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.

Vorinostat in combination with bortezomib in patients with advanced malignancies directly alters transcription of target genes.

INTRODUCTION: Vorinostat is a small molecule inhibitor of class I and II histone deacetylase enzymes which alters the expression of target genes including the cell cycle gene p21, leading to cell cycle arrest and apoptosis. METHODS: Patients enrolled in a phase I trial were treated with vorinostat alone on day 1 and vorinostat and bortezomib in combination on day 9. Paired biopsies were obtained in eleven subjects. Blood samples were obtained on days 1 and 9 of cycle 1 prior to dosing and 2 and 6 h post-dosing in all 60 subjects. Gene expression of p21, HSP70, AKT, Nur77, ERB1, and ERB2 was evaluated in peripheral blood mononuclear cells and tissue samples. Chromatin immunoprecipitation of p21, HSP70, and Nur77 was also performed in biopsy samples. RESULTS: In peripheral blood mononuclear cells, Nur77 was significantly and consistently decreased 2 h after vorinostat administration on both days 1 and 9, median ratio of gene expression relative to baseline of 0.69 with interquartile range 0.49-1.04 (p < 0.001); 0.28 (0.15-0.7) (p < 0.001), respectively, with more pronounced decrease on day 9, when patients received both vorinostat and bortezomib. p21, a downstream target of Nur77, was significantly decreased on day 9, 2 and 6 h after administration of vorinostat and bortezomib, 0.67 (0.41-1.03) (p < 0.01); 0.44 (0.25-1.3) (p < 0.01), respectively. The ChIP assay demonstrated a protein-DNA interaction, in this case interaction of Nur77, HSP70 and p21 with acetylated histone H3, at baseline and at day 9 after treatment with vorinostat in tissue biopsies in most patients. CONCLUSION: Vorinostat inhibits Nur77 expression, which in turn may decrease p21 and AKT expression in PBMCs. The influence of vorinostat on target gene expression in tumor tissue was variable; however, most patients demonstrated interaction of acetylated H3 with Nur77, HSP70, and p21 which provides evidence of interaction with the transcriptionally active acetylated H3.

A phase I study of capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and lapatinib in metastatic or advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States, and new treatment options are needed. This phase I study investigated a novel regimen combining 2 chemotherapy drugs with proven efficacy in mCRC (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (lapatinib). Lapatinib has already been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of selected cases of breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with solid tumors responsive to fluoropyrimidines or oxaliplatin were eligible for enrollment. Treatment was given over a 21-day cycle with a fixed dosing of intravenous oxaliplatin of 130 mg/m(2) on day 1. Capecitabine and lapatinib were given orally at escalating doses, starting at capecitabine 1500 mg/m(2)/day on days 1-14 and lapatinib 1000 mg daily on days 1-21. RESULTS: Ten patients received treatment per study protocol. All had received previous systemic treatment. Diarrhea was one of the most common side effects and accounted for nearly all grade 3/4 toxicity. The starting dose level was determined to be the maximum tolerated dose. One patient with pancreatic cancer had evidence of a partial response. Three other patients demonstrated stable disease. There were no complete responses. CONCLUSION: Results of this study suggest the regimen of capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and lapatinib has some efficacy in types of advanced or metastatic solid malignancies with known responsiveness to fluoropyrimidines or oxaliplatin. Further research may help determine whether this regimen can improve on the response rates seen with current standard regimens for mCRC.

Cytotoxic Evaluation of 3-Aminopyridine-2-Carboxaldehyde Thiosemicarbazone, 3-AP, in Peripheral Blood Lymphocytes of Patients with Refractory Solid Tumors using Electron Paramagnetic Resonance.

