A phase I dose escalation trial of ispinesib (SB-715992) administered days 1–3 of a 21-day cycle in patients with advanced solid tumors

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2026-2026 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. I. Heath ◽  
A. Alousi ◽  
J. P. Eder ◽  
M. Valdivieso ◽  
L. S. Vasist ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Solid Tumors ◽  
Dose Level ◽  
Maximum Tolerated Dose ◽  
Pharmacokinetic Data ◽  
Advanced Solid Tumors ◽  
Minor Response ◽  
Level 3 ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Tumor Types ◽  
Dose Limiting Toxicity

2026 Background: Ispinesib, a novel cytotoxic agent inhibiting the kinesin spindle protein (KSP) has demonstrated significant antitumor activity in multiple murine tumor models. The primary objectives of the study were to assess the safety and tolerability of SB-715992, to determine the dose limiting toxicity (DLT), and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Methods: Ispinesib was administered days 1–3 intravenously over 1 hour every 21 days, starting at a dose of 1 mg/m2/day. Traditional 3-patient cohort trial design was utilized with dose levels of 2, 4, 6, 8 mg/m2/day. Results: Twenty-seven patients (24 Caucasians, 3 African-Americans, 16 males, 11 females) with various tumor types were enrolled; colorectal (7), renal (5), bladder (2), lung (2), pharynx (2), pancreas (2), others (7). Grade 3/4 toxicities were noted starting at the 4 mg/m2 dose level with two patients developing grade 4 neutropenia; one for < 5 days, one for > 5 days (with grade 3 leukopenia). At the 6 mg/m2 dose level, grade 3 neutropenia and leukopenia were reported. At the 8 mg/m2 dose level, 3 of 3 patients had grade 4 neutropenia and leukopenia. The 6 mg/m2 dose level was declared the MTD. Toxicities seen in the additional 6 patients included grade 1 fatigue (1/6), grade 1 infusion- related flushing (1/6), grade 3 febrile neutropenia (1/6), and grade 4 neutropenia and leukopenia (1/6). The MTD cohort has been expanded to 10 evaluable patients for confirmation of tolerability and pharmacodynamic endpoints including phosphohistone 3 (PH3), cyclin E, and TUNEL assay on serial tumor biopsies. Preliminary pharmacokinetic data appear linear, but not dose proportional. As predicted, between days 1 and 3, accumulation ranged from 40 to 106%. Exposures appear comparable between cycles 1 and 2. Stable disease in 2 patients with renal cell carcinoma (4 and 5 cycles) and minor response in one patient with bladder cancer were seen. Conclusions: Treatment with ispinesib at the MTD of 6 mg/m2/day x 3 days in patients with advanced solid tumors was well tolerated with consistent dose limiting toxicity of myelosuppression. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Phase I study of the HSP90 inhibitor AUY922 in combination with capecitabine as treatment for patients with advanced solid tumors.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 475-475
Author(s):  
Johanna C. Bendell ◽  
Lowell L. Hart ◽  
Shubham Pant ◽  
Jeffrey R. Infante ◽  
Suzanne Fields Jones ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Solid Tumors ◽  
Dose Level ◽  
Phase I Study ◽  
Standard Dose ◽  
Heat Shock Protein 90 ◽  
Competitive Inhibitor ◽  
Maximum Tolerated Dose ◽  
Advanced Solid Tumors ◽  
Grade 3

