Tamoxifen and fenretinide in women with metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Tamoxifen and fenretinide combination therapy has been shown to be an active treatment regimen in metastatic breast cancer patients. This pilot study sought to determine whether the addition of fenretinide to tamoxifen would be associated with antitumor activity in metastatic breast cancer patients who had been previously treated with tamoxifen or who had hormone receptor negative disease. The effect of this therapy on circulating plasma transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta) levels and serum lipids was also examined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-one patients were treated with tamoxifen (20 mg p.o. daily), and fenretinide (400 mg p.o. daily with a 3-day drug holiday each month). Plasma TGF-beta testing was performed using isoform specific sandwich ELISA. RESULTS: Twenty four of the 31 patients were evaluable for an antitumor response including 14 estrogen receptor (ER) positive patients who had failed prior tamoxifen therapy, seven ER-negative patients, and three hormone therapy naive ER-positive patients. There were no objective antitumor responses; three patients had stable disease for 8, 8, and 24 months. Five patients (16%) discontinued therapy for toxicity (one for grade 3 skin rash and four for abnormal dark adaptation). There was a statistically significant decrease in total cholesterol (median change per patient of -13.5 mg/dl; p = 0.049, a 6.5% decrease), and an increase in HDL levels (median change per patient of +18 mg/dl, p = 0.0001, a 35% increase) with tamoxifen and fenretinide therapy. TGF-beta1 plasma levels were normal in 26 of 28 patients, and no changes in these levels post-treatment were demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS: Tamoxifen and fenretinide therapy is not an active combination in ER negative metastatic breast cancer or in patients whose disease has progressed on tamoxifen. This combination had a beneficial effect on total serum cholesterol and HDL levels with no associated rise in serum triglyceride levels. The 400 mg dose of fenretinide was associated with symptomatic nyctalopia in one-third of patients making it an unsuitable dose for use in breast cancer prevention studies.

A phase I study of topotecan followed sequentially by doxorubicin in patients with advanced malignancies.

Inhibitors of topoisomerase I and topoisomerase II have demonstrated synergy when administered sequentially in several tumor models while having a diminished antitumor effect when given concurrently. To explore the potential for clinical sequence-dependent synergy, we instituted a Phase I study of topotecan (a topoisomerase I inhibitor) followed by doxorubicin (a topoisomerase II inhibitor) in patients with advanced malignancies. Thirty-three patients with advanced malignancies or malignancies for whom no standard therapy exists were entered into the study. Topotecan was administered in escalating doses by 72-h continuous infusion on days 1, 2, and 3, followed by a bolus of doxorubicin given on day 5. To explore the hematological toxicity associated with this sequence, bone marrow aspirates were obtained both prior to the topotecan infusion and immediately prior to the doxorubicin in 10 patients to determine by fluorescence-activated cell sorting analysis whether CD34+ cell synchronization was occurring using this sequential schedule. Dose-limiting hematological toxicity occurred at the first dose-level in three of six patients. Therefore, we defined the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) below our starting dose-level. Further dose-escalation and a new MTD were defined with the addition of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF). The MTD was, therefore, topotecan 0.35 mg/m2/day continuous i.v. infusion on days 1, 2, and 3, followed by doxorubicin 45 mg/m2 on day 5 without G-CSF, whereas the MTD with G-CSF was topotecan 0.75 mg/m2/day by 72-h continuous i.v. infusion, followed by doxorubicin 45 mg/m2 i.v. bolus on day 5. Ten patients with paired bone marrow aspirates obtained before topotecan and before doxorubicin administrations were available for evaluation. In 7 of 10 patients, there was an increase (16.6 +/- 2.9% to 25.0 +/- 3.5%; P < 0.02) in the proportion of CD34+ cells in S-phase 24 h after the topotecan infusion and prior to doxorubicin compared to the pretreatment values, whereas 1 patient had a decrease in the proportion of CD34+ cells in S phase and 2 patients had no change. Topotecan and doxorubicin with this sequence and schedule can be given safely; the dose-limiting toxicity is hematological toxicity. Alterations in the fraction of hematopoietic progenitor CD34+ cells in S-phase may account for the increased granulocytopenia and thrombocytopenia observed at relatively low dose levels of the combination with and without G-CSF.

