A phase I study of the VEGFR kinase inhibitor vatalanib in combination with the mTOR inhibitor, everolimus, in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Purpose Combining small-molecule inhibitors of different targets was shown to be synergistic in preclinical studies. Testing this concept in clinical trials is, however, daunting due to challenges in toxicity management and efficacy assessment. This study attempted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of vatalanib plus everolimus in patients with advanced solid tumors and explore the utility of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) studies as a predictive biomarker. Patients and Methods This single-center, phase I trial containing 70 evaluable patients consisted of a dose escalation proportion based on the traditional "3 + 3" design (cohort IA and IB) and a dose expansion proportion (cohort IIA and IIB). Toxicity was evaluated using the Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events. Antitumor activity was assessed using the Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Results The maximum tolerated doses were determined to be vatalanib 1250 mg once daily or 750 mg twice daily in combination with everolimus 10 mg once daily. No treatment-related death occurred. The most common toxicities were hypertriglyceridemia, hypercholesterolemia, fatigue, vomiting, nausea and diarrhea. There was no complete response. Nine patients (12.9%) had partial response (PR) and 41 (58.6%) had stable disease (SD). Significant antitumor activity was observed in neuroendocrine tumors with a disease-control rate (PR + SD) of 66.7% and other tumor types including renal cancer, melanoma, and non-small-cell lung cancer. Conclusions The combination of vatalanib and everolimus demonstrated reasonable toxicity and clinical activity. Future studies combining targeted therapies and incorporating biomarker analysis are warranted based on this phase I trial.

Phase I pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of the oral, small-molecule mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase 1/2 inhibitor AZD6244 (ARRY-142886) in patients with advanced cancers.

PURPOSE: To assess the tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PKs), and pharmacodynamics (PDs) of the mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) 1/2 inhibitor AZD6244 (ARRY-142886) in patients with advanced cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In part A, patients received escalating doses to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD). In both parts, blood samples were collected to assess PK and PD parameters. In part B, patients were stratified by cancer type (melanoma v other) and randomly assigned to receive the MTD or 50% MTD. Biopsies were collected to determine inhibition of ERK phosphorylation, Ki-67 expression, and BRAF, KRAS, and NRAS mutations. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients were enrolled. MTD in part A was 200 mg bid, but this dose was discontinued in part B because of toxicity. The 50% MTD (100 mg bid) was well tolerated. Rash was the most frequent and dose-limiting toxicity. Most other adverse events were grade 1 or 2. The PKs were less than dose proportional, with a median half-life of approximately 8 hours and inhibition of ERK phosphorylation in peripheral-blood mononuclear cells at all dose levels. Paired tumor biopsies demonstrated reduced ERK phosphorylation (geometric mean, 79%). Five of 20 patients demonstrated >or= 50% inhibition of Ki-67 expression, and RAF or RAS mutations were detected in 10 of 26 assessable tumor samples. Nine patients had stable disease (SD) for >or= 5 months, including two patients with SD for 19 (thyroid cancer) and 22 (uveal melanoma plus renal cancer) 28-day cycles. CONCLUSION: AZD6244 was well tolerated with target inhibition demonstrated at the recommended phase II dose. PK analyses supported twice-daily dosing. Prolonged SD was seen in a variety of advanced cancers. Phase II studies are ongoing.

Phase I trial of sorafenib in combination with gefitinib in patients with refractory or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the combination of sorafenib and gefitinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In this dose-escalation trial, patients received oral sorafenib (200-400 mg) twice daily with gefitinib (250 mg orally) once daily to identify the recommended dose for phase II trials (RDP; part A). The pharmacokinetics of the RDP were characterized further in additional patients (part B) receiving single-agent gefitinib or sorafenib for 21 days followed by a 7-day washout with crossover to the other agent for an additional 21 days. Patients then received the combination of sorafenib plus gefitinib in 28-day cycles. Safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor efficacy were evaluated. Potential drug-drug interactions and the relationship between pharmacokinetics and toxicity were also assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were treated (n=12, part A; n=19, part B). Most adverse events were grade 1/2. The most frequent grade 3/4 events included diarrhea and elevated alanine aminotransferase (both 9.7%). One dose-limiting toxicity occurred (part A: elevated alanine aminotransferase at 400 mg twice daily). Gefitinib had no effect on sorafenib pharmacokinetics. However, gefitinib C(max) (26%) and area under the curve (38%) were reduced by concomitant sorafenib. One patient had a partial response; 20 (65%; n=8, part A; n=12, part B) had stable disease >or=4 months. The RDP was sorafenib 400 mg twice daily with gefitinib 250 mg once daily. CONCLUSIONS: Sorafenib combined with gefitinib is well tolerated, with promising efficacy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Studies to further investigate the significance of the reduction in gefitinib exposure by sorafenib are warranted.

A phase I and pharmacologic study of sequences of the proteasome inhibitor, bortezomib (PS-341, Velcade), in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in patients with advanced malignancies.

PURPOSE: Bortezomib, a selective inhibitor of the 20S proteasome with activity in a variety of cancers, exhibits sequence-dependent synergistic cytotoxicity with taxanes and platinum agents. Two different treatment schedules of bortezomib in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin were tested in this phase I study to evaluate the effects of scheduling on toxicities, pharmacodynamics and clinical activity. METHODS: Patients with advanced malignancies were alternately assigned to receive (schedule A) paclitaxel and carboplatin (IV d1) followed by bortezomib (IV d2, d5, d8) or (schedule B) bortezomib (IV d1, d4, d8) followed by paclitaxel and carboplatin (IV d2) on a 21-day cycle. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients (A 25, B 28) were treated with a median of 3 cycles (range 1-8) for schedule A and 3.5 cycles (range 1-10) for schedule B. Grade 3 or higher treatment related hematologic adverse events in all cycles of treatment included neutropenia (A 52%, B 50%), anemia (A 12%, B 7.1%) and thrombocytopenia (A 16%, B 17.9%). Non-hematologic treatment related adverse events were fairly mild (primarily grades 1 and 2). The maximum tolerated dose and the recommended doses for future phase II trials are bortezomib 1.2 mg/m2, paclitaxel 135 mg/m2 and carboplatin AUC = 6 for schedule A and bortezomib 1.2 mg/m2, paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 and carboplatin AUC = 6 for schedule B. Six (21.4%) partial responses (PR) were seen with schedule B. In contrast, only 1 (4%) PR was achieved with schedule A. Similar proteasome inhibition was achieved at MTD for both schedules. CONCLUSION: Administration of sequential bortezomib followed by chemotherapy (schedule B) was well tolerated and associated with an encouraging number of objective responses in this small group of patients. Further studies with this administration schedule are warranted.

A phase I trial of celecoxib in combination with docetaxel and irinotecan in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: This phase I study was conducted to determine the safety, tolerability and maximum tolerated dose of the combination of celecoxib, a selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, with docetaxel and irinotecan, in patients with advanced solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with solid tumors received one of three escalating dose levels of daily celecoxib in combination with docetaxel and irinotecan administered on days 1 and 8 of an every 21-day cycle. Toxicities were graded by the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI CTC) and recorded as maximum grade per patient for each treatment cycle. RESULTS: A total of 19 patients received 90 cycles of treatment through three dose levels. Dose-limiting toxicities were nausea and diarrhea. The most common treatment-related toxicities in all cycles of treatment were alopecia, fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, anemia, anorexia, and edema.. The maximum tolerated dose was established at celecoxib 400 mg twice a day continuously, weekly docetaxel 30 mg/m2 and irinotecan 50 mg/m2 for 2 weeks every 21 days. Disease stabilization (five or more cycles) was documented in eight patients. CONCLUSION: The combination of celecoxib with docetaxel and irinotecan did not ameliorate irinotecan-induced diarrhea. Although prolonged disease stabilization was achieved in some patients, we do not recommend combining celecoxib with docetaxel and irinotecan because of lack of activity and the side effect profile of this combination.

A phase I and pharmacologic trial of two schedules of the proteasome inhibitor, PS-341 (bortezomib, velcade), in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: To define the toxicities, pharmacodynamics, and clinical activity of the proteasome inhibitor, PS-341 (bortezomib), in patients with advanced malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight patients (14 male and 14 female) received PS-341 twice weekly for 4 of 6 weeks (schedule I). Because toxicity necessitated dose omissions on this schedule, 16 additional patients (12 male and 4 female) received PS-341 twice weekly for 2 of every 3 weeks (schedule II). A total of 73 courses of treatment was given (median, 2; range, 1-4). Inhibition of 20S proteasome activity in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and accumulation of proteasome-targeted polypeptides in tumor tissue were evaluated as pharmacodynamic markers of PS-341 activity. RESULTS: The most common toxicity was thrombocytopenia, which was dose limiting at 1.7 mg/m2 (schedule I) and 1.6 mg/m2 (schedule II), respectively. Sensory neuropathy was dose-limiting in a patient in schedule I. Grade > or =3 toxicities for schedule I were constipation, fatigue, myalgia, and sensory neuropathy. Grade > or =3 toxicities for schedule II were dehydration resulting from diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, fatigue, hypoglycemia, and hypotension. The maximum tolerated dose was 1.5 mg/m2 for both schedules. Reversible dose-dependent decreases in 20S proteasome activity in PBMCs were observed, with 36% inhibition at 0.5 mg/m2, 52% at 0.9 mg/m2, and 75% at 1.25 mg/m2. Accumulation of proteasome-targeted polypeptides was detected in tumor samples after treatment with PS-341. A patient with multiple myeloma had a partial response. CONCLUSION: PS-341 given 1.5 mg/m2 twice weekly for 2 of every 3 weeks is well tolerated and should be further studied.

A phase IB study of the pharmacokinetics of gemcitabine and pemetrexed, when administered in rapid sequence to patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: We have previously demonstrated that pemetrexed is clinically active when administered 90 min after gemcitabine in a phase I study. The present study was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy, toxicity, and pharmacokinetics of gemcitabine and pemetrexed when pemetrexed is administered immediately after gemcitabine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 14 patients received 84 cycles of treatment. Gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) was administered on days 1 and 8 of each 21-day cycle, and pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 8 immediately following gemcitabine administration. Toxicities were graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria and recorded as maximum grade per patient for all treatment cycles. Pharmacokinetic analyses of plasma gemcitabine and pemetrexed concentrations were performed. RESULTS: Neutropenia was the most common severe toxicity. Non-hematologic toxicities, which included nausea, vomiting, fatigue, diarrhea, rash, and elevated transaminases were of mild-to-moderate severity. No increased toxicity was observed with this schedule in comparison to the previous phase I schedule. There was no pharmacokinetic interaction between the two drugs. One partial response was documented in a patient with non-small-cell lung cancer. Eight patients had disease stabilization for five or more cycles. CONCLUSION: Gemcitabine immediately followed by pemetrexed is well tolerated and clinically active, and deserves further evaluation in phase II trials.

A phase I trial of the novel farnesyl protein transferase inhibitor, BMS-214662, in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: This phase I study was conducted to determine the toxicities, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of BMS-214662, a farnesyl transferase inhibitor, in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin, in patients with advanced solid tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with solid tumors received one of six escalating dose levels of BMS-214662 infused over 1 hour given following paclitaxel and carboplatin on the first day of a 21-day cycle. Toxicities were graded by the National Cancer Institute common toxicity criteria and recorded as maximum grade per patient for each treatment cycle. Inhibition of farnesyl transferase activity in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) was evaluated. Accumulation of unfarnesylated HDJ-2 in PBMCs of patients was evaluated as a marker of farnesyl transferase inhibition by BMS-214662. RESULTS: Thirty patients received 141 cycles of treatment through six dose levels. Dose-limiting toxicities were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea, and vomiting. There was no pharmacokinetic interaction between BMS-214662 and paclitaxel. The maximum tolerated dose was established as BMS-214662 (160 mg/m(2)), paclitaxel (225 mg/m(2)) and carboplatin (area under the curve = 6 on day 1), every 21 days. Inhibition of HDJ-2 farnesylation in PBMCs of patients was shown. One measurable partial response was observed in a patient with taxane-resistant esophageal cancer. There was partial regression of evaluable disease in two other patients (endometrial and ovarian cancer). Stable disease (> 4 cycles) occurred in eight other patients. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of BMS-214662 with paclitaxel and carboplatin was well tolerated, with broad activity in solid tumors. There was no correlation between dose level and accumulation of unfarnesylated HDJ-2 in PBMCs nor tumor response.

Complementary and alternative medicine use by patients enrolled onto phase I clinical trials.