475 Background: Heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) is a molecular chaperone involved in the maintenance and function of client proteins, many of which are integral to key oncogenic processes. AUY922 is a competitive inhibitor of HSP90, with demonstrated activity in a variety of preclinical models. Further preclinical evidence suggests potential synergy between inhibition of HSP90 and fluorouracil treatment (Burkitt et al. 2007). This phase I study was designed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of AUY922 in combination with standard dose of capecitabine as treatment for patients with advanced solid tumors. Methods: Patients with refractory solid tumors for which capecitabine was an appropriate therapy received AUY922 with capecitabine in a standard 3+3 dose escalation. Capecitabine 1000mg/m2 was administered twice daily for days 1-14 of 21-day cycles, with escalating doses of AUY922 administered by intravenous (IV) infusion on days 1, 8, and 15; the 6th dose level combined the MTD of AUY922 with capecitabine 1250mg/m2. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), safety, and efficacy were evaluated. Results: 23 patients were treated at 6 dose levels: 22mg/m2 (n = 3); 28mg/m2 (n = 3); 40mg/m2 (n = 3); 55mg/m2 (n = 5); 70mg/m2 (n = 3); 70mg/m2 with capecitabine 1250mg/m2 (n = 6). There were no DLTs observed until the 6th dose level (grade 3 diarrhea). Common adverse events (all grades) included: diarrhea (61%), nausea (57%), fatigue (43%), hand-foot skin reaction (39%), anorexia (39%), vomiting (35%), rash (30%), and darkening vision (22%). Myelosuppression was uncommon, with no instances of grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia, and only 2 patients (9%) with grade 3/4 neutropenia (1 patient each). Of the 19 patients evaluable for response per RECIST 1.1, unconfirmed partial response (PR) was noted in 3 patients (13%; colorectal, 1; breast, 1; stomach, 1), with 1 additional confirmed PR (4%; colorectal); two of these had progressed on prior fluorouracil. Stable disease was noted in 8 patients (35%). Conclusions: The addition of AUY922 to standard dose capecitabine was well-tolerated at doses of up to 70mg/m2. Preliminary efficacy is encouraging, and warrants further investigation of this regimen. Clinical trial information: NCT01226732.

Phase I combination study of trabectedin (T) and capecitabine (C) in patients with advanced malignancies

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2079-2079
Author(s):  
L. Gore ◽  
E. Rivera ◽  
K. Lavallee ◽  
S. Holden ◽  
S. Grolnic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dose Level ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Excision Repair ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Maximum Tolerated Dose ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Tumor Types ◽  
Dose Limiting Toxicity

2079 Background: T binds to the minor groove of DNA, synergizes with functional nuclease excision repair and targets inducible transcription. T is active in several tumor types and exhibits preclinical synergy with C. The primary objective of this study is to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of T in combination with C. Secondary objectives include safety and pharmacokinetic (PK) analyses. Methods: Pts with advanced cancer, performance status 0–1 and adequate organ function are eligible. Pts received T starting at 0.4 mg/m2 over 3 hours on day 1 followed by C on days 2 through 15. The initial dose of C was 2000 mg/m2/day and was reduced to 1600 mg/m2/day due to GI dose-limiting toxicity. Dose escalation of T continued. Cycles are repeated every 3 weeks, with PK sampling included. Standard “3+3” dose escalation design, definitions of dose limiting toxicity (DLT), and dose modification for toxicity are implemented. Results: To date, 30 patients have received 112 cycles (range 1–12, median 4) of treatment at 7 dose levels. Two of 3 pts at dose level 4 (C 2000 mg/m2/d and T 0.9 mg/m2) and 2/6 pts at dose level 3 (C 2000 mg/m2/d and T 0.75 mg/ m2) developed gastrointestinal DLT (emesis, diarrhea, pancreatitis). C was subsequently reduced to 1600 mg/m2/d and a new T dose escalation was initiated at 0.6 mg/m2. Treatment has been well tolerated with C 1600 mg/m2/d and T up to the current dose of 0.9 mg/m2 (dose level 4a), with 1of 6 subjects experiencing grade 1 alkaline phosphatase. The most frequently reported related grade 3–4 adverse events (AEs) are diarrhea (23%), neutropenia (20%), nausea (16.6%), hand-foot syndrome (16.6%) and vomiting (13%). Anti-tumor activity to date includes a confirmed partial response lasting 8 months (m) in a patient with cholangiocarcinoma, and prolonged stable disease in 2 patients with breast cancer (6 and 7m), ovarian cancer (11m) and chondrosarcoma (9m). Conclusions: The combination of C 1600mg/m2/d and T up to 0.9mg/m2 is tolerable and has promising activity in several tumor types. Dose escalation of T continues at 1.1 mg/m2. Biologic and pharmacokinetic analyses will be presented. [Table: see text]

A phase I study of vorinostat (VOR) in combination with capecitabine (CAP) in patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3576-3576 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Tang ◽  
A. Oza ◽  
C. Townsley ◽  
L. Siu ◽  
G. Pond ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Solid Tumors ◽  
Dose Level ◽  
Phase I Study ◽  
Zinc Ion ◽  
Advanced Solid Tumors ◽  
Prior Therapy ◽  
Disease Stabilization ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Tumor Types

