An Expanded Treatment Protocol of Panobinostat Plus Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Patients With Previously Treated Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Panobinostat was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and European Commission in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone for patients with multiple myeloma who have received ≥ 2 regimens, including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory drug. The PANEX (panobinostat expansion) treatment protocol provided access to panobinostat and gathered additional safety data before commercial availability. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In treatment phase 1, patients received panobinostat 20 mg 3 times per week plus bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 twice weekly with dexamethasone 20 mg on the days of and after bortezomib treatment. Patients with no change or better in treatment phase 1 proceeded to treatment phase 2, when bortezomib was reduced to once weekly. Unlike in the phase III trial, PANORAMA-1 (panobinostat or placebo with bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma), bortezomib could be administered either subcutaneously or intravenously. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients with a median number of previous treatments of 4 (range, 1-12) were enrolled; most received subcutaneous bortezomib (87%). The overall response rate (partial response or better) was 56%. Grade 3/4 adverse events included thrombocytopenia (47%), fatigue (31%), dehydration (26%), and diarrhea (18%). Among the patients who received subcutaneous bortezomib, relatively low rates of peripheral neuropathy (all grade, 15%) and notable grade 3/4 adverse events (thrombocytopenia, 47%; diarrhea, 12%) were observed. CONCLUSION: Overall, data from the PANEX trial support regulatory approval of panobinostat plus bortezomib and dexamethasone and suggest the potential tolerability benefits of subcutaneous bortezomib in this regimen.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study of AMG 386 combined with weekly paclitaxel in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: To estimate the efficacy and toxicity of AMG 386, an investigational peptide-Fc fusion protein that neutralizes the interaction between the Tie2 receptor and angiopoietin-1/2, plus weekly paclitaxel in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive paclitaxel (80 mg/m(2) once weekly [QW], 3 weeks on/1 week off) plus intravenous AMG 386 10 mg/kg QW (arm A), AMG 386 3 mg/kg QW (arm B), or placebo QW (arm C). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response, CA-125 response, safety, and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-one patients were randomly assigned. Median PFS was 7.2 months (95% CI, 5.3 to 8.1 months) in arm A, 5.7 months (95% CI, 4.6 to 8.0 months) in arm B, and 4.6 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 6.7 months) in arm C. The hazard ratio for arms A and B combined versus arm C was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.52 to 1.12; P = .165). Further analyses suggested an exploratory dose-response effect for PFS across arms (Tarone's test, P = .037). Objective response rates for arms A, B, and C were 37%, 19%, and 27%, respectively. The incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) in arms A, B, and C was 65%, 55%, and 64%, respectively. Frequent AEs included hypertension (8%, 6%, and 5% in arms A, B, and C, respectively), peripheral edema (71%, 51%, and 22% in arms A, B, and C, respectively), and hypokalemia (21%, 15%, and 5% in arms A, B, and C, respectively). AMG 386 exhibited linear pharmacokinetic properties at the tested doses. CONCLUSION: AMG 386 combined with weekly paclitaxel was tolerable, with a manageable and distinct toxicity profile. The data suggest evidence of antitumor activity and a dose-response effect, warranting further studies in ovarian cancer.

Phase 2 trial results with the novel neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist casopitant in combination with ondansetron and dexamethasone for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: This randomized, double-blind, dose-ranging, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial evaluated the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist casopitant mesylate in combination with ondansetron/dexamethasone (ond/dex) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) related to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients who were receiving MEC (N=723) were randomized to receive either oral placebo or casopitant at doses of 50 mg, 100 mg, or 150 mg daily (on Days 1-3) plus ondansetron (on Days 1-3) and dexamethasone (Day 1). Two exploratory arms evaluated single-dose casopitant (150 mg) plus ond/dex and a 3-day casopitant regimen with once-daily ondansetron and dexamethasone. Primary endpoints were rates of complete response (CR) (no vomiting, retching, rescue therapy, or premature discontinuation) and significant nausea (SN) (>or=25 mm on a visual analog scale) over the first 120 hours after Cycle 1 of MEC. Secondary endpoints included acute and delayed CR and SN rates, rates of nausea, vomiting, and safety. RESULTS: All casopitant doses that were tested significantly increased the proportion of patients with CR: The CR rates were 80.8% with casopitant 50 mg, 78.5% with casopitant 100 mg, and 84.2% with casopitant 150 mg compared with 69.4% in the control group (P=.0127); casopitant 150 mg was identified as the minimally effective dose. In exploratory analyses, single-dose casopitant demonstrated a 79.2% CR rate, and once-daily ondansetron plus casopitant produced an 83.5% CR rate. Vomiting rates in the first 5 days after MEC were reduced with casopitant-containing regimens (from 23% to 10%-16%). Rates of SN did not differ among treatment arms (range, 28%-29%). Casopitant appeared to be well tolerated with no notable differences in overall adverse event frequency. CONCLUSIONS: Casopitant plus ond/dex was more effective than ond/dex alone for the prevention of CINV.