Phase I dose escalation study of KOS-1584, a novel epothilone, in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: First-in-man study of KOS-1584, a second generation epothilone. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid malignancies received KOS-1584 every 3 weeks until disease progression. Using a modified Fibonacci dose escalation scheme, one patient was enrolled at each dose level until the first instance of grade 2 toxicity. Thereafter, a standard 3 + 3 design was utilized. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients in 14 cohorts were dosed from 0.8 to 48 mg/m(2). Diarrhea, arthralgias, and encephalopathy were dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) at doses ≥36 mg/m(2). At the recommended phase II dose (RP2D), the most common adverse effects were peripheral neuropathy (low grade), fatigue, arthralgias/myalgias, and diarrhea (31, 6%). The incidence of neutropenia was low. The overall clearance, volume of distribution, and half-life of KOS-1584 were 11 ± 6.17 L/h/m(2), 327 ± 161 L/m(2), and 21.9 ± 8.75 h, respectively. The half-life for the seco-metabolite (KOS-1891) was 29.6 ± 13.8 h. KOS-1584 exhibited linear pharmacokinetics. A dose-dependent increase in microtubulin bundle formation was observed at doses ≥27 mg/m(2). Two patients achieved partial responses and 24 patients had stable disease (SD). CONCLUSIONS: The RP2D of KOS-1584 is 36 mg/m(2). The lack of severe neurologic toxicity, diarrhea, neutropenia, or hypersensitivity reactions; favorable pharmacokinetic profile; and early evidence of activity support further evaluation.

A phase 1 study of KOS-862 (Epothilone D) co-administered with carboplatin (Paraplatin®) in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: To determine the maximally tolerated dose (MTD) and pharmacokinetics of carboplatin plus KOS-862 (Epothilone D) a novel cytotoxic macrolide capable of causing mitotic arrest, in patients with advanced solid malignancies. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients who have progressed on standard regimens were treated at four different levels of KOS-862(mg/m(2))/Carboplatin(AUC): 50/5,75/5, 75/6 and 100/6 in a "3 + 3" phase I study study design to determine MTD. Patients received KOS-862 on Days 1 and 8, and carboplatin on day 1, of 3-week cycles. Pharmacokinetics of KOS-862 and Carboplatin were studied. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients enrolled in the study. At the top dose level, 2 out of the 9 patients experienced Dose Limiting Toxicity. (grade 3 peripheral motor neuropathy in both patients) Twenty-seven patients had sufficient plasma data points for pharmacokinetic analysis Both the parent drug, KOS-862, and the major inactive metabolite Seco-D KOS-862 (KOS-1965) were quantified in plasma. Kinetics of KOS-862 were the same as seen in monotherapy studies using the same route and time of administration. Two patients had tumor response after study treatment. Ten of 20 evaluable patients had stable disease after 2 cycles of study treatment. The MTD in the present study was KOS-862 100 mg/m(2) + carboplatin AUC = 6. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacokinetics of KOS-862 were similar in this combination study to those seen in previous monotherapy studies using the same route and time of administration. We have described the MTD of this schedule. The neurotoxicity seen with this regimen should be considered prior to its administration in unselected populations.

Combination of trastuzumab and tanespimycin (17-AAG, KOS-953) is safe and active in trastuzumab-refractory HER-2 overexpressing breast cancer: a phase I dose-escalation study.

PURPOSE: This phase I study examined whether a heat shock protein (Hsp) 90 inhibitor tanespimycin (17-AAG; KOS-953) could be administered safely in combination with trastuzumab at a dose that inhibits Hsp90 function in vivo in lymphocytes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with an advanced solid tumor progressing during standard therapy were eligible. Patients were treated with weekly trastuzumab followed by intravenous tanespimycin, assessed in escalating dose levels. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were enrolled onto four tanespimycin dose levels: 225 (n = 4), 300 (n = 3), 375 (n = 8), and 450 mg/m2 (n = 10). Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was observed at the third and fourth cohort (1 patient each): more than 2-week delay for grade 4 fatigue/grade 2 nausea and anorexia (375 mg/m2); more than 2-week delay for thrombocytopenia (450 mg/m2). Drug-related grade 3 toxicity included emesis, increased ALT, hypersensitivity reactions (two patients each), and drug-induced thrombocytopenia (n = 1). Common mild to moderate toxicities included fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, emesis, headache, rash/pruritus, increased AST/ALT, and anorexia. Pharmacokinetic analysis demonstrated no difference in tanespimycin kinetics with or without trastuzumab. Pharmacodynamic testing showed reactive induction of Hsp70 (a marker of Hsp90 inhibition) in lymphocytes at all dose levels. Antitumor activity was noted (partial response, n = 1; minor response, n = 4; stable disease > or = 4 months, n = 4). Tumor regressions were seen only in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2)-positive metastatic breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Tanespimycin plus trastuzumab is well tolerated and has antitumor activity in patients with HER-2+ breast cancer whose tumors have progressed during treatment with trastuzumab. These data suggest that Hsp90 function can be inhibited in vivo to a degree sufficient to cause inhibition of tumor growth.

Phase I/pilot study of SU5416 (semaxinib) in combination with irinotecan/bolus 5-FU/LV (IFL) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Determine the toxicity, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of SU5416, a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 (VEGFR-2) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, coadministered with bolus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), leucovorin, and irinotecan (IFL) in untreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: SU5416 (85 or 145 mg/m2) was administered twice weekly throughout a 6-week period along with standard IFL (4 weeks on/2 weeks off). Plasma samples were assayed for SU5416, irinotecan, and SN-38 by reverse-phase HPLC. Contrast enhanced, color Doppler sonography was performed on patients at the MTD to identify changes in tumor perfusion. RESULTS: Eleven patients received treatment with SU5416 85 mg/m2 (n = 5) or 145 mg/m2 (n = 6). At 85 mg/m2, no DLTs were observed. At 145 mg/m2, grade 3 diarrhea and vomiting were observed during cycle 1; other grade 3 toxicities included fatigue, nausea, anorexia, anemia, pain, urinary retention, and hypertension. The pharmacokinetics of irinotecan and SN-38 were not altered by coadministration of SU5416. SU5416 pharmacokinetics were not altered by IFL. Contrast-enhanced, color Doppler sonography was performed on 2 patients and demonstrated reduced tumor perfusion after treatment in a patient who responded to treatment and increased perfusion in a patient who developed progressive disease. Three patients (27%) had confirmed partial responses, 2 patients (18%) had unconfirmed partial responses, and 4 patients (36%) had stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: Twice weekly SU5416 can be administered with bolus IFL without unexpected toxicities or altering the pharmacokinetic behavior of the administered drugs. Changes in tumor blood perfusion can be detected by contrast-enhanced, color Doppler sonography. The further development of SU5416 was halted before this study was completed.

Dose-finding and pharmacokinetic study of cisplatin, gemcitabine, and SU5416 in patients with solid tumors.

PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility and pharmacokinetics of the combination cisplatin, gemcitabine, and SU5416. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1, gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8, repeated every 3 weeks, and SU5416 (85 and 145 mg/m(2)) intravenously twice weekly. Pharmacokinetics of all three agents, side effects, and antitumor response were investigated in patients with solid tumors amenable to therapy with cisplatin/gemcitabine. RESULTS: In the first cohort of three patients entered at the 85 mg/m(2) dose, no dose-limiting toxicities were observed. In the next cohort (145 mg/m(2)), three patients developed a thromboembolic event. After entry was restricted to patients with low thromboembolic risk, three additional patients enrolled at 145 mg/m(2) developed a thromboembolic event. The dose was then reduced to 85 mg/m(2) in all patients still on the study, and three additional patients were entered on this dose level. In 19 treated patients, eight patients developed nine thromboembolic events (three transient ischemic attacks, two cerebrovascular accidents, and four deep venous thromboses). The most common toxicities observed were those previously reported for SU5416 alone (headache and phlebitis) and for this chemotherapy regimen (nausea, thrombocytopenia, and leucopenia). No significant pharmacologic interaction among the three drugs was observed. Response rates were similar to those expected in the patient population selected for this study. Analysis of variables of the coagulation cascade and of vessel wall activation was performed in three patients and showed significant increases in thrombin generation and endothelial cell perturbation in a treatment cycle-dependent manner. CONCLUSION: The incidence of thromboembolic events, possibly related to the particular regimen tested in this study, discourages further investigation of this regimen.