3576 Background: VOR (suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid; SAHA) is a small molecule inhibitor of histone deacetylase (HDAC) that binds directly to the enzyme’s active site in the presence of a zinc ion. Aberrant HDAC activity has been implicated in a variety of cancers. The combination of 5-fluorouracil and VOR is synergistic in preclinical tumor models. Methods: This phase I study evaluated safety, tolerability, and the recommended phase II dose (RPTD) of VOR and CAP in pts with advanced solid tumors. VOR was administered orally daily while CAP was administered orally bid on days 1–14 of a 21 d cycle. Results: Three dose levels have been evaluated (VOR (mg/d)/CAP (mg/bid)): 300/750, 300/1,000 and 400/1,000. Twenty-three pts have been treated: 6M/17F, median age 59 (range 41–73), ECOG 0:1:2 = 9:13:1, prior therapy 1:2:3 or more = 3:7:13. Pts had colorectal cancer (n=6), nasopharyngeal (n=3) and various other tumors. A total of 104 cycles have been administered, with median = 2 (range 1–15). One dose limiting toxicity (DLT) (grade 3 diarrhea) occurred in 6 patients at dose level 1. No DLT were observed at dose level 2, and 2 DLTs (grade 3 fatigue and grade 3 nausea/vomiting) occurred at dose level 3. RPTD was determined to be VOR 300 mg/d and CAP 1,000 mg/bid. Most common toxicities of any grade and at least possibly attributable (n=22) are: thrombocytopenia (59% of pts), fatigue (55%), nausea (55%), vomiting (50%), hypoalbuminemia (45%), anemia (41%), diarrhea (41%), anorexia (41%), elevated creatinine (36%), lymphopenia (36%), hyponatremia (36%), and hyperglycemia (36%). Common grade 3 toxicities included: hand-foot syndrome (23% of pts), diarrhea (14%), fatigue (14%), and lymphopenia (14%). One pt died on study from ventricular fibrillation due to sotalol and hypocalcemia from pre-existing hypoparathyroidism. Five patients with various tumor types had PR (2 confirmed, 3 unconfirmed) (2 nasopharyngeal, 1 each of ovarian, endometrial and squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck). In addition, disease stabilization was seen in 12 patients. Conclusions: VOR and CAP are well tolerated, and this combination is active in several tumor types. Further evaluations of VOR and CAP are warranted. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Bevacizumab (B) plus everolimus (E) and panitumumab (P) in refractory advanced solid tumors

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3551-3551
Author(s):  
L. A. Howard ◽  
K. E. Bullock ◽  
J. C. Bendell ◽  
H. E. Uronis ◽  
G. Vlahovic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Solid Tumors ◽  
Dose Level ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Maximum Tolerated Dose ◽  
Exposure Dose ◽  
Egfr Inhibitors ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Advanced Solid Tumors ◽  
Minor Response ◽  
Level 1

3551 Background: In preclinical models, VEGF, mTOR, and EGFR inhibitors have anti-tumor and anti-angiogenesis effects as monotherapies and in combination. B inhibits VEGF; E inhibits mTOR; P inhibits EGFR. There is also potential for interaction between the pathways. Previously BE and BE + erlotinib were evaluated and showed signs of clinical activity. Methods: Patients (pts) with refractory advanced solid tumors were accrued in a phase I dose escalation of B + E + P on a 28d cycle. Dose levels are shown in the table below. DLT was defined as any treatment-related grade 4 heme, grade 3/4 non-heme adverse event (AE), or receiving <85% any study drug in Cycle 1. Blood, skin, and tumor biopsies pre- and on-treatment were collected for correlative biomarkers of angiogenesis. Results: At this time, 12 pts (3M: 9F) are evaluable for toxicity; 9 for efficacy. Median age: 54 years (range 23–72). 9 of 12 pts had prior B exposure. Dose level 1 was expanded due to 1/3 DLT, with total of 3/6 DLT (Grade (Gr) 3 mucositis (n=2), Gr3 hypokalemia (n=1)). Dose level -1 had 3/3 DLT (Gr3, Gr4 mucositis (n=2), Gr3 non-acneform rash (n=1)). Dose level -2 had 0/3 pts DLT. Gr 3–4 related toxicities in cycle 2+: hypokalemia (n=4); hypophosphatemia (n = 1); hypomagnesemia (n = 1); diarrhea (n=1); hoarseness (n=1). Other events of interest were: Gr1–2 mucositis (n=7); Gr1 hyperlipidemia (n=5); Gr1–2 hyperglycemia (n=4); Gr2 hypertension (n=2); Gr1–2 neutropenia (n=5); Gr1–2 thrombocytopenia (n=5). 8/9 evaluable pts had SD as best response (median 26 wks, range 8+ to 32+ wks): 1 pt with pancreatic cancer and progression on 2 prior EGFR inhibitors had prolonged 32+ wk SD. There was 1 minor response (23.3%) in a pt with bevacizumab-refractory ovarian cancer (32+ wks). No CR or PR were seen. Conclusions: B + E + P at full doses has dose limiting toxicities of rash and mucositis. B 10 mg/kg q2wks + E 5 mg q48h + P 4.8 mg/kg q2wks is the maximum tolerated dose. This dose is currently being expanded in 20 patients with extensive pre- and on-treatment biomarker analyses. Updated clinical and biomarker data will be presented. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

