placebo (P = 0.764). Median overall survival in the doxercalciferol arm was 17.8 months (95% CI, 14.9-23.6) versus 16.4 months (95% CI, 11.9-23.8) with placebo (P = 0.383). Twenty-four patients in the doxercalciferol arm and 23 in the placebo arm were evaluable for objective response. No complete responses were observed. Partial objective response rate was 12.5% with doxercalciferol versus 8.7% with placebo (P = 0.672). Rate of grade > or =3 toxicity was 46% with doxercalciferol versus 42% with placebo (P = 0.785). CONCLUSIONS: Daily doxercalciferol with weekly docetaxel did not enhance PSA response rate or survival. Toxicity was similar between arms. Despite the disappointing results of this study, other vitamin D analogues remain under active investigation.

A phase I pharmacodynamic trial of bortezomib in combination with doxorubicin in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: This phase I trial sought to define the toxicity, maximally tolerated dose (MTD) and pharmacodynamics of a combination of bortezomib and doxorubicin in patients with advanced malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-six patients were treated with bortezomib intravenously on days 1, 4, 8 and 11, with doxorubicin also administered intravenously on days 1 and 8, both in a 21-day cycle. Dosing ranged from 1.0 mg/m(2) of bortezomib with 15 mg/m(2) of doxorubicin to 1.5 mg/m(2) of bortezomib with 20 mg/m(2) of doxorubicin. Pharmacodynamic studies performed included assessment of levels of 20S proteasome activity and ubiquitin-protein conjugates. RESULTS: The combination of bortezomib and doxorubicin was generally well tolerated. There were two dose limiting toxicities (DLT) at dose cohort 3 (1.3 mg/m(2) bortezomib, 20 mg/m(2) doxorubicin) and 2 DLT at dose cohort 3a (1.5 mg/m(2) bortezomib, 15 mg/m(2) doxorubicin). DLT seen included neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and neuropathy. In addition, one patient developed grade 3 central nervous system toxicity in cycle 2 (not a DLT). One patient with hormone refractory prostate cancer had a partial response. Proteasome inhibition in whole blood was demonstrated and an increase in ubiquitin-protein conjugates was observed in peripheral blood mononuclear cells of most patients. CONCLUSIONS: Bortezomib and doxorubicin can be administered safely. The recommended phase II dose for this 21-day cycle is bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2 )intravenously on days 1, 4, 8 and 11, and doxorubicin 20 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1 and 8. This combination may be of special interest in multiple myeloma, given the activity of both drugs in that disease.

Phase II study of interferon-alpha and doxycycline for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and toxicity of the combination of interferon-alpha and doxycycline in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and to assess the effect of this treatment on serum vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) levels. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventeen patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 and life expectancy greater than 4 months with radiologically evident advanced renal cell carcinoma were enrolled. Eight patients had prior nephrectomy and 10 patients were treated within 4 months of their diagnosis. Treatment consisted of interferon-alpha up to 9 million units subcutaneously three times per week and doxycycline 300 mg orally twice per day for weeks one and three of each four-week cycle. Toxicity was evaluated on a biweekly basis and response on a bimonthly basis. VEGF plasma levels were assessed monthly as a measure of potential antiangiogenic effect. RESULTS: No objective responses were seen. The mean duration of study was 2.6 cycles (range: 0.8-6.0 cycles). Three patients (17%) tolerated therapy and displayed stable disease for greater than four months. Five patients withdrew from study before the first response evaluation. Ten patients experienced grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity requiring dose reduction of doxycycline. Eight patients experienced grade 2 fatigue requiring dose reduction of interferon. VEGF plasma levels were initially suppressed in patients who demonstrated progressive disease but not in patients with stable disease. CONCLUSION: This regimen of doxycycline and interferon-alpha was not efficacious as treatment for renal cell carcinoma. Plasma VEGF levels were significantly decreased during the first two cycles of treatment, but this does not correlate with clinical outcome.

Phase I study of piritrexim and gemcitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors.