PURPOSE: 3-AP (3-aminopyridine-2-carboxaldehyde thiosemicarbazone, 3-AP) is a metal chelator that potently inhibits the enzyme ribonucleotide reductase, RR, which plays a key role in cell division and tumor progression. A sub-unit of RR has a non-heme iron and a tyrosine free radical, which are required for the enzymatic reduction of ribonucleotides to deoxyribonucleotides. The objective of the study was to determine whether 3-AP affects its targeted action by measuring EPR signals formed either directly or indirectly from low molecular weight ferric-3-AP chelates. METHODS: Peripheral blood lymphocytes were collected from patients with refractory solid tumors at baseline and at 2, 4.5 and 22 hours after 3-AP administration. EPR spectra were used to identify signals from high-spin Fe-transferrin, high-spin heme and low-spin iron or copper ions. RESULTS: An increase in Fe-transferrin signal was observed, suggesting blockage of Fe uptake. It is hypothesized that formation of reactive oxygen species by FeT(2) or CuT damage transferrin or the transferrin receptor. An increase in heme signal was also observed, which is a probable source of cytochrome c release from the mitochondria and potential apoptosis. In addition, increased levels of Fe and Cu were identified. CONCLUSION: These results, which were consistent with our earlier study validating 3-AP-mediated signals by EPR, provide valuable insights into the in vivo mechanism of action of 3-AP.

Phase I trial of motexafin gadolinium and doxorubicin in the treatment of advanced malignancies.

PURPOSE: To assess the safety, maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), and dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), of motexafin gadolinium (MGd), given in combination with doxorubicin, in patients with advanced solid tumors. STUDY DESIGN: The combination of MGd and doxorubicin was administered every 28 days (cycle 1) and then every 21 days (subsequent cycles). The dose of MGd, given daily for 3 days, was escalated from 1.0 mg/kg/d to 3.3 mg/kg/d, while the dose of doxorubicin was held at 30 mg/m². RESULTS: Fifteen patients received 37 cycles of treatment, for a median of 2 cycles per patient (range 0-6 cycles). Three patients (20%) completed 6 cycles of therapy. The MTD was identified as MGd, 2 mg/kg/day and doxorubicin, 30 mg/m². Dose limiting toxicities included grade 3 hypertension, pneumonia, bacteremia, and elevated GGT. Serious adverse events also included pulmonary embolism and urinary tract infection requiring hospitalization. There was no exacerbation of cardiac toxicity. No patients attained a response to treatment. Six patients (54%) had stable disease. The median time to disease progression, or to last assessment, was 49 days (range 8-195 days). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of MGd and doxorubicin was fairly well tolerated. However, due to emerging preclinical data suggesting that MGd inhibits ribonucleotide reductase, further development of the combination of MGd plus doxorubicin is not recommended.

Population pharmacokinetics of 3-aminopyridine-2-carboxaldehyde thiosemicarbazone (Triapine®) in cancer patients.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop a population pharmacokinetic (PK) model for 3-AP, to evaluate the effect of ABCB1 polymorphisms on the pharmacokinetic profile of 3-AP, and to assess the relationship between 3AP disposition and patient covariates. METHODS: A total of 40 patients with advanced cancer from two phase 1 studies were included in the population PK model building. Patients received 3-AP 25-105 mg/m(2) IV on day 1. 3-AP plasma and erythrocyte levels were sampled at 10 timepoints over a 24-h period and measured by a validated HPLC method. Data were analyzed by a nonlinear mixed-effects modeling approach using the NONMEM system. RESULTS: 3-AP pharmacokinetics were described as a 3-compartment model with first-order elimination, with one compartment representing the plasma and another representing erythrocyte concentrations. Gender was associated with volume of distribution, in which women had a lower V2. The number of cycles administered was associated with clearance; those with decreased clearance were more likely to receive less than 2 cycles before going off study. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that monitoring 3-AP plasma concentrations in the first cycle and dose adjustment in those with decreased clearance may be helpful in decreasing toxicity associated with the 3-AP.

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.