Phase I study of two different schedules of bortezomib (BORT) and pemetrexed (PEM) in advanced solid tumors

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 17051-17051
Author(s):  
A. S. Metzger ◽  
P. Lara ◽  
D. Lau ◽  
P. Mack ◽  
P. Gumerlock ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Solid Tumors ◽  
Dose Level ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Advanced Solid Tumors ◽  
Anti Cancer ◽  
Level 3 ◽  
Number Of Cycles ◽  
Tumor Types ◽  
Dose Levels ◽  
Purine Pyrimidine

17051 Background: BORT(PS-341) is a small molecule proteasome inhibitor while PEM, a multi-targeted antifolate, inhibits multiple enzymes involved in purine/pyrimidine formation. Both are approved anti-cancer agents. We examined the safety and tolerability of two different schedules of BORT and PEM in patients with advanced solid tumors. Methods: Two dose escalation trials (Arm A and Arm B) were conducted simultaneously. PEM was given every 21 days in both arms (500–600 mg/m2 IV). Arm A: BORT was given D1,4,8 &11 (0.7–1.3 mg/m2). Arm B: BORT was given D1 & 8 (1.0–1.6 mg/m2). All patients received vitamin B12, folic acid and decadron. Dose limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined as: grade (GR) 4 platelets (plts) (≤25K); GR 3 plts (25K-49,999K) with bleeding, requirement for transfusion, or lasting > 7 days; febrile neutropenia; GR3 ANC (ANC ≤1.0 × 109) with documented infection, or any ≥ GR3 non-heme toxicity. Results: 18 patients have been treated on 3 of the 4 planned dose levels. Tumor types included lung (12), prostate (2), breast (1), thymus (1), head & neck (1) and adenoid cystic carcinoma (1). Pt. characteristics: Median age 65 years; Sex M/F = 7/11; Performance Status ≤1/2 = 18/0. There have been no DLTs in either arm (Dose level 3-Arm A: PEM 500 mg/m2, BORT 1.3 mg/m2; Arm B:PEM 500 mg/m2, BORT 1.6 mg/m2). Most common GR3/4 toxicities were: neutropenia 27% and lymphopenia 11%. Of 17 evaluable patients: 1 had partial response, 11 had stable disease, 5 had progressive disease. Mean number of cycles: 4. Arm A had more doses held during the first cycle than Arm B (6 doses held vs. 1 dose held). Accrual to the final dose level in both arms is ongoing. Conclusions: 1) PEM in combination with BORT is feasible and tolerable. 2) Thus far, there are no differences in toxicity between the arms. 3) A randomized, multi-institutional phase II study will examine the efficacy of these two schedules in patients with NSCLC. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Phase I study of sirolimus plus gemcitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors: A Spanish Group for Research on Sarcomas (GEIS) study.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3096-3096
Author(s):  
Juan Martin Liberal ◽  
Marta Gil ◽  
Laura Jimenez ◽  
Maria Ochoa de Olza ◽  
Carmen Munoz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Solid Tumors ◽  
Dose Level ◽  
Phase I Study ◽  
Mtor Pathway ◽  
Advanced Solid Tumors ◽  
Level 3 ◽  
Skin Biopsies ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Dose Levels

