Pitot, Henry C.

Purpose Previously, we reported results of Intergroup N9741, which compared standard bolus fluorouracil (FU), leucovorin, plus irinotecan (IFL) with infused FU, leucovorin, plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) and irinotecan plus oxaliplatin in patients with untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. High rates of grade ≥ 3 toxicity on IFL (resulting in some deaths) led us to reduce the starting doses of both irinotecan and FU by 20% (rIFL). This article compares rIFL with FOLFOX4. Patients and Methods The primary comparison was time to progression, with secondary end points of response rate (RR), overall survival, and toxicity. Results Three hundred five patients were randomly assigned. The North Central Cancer Treatment Group Data Safety Monitoring Committee interrupted enrollment at a planned interim analysis when outcomes crossed predetermined stopping boundaries. The results were significantly superior for FOLFOX4 compared with rIFL for time to progression (9.7 v 5.5 months, respectively; P < .0001), RR (48% v 32%, respectively; P = .006), and overall survival (19.0 v 16.3 months, respectively; P = .026). Toxicity profiles were not significantly different between regimens for nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, dehydration, or 60-day all-cause mortality. Sensory neuropathy and neutropenia were significantly more common with FOLFOX4. Approximately 75% of patients in both arms received second-line therapy; 58% of rIFL patients received oxaliplatin-based second-line therapy, and 55% of FOLFOX4 patients received irinotecan-based regimens as second-line therapy. Conclusion FOLFOX4 led to superior RR, time to progression, and overall survival compared with rIFL. The survival benefit for FOLFOX4 observed in the earlier stage of the study was preserved with equal use of either irinotecan or oxaliplatin as second-line therapy.

Purpose Epidermal growth factor receptor/human epidermal growth factor receptor 1 and ligand expression is common in biliary cancers (BILI) and may be associated with worse outcome. The primary objective of this study was to determine the proportion of patients with advanced BILI who were progression-free at 6 months. Methods Patients with either unresectable or metastatic disease were studied. Only one prior systemic or locoregional therapy was allowed. Erlotinib was administered continuously at a dose of 150 mg per day orally. Results Forty-two patients with BILI were enrolled. The median age was 67 years (range, 33 to 82 years). Fifty-two percent of patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1. Fifty-seven percent of patients had received prior chemotherapy for advanced BILI. HER1/EGFR expression by immunohistochemistry in tumor cells was detected in 29 (81%) of the 36 assessable patients. Seven of the patients (17%; 95% CI, 7% to 31%) were progression free at 6 months. Three patients had partial response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group classification of duration 4, 4, and 14 months, respectively. All responding patients had mild (grade 1/2) skin rash and two patients had positive tumoral HER1/EGFR expression. Three patients (7%) had toxicity-related dose reductions of erlotinib due to grade 2/3 skin rash. Conclusion Results suggest a therapeutic benefit for EGFR blockade with erlotinib in patients with biliary cancer. Additional studies with erlotinib as a single agent and in combination with other targeted agents are warranted in this disease.

Abstract Purpose: To define the toxicities, pharmacodynamics, and clinical activity of the proteasome inhibitor, PS-341 (bortezomib), in patients with advanced malignancies. Patients and Methods: Twenty-eight patients (14 male and 14 female) received PS-341 twice weekly for 4 of 6 weeks (schedule I). Because toxicity necessitated dose omissions on this schedule, 16 additional patients (12 male and 4 female) received PS-341 twice weekly for 2 of every 3 weeks (schedule II). A total of 73 courses of treatment was given (median, 2; range, 1-4). Inhibition of 20S proteasome activity in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and accumulation of proteasome-targeted polypeptides in tumor tissue were evaluated as pharmacodynamic markers of PS-341 activity. Results: The most common toxicity was thrombocytopenia, which was dose limiting at 1.7 mg/m2 (schedule I) and 1.6 mg/m2 (schedule II), respectively. Sensory neuropathy was dose-limiting in a patient in schedule I. Grade ≥3 toxicities for schedule I were constipation, fatigue, myalgia, and sensory neuropathy. Grade ≥3 toxicities for schedule II were dehydration resulting from diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, fatigue, hypoglycemia, and hypotension. The maximum tolerated dose was 1.5 mg/m2 for both schedules. Reversible dose-dependent decreases in 20S proteasome activity in PBMCs were observed, with 36% inhibition at 0.5 mg/m2, 52% at 0.9 mg/m2, and 75% at 1.25 mg/m2. Accumulation of proteasome-targeted polypeptides was detected in tumor samples after treatment with PS-341. A patient with multiple myeloma had a partial response. Conclusion: PS-341 given 1.5 mg/m2 twice weekly for 2 of every 3 weeks is well tolerated and should be further studied.

