Phase I safety and pharmacokinetics of BAY 43-9006 administered for 21 days on/7 days off in patients with advanced, refractory solid tumours.

BAY 43-9006 is a novel dual-action Raf kinase and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) inhibitor that targets tumour cell proliferation and tumour angiogenesis. This Phase I study was undertaken to determine the safety profile, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), pharmacokinetics, and tumour response profile of oral BAY 43-9006 in patients with advanced, refractory solid tumours. BAY 43-9006 was administered daily for repeated cycles of 21 days on/7 days off. A total of 44 patients were enrolled at doses from 50 to 800 mg b.i.d. Pharmacokinetic profiles of BAY 43-9006 in plasma were determined during the first treatment cycle. The most frequently reported adverse events over multiple cycles were gastrointestinal (75%), dermatologic (71%), constitutional (68%), pain (64%), or hepatic (61%) related. A MTD of 400 mg b.i.d. BAY 43-9006 was defined. BAY 43-9006 was absorbed rapidly; steady-state conditions were reached within 7 days. BAY 43-9006 exposure increased nonproportionally with increasing dose. In all, 32 patients were evaluated for tumour response: 15 patients showed tumour progression, 16 patients experienced stable disease (>6 months in eight patients), and one patient with renal cell carcinoma achieved a partial response. BAY 43-9006 given for 21 days with 7 days off treatment was safe, well tolerated, and showed antitumour activity.

The feasibility of classical cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil (CMF) for pre- and post-menopausal node-positive breast cancer patients in a Belgian multicentric trial: a study of consistency in relative dose intensity (RDI) and cumulative doses across institutions.

BACKGROUND: Classical cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil (CMF) including oral cyclophosphamide is still considered an important adjuvant chemotherapy regimen in patients with early breast cancer (BC). Concern has been raised regarding the feasibility of this regimen, especially in postmenopausal patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 254 pre- and post-menopausal node-positive BC patients aged < or = 70 years received six cycles of CMF in the context of a Belgian multicentric phase III trial of adjuvant chemotherapy. CMF dose and schedule were as follows: cyclophosphamide 100 mg/m2 p.o. on days 1 to 14, methotrexate 40 mg/m2 intravenously (i.v.) on days 1 and 8, 5-fluorouracil 600 mg/ml i.v. on days 1 and 8; cycles q. 28 days. The relative dose intensity (RDI) was calculated as the ratio between the delivered DI and the planned DI. We also analysed the RDI in two subgroups of patients with age > or = 50 years or < 50 years. RESULTS: Overall, the percentage of patients ending the six cycles of the planned CMF regimen was 90%. The mean RDI achieved in the population of 254 patients was 90% (range 8% to 129%). The subgroup analysis of patients aged > or = 50 years and < 50 years showed that 81% and 76% of patients, respectively, received > or = 80% of the planned chemotherapy dose intensity (P = 0.33). No statistically significant difference was found between the percentage of patients who received a RDI < 80% and the participating institutions (P = 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: The classical CMF regimen was a feasible regimen in the context of a multicentric trial, in which academic institutions as well as community hospitals participated. No substantial differences in RDI and cumulative doses were found in relation to a patient's age and the participating institution.

Phase III trial comparing two dose levels of epirubicin combined with cyclophosphamide with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in node-positive breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare a full-dose epirubicin-cyclophosphamide (HEC) regimen with classical cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) therapy and with a moderate-dose epirubicin-cyclophosphamide regimen (EC) in the adjuvant therapy of node-positive breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Node-positive breast cancer patients who were aged 70 years or younger were randomly allocated to one of the following treatments: CMF for six cycles (oral cyclophosphamide); EC for eight cycles (epirubicin 60 mg/m(2), cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m(2); day 1 every 3 weeks); and HEC for eight cycles (epirubicin 100 mg/m(2), cyclophosphamide 830 mg/m(2); day 1 every 3 weeks). RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-five, 267, and 255 eligible patients were treated with CMF, EC, and HEC, respectively. Patient characteristics were well balanced among the three arms. One and three cases of congestive heart failure were reported in the EC and HEC arms, respectively. Three cases of acute myeloid leukemia were reported in the HEC arm. After 4 years of median follow-up, no statistically significant differences were observed between HEC and CMF (event-free survival [EFS]: hazards ratio [HR] = 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.31, P =.80; distant-EFS: HR = 0.97, 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.34, P =.87; overall survival [OS]: HR = 0.97, 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.44, P =.87). HEC is more effective than EC (EFS: HR = 0.73, 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.99, P =.04; distant-EFS: HR = 0.75, 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.02, P =.06; OS HR = 0.69, 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.00, P =.05). CONCLUSION: This three-arm study does not show an advantage in favor of an adequately dosed epirubicin-based regimen over classical CMF in the adjuvant therapy of node-positive pre- and postmenopausal women with breast cancer. Moreover, this study confirms that there is a dose-response curve for epirubicin in breast cancer adjuvant therapy.

A feasibility study evaluating docetaxel-based sequential and combination regimens in the adjuvant therapy of node-positive breast cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Docetaxel is an active agent in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. We evaluated the feasibility of docetaxel-based sequential and combination regimens as adjuvant therapies for patients with node-positive breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three consecutive groups of patients with node-positive breast cancer or locally-advanced disease, aged < or = 70 years, received one of the following regimens: a) sequential A-->T-->CMF: doxorubicin 75 mg/m2 q 3 weeks x 3, followed by docetaxel 100 mg/m2 q 3 weeks x 3, followed by i.v. CMF days 1 + 8 q 4 weeks x 3; b) sequential accelerated A-->T-->CMF: A and T were administered at the same doses q 2 weeks; c) combination therapy: doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 + docetaxel 75 mg/m2 q 3 weeks x 4, followed by CMF x 4. When indicated, radiotherapy was administered during or after CMF, and tamoxifen started after the end of CMF. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients have been treated. Median age was 48 years. A 30% rate of early treatment discontinuation was observed in patients receiving the sequential accelerated therapy (23% during A-->T), due principally to severe skin toxicity. Median relative dose-intensity was 100% in the three treatment arms. The incidence of G3-G4 major toxicities by treated patients, was as follows: skin toxicity a: 5%; b: 27%; c: 0%; stomatitis a: 20%; b: 20%; c: 3%. The incidence of neutropenic fever was a: 30%; b: 13%; c: 48%. After a median follow-up of 18 months, no late toxicity has been reported. CONCLUSIONS: The accelerated sequential A-->T-->CMF treatment is not feasible due to an excess of skin toxicity. The sequential non accelerated and the combination regimens are feasible and under evaluation in a phase III trial of adjuvant therapy.

A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of docetaxel administered in combination with continuous intravenous infusion of 5-fluorouracil in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Encouraged by preclinical synergism between docetaxel and 5-fluorouracil (5FU), we conducted a Phase I study of docetaxel in combination with continuous i.v. infusion of 5FU in patients with advanced solid tumors to determine the maximum tolerated dose, the recommended dose for Phase II studies, and the safety and pharmacokinetic profiles of this combination. Forty-two patients with advanced solid tumors, most of whom had been previously treated, received docetaxel on day 1 as a 1-h i.v. infusion, immediately followed by a 5-day continuous i.v. infusion of 5FU, every 3 weeks without hematopoietic growth factor support. All patients were premedicated with methylprednisolone. Dose levels of docetaxel/SFU studied were (daily dose, in mg/m2) 60/300, 75/300, 75/500, 75/750, 85/750, 85/1000, and 75/1000. Forty-one patients were assessable for toxicity. The maximum tolerated dose determined during the first cycle was 1000 mg/m2/day for 5 days of 5FU with either 75 or 85 mg/m2 docetaxel. Dose-limiting toxicities at these dose levels were reversible secretory diarrhea (4 of 12 evaluable patients), stomatitis (2 patients), and febrile neutropenia (2 patients). Overall, grade 3/4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were seen in 63.4% and 9.8% of the patients, respectively. Four patients experienced grade 3/4 infection, which led to toxic death in one of them. There were five early deaths: (a) one was clearly treatment related; (b) two others were possibly treatment related or remotely treatment related; and (c) two deaths were not related to the study drugs. Partial responses were documented in 5 of 39 evaluable patients. Pharmacokinetic results of both drugs were consistent with those from single-agent studies. The recommended dose of this combination, which showed acceptable toxicity and antitumoral activity at various dose levels, is 85 mg/m2 docetaxel given as a 1-h i.v. infusion on day 1 immediately followed by a 5-day continuous i.v. infusion of 5FU (750 mg/m2/day). This study has been extended by adding cisplatin on day 1 of the combination of docetaxel and 5FU.

An EORTC pilot study of filgrastim (recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor) as support to a high dose-intensive epiadriamycin-cyclophosphamide regimen in chemotherapy-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: In an attempt to increase chemotherapy dose intensity by step-wise reduction of the time interval between treatment cycles, filgrastim was administered to breast cancer patients receiving a three-month combination chemotherapy with epirubicin (E) and cyclophosphamide (C). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer received fixed doses of E (120 mg/m2) and C 9830 mg/m2) by 15-min i.v. infusion on day 1 of each cycle and filgrastim at a dose of 4 micrograms/kg once daily by SC injection starting 24 hours after chemotherapy. Cohorts of patients were treated in successive schedules, each schedule corresponding to a specified time interval between chemotherapy cycles. The toxicity observed in each schedule was evaluated before patients were accrued to the next schedule, which corresponded to a shorter time interval between chemotherapy cycles. RESULTS: The maximum tolerated schedule was E (120 mg/m2) plus C 9830 mg/m2) given every 14 days with filgrastim support from day 2 until day 13. On this schedule, 5 of 12 patients experienced dose-intensity-limiting toxicities (DLT) during the 3-month study period. Non-hematological DLT occurred in 2/12 patients (mucositis, skin toxicity) while /312 experienced febrile neutropenia requiring i.v. antibiotics. All patients achieved recovery of ANC to >1.5 x 10(9)/l by the time of scheduled retreatment. The combination of filgrastim with this regimen did not seem to add major toxicities. The efficacy was high, with 87% of patients achieving an objective response and a median response duration of 18 months (range: 4-52 months). CONCLUSIONS: Filgrastim permits at 33% increase in 'EC' dose intensification over that of the conventional every-3-week administration. Randomized studies should now be initiated to evaluate the merit, if any, of 'accelerated' chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer.