Back to Authors

Tomaszewski, Joseph E.

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2009-203X

Mayo Clinic

University of Southern California

Citations 2

Developing Safety Criteria for Introducing New Agents into Neoadjuvant Trials
Berry, Donald A. , Zujewski, JoAnne, Hunsberger, Sally , Rubinstein, Larry , Tomaszewski, Joseph E. , Kelloff, Gary, Perlmutter, Jane , Buxton, Meredith , Lyandres, Julia, Albain, Kathy S. , Benz, Chris, Chien, A. Jo , Haluska, Paul , Leyland‐Jones, Brian , Liu, Minetta C. , Olopade, Olufunmilayo I. , Park, John W., Parker, Barbara A. , Yee, Douglas , DeMichele, Angela , Zujewski, Jo Anne , Münster, Pamela N. , Pusztai, Lajos , Tripathy, Debu , Rugo, Hope S. , Esserman, Laura J. , Olopade, Olufunmilayo I , Yee, Douglas , Rubinstein, Larry V

Clinical Cancer Research | March 8, 2013 | Volume: 19 | Issue: 11 | Pages: 2817-2823

10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-12-2620 Get It

Abstract New approaches to drug development are critically needed to lessen the time, cost, and resources necessary to identify and optimize active agents. Strategies to accelerate drug development include testing drugs earlier in the disease process, such as the neoadjuvant setting. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued guidance designed to accelerate drug approval through the use of neoadjuvant studies in which the surrogate short-term endpoint, pathologic response, can be used to identify active agents and shorten the time to approval of both efficacious drugs and biomarkers identifying patients most likely to respond. However, this approach has unique challenges. In particular, issues of patient safety are paramount, given the exposure of potentially curable patients to investigational agents with limited safety experience. Key components to safe drug development in the neoadjuvant setting include defining a study population at sufficiently poor prognosis with standard therapy to justify exposure to investigational agents, defining the extent and adequacy of safety data from phase I, detecting potentially harmful interactions between investigational and standard therapies, improving study designs, such as adaptive strategies, that limit patient exposure to ineffective agents, and intensifying safety monitoring in the course of the trial. The I-SPY2 trial is an example of a phase II neoadjuvant trial of novel agents for breast cancer in which these issues have been addressed, both in the design and conduct of the trial. These adaptations of phase II design enable acceleration of drug development by reducing time and cost to screen novel therapies for activity without compromising safety. Clin Cancer Res; 19(11); 2817–23. ©2013 AACR.
Phase I Study of PARP Inhibitor ABT-888 in Combination with Topotecan in Adults with Refractory Solid Tumors and Lymphomas
Chen, Alice P. , Ji, Jiuping , Zhang, Yiping , Ames, Matthew M. , Jia, Lee , Weil, Marcie, Speranza, Giovanna, Murgo, Anthony J., Kinders, Robert J. , Wang, Lihua , Parchment, Ralph E. , Carter, John , Stotler, Howard, Rubinstein, Larry , Hollingshead, Melinda G. , Melillo, Giovanni, Bonner, William, Tomaszewski, Joseph E. , Doroshow, James H. , Kummar, Shivaani , Reid, Joel M. , Pommier, Yves G. , Rubinstein, Larry V

Cancer Research | July 28, 2011 | Volume: 71 | Issue: 17 | Pages: 5626-5634

10.1158/0008-5472.can-11-1227 Get It

Abstract A phase I trial of ABT-888 (veliparib), a PARP inhibitor, in combination with topotecan, a topoisomerase I–targeted agent, was carried out to determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of the combination in patients with refractory solid tumors and lymphomas. Varying schedules and doses of intravenous topotecan in combination with ABT-888 (10 mg) administered orally twice a day (BID) were evaluated. Plasma and urine pharmacokinetics were assessed and levels of poly(ADP-ribose) (PAR) and the DNA damage marker γH2AX were measured in tumor and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC). Twenty-four patients were enrolled. Significant myelosuppression limited the ability to coadminister ABT-888 with standard doses of topotecan, necessitating dose reductions. Preclinical studies using athymic mice carrying human tumor xenografts also informed schedule changes. The MTD was established as topotecan 0.6 mg/m2/d and ABT-888 10 mg BID on days one to five of 21-day cycles. Topotecan did not alter the pharmacokinetics of ABT-888. A more than 75% reduction in PAR levels was observed in 3 paired tumor biopsy samples; a greater than 50% reduction was observed in PBMCs from 19 of 23 patients with measurable levels. Increases in γH2AX response in circulating tumor cells (CTC) and PBMCs were observed in patients receiving ABT-888 with topotecan. We show a mechanistic interaction of a PARP inhibitor, ABT-888, with a topoisomerase I inhibitor, topotecan, in PBMCs, tumor, and CTCs. Results of this trial reveal that PARP inhibition can modulate the capacity to repair topoisomerase I–mediated DNA damage in the clinic. Cancer Res; 71(17); 5626–34. ©2011 AACR.