Phase I crossover study of paclitaxel with r-verapamil in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: We conducted a phase I crossover study of escalating doses of both paclitaxel (Taxol; Bristol-Myers, Squibb, Princeton, NJ) and r-verapamil, the less cardiotoxic stereoisomer, in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine patients refractory to paclitaxel by 3-hour infusion were treated orally with r-verapamil every 4 hours starting 24 hours before the same-dose 3-hour paclitaxel infusion and continuing for a total of 12 doses. Once the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination was determined, seven additional patients who had not been treated with either drug were evaluated to determine whether the addition of r-verapamil altered the pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel. Consenting patients had tumor biopsies for P-glycoprotein (Pgp) expression before receiving paclitaxel and after becoming refractory to paclitaxel therapy. RESULTS: The MTD of the combination was 225 mg/m2 of r-verapamil every 4 hours with paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 by 3-hour infusion. Dose-limiting hypotension and bradycardia were observed in three of five patients treated at 250 mg/m2 r-verapamil. Fourteen patients received 32 cycles of r-verapamil at the MTD as outpatient therapy without developing cardiac toxicity. The median peak and trough serum verapamil concentrations at the MTD were 5.1 micromol/L (range, 1.9 to 6.3), respectively, which are within the range necessary for in vitro modulation of Pgp-mediated multidrug resistance (MDR). Increased serum verapamil concentrations and cardiac toxicity were observed more frequently in patients with elevated hepatic transaminases and bilirubin levels. Hematologic toxicity from combined paclitaxel and r-verapamil was significantly worse compared with the previous cycle of paclitxel without r-verapamil. In the pharmacokinetic analysis, r-verapamil delayed mean paclitaxel clearance and increased mean peak paclitaxel concentrations. CONCLUSION: r-Verapamil at 225 mg/m2 orally every 4 hours can be given safely with paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 by 3-hour infusion as outpatient therapy and is associated with serum levels considered active for Pgp inhibition. The addition of r-verapamil significantly alters the toxicity and pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel.

Prospective, randomized trial of 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy in combination with the interleukin-3/granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) fusion protein (PIXY321) versus GM-CSF in patients with advanced breast cancer.

We conducted a prospective randomized trial to evaluate the ability of the interleukin-3/granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) fusion protein, PIXY321, to ameliorate cumulative thrombocytopenia after multiple cycles of 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide (FLAC) chemotherapy compared with GM-CSF in patients with advanced breast cancer. Fifty-three patients were randomized to receive either PIXY321. 375 microg/m2 twice a day subcutaneously, or GM-CSF, 250 microg/m2 daily subcutaneously after FLAC chemotherapy. PIXY321 was less well tolerated than GM-CSF, with more patients developing chills and local skin reactions and more patients stopping PIXY321 due to intolerance. While no difference in the neutrophil nadirs was seen with the two cytokines, the duration of the absolute neutrophil count less than 1,000/muL for all cycles was significantly longer with PIXY321 than with GM-CSF. Fifty percent of patients treated with multiple cycles of FLAC chemotherapy on both study arms developed dose-limiting thrombocytopenia. No differences in platelet nadirs, duration of thrombocytopenia, or need for platelet transfusions were observed with PIXY321 versus GM-CSF. The average delivered doses of FLAC chemotherapy were somewhat higher in the GM-CSF study arm. PIXY321 was not superior to GM-CSF in ameliorating the cumulative thrombocytopenia observed with multiple cycles of FLAC chemotherapy and was less well tolerated.

