Plasma tumor gene conversions after one cycle abiraterone acetate for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a biomarker analysis of a multicenter international trial.

BACKGROUND: Plasma tumor DNA fraction is prognostic in metastatic cancers. This could improve risk stratification before commencing a new treatment. We hypothesized that a second sample collected after one cycle of treatment could refine outcome prediction of patients identified as poor prognosis based on plasma DNA collected pre-treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Plasma DNA [128 pre-treatment, 134 cycle 2 day 1 (C2D1), and 49 progression] from 151 chemotherapy-naive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients in a phase II study of abiraterone acetate (NCT01867710) were subjected to custom targeted next-generation sequencing covering exons of these genes: TP53, AR, RB1, PTEN, PIK3CA, BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, CDK12, CHEK2, FANCA HDAC2 and PALB2. We also captured 1500 pan-genome regions enriched for single nucleotide polymorphisms to allow detection of tumor DNA using the rolling B-allele method. We tested associations with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Plasma tumor DNA detection was associated with shorter OS [hazard ratio (HR): 2.89, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.77-4.73, P ≤ 0.0001] and PFS (HR: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.36-3.11, P < 0.001). Using a multivariable model including plasma tumor DNA, patients who had a TP53, RB1 or PTEN gene alteration pre-treatment and at C2D1 had a significantly shorter OS than patients with no alteration at either time point (TP53: HR 7.13, 95% CI 2.37-21.47, P < 0.001; RB1: HR 6.24, 95% CI 1.97-19.73, P = 0.002; PTEN: HR 11.9, 95% CI 3.6-39.34, P < 0.001). Patients who were positive pre-treatment and converted to undetectable had no evidence of a difference in survival compared with those who were undetectable pre-treatment (P = 0.48, P = 0.43, P = 0.5, respectively). Progression samples harbored AR gain in all patients who had gain pre-treatment (9/49) and de novo AR somatic point mutations were detected in 8/49 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Plasma gene testing after one cycle treatment refines prognostication and could provide an early indication of treatment benefit.

A phase II study of oral vinorelbine in combination with cisplatin conducted in Taiwan in patients with unresectable localized or metastatic non-small cell lung carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous vinorelbine plus cisplatin is widely prescribed for the treatment of NSCLC. The objective of this phase II study was to define the efficacy of an oral form of vinorelbine combined with cisplatin for first line treatment of advanced/metastatic NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From September 2002 to December 2003, 46 chemotherapy-naive patients received 80 mg/m(2) of cisplatin on day 1 and oral vinorelbine at 60 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks. RESULTS: After an independent panel review, the response rate was 37.5 % [95% confidence interval (CI): 22.7-54.2%] in the evaluable population and 32.6% [95% CI: 19.5-48] in the intent-to-treat population. Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months and overall survival was 11.2 months. Grades 3 and 4 neutropenia was observed in 58.7% of patients, with febrile neutropenia and neutropenic infection in 4.3 and 8.7% of patients, respectively. The main non-haematological toxicities were hypotension, fatigue (8.7% for each) and gastrointestinal disorders with rare grades 3 and 4. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the combination of cisplatin at 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 with oral vinorelbine at 60 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks, is an active regimen, associated with acceptable toxicity. Oral vinorelbine is therefore a good alternative to the i.v. formulation.

Evaluation of oral versus intravenous dose of vinorelbine to achieve equivalent blood exposures in patients with solid tumours.

Patient's preference is for oral chemotherapy when both oral and i.v. are available, provided that efficacy is equivalent. Reliable switch from oral to i.v. is possible if correspondence between respective doses has been established. Vinorelbine oral was developed as a line extension of VRL i.v. on the basis that similar AUCs result in similar activities. From a first crossover study on 24 patients receiving VRL 25 mg/m2 i.v. and 80 mg/m2 oral data extrapolation concluded on AUCs bioequivalence between Vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 i.v. and 80 mg/m2 oral. A new trial was performed to support this calculation. In a crossover design study on patients (PS 0-1) with advanced solid tumours (44% breast carcinoma), VRL was administered (30 mg/m2 i.v., 80 mg/m2 oral) with a standard meal and 5-HT3 antagonists, at 2 weeks interval. Pharmacokinetics was performed over 168 h and VRL was measured by LC-MS/MS. Statistics included bioequivalence tests. Forty-eight patients were evaluable for PK: median age 58 years (25-71), PS0/PS1: 20/28, M/F: 11/37. Mean AUCs were 1,230 +/- 290 and 1,216 +/- 521 ng/ml for i.v. and oral, respectively. The confidence interval of the AUC ratio (0.83-1.03) was within the required regulatory range (0.8-1.25) and proved the bioequivalence between the two doses. The absolute bioavailability was 37.8 +/- 16.0%, and close to the value from the first study (40%). Patient tolerability was globally comparable between both forms with no significant difference on either haematological or non-haematological toxicities (grade 3-4). This new study, conducted on a larger population, confirmed the reliable dose correspondence previously established between vinorelbine 80 mg/m2 oral and 30 mg/m2 i.v.

