Comparative Pharmacokinetic Study of Continuous Venous Infusion Fluorouracil and Oral Fluorouracil With Eniluracil in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors
PURPOSE: To compare the pharmacokinetics of continuous venous infusion (CVI) fluorouracil (5-FU) with that of oral eniluracil/5-FU and to describe toxicities and clinical activity of prolonged oral administration of eniluracil/5-FU. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized, open-label, cross-over study compared CVI 5-FU to an oral 5-FU/eniluracil combination. Seventeen patients (arm A) were randomly assigned to receive eniluracil/5-FU combination tablets (10:1 mg/m 2 BID for 7 days) during the first study period, followed by 5-FU (300 mg/m 2 CVI for 7 days) during period 2, with a 14-day washout between periods. Sixteen patients (arm B) received treatment in the opposite sequence. In period 3, all patients received eniluracil/5-FU tablets BID for 28 days. Plasma levels of 5-FU during CVI and oral administration were analyzed in periods 1 and 2. Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) activity was determined by measuring plasma uracil, urinary α–fluoro-β-alanine, and peripheral-blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) DPD activity. RESULTS: There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities in either arm. Partial responses were observed in three patients. Another three patients had stable disease for ≥ 3 months. Eniluracil and 5-FU pharmacokinetics were similar to those observed in previous studies and were unaffected by administration sequence. The mean ± SD steady-state plasma concentration (C P ) and area under the curve (AUC) 144-168h for CVI 5-FU (104 ± 45 ng/mL and 2,350 ± 826 ng·h/mL, respectively) were three-fold greater than those for oral 5-FU (38.1 ± 7.7 ng/mL and 722 ± 182 ng·h/mL, respectively [P < .00001]). Individual 5-FU concentrations during CVI were highly variable, whereas those after eniluracil/5-FU were very reproducible. DPD activity in PBMCs before each study period was normal. CONCLUSION: Both CVI 5-FU and oral eniluracil/5-FU were well tolerated, with moderate activity in these heavily pretreated patients. However, 5-FU steady-state C P and AUCs achieved with oral eniluracil/5-FU were significantly less than with CVI 5-FU.
Oncolytic Measles Virus Expressing the Sodium Iodide Symporter to Treat Drug-Resistant Ovarian Cancer
North Central Cancer Treatment Group/Alliance trial N08CA—the use of glutathione for prevention of paclitaxel/carboplatin‐induced peripheral neuropathy: A phase 3 randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study
Phase III Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Study of Intravenous Calcium and Magnesium to Prevent Oxaliplatin-Induced Sensory Neurotoxicity (N08CB/Alliance)
Purpose Cumulative neurotoxicity is a prominent toxicity of oxaliplatin-based therapy. Intravenous calcium and magnesium have been extensively used to reduce oxaliplatin-induced neurotoxicity. This trial was designed to definitively test whether calcium/magnesium decreases oxaliplatin-related neurotoxicity. Patients and Methods In all, 353 patients with colon cancer undergoing adjuvant therapy with FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) were randomly assigned to intravenous calcium/magnesium before and after oxaliplatin, a placebo before and after, or calcium/magnesium before and placebo after. The primary end point was cumulative neurotoxicity measured by the sensory scale of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy 20 tool. Results There were no statistically significant neuropathy differences among the study arms as measured by the primary end point or additional measures of neuropathy, including clinician-determined measurement of the time to grade 2 neuropathy by using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events scale or an oxaliplatin-specific neuropathy scale. In addition, calcium/magnesium did not substantially decrease oxaliplatin-induced acute neuropathy. Conclusion This study does not support using calcium/magnesium to protect against oxaliplatin-induced neurotoxicity.
Quality of Life of Caregivers of Patients With Advanced-Stage Cancer
There has been much research documenting the impact of having a loved one diagnosed with advanced cancer, but little is known about how to reduce care-giver burden. In this randomized controlled trial, the authors examined the potential relationship of an advanced cancer patient’s participation in an 8-session, structured, multidisciplinary intervention on the care-giver’s burden and quality of life (QOL). Although the patients randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 54) demonstrated improved QOL compared to the control condition (n = 49) participants ( P < .05), there was no evidence that improving the patient’s QOL made an impact on the caregiver’s level of burden or the care-giver’s QOL. Further investigation is warranted in this area, including interventions specifically designed and targeted to both reduce caregiver burden and to improve caregiver QOL.