3096 Background: In preclinical studies, combination of sirolimus with gemcitabine enhances apoptosis in vitro and increases anti-tumor efficacy in vivo. Methods: Patients with advanced solid tumors, age 18-70 years, no prior mTOR inhibitor or gemcitabine, ECOG PS 0-1, and adequate hematological, renal and hepatic function, were enrolled in this phase I study to assess safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and to identify the dose limiting toxicity (DLT), maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended dose (RD) of the combination of sirolimus and gemcitabine. A 3+3 dose escalation design with cohorts of 3-6 patients was used. Sirolimus was given po continuously. Gemcitabine was given iv 10mg/m2/minute on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks. Dose levels 1, 2 and 3 corresponded to sirolimus 2, 2 and 5mg/24h plus gemcitabine 800, 1000 and 1000mg/m2 respectively. After observing DLTs at higher dose level and poorer mTOR signaling inhibition at lower doses, a new cohort of sirolimus 5mg/24h plus gemcitabine 800 mg/m2 was added. Skin biopsies pre and post treatment were performed to assess the inhibition of mTOR pathway. Results: 19 patients were enrolled: median age 51 years (36-70); gender 12M, 7F. Median number of cycles was 4. Patients were treated at 4 dose levels, the MTD was reached at level 3 and the RD was: sirolimus 5mg/24h and gemcitabine 800mg/m2. 3 DLTs were observed, 1 at dose level 2 and 2 at dose level 3: transaminitis grade 3, thrombocytopenia grade 3 and thrombocytopenia grade 4. Other toxicities grade 1-2 included anemia, neutropenia, asthenia, mucositis and high cholesterol levels. 2 patients achieved partial response (1 uterine cervix cancer and 1 colon cancer). Immunohistochemistry of pS6 in skin biopsies showed significative inhibition of mTOR pathway at RD. PK parameters estimated were in agreement with those previously reported in the literature. No influence of sirolimus administration on gemcitabine clearance was found. Conclusions: Combination of sirolimus and gemcitabine is feasible and safe, allowing administration of active doses of both agents and achieving mTOR signaling inhibition. A phase II study to assess the activity of this combination in sarcomas is ongoing.

Phase I study of BPM 31510 in advanced solid tumors: Updated analysis of a novel treatment with promising activity.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3015-3015
Author(s):  
Andrew Eugene Hendifar ◽  
Sant P. Chawla ◽  
Doris Quon ◽  
Victoria S Chua ◽  
Lita Fernandez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Partial Response ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Solid Tumors ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Phase I Study ◽  
Maximum Tolerated Dose ◽  
Advanced Solid Tumors ◽  
Dose Escalation Study ◽  
Minor Response ◽  
Grade 3

3015 Background: BPM 31510 is a novel small molecule that targets the metabolic machinery of the cancer microenvironment to reverse the aerobic glycolytic phenotype of cancer cells. Effector downstream signaling results in re-capitulation of BCL-2 mediated apoptosis and disruption in tumor vasculature by modulation of VEGF. (NR Narain et al., Proceedings of AACR Meeting Abstracts 2011). Methods: A standard 3+3 phase I, dose-escalation study design was used in patients with advanced solid tumors refractory to standard treatment. Primary objectives were establishment of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and safety/pharmacokinetic (PK) correlates. Secondary objectives included exploratory pharmacodynamics (PD) and preliminary efficacy (RECIST-1.1) of BPM 31510 in sequential cohorts of 3 to 6 pts. Results: At time of submission, 34 patients with advanced cancer who had failed multiple chemotherapeutic regimens had been enrolled in 7 dose cohorts (ranging from 5.6 mg/kg to 78.2 mg/kg). Patients received a median of 2 cycles (1-7). 2 patients have had grade 3 elevation in PT/INR, otherwise there have been no grade 3/4 treatment related toxicities to date. The pharmacokinetics of BPM 31510 are linear and there were no sex differences in the parameters normalized by dose and body surface area. Tmax and Cmax are associated with the end of the infusion. The values for t1/2 ranged from 2.18 to 13.3 hr, with little or no dependence of t1/2 on dose. Objective tumor responses have been noted at the dose of 58.6mg/kg with 1 partial response (myxoid liposarcoma) and 1 minor response (pleomorphic sarcoma). Six patients (19%) have had disease stabilization (> 4 months). Conclusions: Interim data from this phase I study indicate that BPM 31510 is well tolerated with no dose limiting toxicities to date. A partial response and minor response were observed and correlates with dose escalation. Taken together, there is strong rationale for further clinical development of this compound as an anti-cancer agent.

