Abstract PD10-08: Venlafaxine inhibits the CYP2D6 mediated metabolic activation of tamoxifen: Results of a prospective multicenter study: (NCT00667121)
Abstract Background: CYP2D6 is the rate limiting enzyme responsible for the metabolic activation of tamoxifen (tam) to endoxifen. Compared to CYP2D6 poor metabolizers (PM), tam-treated CYP2D6 extensive metabolizers (EM) have higher endoxifen concentrations, more vasomotor symptoms (Goetz, MP J Clin Oncol 2005), and are more likely to discontinue tam (Rae, JM 2009. Pharmacogenomics J). Additionally, higher endoxifen concentrations are associated with a stepwise increase in tam side-effects (Lorizio, W Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012). The data regarding CYP2D6 genotype and recurrence is mixed. Venlafaxine is a weak CYP2D6 inhibitor not known to alter tam pharmacokinetics (PK) and commonly recommended for tam induced hot flashes. We conducted a multicenter pharmacological study to determine whether venlafaxine altered the PK of tam and to determine the distribution of CYP2D6 genotypes in this population Methods: Women taking tam for at least 4 weeks and for whom venlafaxine was recommended for the treatment of hot flashes were eligible. Blood samples were collected prior to and 8–16 weeks following initiation of venlafaxine for steady state tam and metabolites. Genotyping was performed for alleles associated with no (PM; *3, *4, *5,*6); reduced (intermediate, IM; *10, 17 and *41); and ultra-rapid (UM; *1×2) metabolism. Power calculations demonstrated that 17 patients with paired samples were required (two-sided alpha=0.05 t-test, 90% power) to detect a 25% change in endoxifen levels after at least 8 weeks of concurrent treatment. Results: 30 women (median age 48.5) initiated venlafaxine. CYP2D6 genotypes were within Hardy Weinberg Equilibrium (HWE). CYP2D6 UM allele frequency (6.7%) was higher while CYP2D6 *4 (13.3%) was lower than expected compared to an unselected population (0.5 and 21% respectively; Sachse Am. J. Hum. Genet. 1997), resulting in the absence of CYP2D6 PM/PM. Mean (min/max) baseline endoxifen concentrations (8.73; 1.5–20.5 ng/ml) were correlated with CYP2D6 phenotype as follows: intermediate (EM/PM, PM/IM): 6.8 (1.5–11.2); extensive (EM/EM, EM/IM): 9.4 (1.5–20.5) and ultra-rapid (UM/EM: 11.0; 7.8–14) (r2 = 0.35 p = 0.05). In patients with paired samples (n = 20), venlafaxine resulted in a 23% decrease in endoxifen (−2.06 ng/ml; 95% CI −0.69 to −3.04; p = 0.004), but not tam, NDMT, or 4HT concentrations. Following initiation of venlafaxine, CYP2D6 genotype was no longer associated with endoxifen concentrations (r2 = 0.28 p = 0.23). For women with reduced CYP2D6 metabolism [EM/PM (n = 9) or PM/IM (n = 1)], venlafaxine lowered endoxifen concentrations (−2.98 ng/ml) to a level (5.41 ng/ml) reported to be associated with a higher risk of recurrence in adjuvant tam treated patients (Madlensky, L Clin Pharmacol Ther 2011). Conclusions: In this study, women with tam-induced vasomotor symptoms requiring venlafaxine were comprised predominantly of CYP2D6 EM and UM metabolizers. Venlafaxine significantly decreased endoxifen concentrations. Although the optimal concentration of endoxifen is unknown, given prior data linking low endoxifen concentrations with recurrence, venlafaxine should be used with caution in tam treated patients. (Supported by R01CA133049) Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr PD10-08.
