A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of oral perifosine with different loading schedules in patients with refractory neoplasms.

PURPOSE: To determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of perifosine (NSC 639966), an alkylphospholipid modulator of signal transduction, using different oral loading and maintenance regimens in an effort to avoid gastrointestinal toxicity while seeking maximal sustained plasma concentrations. METHODS: Thirty-one patients with advanced neoplasms were treated with monthly cycles of perifosine loading doses of 300, 600, 900, 1,200 and 1,500 mg (dose levels 1 through 5, respectively) on days 1-2 depending on the actual dose of the initial cycle. For subsequent cycles, perifosine loading doses were reduced to 100, 200, 300, 400 and 1,000 mg at the respective corresponding dose levels. Daily perifosine "maintenance" doses of 50, 100, 150, 200 and 250 mg for levels 1 through 5, respectively, commenced on days 2 or 3 and continued for a total of 21 days. No treatment was given for days 22-27. The pharmacokinetics of perifosine with these schedules was characterized. RESULTS: Dose-limiting diarrhea developed at or above dose level 4. The MTD and recommended phase II dose was dose level 3B, with a loading dose of 900 mg on day 1 divided into two doses of 450 mg administered 6 h apart and a maintenance dose of 150 mg on day 2 through 21. On subsequent cycles, the loading dose was reduced to 300 mg. Non-gastrointestinal toxicities included three episodes of gout or gout-like syndromes observed at doses above the MTD. The median peak plasma concentration of perifosine achieved at the MTD was approximately 8.3 µg/mL. Four patients had stable disease ranging from 167 to 735 days. CONCLUSIONS: Perifosine given according to a loading and maintenance schedule can safely sustain concentrations of drug, approaching concentrations achieved in preclinical models with evidence of anti-tumor effect.

Prespecified candidate biomarkers identify follicular lymphoma patients who achieved longer progression-free survival with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab.

PURPOSE: Identify subgroups of patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma deriving substantial progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab in the phase III LYM-3001 study. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A total of 676 patients were randomized to five 5-week cycles of bortezomib-rituximab or rituximab. The primary end point was PFS; this prespecified analysis of candidate protein biomarkers and genes was an exploratory objective. Archived tumor tissue and whole blood samples were collected at baseline. Immunohistochemistry and genetic analyses were completed for 4 proteins and 8 genes. RESULTS: In initial pairwise analyses, using individual single-nucleotide polymorphism genotypes, one biomarker pair (PSMB1 P11A C/G heterozygote, low CD68 expression) was associated with a significant PFS benefit with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab, controlling for multiple comparison corrections. The pair was analyzed under dominant, recessive, and additive genetic models, with significant association with PFS seen under the dominant model (G/G+C/G). In patients carrying this biomarker pair [PSMB1 P11A G allele, low CD68 expression (≤50 CD68-positive cells), population frequency: 43.6%], median PFS was 14.2 months with bortezomib-rituximab versus 9.1 months with rituximab (HR 0.47, P < 0.0001), and there was a significant overall survival benefit (HR 0.49, P = 0.0461). Response rates were higher and time to next antilymphoma therapy was longer in the bortezomib-rituximab group. In biomarker-negative patients, no significant efficacy differences were seen between treatment groups. Similar proportions of patients had high-risk features in the biomarker-positive and biomarker-negative subsets. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PSMB1 P11A (G allele) and low CD68 expression seemed to have significantly longer PFS and greater clinical benefit with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab.