A dose escalation, safety, and tolerability study of MN-029 in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: To assess the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), safety, and tolerability of MN-209, a novel vascular disrupting agent, in patients with advanced solid tumors. STUDY DESIGN: MN-029 was administered weekly for three consecutive weeks out of four; two cycles were planned. Dose escalation proceeded by 100% per toxicity criteria. Intra-patient dose escalation was permitted. RESULTS: Twenty patients received a total of 151 infusions of MN-029. No DLTs or grade 4 toxicities occurred. The most common adverse events were nausea, vomiting, arthralgias, and headache. One patient developed acute substernal chest pain 4 days after his first dose of MN-029 and was removed from the study. An MTD was not determined. The recommended phase II dose was identified as 180 mg/m(2)/week. One patient with advanced pancreatic cancer attained a partial response lasting 10 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: MN-029 was well tolerated in this schedule. Further development of this class of agents is warranted, especially in combination with other anti-cancer treatments.

Amongst eligible patients, age and comorbidity do not predict for dose-limiting toxicity from phase I chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: There are no clear predictors clinicians can use to determine who is more likely to experience dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in phase I chemotherapy clinical trials. Many providers are reluctant to refer older adults to phase I trials because of concerns about the development of toxicity. The goal of this study was to identify clinical and nonclinical factors which were associated with the development of DLT in phase I studies. METHODS: Patients (pts) were included if they were treated at maximally tolerated dose (MTD) and above. Studies were included only if MTD was reached. Data collected included age, comorbidity (Cumulative Illness Rating Score-Geriatrics), labs at enrollment, height, weight, performance status, cancer type, duration of diagnosis, prior treatment, drug level, smoking status, marital status, mean income, percent of population high school educated as determined by ZIP code, and distance to the phase I trial hospital. Those who did and did not have DLT were compared by bivariate and then multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 242 charts were reviewed from 24 cytotoxic chemotherapy studies, and 27 different types of cancer were represented. On bivariate analysis, mean age, household income (higher), weight, body surface area, dose of drug, alkaline phosphatase, hemoglobin, and LDH were significantly associated with DLT (P < 0.05). CIRS-G score was not associated with DLT. In multivariate analysis, dose level (P = 0.004) and distance from the phase I trial hospital (P = 0.04) were still significant predictors of DLT. Age did not predict for severity of DLT. CONCLUSIONS: Age and comorbidity did not predict for development of DLT in phase I chemotherapy trials. Many of these pts were very fit, with relatively low CIRS-G scores, so the impact of comorbidity may not have been fully evaluated. Several social and clinical factors may predict for development of DLT. A prospective study is being planned to confirm these results.

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.

Phase I trial of 2-methoxyestradiol NanoCrystal dispersion in advanced solid malignancies.

PURPOSE: 2-methoxyestradiol (2ME2; Panzem) is an endogenous, estradiol-17beta metabolite that at pharmacologic doses exerts antimitotic and antiangiogenic activities. Studies with a 2ME2 capsule formulation showed limited oral bioavailability. We report the results of a phase I study using a NanoCrystal Dispersion formulation of 2ME2 (2ME2 NCD). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with refractory solid tumors received 2ME2 NCD orally. Patients received drug either every 6 hours (part A) or every 8 hours (part B). Doses were escalated in successive cohorts until the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was identified. The primary objective was identifying the MTD. Secondary objectives were to evaluate the plasma pharmacokinetics of 2ME2 and efficacy. RESULTS: In part A, 16 patients received a median of 4 cycles of 2ME2 NCD. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) included fatigue (2), hypophosphatemia (2), increased alanine aminotransferase (1), and muscle weakness (1). Trough levels at steady-state reached the minimum effective concentration in all cohorts. The MTD was determined to be 1,000 mg orally every 6 hours. In part B, 10 patients received a median of 1 cycle. DLTs included elevated gamma-glutamyltransferase (1), hyponatremia (1), fatigue (1), and anorexia (1). An MTD could not be defined for part B because 4 of 10 patients had DLTs at the initial dose level and dose reduction was not pursued. Thirteen patients had stable disease (A, 11; B, 2); there were no confirmed responses. CONCLUSION: For 2ME2 NCD, the MTD and recommended phase II regimen is 1,000 mg orally every 6 hours. Treatment was generally well-tolerated.