OBJECTIVES: In this phase I study, the combination of piritrexim and gemcitabine was given to establish the maximum tolerated dose and the recommended phase II dose, and to determine a toxicity and efficacy profile. METHODS: Fifty-two patients with normal and impaired renal function were enrolled on this phase I study. The starting dose was piritrexim 10 mg 3 times daily (5 days of the week for 3 weeks and 1 week off each 28-day cycle) and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15. The piritrexim was escalated in a stepwise fashion with this dose of gemcitabine and then with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 for days 1 and 15. RESULTS: The recommended phase II dose of this combination was felt to be piritrexim 50 mg/day (10 mg every morning, 20 mg every noon, and 20 mg every evening) with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15, and piritrexim 75 mg/day (25 mg thrice daily) with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 15. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were the most often reported toxicity. Dose-limiting toxicity was thrombocytopenia in both groups. The number of renal-impaired patients enrolled was too small to establish a maximum tolerated dose for this group (piritrexim became unavailable), but the combination was tolerated in the patients with impaired renal dysfunction. There was 1 complete response, 1 partial response, and 1 minimal response. CONCLUSION: The combination of piritrexim and gemcitabine was determined to be tolerable in heavily pretreated patients for use in solid tumors.

Phase I trial of a monoclonal antibody specific for alphavbeta3 integrin (MEDI-522) in patients with advanced malignancies, including an assessment of effect on tumor perfusion.

At present, a variety of agents targeting tumor angiogenesis are under clinical investigation as new therapies for patients with cancer. Overexpression of the alpha(v)beta(3) integrin on tumor vasculature has been associated with an aggressive phenotype of several solid tumor types. Murine models have shown that antibodies targeting the alpha(v)beta(3) integrin can affect tumor vasculature and block tumor formation and metastasis. These findings suggest that antibodies directed at alpha(v)beta(3) could be investigated in the treatment of human malignancies. The current phase I dose escalation study evaluated the safety of MEDI-522, a monoclonal antibody specific for the alpha(v)beta(3) integrin, in patients with advanced malignancies. Twenty-five patients with a variety of metastatic solid tumors were treated with MEDI-522 on a weekly basis with doses ranging from 2 to 10 mg/kg/wk. Adverse events were assessed weekly; pharmacokinetic studies were done; and radiographic staging was done every 8 weeks. In addition, dynamic computed tomography imaging was done at baseline and at 8 weeks in patients with suitable target lesions amenable to analysis, to potentially identify the effect of MEDI-522 on tumor perfusion. Treatment was well tolerated, and a maximum tolerated dose was not identified by traditional dose-limiting toxicities. The major adverse events observed were grade 1 and 2 infusion-related reactions (fever, rigors, flushing, injection site reactions, and tachycardia), low-grade constitutional and gastrointestinal symptoms (fatigue, myalgias, and nausea), and asymptomatic hypophosphatemia. Dynamic computed tomography imaging suggested a possible effect on tumor perfusion with an increase in contrast mean transit time from baseline to the 8-week evaluation with increasing doses of MEDI-522. No complete or partial responses were observed. Three patients with metastatic renal cell cancer experienced prolonged stable disease (34 weeks, >1 and >2 years) on treatment. With this weekly schedule of administration, and in the doses studied, MEDI-522 seems to be without significant toxicity, may have effects on tumor perfusion, and may have clinical activity in renal cell cancer. These findings suggest the MEDI-522 could be further investigated as an antiangiogenic agent for the treatment of cancer.