Phase I dose-escalation study of oral vinflunine administered once daily for 6 weeks every 8 weeks in patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumours.

PURPOSE: Vinflunine ditartrate is a microtubule inhibitor belonging to the vinca alkaloid family. This phase I study was carried out to evaluate the maximal tolerated dose, the safety profile, the pharmacokinetics and the activity of oral vinflunine (VFL) given daily in patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumours and who have failed standard therapy. METHODS: Patients were treated with oral VFL administered once daily for 6 weeks followed by a two-week rest. Sequential dose-escalating cohorts of patients were enrolled into 5 dose levels: 20, 40, 60, 75 and 95 mg/day. RESULTS: In total, 27 patients received 53 cycles. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were observed from 60 mg/day. The dose levels 75 and 95 mg/day were both assessed as maximal tolerated dose. The most frequent dose-limiting toxicities were of haematological origin. The recommended dose was defined as 60 mg/day, dose at which 4 patients experienced long stabilizations (≥4 months) and also received longer treatment duration in comparison with the other dose levels. Blood exposure of VFL and its active metabolite 4-O-deacetyl vinflunine (DVFL) increased proportionally to the dose levels. The concentrations of VFL and DVFL reached a steady state at, respectively, 5 and 20 days and remained stable for the rest of the cycle. Increased incidence of DLT/SAE was consistent with the increase of VFL dose and drug exposure. CONCLUSIONS: These results showed the feasibility of daily oral vinflunine administration on a 6-week treatment duration. This new schedule of administrations enabled sustained and stable blood concentrations of both VFL and DVFL. The recommended dose was defined at 60 mg/day, dose at which 4 patients experienced clinical benefit.

Oral vinorelbine in combination with cisplatin: a novel active regimen in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: A phase II trial of alternating i.v. and oral vinorelbine in combination with cisplatin was designed to determine the response rate, safety profile, progression-free survival, overall survival and quality of life (QoL) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-six chemotherapy-naïve patients received cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) and i.v. vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) on day 1, followed by oral vinorelbine 60 mg/m(2) on days 8, 15 and 22, every 28 days. RESULTS: After an independent review, the response rate was 33% [95% confidence interval (CI) 20% to 46%]. Median progression-free and overall survival were 5.5 months (95% CI 3.7-6.4) and 8.9 months (95% CI 8.8-11.7), respectively. The most frequent hematological toxicities were neutropenia (grade 3-4 in 73% of patients) and anemia (grade 3-4 in 11% of patients). Grade 3-4 infections and non-hematological toxicities occurred occasionally. QoL for lung cancer related symptoms was stable or improved. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety of the alternating vinorelbine schedule (i.v. on day 1, oral on days 8, 15 and 22) in combination with cisplatin in advanced NSCLC are similar to those of the standard regimen using exclusively i.v. vinorelbine, whereas ease of administration and patient comfort may favor the novel approach.

Vinorelbine alternating oral and intravenous plus carboplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results of a multicentre phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Vinorelbine and carboplatin are both active agents in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Vinorelbine has recently been developed in an oral formulation, which is as active as the intravenous (i.v.) form. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-two chemonaive patients with unresectable localised or metastatic NSCLC received i.v. vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) plus carboplatin (AUC 5) on day 1 and oral vinorelbine 60 mg/m(2) on day 8 (or day 15 if neutrophils <1500/mm(3)) every 3 weeks in an open-label, multicentre phase II study. RESULTS: A total of 224 cycles were given, with the median number per patient of four (range one to eight). Eight responses out of 52 enrolled patients were documented and validated by an independent panel review, yielding a response rate of 18.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 6.8-29.6%] in the evaluable population. This response rate was balanced by a high rate of disease control (78.9% in the intention-to treat population and 90.9% in the evaluable population). The median progression-free and median survival were 5.1 months (95% CI 4.3-8.1) and 9.3 months (95% CI 6.8-11.4), respectively. Overall, the safety profile of the combination regimen alternating i.v. and oral vinorelbine appeared similar to that expected for each individual agent. Some lung cancer-specific items (pain, dyspnoea) improved or were stabilised by assessment using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of carboplatin with an alternating regimen of i.v./oral vinorelbine is a well tolerated regimen with a low level of toxicity and a low rate of serious adverse events. A high rate of disease control (partial response + no change) was achieved. Progression-free survival and overall survival fell within the expected range. This regimen is convenient and safe for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC patients.