Bortezomib plus rituximab versus rituximab in patients with high-risk, relapsed, rituximab-naïve or rituximab-sensitive follicular lymphoma: subgroup analysis of a randomized phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The randomized phase 3 LYM3001 trial in relapsed follicular lymphoma (FL) demonstrated higher overall (ORR) and complete response (CR) rates and prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab. We report findings in high-risk patients (FL International Prognostic Index [FLIPI] score ≥3, and high tumor burden by modified Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomas Folliculaires [GELF] criteria). METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years with grade 1/2 FL, ≥1 measurable lesion, and documented relapse or progression following prior therapy, rituximab-naïve or rituximab-sensitive, were enrolled at 164 centers in 29 countries across Europe, the Americas, and Asia-Pacific. Patients were randomized (1:1) to five 5-week cycles of bortezomib-rituximab (bortezomib 1.6 mg/m2, days 1, 8, 15, and 22, all cycles; rituximab 375 mg/m2, days 1, 8, 15, and 22, cycle 1, and day 1, cycles 2-5; N=336) or rituximab alone (N=340). Randomization was stratified by FLIPI score, prior rituximab, time since last dose of anti-lymphoma therapy, and geographical region. The primary endpoint of the study was PFS. RESULTS: 103 bortezomib-rituximab and 98 rituximab patients had high-risk FL. The ORR was 59% versus 37% (p=0.002), the CR/CRu rate was 13% versus 6% (p=0.145), and the durable response rate was 45% versus 26% (p=0.008) with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab. Median PFS was 9.5 versus 6.7 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.667, p=0.012) with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab; median time to progression was 10.9 versus 6.8 months (HR 0.656, p=0.009); median time to next anti-lymphoma treatment was 14.8 versus 9.1 months (HR 0.762, p=0.103); and the 1-year Overall Survival rate was 83.1% versus 76.6%. Overall, 51% of bortezomib-rituximab and 32% of rituximab patients reported grade ≥3 adverse events, including neutropenia (18%, 6%), anemia (4%, 5%), diarrhea (8%, 0%), thrombocytopenia (5%, 2%), and sensory neuropathy (1%, 0%). CONCLUSIONS: High-risk FL patients treated with bortezomib-rituximab had significantly higher ORR and longer PFS than patients receiving rituximab alone, with greater clinical benefit than in the overall study population; additional toxicity was acceptable and did not affect treatment feasibility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The phase 3 LYM3001 trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, with the identifier NCT00312845.

Bortezomib plus rituximab versus rituximab alone in patients with relapsed, rituximab-naive or rituximab-sensitive, follicular lymphoma: a randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Bortezomib and rituximab have shown additive activity in preclinical models of lymphoma, and have been shown to be active and generally well tolerated in a randomised phase 2 study in patients with follicular and marginal zone lymphoma. We compared the efficacy and safety of rituximab alone or combined with bortezomib in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma in a phase 3 setting. METHODS: In this multicentre phase 3 trial, rituximab-naive or rituximab-sensitive patients aged 18 years or older with relapsed grade 1 or 2 follicular lymphoma were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive five 35-day cycles consisting of intravenous infusions of rituximab 375 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycle 1, and on day 1 of cycles 2-5, either alone or with bortezomib 1·6 mg/m(2), administered by intravenous injection on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of all cycles. Randomisation was stratified by FLIPI score, previous use of rituximab, time since last therapy, and region. Treatment assignment was based on a computer-generated randomisation schedule prepared by the sponsor. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival analysed by intention to treat. This trial has been completed and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00312845. FINDINGS: Between April 10, 2006, and Aug 12, 2008, 676 patients were randomised to receive rituximab (n=340) or bortezomib plus rituximab (n=336). After a median follow-up of 33·9 months (IQR 26·4-39·7), median progression-free survival was 11·0 months (95% CI 9·1-12·0) in the rituximab group and 12·8 months (11·5-15·0) in the bortezomib plus rituximab group (hazard ratio 0·82, 95% CI 0·68-0·99; p=0·039). The magnitude of clinical benefit was not as large as the anticipated prespecified improvement of 33% in progression-free survival. Patients in both groups received a median of five treatment cycles (range 1-5); 245 of 339 (72%) and 237 of 334 (71%) patients in the rituximab and bortezomib plus rituximab groups, respectively, completed five cycles. Of patients who did not complete five cycles, most discontinued early because of disease progression (77 [23%] patients in the rituximab group, and 56 [17%] patients in the bortezomib plus rituximab group). Rates of adverse events of grade 3 or higher (70 [21%] of 339 rituximab-treated patients vs 152 [46%] of 334 bortezomib plus rituximab treated patients), and serious adverse events (37 [11%] patients vs 59 [18%] patients) were lower in the rituximab group than in the combination group. The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (15 [4%] patients in the rituximab group and 37 [11%] patients in the bortezomib plus rituximab group), infection (15 [4%] patients and 36 [11%] patients, respectively), diarrhoea (no patients and 25 [7%] patients, respectively), herpes zoster (one [<1%] patient and 12 [4%] patients, respectively), nausea or vomiting (two [<1%] patients and 10 [3%] patients, respectively) and thrombocytopenia (two [<1%] patients and 10 [3%] patients, respectively). No individual serious adverse event was reported by more than three patients in the rituximab group; in the bortezomib plus rituximab group, only pneumonia (seven patients [2%]) and pyrexia (six patients [2%]) were reported in more than five patients. In the bortezomib plus rituximab group 57 (17%) of 334 patients had peripheral neuropathy (including sensory, motor, and sensorimotor neuropathy), including nine (3%) with grade 3 or higher, compared with three (1%) of 339 patients in the rituximab group (no events of grade ≥3). No patients in the rituximab group but three (1%) patients in the bortezomib plus rituximab group died of adverse events considered at least possibly related to treatment. INTERPRETATION: Although a regimen of bortezomib plus rituximab is feasible, the improvement in progression-free survival provided by this regimen versus rituximab alone was not as great as expected. The regimen might represent a useful addition to the armamentarium, particularly for some subgroups of patients. FUNDING: Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Overall survival: a gold standard in search of a surrogate: the value of progression-free survival and time to progression as end points of drug efficacy.

