Hanson, Lorelei J.

PURPOSE: Multitargeted antifolate (MTA) is an investigational agent that, like gemcitabine, exhibits broad activity in solid tumors. A phase I trial of MTA and gemcitabine was undertaken, based on the demonstration of preclinical cytotoxic synergy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-five patients (group I) received 164 courses (median, four; range, one to 14 courses) of treatment of gemcitabine at doses of 1,000 and 1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and MTA at doses of 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 mg/m2, given 90 minutes after gemcitabine on day 1. Courses were repeated every 3 weeks. Because the day 8 dose of gemcitabine was reduced or omitted in 57% of courses due to neutropenia, 21 patients (group II) were treated on an alternate schedule, with MTA administered on day 8 rather than day 1. This group received 85 treatment courses (median, four; range, one to 10 courses). RESULTS: The most common and dose-limiting toxicity was neutropenia. Other toxicities included nausea, fatigue, rash, and elevated hepatic transaminases. The maximum-tolerated dose was gemcitabine/MTA 1,000/500 mg/m2 for group I and 1,250/500 mg/m2 for group II. Thirteen objective responses were documented (colorectal cancer, n = 3; non–small-cell lung cancer, n = 3; cholangiocarcinoma, n = 2; ovarian carcinoma, n = 2; mesothelioma, n = 1; breast cancer, n = 1; and adenocarcinoma of unknown primary site, n = 1). Gemcitabine had no effect on the disposition of MTA. CONCLUSION: The gemcitabine/MTA combination is broadly active and warrants further evaluation. The sequence of gemcitabine administered on days 1 and 8 with MTA administered on day 8 is better tolerated and is recommended for further study at doses of gemcitabine/MTA 1,250/500 mg/m2.

PURPOSE: The goals of this study were to determine the maximum-tolerated dose and describe the toxicities of the combination of irinotecan and docetaxel administered every 3 weeks to patients with advanced malignancies and, also, to evaluate the effect of irinotecan on the disposition of docetaxel and describe preliminary evidence of antitumor activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighteen patients received 85 courses (median, two courses; range, one to 15 courses) of treatment with irinotecan, administered over 90 minutes by intravenous infusion, followed by docetaxel, administered over 60 minutes by intravenous infusion. Four escalating dose levels of irinotecan/docetaxel (160/50 mg/m2, 160/65 mg/m2, 200/65 mg/m2, and 200/75 mg/m2) were studied. Pharmacokinetic analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of irinotecan on the disposition of docetaxel. RESULTS: The most common and dose-limiting toxicity was myelosuppression, which consisted of neutropenia that was severe (National Cancer Institute common toxicity criteria [NCI CTC] grade 4) but brief (< 5 days) in 11 patients, with three episodes of febrile neutropenia. Nonhematologic toxicities of anorexia, nausea, and stomatitis were mild to moderate (NCI CTC grades 1 and 2), but there was one incidence each of both CTC grade 3 anorexia and nausea. All patients had total alopecia. Diarrhea was dose-dependent and severe in four patients who failed to take adequate antidiarrhea therapy. Five out of 16 assessable patients, one with cholangiocarcinoma, one with leiomyosarcoma, and three with non–small-cell lung cancer, achieved partial remissions. CONCLUSION: The combination of irinotecan and docetaxel causes significant reversible myelosuppression, which was dose limiting but led to no serious sequelae. There was no evidence of a clinically significant interaction using these two agents in this sequence. The combination showed antitumor activity at all the dose levels tested and should be further studied in a number of tumor types. The recommended phase II dose on this schedule is irinotecan 160 mg/m2 and docetaxel 65 mg/m2.

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.

Purpose To assess the tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PKs), and pharmacodynamics (PDs) of the mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) 1/2 inhibitor AZD6244 (ARRY-142886) in patients with advanced cancer. Patients and Methods In part A, patients received escalating doses to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD). In both parts, blood samples were collected to assess PK and PD parameters. In part B, patients were stratified by cancer type (melanoma v other) and randomly assigned to receive the MTD or 50% MTD. Biopsies were collected to determine inhibition of ERK phosphorylation, Ki-67 expression, and BRAF, KRAS, and NRAS mutations. Results Fifty-seven patients were enrolled. MTD in part A was 200 mg bid, but this dose was discontinued in part B because of toxicity. The 50% MTD (100 mg bid) was well tolerated. Rash was the most frequent and dose-limiting toxicity. Most other adverse events were grade 1 or 2. The PKs were less than dose proportional, with a median half-life of approximately 8 hours and inhibition of ERK phosphorylation in peripheral-blood mononuclear cells at all dose levels. Paired tumor biopsies demonstrated reduced ERK phosphorylation (geometric mean, 79%). Five of 20 patients demonstrated ≥ 50% inhibition of Ki-67 expression, and RAF or RAS mutations were detected in 10 of 26 assessable tumor samples. Nine patients had stable disease (SD) for ≥ 5 months, including two patients with SD for 19 (thyroid cancer) and 22 (uveal melanoma plus renal cancer) 28-day cycles. Conclusion AZD6244 was well tolerated with target inhibition demonstrated at the recommended phase II dose. PK analyses supported twice-daily dosing. Prolonged SD was seen in a variety of advanced cancers. Phase II studies are ongoing.

AbstractPurpose: To evaluate the combination of sorafenib and gefitinib in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer.Experimental Design: In this dose-escalation trial, patients received oral sorafenib (200-400 mg) twice daily with gefitinib (250 mg orally) once daily to identify the recommended dose for phase II trials (RDP; part A). The pharmacokinetics of the RDP were characterized further in additional patients (part B) receiving single-agent gefitinib or sorafenib for 21 days followed by a 7-day washout with crossover to the other agent for an additional 21 days. Patients then received the combination of sorafenib plus gefitinib in 28-day cycles. Safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor efficacy were evaluated. Potential drug-drug interactions and the relationship between pharmacokinetics and toxicity were also assessed.Results: Thirty-one patients were treated (n = 12, part A; n = 19, part B). Most adverse events were grade 1/2. The most frequent grade 3/4 events included diarrhea and elevated alanine aminotransferase (both 9.7%). One dose-limiting toxicity occurred (part A: elevated alanine aminotransferase at 400 mg twice daily). Gefitinib had no effect on sorafenib pharmacokinetics. However, gefitinib Cmax (26%) and area under the curve (38%) were reduced by concomitant sorafenib. One patient had a partial response; 20 (65%; n = 8, part A; n = 12, part B) had stable disease ≥4 months. The RDP was sorafenib 400 mg twice daily with gefitinib 250 mg once daily.Conclusions: Sorafenib combined with gefitinib is well tolerated, with promising efficacy in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer. Studies to further investigate the significance of the reduction in gefitinib exposure by sorafenib are warranted.

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 This phase I study was undertaken to define the toxicity, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and clinical activity of CI-1040, a small-molecule inhibitor of the dual-specificity kinases MEK(mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase) -1 and MEK2 , in patients with advanced malignancy. Patients and Methods CI-1040 was tested in multiple daily dosing frequencies administered for 21 days repeated every 28 days leading ultimately to continuous administration, and effect of food on absorption was tested. Single dose and steady-state pharmacokinetics were assessed during cycle 1 and phosphorylated extracellular receptor kinase (pERK) levels were assessed in WBCs and also in tumor tissue from selected patients. Results Seventy-seven patients received CI-1040 at dose levels ranging from 100 mg QD to 800 mg tid. Grade 3 asthenia was dose limiting at the highest dose level tested, 800 mg tid administered with food. Ninety-eight percent of all drug-related adverse events were grade 1 or 2 in severity; most common toxicities included diarrhea, asthenia, rash, nausea, and vomiting. Plasma concentrations of CI-1040 and its active metabolite, PD 0184264, increased in a less than dose proportional manner from 100 to 800 mg QD. Administration with a high-fat meal resulted in an increase in drug exposure. The MTD and recommended phase II dose was 800 mg BID administered with food. Sixty-six patients were assessable for response. One partial response was achieved in a patient with pancreatic cancer and 19 patients (28%) achieved stable disease lasting a median of 5.5 months (range, 4 to 17 months). Inhibition of tumor pERK (median, 73%; range, 46% to 100%) was demonstrated in 10 patients. Conclusion CI-1040 was well tolerated at 800 mg BID administered with food. Both target suppression and antitumor activity were demonstrated in this phase I study.

Purpose To describe the prevalence, clinical characteristics, and pattern of use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in patients enrolled onto phase I trials. Patients and Methods Questionnaires were administered to 108 patients with advanced malignancies enrolled onto phase I chemotherapy trials at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center (Rochester, MN). CAM was classified into two modalities, pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic. Clinical and demographic data, including age, sex, and prior cancer treatment, were subsequently obtained from patient charts and examined for any correlation with CAM use, using χ2 analysis. Results One hundred two survey forms were returned. Among respondents, 88.2% (90 of 102) had used at least one CAM modality; 93.3% (84 of 90) and 53.3% (48 of 90) had used pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic CAM, respectively; and 46.7% (42 of 90) used both modalities. Vitamin and mineral preparations constituted 89.3% (75 of 84) of all pharmacologic CAM used. Intake was highest for vitamins E (48.8% [41 of 84]) and C (38.1% [32 of 84]), and 71.4% (60 of 84) of respondents took nonvitamin/mineral agents. Green tea (29.8% [25 of 84]), echinacea (13.1% [11 of 84]), and essiac (9.5% [8 of 84]) were the most popular. Prayer and spiritual practices were the most commonly used nonpharmacologic CAM, accounting for 52.1% (25 of 48). Chiropractors, the most frequently visited nontraditional medicine practitioners, were consulted by only 10% (9 of 90) of those who practiced CAM. Both CAM modalities were used more frequently by women (53.5% [23 of 43]) than men (40.4% [19 of 47]). Conclusion CAM use is common among patients in phase I trials and should be ascertained by investigators, because some of the agents used may interact with investigational agents and affect adverse effects and/or efficacy.

Purpose: This phase II study was undertaken to define the efficacy and pharmacodynamics of R115777, a farnesyl transferase inhibitor, in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. Patients and Methods: Forty-four patients with measurable stage IIIB (pleural effusion) or stage IV disease received 193 courses of treatment (median, 2.0; range, 1 to 22) with R115777 300 mg administered orally twice daily for 21 of every 28 days. Buccal mucosa samples and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were collected before and after 8 days of treatment to evaluate inhibition of farnesyl transferase in vivo. Results: No objective complete or partial responses were documented. Seven patients (16%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8% to 31%) had disease stabilization for greater than 6 months. Median survival was 7.7 months (95% CI, 6.5 to 10.5) and time to progression was 2.7 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 3.1). The most severe toxicity was neutropenia (9% grade 3, 7% grade 4) and the most common toxicities were anemia (50% grade 1 or 2, 5% grade 3) and anorexia (50% grade 1 or 2, 2% grade 3). Mild peripheral neuropathy occurred in 25% of patients. Evidence of farnesyl transferase inhibition was documented in 83% of patients. Conclusion: Single-agent R115777 was well tolerated in patients with advanced NSCLC, but demonstrated minimal clinical activity. Inhibition of farnesylation in vivo was consistently documented. On the basis of promising results of farnesyl transferase inhibitor combinations with standard chemotherapy agents, future studies of this agent in NSCLC should be in combination with systemic chemotherapy.