Phase I study of paclitaxel in combination with cyclophosphamide and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in metastatic breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: In vitro data suggest that prolonged exposure to paclitaxel enhances breast cancer cytotoxicity. Our objective in this phase I study was to determine the tolerability of paclitaxel administered by 72-hour continuous intravenous (i.v.) infusion (CIVI) in combination with high-dose cyclophosphamide and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in the ambulatory setting to metastatic breast cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Paclitaxel was administered over 72 hours by CIVI and cyclophosphamide was given daily by i.v. bolus on days 1, 2, and 3, followed by G-CSF every 21 days. The availability of ambulatory infusion pumps and paclitaxel-compatible tubing permitted outpatient administration. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients with metastatic breast cancer who had been previously treated with a median of two prior chemotherapy regimens were entered onto the study. Dose-limiting toxicity of grade 4 neutropenia for longer than 5 days and grade 4 thrombocytopenia occurred in three of five patients treated with paclitaxel 160 mg/m2 CIVI and cyclophosphamide 3,300 mg/m2 followed by G-CSF. The maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) was paclitaxel 160 mg/m2 CIVI and cyclophosphamide 2,700 mg/m2 in divided doses with G-CSF. Nonhematologic toxicities were moderate and included diarrhea, mucositis, and arthalgias. Although hemorrhagic cystitis developed in six patients, recurrence was prevented with i.v. and oral mesna, which permitted continued outpatient delivery. One hundred seventy-four cycles were safely administered in the ambulatory setting using infusional pumps and tubing. Objective responses occurred in 23 (one complete and 22 partial) of 42 patients with bidimensionally measurable disease (55%; 95% confidence interval, 38% to 70%), with a response rate of 73% (11 of 15) seen at the highest dose levels. CONCLUSION: Paclitaxel by 72-hour CIVI with daily cyclophosphamide followed by G-CSF can be administered safely in the ambulatory setting, has acceptable toxicity, and is an active regimen in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer.

A phase I study of sequential versus concurrent interleukin-3 and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in advanced breast cancer patients treated with FLAC (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy.

Cumulative thrombocytopenia is a dose-limiting toxicity of dose-intensive chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer. In this phase I study, we have studied the hematologic toxicity associated with sequential interleukin-3 (IL-3) and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF; molgramostim) administration after multiple cycles of FLAC (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy compared with that after concurrent cytokine administration or to each cytokine administered alone. Ninety-three patients with advanced breast cancer were treated with five cycles of FLAC chemotherapy and either IL-3 alone, GM-CSF alone, sequential IL-3 and GM-CSF administered by schedule A (5 days of IL-3 followed by 10 days of GM-CSF) or schedule B (9 days of IL-3 followed by 6 days of GM-CSF), or concurrent administration of IL-3 and GM-CSF for 15 days. Cohorts of patients were treated with one of four dose levels of IL-3 (1,2.5, 5, and 10 micrograms/kg) administered subcutaneously for each schedule of cytokine administration. The GM-CSF dose in all schedules was 5 micrograms/kg/day. Sequential IL-3 and GM-CSF (schedule B) was associated with higher platelet nadirs, shorter durations of platelet counts less than 50,000/microL, and the need for fewer platelet transfusions over five cycles of FLAC chemotherapy compared with concurrent cytokines, sequential IL-3 and GM-CSF schedule A, and GM-CSF alone. Concurrent IL-3 and GM-CSF was associated with unexpected platelet toxicity. The duration of granulocytopenia after FLAC chemotherapy was significantly worse with IL-3 alone compared with each of the GM-CSF-containing cytokine regimens. Although no cycle 1 maximum tolerated dose for IL-3 was defined in this study, 5 micrograms/kg was well tolerated over multiple cycles of therapy and is recommended for future studies. The data from this phase I study suggest that sequential IL-3 and GM-CSF with IL-3 administered for 9 days before beginning GM-CSF may be superior to shorter durations of IL-3 administered sequentially with GM-CSF, to concurrent IL-3 and GM-CSF, and to either colony-stimulating factor alone in ameliorating the cumulative hematologic toxicity associated with multiple cycles of FLAC chemotherapy. Additional studies of sequential IL-3 and GM-CSF are warranted.