Citations

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.

LBA3 Background: Irinotecan/5-FU/leucovorin (FOLFIRI) or oxaliplatin/5-FU/leucovorin (mFOLFOX6), combined with bevacizumab (BV) or cetuximab (CET), are first-line treatments for metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum (MCRC). The optimal antibody combination is unknown. Methods: Patients (pts) with KRAS wild-type (wt)(codons 12 and 13) MCRC and performance status 0-1 received FOLFIRI or mFOLFOX6 (MD/pt choice at enrollment) and randomized to either CET 400 mg/m2 X 1, then 250 mg/m2 qw or BV 5 mg/kg q2w. The original study included unselected MCRC pts receiving FOLFIRI or mFOLFOX6 and randomized to CET, BV, or both. After 1,420 pts accrued the study amended as follows: only pts with KRAS wt tumors (codon 12 and 13) were included and the combination CET + BV arm was deleted. Rx continued until progression, death, unacceptable toxicity, curative surgery; treatment holidays of 4 wks permitted. Subsequent Rx not mandated. Accrual goal was 1,142 pts. One° endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results: Between November 2005 and March 2012, 3,058 unselected pts enrolled, 2,334 KRAS wt pts randomized; final N =1137 (333 pre-amend eligible retrospective KRAS test, 804 post-amend), median f/u = 24 mos; Median age – 59 y; 61% male. Chemo/BV – 559; chemo/CET – 578. FOLFIRI = 26.6%, mFOLFOX6 = 73.4%. OS analysis planned at 849 events; efficacy futility boundary crossed at 10th interim analysis on 1/29/14. OS - chemo/BV v. chemo/CET = 29.04 (25.66 - 31.21) v. 29.93 (27.56 - 31.21) mos; HR = 0.92 (0.78, 1.09) (p value = 0.34). PFS (by investigator): chemo/BV v. chemo/CET: 10.84 (9.86 - 11.4) v. 10.45 (9.66 - 11.33) mos. There were 94 pts free of disease following surgery, median f/u 40 mos (range 8.0 - 86.0). Outcomes similar by gender. On-study toxicity and deaths as expected. Analyses underway: Expanded RAS, FOLFOX v. FOLFIRI, subsequent therapies, long-term survivors, correlates. Conclusions: Chemo/CET and chemo/BV equivalent in OS in pts KRAS wt (codons 12 + 13) MCRC; either is appropriate in first line. Overall OS of 29 + mos and 8% long-term survivors confirms progress in MCRC. The preference for FOLFOX limits chemotherapy comparison. Expanded RAS and other molecular and clinical analyses may identify subsets of pts who get more or less benefit from specific regimens. Clinical trial information: NCT00265850.

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.