Phase I study of the HSP90 inhibitor AUY922 in combination with capecitabine as treatment for patients with advanced solid tumors.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3564-3564
Author(s):  
Shubham Pant ◽  
Lowell L. Hart ◽  
Johanna C. Bendell ◽  
Jeffrey R. Infante ◽  
Suzanne Fields Jones ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Solid Tumors ◽  
Dose Level ◽  
Phase I Study ◽  
Standard Dose ◽  
Maximum Tolerated Dose ◽  
Advanced Solid Tumors ◽  
Hsp90 Inhibition ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Dose Levels

3564 Background: Heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) is a molecular chaperone involved in the maintenance and function of client proteins, many of which are integral to key oncogenic processes. AUY922 is a competitive inhibitor of HSP90. Preclinical evidence suggests potential synergy between HSP90 inhibition and fluorouracil. This phase I study was designed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of AUY922 in combination with standard dose of capecitabine as treatment for patients with advanced solid tumors. Methods: Pts with refractory solid tumors received AUY922 with capecitabine in a standard 3+3 dose escalation. Dose levels were capecitabine 1000mg/m2 PO BID d 1-14 of 21-day cycles, with escalating doses of AUY922 IV days 1, 8, and 15; the 6th dose level combined the MTD of AUY922 with capecitabine 1250mg/m2. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), safety, and efficacy were evaluated. Results: 23 pts were treated at 6 dose levels: 22mg/m2 (n = 3); 28mg/m2 (n = 3); 40mg/m2 (n = 3); 55mg/m2 (n = 5); 70mg/m2 (n = 3); 70mg/m2 with capecitabine 1250mg/m2 (n= 6). No DLTs were observed until the 6th dose level (grade 3 diarrhea). Related adverse events (% grade 1/2; % grade 3/4) included: diarrhea (43%; 17%), fatigue (30%; 13%), nausea (39%; 0), hand-foot skin reaction (30%; 5%), anorexia (30%; 4%), vomiting (30%; 0), and darkening vision (26%; 0). Vision darkening, a class effect of HSP90 inhibitors, was reversible with drug hold and retreatment was possible. Two pts (9%) had hematologic G 3/4 events of neutropenia. Of the 19 pts evaluable for response, partial response was noted in 4 patients (colorectal, 2; breast, 1; stomach, 1); 2 had progressed on prior fluorouracil, and remained on treatment for 13-35 wks. Stable disease was noted in 8 pts (35% [colorectal, 5; pancreas, 2; breast, 1]) with a median duration of 25.5 wks (range: 11-44+). All 5 colorectal pts were refractory to 5-FU. Conclusions: The addition of AUY922 to standard dose capecitabine was well-tolerated at doses of up to 70mg/m2. Preliminary efficacy is encouraging, particularly as seen in pts previously resistant to fluorouracil, and warrants further investigation of this regimen. Clinical trial information: NCT01226732.

Glufosfamide (GLU) plus gemcitabine (GEM) in advanced solid tumors: Phase 1 results

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 14022-14022
Author(s):  
E. G. Chiorean ◽  
T. Dragovich ◽  
J. T. Hamm ◽  
V. K. Langmuir ◽  
S. Kroll ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Solid Tumors ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Status ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Maximum Tolerated Dose ◽  
Advanced Solid Tumors ◽  
Heavily Pretreated ◽  
Isophosphoramide Mustard ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Tumor Types

