Incidence and time course of everolimus-related adverse events in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer: insights from BOLERO-2.

BACKGROUND: In the BOLERO-2 trial, everolimus (EVE), an inhibitor of mammalian target of rapamycin, demonstrated significant clinical benefit with an acceptable safety profile when administered with exemestane (EXE) in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR(+)) advanced breast cancer. We report on the incidence, time course, severity, and resolution of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) as well as incidence of dose modifications during the extended follow-up of this study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive EVE 10 mg/day or placebo (PBO), with open-label EXE 25 mg/day (n = 724). The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate, and safety. Safety evaluations included recording of AEs, laboratory values, dose interruptions/adjustments, and study drug discontinuations. RESULTS: The safety population comprised 720 patients (EVE + EXE, 482; PBO + EXE, 238). The median follow-up was 18 months. Class-effect toxicities, including stomatitis, pneumonitis, and hyperglycemia, were generally of mild or moderate severity and occurred relatively early after treatment initiation (except pneumonitis); incidence tapered off thereafter. EVE dose reduction and interruption (360 and 705 events, respectively) required for AE management were independent of patient age. The median duration of dose interruption was 7 days. Discontinuation of both study drugs because of AEs was higher with EVE + EXE (9%) versus PBO + EXE (3%). CONCLUSIONS: Most EVE-associated AEs occur soon after initiation of therapy, are typically of mild or moderate severity, and are generally manageable with dose reduction and interruption. Discontinuation due to toxicity was uncommon. Understanding the time course of class-effect AEs will help inform preventive and monitoring strategies as well as patient education. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00863655.

An NCIC-CTG phase I dose escalation pharmacokinetic study of the matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor BAY 12-9566 in combination with doxorubicin.

BACKGROUND: This phase I study was performed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of the oral matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor BAY 12-9566 in combination with doxorubicin in patients with advanced solid tumours, and to identify the maximum tolerated dose of these agents in combination and the dose for use in subsequent studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 14 patients were entered onto 3 dose levels consisting of escalating doses of doxorubicin (50 mg/m(2), 60 mg/m(2) and 70 mg/m(2)) with 800 mg po bid BAY 12-9566. At all three dose levels, patients received doxorubicin alone in cycle one on day 1. Daily oral dosing with BAY 12-9566 was started on day 8 of cycle 1, and thus doxorubicin was given concurrently with BAY 12-9566 in cycle 2. Patients were continued on treatment until a dose limiting toxicity or tumour progression occurred. RESULTS: Pharmacokinetic studies from cycles 1 and 2 from the patients treated in the first three dose levels demonstrated that the addition of BAY 12-9566 increased the AUC(0-12h) levels of doxorubicin by a median of 48%. No effects were seen on the BAY 12-9566 pharmacokinetic values. Two dose limiting toxicities were seen at the third dose level. One patient experienced grade 3 stomatitis in cycle 2, and another patient experienced grade 4 granulocytopenia in cycle 1 and grade 4 thrombocytopenia in cycle 2. Thus the maximum tolerated dose of 60 mg/m(2) was declared. These toxicities were those that would have been expected from doxorubicin alone. CONCLUSIONS: BAY 12-9566 can be safely administered with full doses of doxorubicin without evidence of clinical interaction. The recommended dose of doxorubicin to be combined with BAY 12-9566 800 mg po b.i.d is 60 mg/m(2), however, further development of BAY 12-9566 has been abandoned.

An NCIC CTG phase I/pharmacokinetic study of the matrix metalloproteinase and angiogenesis inhibitor BAY 12-9566 in combination with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin.

BACKGROUND: This phase I study was performed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of the oral matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor BAY 12-9566 in combination with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin in patients with advanced solid tumours, and to identify the maximum tolerated dose and the dose for use in future studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: BAY 12-9566 and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin were administered to 17 patients in 3 cohorts. Each patient served as his/her own control, with 5-fluorouracil being given alone on days 1-5 of cycle 1. In cohort 1, BAY 12-9566 at 800 mg p.o. b.i.d. was given with 350 mg/m2 5-fluorouracil/20 mg/m2 leucovorin x 5 days q28 days. In cohort 2, the BAY 12-9566 dose was reduced to 400 mg p.o. b.i.d., with the 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin doses remaining unchanged. Finally, in cohort 3, BAY 12-9566 400 mg bid was given with 5-fluorouracil 400 mg/m2/day. Patients were continued on therapy until unacceptable toxicity or tumour progression occurred. Pharmacokinetic analyses for both BAY 12-9566 and 5-fluorouracil were performed. RESULTS: The maximum tolerated dose was 400 mg p.o. b.i.d. BAY 12-9566 plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin at 400 mg/m2/day and 20 mg/m2/day, respectively. Thrombocytopenia necessitated a decrease of the dose of BAY 12-9566 by 50% from cohort 1 to cohort 2. Two dose-limiting toxicities occurred in cohort 3 consisting of neutropenic fever, and ileitis, causing severe diarrhea. Of 17 patients treated on study, 7 of 14 patients evaluable for response achieved stable disease. Pharmacokinetic analysis suggested there was no interaction between BAY 12-9566 and 5-fluorouracil. CONCLUSIONS: BAY 12-9566 400 mg bid and 5-fluorouracil 350 mg/m2 plus leucovorin 20 mg/m2 can be co-administered. Although there is some evidence of a clinical interaction, there is no apparent pharmacokinetic interaction. Future studies with these 2 types of agents administered in combination are warranted.

Recall bias in case-control studies: an empirical analysis and theoretical framework.

Previous work has suggested that recall bias in case-control studies may be more serious when the overall study quality is lower. This paper summarizes a systematic literature search to examine the question. All relevant studies published between 1966 and 1990 were included if they met the following criteria: (1) they represented original work, (2) they used a human population, (3) they used a case-control design, (4) they had a "validated" gold standard applied equally to cases and controls and (5) they reported at least one of crude agreement rates, chance-corrected agreement rates (kappa), sensitivity or specificity. Sixteen such studies were identified. No relationship was found between the absolute differences in agreement between cases and controls and the overall level of agreement, in contradiction to suggestions in previous literature. Comparisons of the data quality for cases and controls using either the crude agreement level, kappa, sensitivity, or specificity gave linear relationships with correlations of 0.81, 0.78, 0.58 and 0.62 respectively. Kappas were generally lower than the corresponding crude agreement levels and specificities were higher than sensitivities. When used together, these types of comparisons can give valuable information regarding (1) the possible existence of differential recall in a particular study and (2) the quality of that study, A theoretical framework is proposed for use in these areas.