Abstract PD3-4: A first-in-human phase I study of the tamoxifen (TAM) metabolite, Z-endoxifen hydrochloride (Z-Endx) in women with aromatase inhibitor (AI) refractory metastatic breast cancer (MBC) (NCT01327781)
Abstract Background: In AI refractory MBC, TAM anti-tumor activity is limited (median PFS 4.5 months). In patients (pts) receiving TAM in the adjuvant and metastatic setting, breast cancer recurrence has been shown to differ based upon CYP2D6 genotype and Endx exposure. In collaboration with NCI, Z-Endx (NSC #750393) was synthesized and preclinical pharmacology studies demonstrated that oral Z- Endx resulted in > 20 fold Endx exposure compared to an equivalent dose of TAM and significantly greater anti-tumor activity than TAM in AI sensitive and resistant MCF7 xenografts. We conducted a phase I study of Z-Endx in women with ER+, AI refractory MBC to identify dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and a dose associated with steady state concentrations (Css) of ≥ 2 uM, based on the IC50 of recently identified Endx substrates: PKC and PI3K. Methods: Pts were enrolled to an accelerated titration schedule (2 pts/dose level) until moderate toxicity or DLT, and then to a 3+3 design. Z-Endx was administered orally once daily (28 day cycle). Eye exams were performed at baseline, end of cycle 2, and after 6 cycles. PK was performed on days 1-2, 3, 7, 14, and 28, and prior to subsequent cycles. Results: 23 women with AI refractory MBC (median 56 yrs, range 41-83) received Z-Endx once daily encompassing 7 dose levels (Table 1). The median number of prior chemotherapies and hormonal therapies in the metastatic setting were 2 and 2, respectively. Dose escalation continues at 160 mg/day and the MTD has yet to be determined. Cmax and AUC increased in a dose-dependent manner. A 20 and 100 mg/day dose yields Css of 0.39 and 2.48 uM, respectively. Significant anti-tumor activity was observed including 1 pt (100 mg/day) with a PR lasting 225 days; 1 pt (80 mg/day) with a 30% reduction in tumor size (PFS 169 days) and 2 pts (60 and 80 mg/day) with stable disease for >270 days. No eye toxicity was observed. Conclusions: In women with AI refractory MBC, the MTD of Z-Endx HCl has not been determined but Endx Css concentrations of > 2 uM and substantial anti-tumor activity has been observed. Following completion of the 160 mg/day dose, expansion at 20 and 100 mg/day will commence to perform translational studies and further characterize Endx pk. A randomized phase II examining two different doses of Z-Endx is planned in AI refractory MBC. Supported in part by CA 133049, CA69912, CA15083, CA116201, and CA15083. Table 1Dose Level (mg/day)Number of Treatment CyclesModerate or Severe Toxicities ReportedTumor ResponseProgression-free Survival (days)28 day Z-Endx Css (uM) 20 (n = 2)2; 3Gr 2 hot flashes (1 pt)----60; 850.39 40 (n = 2)2; 6noneStable (1 pt)61; 1670.66 60 (n = 6)1; 2; 2; 5; 8; 14Gr 4 Triglycerides (1 pt);Gr 3 thromboembolic event (1 pt); Gr 2 hot flashes, anemia, and hypoalbuminemia (1 pt)Stable (3 pts)125+; 56; 57; 132; 232; 4331.01 80 (n = 3)4; 6; 10Gr 2 hot flashesStable (3 pts)113; 169; 2961.61 100 (n = 3)1; 2; 8Gr 2 nausea (1 pt); Gr 2 irritability (1 pt)PR (1 pt)30; 56; 2252.48 120 (n = 3)1; 2; 4Gr 2 hypersomnia, paresthesia, and peripheral sensory neuropathy (1 pt)—39; 54; 1082.18 * Bold face toxicities occurred during cycle 1 Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr PD3-4.
Abstract P5-09-08: A comparison of the non-genomic effects of endoxifen and tamoxifen in aromatase inhibitor resistant breast cancer: Differential effects on the estrogen receptor co-regulator SRC3 (AIB1) and identification of PKC and PI3K as endoxifen sub
Abstract Background: Endoxifen (Endx) is being developed as a drug for patients with estrogen receptor (ER)+ breast cancer (BC). We previously demonstrated that Endx was superior to TAM in both a letrozole (L) sensitive and resistant MCF7/AC1 model. Tamoxifen (TAM) and its most commonly studied metabolite, 4-hydroxy TAM (4HT), are known to activate critical ER co-regulators such as SRC3, which are oncogenic, and contribute to acquired and de novo endocrine resistance. While both Endx and 4HT are more potent inhibitors of genomic ERα functions compared to TAM, the effects of Endx on non-genomic signaling have not been characterized and its efficacy as an anti-cancer agent compared to RAD001 in AI resistant BC is unknown. Methods: We evaluated the 1 hour in vitro effects of TAM, 4HT, Endx, and L, in terms of activation of multiple signaling cascades using an MCF7/AC1 L-resistant cells and long term estrogen deprived (LTED) cells (MDA 361 and ZR75). Protein Docking studies (shape screening, pharmacophore modeling and ligand-protein docking) for oncogenic kinases, and their associated IC50's were determined for TAM and Endx. The in vivo activity of Endx (50 mg/kg, oral) was determined in MCF/AC1 L-resistant xenograft tumors and compared with L control (10 ug/day, sc), Exemestane (E) (250 ug/d, sc) and E+RAD001 (2.5 mg/kg/d, oral). Results: In MCF7/AC1 L-resistant cells, 1 hr treatment with either TAM (100 nM or 5 uM) or 4HT (100 nM or 5 uM) phosphorylated SRC3 (AIB1) and resulted in downstream activation (phosphorylation) of IGF1R, PDK1, AKT, and p70S6K. In contrast, Endx (100 nM and 5 uM) did not phosphorylate SRC3 nor any downstream kinases but resulted in a dose dependent decrease in AKT phosphorylation. Similar findings were observed in LTED cells MDA 361 and ZR75. Docking studies identified a significant decrease in the binding energy (>2 kcal/mol) of Endx compared to TAM for PKC and PI3K and subsequent kinase profiling demonstrated that Endx more potently inhibits PKCβ1 (IC50 357nM) and PI3KΔ (2.5uM) compared to TAM (IC50 4.8μM and 6.2μM respectively). Therefore, we evaluated the in vivo anti-tumor activity of Endx with E and E+RAD001 in MCF7 L-resistant xenograft tumors. After 9 weeks, the% change in tumor volume relative to baseline was significantly lower for both Endx (median -34%, p = 0.0002) and E+RAD001 (median +1.5%, p = 0.0002) as compared to L controls (median +301%). In contrast, E alone was non-significantly lower (median +172%, (p = 0.09). No significant differences were observed comparing Endx and E+RAD001 (p = 0.56). Conclusions: Endx inhibits PKCβ1 and PI3KΔ at concentrations that are pharmacologically relevant, and unlike TAM and 4HT, does not activate SRC3 nor induce oncogenic signaling pathways in AI resistant cells. Importantly, Endx elicits substantial anti-tumor effects in AI resistant models that are similar to the current standard of care of E+RAD001. These data suggest that Endx may be superior to TAM for the treatment of ER+ BC and may result in clinical benefit for patients with AI resistant disease. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P5-09-08.
PD01-06: Endoxifen Exhibits Potent Anti-Tumor Activity and Regulates Different Genes Than Tamoxifen in an Aromatase Expressing MCF7 Model Resistant to Letrozole.
Abstract Background: First in human studies of Z-endoxifen hydrochloride (E), the active metabolite of tamoxifen (T), are underway in metastatic breast cancer (BC). Previous data have demonstrated the superiority of aromatase inhibitors (AI's) over T in estrogen receptor (ER) + BC. Using an in vivo aromatase expressing model (MCF7/AC1), we compared the antitumor activity of E with T and Letrozole (L), as well as the antitumor activity and global gene expression changes of E with T in an L-resistant model. Methods: MCF7/AC1 tumors were stimulated with androstenedione. Once tumor size reached 300 mm3, mice (30/group) were randomly assigned to one of five treatment groups: control (daily, po), T (500 μg/day, sc), endoxifen 25 mg/kg/day p.o.(LDE) endoxifen 75 mg/kg/day p.o. (HDE) or letrozole, 10 μg/day s.c for 4 weeks. Tumors were harvested from control, T, and E groups while the L group continued treatment until the development of resistance defined as an increase in tumor volume of at least 300% from day 1. Mice with L-resistant tumors were randomly assigned to T (n=4) or E (n=5) for 4 weeks and then sacrificed. Gene expression in L-resistant tumors was quantified using Affymetrix U133+2 and changes in gene expression profiles [comparing T and E with L-resistant (n=3)] were analyzed. Genes identified as significantly different were confirmed by real-time RT-PCR assays. Results: At the 4 week time point, both doses of E and L resulted in greater anti-tumor activity than control (Wilcoxon rank sum test: all p < 0.0001); however, tumor burden did not differ between T and control (p=0.095). HDE resulted in significantly less tumor burden than T (p=0.002) but was similar to L. In mice that continued on L, resistance developed at 24 weeks in 9/25 mice. These mice were randomly assigned to either T (n=4) or E (n=5) for 4 weeks. Tumor volume (expressed as a% of its size prior to randomization) was significantly different comparing E (73.3%; range: 69.3 to 80.75%) versus T (148.39%; range: 114.07 to 165.99%) (Wilcoxon rank sum test p=0.016). Compared to control, microarray studies identified 1518 unique probe sets regulated by E (p<0.001) compared to 441 for T including estrogen-regulated genes such as progesterone receptor (PGR) and amphiregulin (AREG) that were significantly down-regulated in the E group [PGR (−6.2 fold, p=0.000008) and AREG (−3.2 fold, p=.0006) but unchanged or up-regulated in the T group (PGR unchanged and AREG +9.2 fold p=0.00002). These findings were confirmed by RT-PCR. Conclusions: Using the MCF7/AC1 model previously used to show the superiority of AI's over T, HDE demonstrated similar antitumor activity to L and was superior to T. In cells resistant to L, E was superior to T and gene expression changes demonstrate that E down-regulates while T activates estrogen regulated genes. These findings support the ongoing development of E for the treatment of ER+ BC. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr PD01-06.