14022 Background: Glufosfamide is glucose linked to isophosphoramide mustard, the active metabolite of ifosfamide. Cancer cells use glucose at a higher rate than normal cells, which may lead to preferential metabolic targeting by GLU. GLU has shown activity in patients (pts) with pancreatic cancer in Phase 1/2 studies with the dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) being nephrotoxicity and neutropenia. The MTD was 4500 mg/m2. In preclinical studies, GLU has shown additive activity when combined with GEM. The objectives of this study are to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and to evaluate the safety, efficacy and PK of GLU + GEM in advanced solid tumors. Methods: Eligible pts had Karnofsky Performance Status ≥70, no prior GEM, at least one lesion by RECIST, creatinine clearance (CrCL) ≥60 mL/min and acceptable hematologic and liver function. Cohorts of 3–6 patients were treated with GLU 1500–4500 mg/m2 IV over 4 hours on Day 1 and GEM 1000 mg/m2 IV over 30 minutes on Days 1, 8 and 15 of every 28-day cycle for up to 6 cycles. CT scans were obtained every 8 weeks. Detailed PK sampling was performed. Results: Nineteen pts with pancreatic (8), gall bladder (4) and other (7) cancers were enrolled. Two DLTs have occurred: Grade 3 fatigue at 2500 mg/m2 and Grade 4 thrombocytopenia at 4500 mg/m2. Both cohorts were expanded. No DLTs occurred in the 1500 or 3500 mg/m2 cohorts. Three pts completed all 6 cycles and 3 pts continue on study. Reasons for early discontinuation were progressive disease (10), clinical deterioration (1), AE (1) and death (1). Grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred in 7 pts (5 during Cycle 1) and Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia in 5 pts (2 during Cycle 1). The CrCL fell below 60 mL/min in one patient. No objective tumor responses have been reported; 10 of 18 (56%) evaluable pts had stable disease (SD) at 8 weeks, including 1 pt with heavily pretreated ovarian cancer with ongoing SD after 8 months on therapy. PK analyses suggest no interaction between GLU and GEM. Conclusions: Phase 1 data indicate that full dose GLU (4500 mg/m2) can be given safely in combination with GEM. Both early and delayed Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia and neutropenia have been observed. A Phase 2 cohort of 28 pts with pancreatic adenocarcinoma is currently enrolling. Studies with GEM/GLU in other tumor types are planned. [Table: see text]

Phase I study of weekly oral docetaxel (ModraDoc001) plus ritonavir in patients with advanced solid tumors.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2550-2550 ◽  
Author(s):  
Serena Marchetti ◽  
Frederik Stuurman ◽  
Stijn Koolen ◽  
Johannes Moes ◽  
Jeroen Hendrikx ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Oral Administration ◽  
Solid Tumors ◽  
Phase I Study ◽  
Oral Formulation ◽  
Maximum Tolerated Dose ◽  
Advanced Solid Tumors ◽  
Phase Ii Studies ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Dose Levels ◽  
Dose Limiting Toxicity

2550 Background: ModraDoc001 is a novel oral formulation containing docetaxel as a solid dispersion. Oral administration of docetaxel is feasible in combination with the CYP3A4 inhibitor ritonavir. Objectives were to determine the safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and pharmacokinetics (PK) of weekly oral docetaxel (as ModraDoc001) in combination with ritonavir. Methods: Patients with advanced solid tumors, WHO PS ≤ 2, no concomitant use of MDR or CYP3A modulating drugs, adequate bone marrow (ANC ≥ 1.5x109 /L), liver (bilirubin ≤ 1.5xULN, ALAT/ASAT ≤ 2.5xULN) and renal function (creatinine ≤ 1.5xULN or clearance ≥ 50 ml/min) were eligible. Docetaxel (ModraDoc001 10mg capsule) and ritonavir (Norvir 100mg) were simultaneously given once weekly in a ‘3+3 cohort’ dose escalation design. MTD was defined as the highest dose resulting in <1/6 probability of causing a dose limiting toxicity in the first 4 weeks of treatment. This cohort was expanded with 6 patients. PK was determined on days 1 and 8. Results: 40 patients (25 male, 35 evaluable for safety) were enrolled in 6 dose levels (30/100, 40/100, 60/100, 80/100, 60/200 and 80/200 mg docetaxel/ritonavir). Common treatment related adverse events in the 4 highest dose levels were diarrhea (68%), nausea (62%) and fatigue (62%), mostly CTC grade 1-2 (80%, 95% and 73% respectively). Five patients experienced a DLT (grade 3 diarrhea (4), elevated ASAT/ALAT (1), grade 4 dehydration and grade 3 mucositis (1), grade 3 fatigue (2)). The MTD was 60 mg/200 mg docetaxel/ritonavir. Partial remission was seen in 4 patients (CUP, NSCLC, gastric and mamma ca) and sustained stable disease in 15 patients (6x NSCLC). Both drugs were rapidly absorbed after oral administration. Mean Tmax was 2.0 hours (CV=73%) for docetaxel. Cmax and AUC of docetaxel increased less than proportionally with dose to 162 ng/ml (CV= 67%) and 1615 ng/ml*hr (CV= 81%), respectively, in 15 patients at the MTD. Conclusions: At the MTD (once weekly 60 mg docetaxel and 200 mg ritonavir) ModraDoc001 is safe, well tolerated and shows encouraging antitumor activity. The exposure of docetaxel with this regimen is comparable to weekly intravenous administration of 35 mg/m2 docetaxel. Phase II studies in solid tumors are planned.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document