Abstract Purpose: This phase I study was conducted to determine the toxicities, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of BMS-214662, a farnesyl transferase inhibitor, in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin, in patients with advanced solid tumors. Experimental Design: Patients with solid tumors received one of six escalating dose levels of BMS-214662 infused over 1 hour given following paclitaxel and carboplatin on the first day of a 21-day cycle. Toxicities were graded by the National Cancer Institute common toxicity criteria and recorded as maximum grade per patient for each treatment cycle. Inhibition of farnesyl transferase activity in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) was evaluated. Accumulation of unfarnesylated HDJ-2 in PBMCs of patients was evaluated as a marker of farnesyl transferase inhibition by BMS-214662. Results: Thirty patients received 141 cycles of treatment through six dose levels. Dose-limiting toxicities were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea, and vomiting. There was no pharmacokinetic interaction between BMS-214662 and paclitaxel. The maximum tolerated dose was established as BMS-214662 (160 mg/m2), paclitaxel (225 mg/m2) and carboplatin (area under the curve = 6 on day 1), every 21 days. Inhibition of HDJ-2 farnesylation in PBMCs of patients was shown. One measurable partial response was observed in a patient with taxane-resistant esophageal cancer. There was partial regression of evaluable disease in two other patients (endometrial and ovarian cancer). Stable disease (&gt; 4 cycles) occurred in eight other patients. Conclusions: The combination of BMS-214662 with paclitaxel and carboplatin was well tolerated, with broad activity in solid tumors. There was no correlation between dose level and accumulation of unfarnesylated HDJ-2 in PBMCs nor tumor response.

Purpose Epidermal growth factor receptor/human epidermal growth factor receptor 1 (EGFR/HER1) and ligand expression is frequently seen in hepatocellular cancers (HCCs). Erlotinib (Tarceva, OSI-774; OSI Pharmaceuticals, Melville, NY) is a receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor with specificity for the EGFR/HER1. Methods The primary objective of this study was to determine the proportion of patients with advanced HCC who were progression-free at 6 months. Patients with either unresectable or metastatic disease were studied. Only one prior systemic or locoregional therapy was allowed. Erlotinib was given continuously at a dose of 150 mg per day orally. Results Thirty-eight patients with HCC were enrolled. Median age of the patients was 69 years (range, 27 to 83 years). A majority of patients (63%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1. Forty-seven percent of patients had received prior chemotherapy for advanced HCC. EGFR/HER1 expression was detected in 88% of the patients. Median number of cycles per patient was two (range, 1 to 26). Twelve (32%; CI 95%, 18 to 49) of the 38 patients with HCC were progression-free at 6 months. Three patients had partial radiologic responses of duration of 2, 10, and 11 months, respectively. Disease control was seen in 59% of the patients. Median overall survival time was 13 months. Ten patients (26%) had toxicity-related dose reductions of erlotinib. Grade 3/4 skin toxicity or diarrhea was encountered in five and three patients, respectively. Conclusion Results of this trial suggest a benefit for EGFR/HER1 blockade with erlotinib in patients with HCC manifested by disease control. Additional studies with erlotinib as a single agent or in combination with other agents are warranted.

Purpose Three agents with differing mechanisms of action are available for treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin. In this study, we compared the activity and toxicity of three different two-drug combinations in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who had not been treated previously for advanced disease. Patients and Methods Patients were concurrently randomly assigned to receive irinotecan and bolus fluorouracil plus leucovorin (IFL, control combination), oxaliplatin and infused fluorouracil plus leucovorin (FOLFOX), or irinotecan and oxaliplatin (IROX). The primary end point was time to progression, with secondary end points of response rate, survival time, and toxicity. Results A total of 795 patients were randomly assigned between May 1999 and April 2001. A median time to progression of 8.7 months, response rate of 45%, and median survival time of 19.5 months were observed for FOLFOX. These results were significantly superior to those observed for IFL for all end points (6.9 months, 31%, and 15.0 months, respectively) or for IROX (6.5 months, 35%, and 17.4 months, respectively) for time to progression and response. The FOLFOX regimen had significantly lower rates of severe nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, and dehydration. Sensory neuropathy and neutropenia were more common with the regimens containing oxaliplatin. Conclusion The FOLFOX regimen of oxaliplatin and infused fluorouracil plus leucovorin was active and comparatively safe. It should be considered as a standard therapy for patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

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.