A phase II study of cetuximab/paclitaxel/carboplatin for the initial treatment of advanced-stage ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the safety and efficacy of cetuximab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin as initial treatment of stage III/IV ovarian cancer. METHODS: An initial intravenous [IV] dose of cetuximab (400 mg/m(2)) was administered over 120 min followed by weekly IV infusions of cetuximab (250 mg/m(2)) administered over 60 min. Paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2)) and carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC] of 6) were administered IV every 21 days for 6 cycles. The order of administration was cetuximab followed by paclitaxel and then carboplatin. Patients achieving a clinical complete response after 6 cycles were eligible to continue weekly cetuximab for 6 months or until toxicity or disease progression. Safety was evaluated using NCI Common Toxicity Criteria version 2.0. Progression-free survival (PFS) at 18 months was determined and compared with historical controls. RESULTS: Forty-one patients were enrolled in this study; 40 received treatment and were evaluable for toxicity, and 38 were evaluable for PFS. Grade 3/4 treatment-related toxicities included febrile neutropenia (12.5%), rash (2.5%), hypersensitivity reaction (7.5%), and hypomagnesemia (12.5%). Common grade 1/2 toxicities attributed to cetuximab included acneiform rash (82.5%), hirsutism (7.5%) or abnormal hair growth (25%), and nail disorders (22.5%), which in 3 cases resulted in the patient's discontinuation from the study. Median PFS was 14.4 months, and PFS at 18 months was 38.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of cetuximab with paclitaxel and carboplatin is adequately tolerated as primary therapy for ovarian cancer but did not demonstrate prolongation of PFS when compared to historical data.

A phase II evaluation of goserelin and bicalutamide in patients with ovarian cancer in second or higher complete clinical disease remission.

BACKGROUND: The current study was conducted to determine the effect of goserelin and bicalutamide on progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer who were in second or greater complete disease remission. METHODS: Patients received bicalutamide at a dose of 50 mg orally daily and goserelin at a dose of 3.6 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks. CA 125 was obtained monthly, with computed tomography performed every 3 months. Correlative studies included serum luteinizing hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone, vascular endothelial growth factor, free testosterone, and androstenedione and the germline polymorphisms CYP19A1 and androgen receptor. RESULTS: Between October of 2000 and October of 2002, 35 patients were enrolled. Three patients (9%) received therapy at the time of first disease remission and were removed from the study, and 1 patient (3%) was removed for liver function test abnormalities. The most frequent toxicities were grade 1 alkaline phosphatase (54%), fatigue (57%), and hot flashes (42%) based on the National Cancer Institute common toxicity scale, version 2.0. The PFS for patients receiving protocol therapy in second disease remission (21 patients) was 11.4 months (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 10.2-12.6 months). The PFS for patients receiving protocol therapy in third or fourth disease remission (11 patients) was 11.9 months (95% CI, 10.8-14.1 months). The percentage of patients remaining in second disease remission at given times are: 100% at 3 months, 100% at 6 months, 72% at 9 months, 47% at 12 months, 28% at 15 months, 22% at 18 months, 19% at 21 months, and 13% at 24 months. There were no associations noted between androgen receptor repeat number, genotype, allelotype, or haplotypes and PFS. CONCLUSIONS: The use of goserelin and bicalutamide did not appear to prolong PFS in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer in second or greater complete disease remission. The number of patients in disease remission at given time points may serve as a clinical trial endpoint for future studies of consolidation therapy.

A phase I trial of BMS-247550 (NSC# 710428) and gemcitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors.

The purpose of this study is to establish the maximum tolerated dose and define the dose-limiting toxicity of the investigational epothilone BMS-247550 in combination with fixed dose-rate gemcitabine. Patients with advanced, recurrent solid tumors who had received or=7 days occurred in one of six patients. Two of three patients in cohort 2 (gemcitabine 900 mg/m2 plus BMS-247550 30 mg/m2) had dose-limiting toxicities of grade 4 neutropenia. An additional three patients were treated at dose level 1 with no additional dose-limiting toxicities observed. At an intermediate dose level (gemcitabine 750 mg/m2 plus BMS-247550 30 mg/m2), two of six patients experienced a dose-limiting toxicity (febrile neutropenia and grade 3 hypophosphatemia in 1, grade 3 hypophosphatemia and grade 3 hyponatremia in (1), and five of six patients experienced dose delays. In the final cohort (gemcitabine 750 mg/m2 plus BMS-247550 25 mg/m2), two of two patients experienced a dose-limiting toxicity. Treatment-related toxicities included neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, neutropenic fever, hypophosphatemia, and hyponatremia. Nine of 14 patients evaluable for response had stable disease. The maximum tolerated dose for this schedule is gemcitabine 900 mg/m2 over 90 min days 1 and 8 plus BMS-247550 20 mg/m2 on day 8. Attempts to increase the dose of BMS-247550 by decreasing the gemcitabine dose did not sufficiently ameliorate myelosuppression. Stable disease was observed in some patients with prior taxane exposure.

Phase I study of abagovomab in patients with epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer.

PURPOSE: This open-label study assessed the safety and immunogenicity of two doses and two routes of the anti-idiotypic monoclonal antibody abagovomab (formerly ACA125) in patients with epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Eligible patients from the three participating institutions were any stage at diagnosis, had relapsed, and had complete or partial response to additional chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive abagovomab at 2.0 versus 0.2 mg and i.m. versus s.c. for four immunizations every 2 weeks and then monthly for two additional immunizations. Planned evaluation included interval physical examinations and laboratory assessments with immune assessment, including HLA typing, human anti-mouse antibody, ELISA, and enzyme-linked immunospot. Patients were required to remain on study until week 10 (the first post-baseline Ab3 determination) to be considered for immunologic assessment. The primary end points were safety and immunogenicity primarily determined by Ab3 response. RESULTS: Forty-two patients received at least one vaccination and were eligible for safety analysis. Thirty-three patients were available for Ab3 analysis (removed for progression of disease, 6; withdrawal of consent, 2; unrelated adverse event, 1). The most common adverse events were self-limited pain at injection site, myalgia, and fever. No hematologic or nonhematologic toxicity grade>2 related to immunization was seen. Ab3 was detectable in all patients (median, 236,794 ng/mL); none of route of administration (P=0.6268), dose (P=0.4602), or cohort (P=0.4944) was statistically significant in terms of effect on maximum post-baseline Ab3 titer. Human anti-mouse antibody was not detectable at baseline but was present in all patients at week 16 (range, 488-45,000 ng/mL). CONCLUSIONS: Immunization with abagovomab is well tolerated and induced robust Ab3 responses at the two doses and routes tested. A phase III randomized study with abagovomab (2.0 mg s.c.) is warranted.