Impacting Quality of Life for Patients With Advanced Cancer With a Structured Multidisciplinary Intervention: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Purpose The primary goal of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of a structured, multidisciplinary intervention targeted to maintain the overall quality of life (QOL), which is more comprehensive than psychosocial distress, of patients undergoing radiation therapy for advanced-stage cancer. Patients and Methods Radiation therapy patients with advanced cancer and an estimated 5-year survival rate of 0% to 50% were randomly assigned to either an eight-session structured multidisciplinary intervention arm or a standard care arm. The eight 90-minute sessions addressed the five domains of QOL including cognitive, physical, emotional, spiritual, and social functioning. The primary end point of maintaining overall QOL was assessed by a single-item linear analog scale (Linear Analog Scale of Assessment or modified Spitzer Uniscale). QOL was assessed at baseline, week 4 (end of multidisciplinary intervention), week 8, and week 27. Results Of the 103 participants, overall QOL at week 4 was maintained by the patients in the intervention (n = 49), whereas QOL at week 4 significantly decreased for patients in the control group (n = 54). This change reflected a 3-point increase from baseline in the intervention group and a 9-point decrease from baseline in the control group (P = .009). Intervention participants maintained their QOL, and controls gradually returned to baseline by the end of the 6-month follow-up period. Conclusion Although intervention participants maintained and actually improved their QOL during radiation therapy, control participants experienced a significant decrease in their QOL. Thus, a structured multidisciplinary intervention can help maintain or even improve QOL in patients with advanced cancer who are undergoing cancer treatment.
Phase I and Pharmacologic Study of Infusional Topotecan and Carboplatin in Relapsed and Refractory Acute Leukemia
Abstract Purpose: To assess the maximum tolerated dose, toxicities, pharmacokinetics, and antileukemic activity of topotecan and carboplatin in adults with recurrent or refractory acute leukemias. Experimental Design: Patients received topotecan and carboplatin by 5-day continuous infusion at nine dose levels. Patients achieving a complete remission received up to two additional courses for consolidation. Plasma topotecan and ultrafilterable platinum were assayed on days 1 to 5. In addition, pretreatment levels of various polypeptides in leukemic cells were examined by immunoblotting to assess possible correlations with response. Results: Fifty-one patients received a total of 69 courses of therapy. Dose-limiting toxicity consisted of grade 4/5 typhlitis and grade 3/4 mucositis after one course of therapy or grade 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia lasting >50 days when a second course was administered on day 21. Among 45 evaluable patients, there were 7 complete remissions, 2 partial remissions, 1 incomplete complete remission, and 1 reversion to chronic-phase chronic myelogenous leukemia. Topotecan steady-state plasma concentrations increased with dose. No accumulation of topotecan or ultrafilterable platinum occurred between days 1 and 5 of therapy. Leukemic cell levels of topoisomerase I, checkpoint kinase 1, checkpoint kinase 2, and Mcl-1 correlated with proliferating cell nuclear antigen but not with response. In contrast, low Bcl-2 expression correlated with response (P = 0.014, Mann-Whitney U test). Conclusions: The maximum tolerated dose was 1.6 mg/m2/d topotecan plus 150 mg/m2/d carboplatin. The complete remission rate in a heavily pretreated population was 16% (33% at the highest three dose levels). Responses seem to correlate with low pretreatment blast cell Bcl-2 expression.
Phase 1 Trial of Flavopiridol Combined with Cisplatin or Carboplatin in Patients with Advanced Malignancies with the Assessment of Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic End Points
Abstract Purpose: Flavopiridol, a cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor, transcription inhibitor, and DNA-interacting agent, was combined with cisplatin or carboplatin to establish toxicities, evaluate pharmacokinetics, and examine its effects on patient cancers and levels of selected polypeptides in patient peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC). Experimental Design: Therapy was given every 3 weeks. Stage I: cisplatin was fixed at 30 mg/m2 with escalating flavopiridol. Stage II: flavopiridol was fixed at the stage I maximum tolerated dose (MTD) with escalation of cisplatin. Stage III: flavopiridol was fixed at the stage I MTD with escalation of carboplatin. Results: Thirty-nine patients were treated with 136 cycles of chemotherapy. Neutropenia was seen in only 11% of patients. Grade 3 flavopiridol/CDDP toxicities were nausea (30%), vomiting (19%), diarrhea (15%), dehydration (15%), and neutropenia (10%). Flavopiridol combined with carboplatin resulted in unexpectedly high toxicities and one treatment-related death. Stable disease (>3 months) was seen in 34% of treated patients, but there were no objective responses. The stage II MTD was 60 mg/m2 cisplatin and 100 mg/m2/24 hours flavopiridol. As given, CDDP did not alter flavopiridol pharmacokinetics. Flavopiridol induced increased p53 and pSTAT3 levels in patient PBMCs but had no effects on cyclin D1, phosphoRNA polymerase II, or Mcl-1. Conclusions: Flavopiridol and cisplatin can be safely combined in the treatment of cancer patients. Unexpected toxicity in flavopiridol/carboplatin-treated patients attenuates enthusiasm for this alternative combination. Analysis of polypeptide levels in patient PBMCs suggests that flavopiridol may be affecting some, but not all, of its known in vitro molecular targets in vivo.
Phase I Trial of 17-Allylamino-17-Demethoxygeldanamycin in Patients With Advanced Cancer
Purpose We determined the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and the dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) of 17-allylamino-17-demethoxygeldanamycin (17-AAG) when infused on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle in advanced solid tumor patients. We also characterized the pharmacokinetics of 17-AAG, its effect on chaperone and client proteins, and whether cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A5 and NAD(P)H:quinone oxidoreductase 1 (NQO1) polymorphisms affected 17-AAG disposition or toxicity. Patients and Methods An accelerated titration design was used. Biomarkers were measured in peripheral-blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) at baseline and on days 1 and 15, and pharmacokinetic analysis was performed on day 1 of cycle 1. CYP3A5*3 and NQO1*2 genotypes were determined and correlated with pharmacokinetics and toxicity. Results Twenty-one patients received 52 courses at 11 dose levels. DLTs at 431 mg/m2 were grade 3 bilirubin (n = 1), AST (n = 1), anemia (n = 1), nausea (n = 1), vomiting (n = 1), and myalgias (n = 1). No tumor responses were seen. 17-AAG consistently increased heat shock protein (Hsp) 70 levels in PBMCs. At the MTD, the clearance and half-life (t1/2) of 17-AAG were 11.6 L/h/m2 and 4.15 hours, respectively; whereas the active metabolite 17-aminogeldanamycin had a t1/2 of 7.63 hours. The CYP3A5*3 and NQO1*2 polymorphisms were not associated with 17-AAG toxicity. The CYP3A5*3 polymorphism was associated with higher 17-AAG clearance. Conclusion The MTD of weekly 17-AAG is 308 mg/m2. 17-AAG induced Hsp70 in PBMCs, indicating that Hsp90 has been affected. Further evaluation of 17-AAG is ongoing using a twice-weekly regimen, and this schedule of 17-AAG is being tested in combination with chemotherapy.
Phase I and Pharmacokinetic Study of Two Different Schedules of Oxaliplatin, Irinotecan, Fluorouracil, and Leucovorin in Patients With Solid Tumors
Purpose: We sought to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and evaluate the toxicities and clinical activity of two irinotecan (CPT-11), fluorouracil (FU), leucovorin (LV), and oxaliplatin schedules in patients with advanced solid tumors. Additionally, we investigated the effect of CPT-11 on oxaliplatin pharmacokinetics. Patients and Methods: Thirteen patients (cohort 1) received intravenous CPT-11 (infusion) and FU/LV (bolus) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 and oxaliplatin (infusion) on days 1 and 15 every 6 weeks for a total 37 courses (median, three courses) at three dose levels. Twenty-two cohort 2 patients received intravenous CPT-11/oxaliplatin (infusion, day 1) and FU/LV (90-minute bolus infusion, days 2 to 5) every 3 weeks for a total of 122 courses (median, four courses) at three dose levels. Pharmacokinetic and neurotoxicity assessments were performed at the cohort 2 MTD. Results: Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) seen in both cohorts at the starting dose required dose de-escalation. Cohort 1 DLT included diarrhea and neutropenia. In cohort 2, diarrhea, vomiting, dehydration, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and paresthesias were DLTs. Antitumor activity was seen in both cohorts. In cohort 2, the total platinum area under the curve of patients increased 17% in cycle 2 (P = .048), but objective neurotoxicity was not seen. Conclusion: The toxicities resulting from the addition of oxaliplatin to CPT-11/FU/LV are significant but manageable. The MTDs for the weekly schedule are CPT-11 (75 mg/m2), oxaliplatin (50 mg/m2), FU (320 mg/m2), and LV (20 mg/m2); and, for the 3-weekly schedule, the MTDs are CPT-11 (175 mg/m2), oxaliplatin (85 mg/m2), FU (240 mg/m2), and LV (20 mg/m2). Second-cycle platinum accumulation raises the possibility for enhanced cumulative neurotoxicity with CPT-11/oxaliplatin combinations.