A phase I and pharmacologic trial of two schedules of the proteasome inhibitor, PS-341 (bortezomib, velcade), in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: To define the toxicities, pharmacodynamics, and clinical activity of the proteasome inhibitor, PS-341 (bortezomib), in patients with advanced malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight patients (14 male and 14 female) received PS-341 twice weekly for 4 of 6 weeks (schedule I). Because toxicity necessitated dose omissions on this schedule, 16 additional patients (12 male and 4 female) received PS-341 twice weekly for 2 of every 3 weeks (schedule II). A total of 73 courses of treatment was given (median, 2; range, 1-4). Inhibition of 20S proteasome activity in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and accumulation of proteasome-targeted polypeptides in tumor tissue were evaluated as pharmacodynamic markers of PS-341 activity. RESULTS: The most common toxicity was thrombocytopenia, which was dose limiting at 1.7 mg/m2 (schedule I) and 1.6 mg/m2 (schedule II), respectively. Sensory neuropathy was dose-limiting in a patient in schedule I. Grade > or =3 toxicities for schedule I were constipation, fatigue, myalgia, and sensory neuropathy. Grade > or =3 toxicities for schedule II were dehydration resulting from diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, fatigue, hypoglycemia, and hypotension. The maximum tolerated dose was 1.5 mg/m2 for both schedules. Reversible dose-dependent decreases in 20S proteasome activity in PBMCs were observed, with 36% inhibition at 0.5 mg/m2, 52% at 0.9 mg/m2, and 75% at 1.25 mg/m2. Accumulation of proteasome-targeted polypeptides was detected in tumor samples after treatment with PS-341. A patient with multiple myeloma had a partial response. CONCLUSION: PS-341 given 1.5 mg/m2 twice weekly for 2 of every 3 weeks is well tolerated and should be further studied.

A phase I trial of perifosine (NSC 639966) on a loading dose/maintenance dose schedule in patients with advanced cancer.

Perifosine (NSC 639966) is a synthetic, substituted heterocyclic alkylphosphocholine that acts primarily at the cell membrane targeting signal transduction pathways. Early clinical trials were limited because of dose-limiting gastrointestinal toxicity, and parenteral dosing of this class of agents is not possible because of their hemolytic properties; therefore, related compounds with an improved therapeutic index were developed. Toxicity was minimized and efficacy improved by using a loading dose/maintenance dose schedule, and therefore, this schedule was carried into clinical trials. This phase I trial enrolled 42 patients with incurable solid malignancies. The starting doses were 100 mg p.o. x four doses (every 6 hours) load followed by a 50 mg p.o. once daily maintenance dose with escalation of either component in successive dose levels. No treatment related deaths occurred. The maximum-tolerated dose was determined to be 150 mg p.o. x four doses load and 100 mg p.o. once daily maintenance. Dose-limiting toxicities such as nausea, diarrhea, dehydration, and fatigue were seen early during the loading phase and were surmountable with the use of prophylactic 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, dexamethasone, and loperamide. Toxicities during the chronic phase were difficult to manage and, given that pharmacokinetic data showed biologically active serum concentrations (based on preclinical data), raised the question of less frequent maintenance dosing. Pharmacokinetic data confirmed the maintenance of stable drug levels with chronic dosing and the long half-life. One partial response was seen, as were multiple patients with stable disease beyond course 2. These results suggest perifosine activity in sarcoma and perhaps renal cell carcinoma (stable disease in two patients who continued for 6 and 14 courses), thus justifying additional investigation of this agent in a phase II sarcoma trial.

A phase I trial of perillyl alcohol administered four times daily for 14 days out of 28 days.

PURPOSE: Perillyl alcohol (POH) has been shown to have both chemopreventative and chemotherapeutic activities in preclinical studies. The underlying mechanism(s) of action of POH have yet to be delineated but may involve effects on the transforming growth factor beta (TGFbeta) and/or the Ras signaling pathways. A phase I study of POH for 14 days out of every 28 days in subjects with advanced malignancies was performed to evaluate dose escalation, toxicity, pharmacokinetics, and effects on TGFbeta and Ras. METHODS: POH was administered orally (500 mg capsules containing 250 mg POH) to 20 patients four times a day on a continuous basis for 14 days followed by a 14-day rest period, for up to three courses. The starting dose was 1200 mg/m(2) per dose. A minimum of three patients were treated and evaluated at each escalating POH dose. Pharmacokinetic analysis was performed on days 1 and 14 of course 1 and day 1 of selected later courses. Plasma TGFbeta levels were measured on days 1 and 14. Peripheral blood lymphocyte (PBLs) Ras levels were assayed on days 1 and 2 of the first course. RESULTS: The 20 patients, of whom 15 were evaluable, received doses between 1200 and 2000 mg/m(2) per dose for a total of 43 courses. The most common observed toxicities were nausea, gastrointestinal distress, and fatigue. Other toxicities included diarrhea or constipation, hypokalemia, and one incidence of acute pancreatitis. Due to these toxicities, four of the patients declined further treatment either during or after the second course. While POH was not detected in plasma, perillic acid (PA) and dihydroperillic acid (DHPA) were detected in plasma, and the peak levels at 2000 mg/m(2) per dose were approximately 600 micro M (PA) and 50 micro M (DHPA). There was some evidence for linearity in the peak plasma levels and area under the concentration-time curve of the metabolites from the starting dose to the highest dose. Metabolite pharmacokinetics were not significantly affected by ingestion in the fed or fasting state, or repeated exposure to POH. No evidence for an effect of POH on plasma TGFbeta or PBL Ras protein was observed. No objective responses were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with advanced malignancies, an interrupted administration schedule of POH did not reveal significant advantages over continuous dosing schedules.

Phase I trial of perillyl alcohol administered four times daily continuously.

PURPOSE: Previous experience with perillyl alcohol (POH) was with a formulation of 500-mg capsules each containing 250 mg POH and soybean oil. This formulation resulted in the ingestion of large amounts of soybean oil (>10 g/day). Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were primarily gastrointestinal. Prior studies also showed no further increase in POH metabolite concentrations with doses of >1600 mg/m2. Therefore, a new formulation of POH was developed (700 mg containing 675 mg POH) in an effort to improve dose and metabolite concentrations delivered and toxicity encountered with chronic dosing. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Eligible patients had refractory solid malignancies. Dose escalation occurred in cohorts of three at the dose levels/dose of 1350 mg, 2025 mg, 2700 mg, 3375 mg and 4050 mg, administered orally four times a day in a 28-day cycle. RESULTS: A group of 19 patients were enrolled. One DLT occurred at dose level 5. This cohort was expanded to six patients, and no further DLT occurred. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached. The predominant toxicity was gastrointestinal. Nausea and vomiting occurred in 63% of patients (12/19, grade 1 in 10). The same proportion of patients (12/19) experienced heartburn and indigestion, primarily grade 1. Although the side effects were mild in nature, three patients withdrew from treatment, citing intolerable gastrointestinal toxicity. The AUCs of POH metabolites did not appear to increase from level 1 to level 2 or change significantly from day 1 to day 29. Inter- and intrapatient variability in metabolite levels was observed. CONCLUSIONS: This reformulation of POH appears to be an improvement upon the prior formulation, by reducing the number of capsules ingested and the degree of gastrointestinal toxicity per dose. It does not appear to offer any metabolite pharmacokinetic advantage. A dose of 2050 mg administered four times daily was easily tolerated. Higher doses can be administered but with increasing gastrointestinal toxicity that limits compliance.

Gemcitabine, Paclitaxel, and piritrexim: a phase I study.

Piritrexim is a new antifolate that has shown activity in methotrexate-resistant tumors. Gemcitabine is an antimetabolite similar in structure to cytosine arabinoside with early studies demonstrating activity in a variety of cancers. It also has apparent synergistic activity with antifolates from initial work in tumor models. Paclitaxel is an antimicrotubule agent that has a wide spectrum of activity against a variety of solid tumors. The combination of gemcitabine, paclitaxel, and piritrexim was assessed in this phase I trial. Thirty patients were enrolled. The starting doses were piritrexim 25 mg orally twice daily (days 1-4, 15-18), paclitaxel 75 mg/m2 (days 1, 15), and gemcitabine 750 mg/m2 (days 1, 15), which then was escalated in a stepwise fashion. Four patients achieved stable disease while on study, whereas one patient with a poorly differentiated neuroendocrine tumor achieved a partial response. The main toxicity was myelosuppression. The maximum tolerated dose was thought to be piritrexim 25 mg orally three times daily (days 1-4), paclitaxel 150 to 175 mg/m2 (days 1, 15), and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 (days 1, 15). The combination of these new antifolates with paclitaxel and gemcitabine appears safe and should be considered for phase II trials in known responsive tumors such as transitional cell carcinomas.