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.

Dose-escalation study of fixed-dose rate gemcitabine combined with capecitabine in advanced solid malignancies.

PURPOSE: To define dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of capecitabine with fixed-dose rate (FDR) gemcitabine. METHODS: Eligible adults (advanced solid tumor; performance status or=3 toxicity was myelosuppression, particularly neutropenia. At dose level 4 (1,000 mg/m(2) gemcitabine), two out of five evaluable patients had a DLT (grade 4 neutropenia >or=7 days). At dose level 3 (800 mg/m(2) gemcitabine), one patient had a DLT (grade 3 neutropenia >or=7 days) among six evaluable patients. Therefore, the MTD and recommended phase II dose was designated as capecitabine 500 mg/m(2) PO BID days 1-14 with 800 mg/m(2) FDR gemcitabine days 1 and 8 infused at 10 mg/m(2) per min on a 21-day cycle. Partial responses occurred in pretreated patients with esophageal, renal cell and bladder carcinomas. CONCLUSIONS: This regimen was well tolerated and may deserve evaluation in advanced gastrointestinal and genitourinary carcinomas.

Evaluation of mRNA by Q-RTPCR and protein expression by AQUA of the M2 subunit of ribonucleotide reductase (RRM2) in human tumors.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate baseline RRM2 protein and gene expression in tumors of patients receiving 3-AP. METHODS: Tumor blocks from patients enrolled in phase I and II clinical studies using 3-AP, were evaluated for RRM2 gene and protein expression by quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction (Q-RTPCR) and automated quantitative analysis (AQUA). RESULTS: Esophageal and gastric cancers overexpressed RRM2 protein when compared to prostate cancer (Z-score, 0.68 +/- 0.94 SD, vs 0.41 +/- 0.84 SD, respectively; p = 0.04). Esophageal and gastric cancers also overexpressed RRM2 mRNA when compared to prostate cancer (relative gene expression 2.56 +/- 1.49 SD, vs 0.29 +/- 0.20 SD, respectively; p = 0.02). Protein and gene expression were moderately associated (Spearman's rank correlation = 0.30; p = 0.12). CONCLUSION: RRM2 gene and protein expression varies by tumor type.

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.

A phase I trial of gemcitabine in combination with patupilone in patients with advanced solid tumors.

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy regimens including gemcitabine in combination with microtubule inhibitors such as docetaxel and paclitaxel have wide clinical application. Patupilone is a novel tubulin-polymerizing agent with activity against paclitaxel-resistant cell lines. We conducted a phase I trial to assess the maximum tolerated dose, dose limiting toxicity (DLT) and antitumor activity of gemcitabine and patupilone. METHODS: Patients with refractory solid tumors enrolled in cohorts of three. Cohorts received fixed doses of gemcitabine (1,000 or 750 mg/m(2)) along with escalating doses of patupilone (1.5-3 mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients received a total of 99 courses of treatment on study. Hematologic toxicity in the first cohort required a modification of the protocol to decrease the gemcitabine dose. Subsequent patients received gemcitabine 750 mg/m(2) and escalating doses of patupilone from 1.5 to 3 mg/m(2). DLTs were grade 3 asthenia and grade 3 dehydration. There was also one treatment-related death due to neutropenic infection. Other clinically significant toxicities were persistent asthenia and persistent nausea. Four patients, one each with pancreatic cancer, esophageal carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder carcinoma, experienced a partial response. CONCLUSIONS: The dose-limiting toxicities of gemcitabine and patupilone were asthenia and dehydration. Dose reductions also occurred due to persistent fatigue that was not dose-limiting. However, patients with advanced malignancies were able to tolerate gemcitabine and patupilone at doses that resulted in clinical benefit. The recommended phase II dose for this schedule is gemcitabine 750 mg/m(2) and patupilone 1.5 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle.