Acalculous cholecystitis in a patient with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib.

A 62-year-old woman was treated with sunitinib as a second-line therapy for metastatic clear-cell renal carcinoma. She was given oral sunitinib 50 mg once daily, 4 weeks on followed by 2 week off. During the fourth week of her first cycle, the patient was admitted to our hospital because of an acute-onset, right upper quadrant pain associated with nausea and vomiting. She was diagnosed with acute acalculous cholecystitis, which was treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics, and sunitinib therapy was discontinued. A follow-up computed tomography scan of the abdomen revealed a complete resolution of gallbladder changes. Our patient did not have major risk factors for developing an acalculous cholecystitis except for a relative immunosuppressed state secondary to her advanced renal cancer. The Naranjo Adverse Drug Reaction Probability Scale score for this event was 5, indicating a probable association of the event with sunitinib. Because the use of sunitinib is expanding in clinical practice, we want to alert the oncology community about this uncommon and life-threatening complication in patients receiving sunitinib or another agent with antiangiogenic activity.

A phase II study of PS-341 (Bortezomib) in advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. A trial of the Princess Margaret Hospital and University of Chicago phase II consortia.

BACKGROUND: Based on evidence of activity in epithelial tumors in preclinical and Phase I studies, its novel mechanism of action, and its tolerability we undertook a study of bortezomib [PS-341], a reversible proteasome inhibitor, for patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced or metastatic unresectable urothelial carcinoma were enrolled onto this multicenter, phase II trial. Patients with measurable disease were treated with bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2/day (twice weekly for 2 weeks out of 3) by intravenous infusion on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 every 21 days. A two stage phase II design was used. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were enrolled and twenty were eligible and received treatment. Eighty-five percent of patients had previous chemotherapy regimens. No objective responses were observed, median time-to-progression was 8.1 weeks (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.4 to 9), and median overall survival is estimated to be 15 weeks (95% CI 3.6 - NA). A total of 15 patients experienced a grade 3-4 adverse event. The most common were alkaline phosphatase (20% patients), lymphopenia (20% patients), myalgia (15% patients), dyspnea (15% patients) and thrombosis/embolism (15% patients). CONCLUSION: Single-agent bortezomib is an ineffective treatment for progressive-cisplatin-refractory urothelial carcinoma and should not be considered for future clinical trials in this population of patients.

Pharmacokinetic variability of anticancer agents.

The translation of advances in cancer biology to drug discovery can be complicated by pharmacokinetic variation between individuals and within individuals, and this can result in unpredictable toxicity and variable antineoplastic effects. Previously unrecognized variables (such as genetic polymorphisms) are now known to have a significant impact on drug disposition. How can the pharmacokinetic variability of anticancer agents be reduced? This will require the understanding of correlations between pharmacokinetics and treatment outcomes, the identification of relevant patient parameters, mathematical modelling of individual and population pharmacokinetics, and the development of algorithms that will tailor doses to the individual patient.

Pharmacokinetic advantage of intra-arterial hepatic oxaliplatin administration: comparative results with cisplatin using a rabbit VX2 tumor model.

The aim of this study was to compare intra-arterial hepatic administration (IAH) versus i.v. administration of oxaliplatin and cisplatin in a VX2 tumor model in rabbits. VX2 tumors were implanted in the livers of White New Zealand female rabbits and 2 weeks later they received either cisplatin (4 mg/kg) or oxaliplatin (6 mg/kg) administered by IAH or i.v. Platinum pharmacokinetic parameters were measured by atomic absorption spectrometry at baseline, 2, 5 10, 20, 40 and 60 min, and then at 2, 4, 6 and 24 h after drug administration. Animals were sacrificed 24 h after drug administration to measure platinum concentrations in various tissues. After IAH oxaliplatin administration, we observed a significant decrease for total and filterable platinum in the Cmax compared with i.v. administration (12.4 versus 18.2 microg/l; p=0.02 and 11.2 versus 17.3 microg/l; p=0.02, respectively). Significant differences in various tissue concentrations were reported when comparing IAH and i.v. administration of oxaliplatin with IAH administration offering an advantage over i.v. administration. No differences in pharmacokinetic parameters or platinum tissue accumulation were apparent between the IAH and i.v. administration with cisplatin. We conclude that there is a significant pharmacokinetic advantage to using oxaliplatin for locoregional IAH chemotherapy compared with i.v. administration.