Overall survival (OS) has been the gold standard for demonstrating clinical benefit for cancer drugs. It is 100% accurate for the event and time, it is assessed daily, its importance is unquestioned, and it addresses both safety and efficacy. However, OS as the primary efficacy end point requires large studies, long periods of follow-up, and it is potentially confounded by effective crossover, subsequent therapies, and noncancer death. Progression-free survival (PFS) or time to progression (TTP) directly measures the treatment effects of drugs on cancer growth, and they are not confounded by subsequent or crossover therapy. Although PFS and TTP benefits do not translate into OS benefits in all clinical settings examined so far, PFS or TTP improvement with a sufficient magnitude and in the context of favorable benefit-risk ratio should also be considered an important clinical benefit. Acceptance of PFS and TTP improvement demonstrated by well designed and conducted studies as direct evidence of clinical benefit will accelerate cancer drug development and make effective therapy available to patients with cancer sooner. The availability of sequential therapies, each delivers incremental progress in tumor control and PFS, may collectively lead to transformation of cancer to a curable or controllable chronic disease.

Efficacy and safety of trabectedin in patients with advanced or metastatic liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma after failure of prior anthracyclines and ifosfamide: results of a randomized phase II study of two different schedules.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of trabectedin in a phase II, open-label, multicenter, randomized study in adult patients with unresectable/metastatic liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma after failure of prior conventional chemotherapy including anthracyclines and ifosfamide. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to one of two trabectedin regimens (via central venous access): 1.5 mg/m(2) 24-hour intravenous infusion once every 3 weeks (q3 weeks 24-hour) versus 0.58 mg/m(2) 3-hour IV infusion every week for 3 weeks of a 4-week cycle (qwk 3-hour). Time to progression (TTP) was the primary efficacy end point, based on confirmed independent review of images. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy patients were randomly assigned; 136 (q3 weeks 24-hour) versus 134 (qwk 3-hour). Median TTP was 3.7 months versus 2.3 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.734; 95% CI, 0.554 to 0.974; P = .0302), favoring the q3 weeks 24-hour arm. Median progression-free survival was 3.3 months versus 2.3 months (HR, 0.755; 95% CI, 0.574 to 0.992; P = .0418). Median overall survival (n = 235 events) was 13.9 months versus 11.8 months (HR, 0.843; 95% CI, 0.653 to 1.090; P = .1920). Although somewhat more neutropenia, elevations in AST/ALT, emesis, and fatigue occurred in the q3 weeks 24-hour, this regimen was reasonably well tolerated. Febrile neutropenia was rare (0.8%). No cumulative toxicities were noted. CONCLUSION: Prior studies showed clinical benefit with trabectedin in patients with sarcomas after failure of standard chemotherapy. This trial documents superior disease control with the q3 weeks 24-hour trabectedin regimen in liposarcomas and leiomyosarcomas, although the qwk 3-hour regimen also demonstrated activity relative to historical comparisons. Trabectedin may now be considered an important new option to control advanced sarcomas in patients after failure of available standard-of-care therapies.

Weekly and twice-weekly bortezomib in patients with systemic AL amyloidosis: results of a phase 1 dose-escalation study.

New treatment options are required for primary systemic AL amyloidosis (AL). This phase 1 dose-escalation component of a phase 1/2 study in relapsed AL aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of bortezomib once weekly (0.7-1.6 mg/m(2); days 1, 8, 15, and 22; 35-day cycles) and twice weekly (0.7-1.3 mg/m(2); days 1, 4, 8, and 11; 21-day cycles) and assess preliminary hematologic responses. Thirty-one patients with relapsed AL were enrolled across 7 cohorts. Dose-limiting toxicity included grade 3 congestive heart failure in 2 patients (1 at once weekly, 1.6 mg/m(2), and 1 at twice weekly, 1.0 mg/m(2)). MTD was not defined for either schedule; the maximum doses of 1.6 mg/m(2) (once weekly) and 1.3 mg/m(2) (twice weekly) are being used in phase 2 evaluation. Most commonly reported toxicities on both schedules included gastrointestinal events, fatigue, and nervous system disorders. Discontinuations and dose reductions for toxicity were reported in 12 and 4 patients, respectively. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Hematologic responses occurred in 15 (50%) of 30 evaluable patients, including 6 (20%) complete responses. Median time to first response was 1.2 months. Once-weekly and twice-weekly bortezomib appear generally well tolerated in relapsed AL, with promising hematologic responses. This study is registered with http://ClinicalTrials.Gov under identifier NCT00298766.

Phase I combination study of trabectedin and doxorubicin in patients with soft-tissue sarcoma.

PURPOSE: To determine the dose of trabectedin plus doxorubicin with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support associated with manageable neutropenia and acceptable dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) in patients with recurrent or persistent soft-tissue sarcoma. METHODS: In this phase I, open-label, multicenter trial, patients previously treated with 0-1 prior chemotherapy regimens excluding doxorubicin, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, and adequate organ function received a 10- to 15-min i.v. infusion of doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) immediately followed by a 3-h i.v. infusion of trabectedin 0.9 to 1.3 mg/m(2) on day 1 of a 3-week cycle. Because four of the first six patients experienced DLT-defining neutropenia during cycle 1, all subsequent patients received primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. The maximum tolerated dose was the highest dose level with six or more patients in which less than one-third of the patients experienced severe neutropenia or DLT. Blood was collected during cycle 1 for pharmacokinetic analyses. Adverse events, tumor response, and survival were assessed. RESULTS: Patients (N = 41) received a median of six cycles of treatment (range, 2-13). The maximum tolerated dose was trabectedin 1.1 mg/m(2) and doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2). Common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (71%), alanine aminotransferase increase (46%), and thrombocytopenia (37%). Overall, 5 (12%) patients achieved a partial response and 34 (83%) maintained stable disease. Median progression-free survival was 9.2 months. Doxorubicin and trabectedin pharmacokinetics were not altered substantially with concomitant administration. CONCLUSION: The combination of doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) followed by trabectedin 1.1 mg/m(2) every 21 days is safe and active in patients with soft-tissue sarcoma.

Inhibition of nuclear factor-kappaB and target genes during combined therapy with proteasome inhibitor bortezomib and reirradiation in patients with recurrent head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To examine the effects the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib (VELCADE) on transcription factor nuclear factor-kappaB (NF-kappaB) and target genes and the feasibility of combination therapy with reirradiation in patients with recurrent head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The tolerability and response to bortezomib 0.6 mg/m2 and 0.9 mg/m2 given twice weekly concurrent with daily reirradiation to 50-70 Gy was explored. Blood proteasome inhibition and NF-kappaB-modulated cytokines and factors were measured. Proteasome inhibition, nuclear localization of NF-kappaB phospho-p65, apoptosis, and expression of NF-kappaB-modulated mRNAs were compared in serial biopsies from accessible tumors. RESULTS: The maximally tolerated dose was exceeded, and study was limited to 7 and 2 patients, respectively, given bortezomib 0.6 mg/m2 and 0.9 mg/m2/dose with reirradiation. Grade 3 hypotension and hyponatremia were dose limiting. Mucositis was Grade 3 or less and was delayed. The mean blood proteasome inhibition at 1, 24, and 48 h after 0.6 mg/m2 was 32%, 16%, and 7% and after 0.9 mg/m2 was 56%, 26%, and 14%, respectively. Differences in proteasome and NF-kappaB activity, apoptosis, and expression of NF-kappaB-modulated cell cycle, apoptosis, and angiogenesis factor mRNAs were detected in 2 patients with minor tumor reductions and in serum NF-kappaB-modulated cytokines in 1 patient with a major tumor reduction. CONCLUSIONS: In combination with reirradiation, the maximally tolerated dose of bortezomib was exceeded at a dose of 0.6 mg/m2 and the threshold of proteasome inhibition. Although this regimen with reirradiation is not feasible, bortezomib induced detectable differences in NF-kappaB localization, apoptosis, and NF-kappaB-modulated genes and cytokines in tumor and serum in association with tumor reduction, indicating that other schedules of bortezomib combined with primary radiotherapy or reirradiation may merit future investigation.