PURPOSE: To describe the prevalence, clinical characteristics, and pattern of use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in patients enrolled onto phase I trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Questionnaires were administered to 108 patients with advanced malignancies enrolled onto phase I chemotherapy trials at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center (Rochester, MN). CAM was classified into two modalities, pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic. Clinical and demographic data, including age, sex, and prior cancer treatment, were subsequently obtained from patient charts and examined for any correlation with CAM use, using chi2 analysis. RESULTS: One hundred two survey forms were returned. Among respondents, 88.2% (90 of 102) had used at least one CAM modality; 93.3% (84 of 90) and 53.3% (48 of 90) had used pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic CAM, respectively; and 46.7% (42 of 90) used both modalities. Vitamin and mineral preparations constituted 89.3% (75 of 84) of all pharmacologic CAM used. Intake was highest for vitamins E (48.8% [41 of 84]) and C (38.1% [32 of 84]), and 71.4% (60 of 84) of respondents took nonvitamin/mineral agents. Green tea (29.8% [25 of 84]), echinacea (13.1% [11 of 84]), and essiac (9.5% [8 of 84]) were the most popular. Prayer and spiritual practices were the most commonly used nonpharmacologic CAM, accounting for 52.1% (25 of 48). Chiropractors, the most frequently visited nontraditional medicine practitioners, were consulted by only 10% (9 of 90) of those who practiced CAM. Both CAM modalities were used more frequently by women (53.5% [23 of 43]) than men (40.4% [19 of 47]). CONCLUSION: CAM use is common among patients in phase I trials and should be ascertained by investigators, because some of the agents used may interact with investigational agents and affect adverse effects and/or efficacy.

A Phase I trial of the farnesyl protein transferase inhibitor R115777 in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: This Phase I study was undertaken to define the toxicity, pharmacodynamics, and maximum tolerated dose of the combination of R115777, a farnesyl transferase inhibitor, with gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with advanced solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with solid tumors received a median of 2.5 cycles (range 1-30+) through five dose levels. R115777 was administered p.o. twice daily for 14 days. Gemcitabine was infused 15 min after the ingestion of R115777 on days 1 and 8. Cisplatin was administered starting 30 min after completion of the gemcitabine infusion on day 1. Cycles were repeated every 21 days. Toxicities were graded by the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria and recorded as maximum grade per patient for each treatment cycle. At the maximum tolerated dose, accumulation of prelamin A in buccal mucosa cells of patients was evaluated as a marker of farnesyl transferase inhibition by R115777. RESULTS: Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were the most common toxicities. Dose-limiting toxicity in cycle 1 was myelosuppression with thrombocytopenia alone (4 patients), neutropenia alone (1 patient), or a combination of both (3 patients). Common nonhematologic toxicities were anorexia, rash, nausea, vomiting, and fatigue, none of which was dose limiting in the first cycle. At the maximum tolerated dose, defined as R115777 300 mg twice daily p.o., 1000 mg/m(2) gemcitabine, and 75 mg/m(2) cisplatin, inhibition of prelamin A farnesylation in buccal mucosa cells of patients was demonstrated, confirming that R115777 inhibits protein farnesylation in vivo. Nine objective responses (one complete response and eight partial responses) were documented in 27 evaluable patients. CONCLUSION: The combination of R115777 with gemcitabine and cisplatin was well tolerated and showed evidence of antitumor activity. The maximum tolerated dose of R115777 successfully inhibits farnesyltransferase in patients in vivo. This combination warrants further evaluation in a number of tumor types.

Phase II study of the farnesyl transferase inhibitor R115777 in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: This phase II study was undertaken to define the efficacy and pharmacodynamics of R115777, a farnesyl transferase inhibitor, in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-four patients with measurable stage IIIB (pleural effusion) or stage IV disease received 193 courses of treatment (median, 2.0; range, 1 to 22) with R115777 300 mg administered orally twice daily for 21 of every 28 days. Buccal mucosa samples and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were collected before and after 8 days of treatment to evaluate inhibition of farnesyl transferase in vivo. RESULTS: No objective complete or partial responses were documented. Seven patients (16%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8% to 31%) had disease stabilization for greater than 6 months. Median survival was 7.7 months (95% CI, 6.5 to 10.5) and time to progression was 2.7 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 3.1). The most severe toxicity was neutropenia (9% grade 3, 7% grade 4) and the most common toxicities were anemia (50% grade 1 or 2, 5% grade 3) and anorexia (50% grade 1 or 2, 2% grade 3). Mild peripheral neuropathy occurred in 25% of patients. Evidence of farnesyl transferase inhibition was documented in 83% of patients. CONCLUSION: Single-agent R115777 was well tolerated in patients with advanced NSCLC, but demonstrated minimal clinical activity. Inhibition of farnesylation in vivo was consistently documented. On the basis of promising results of farnesyl transferase inhibitor combinations with standard chemotherapy agents, future studies of this agent in NSCLC should be in combination with systemic chemotherapy.

A phase I trial of ISIS 2503, an antisense inhibitor of H-ras, in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to define the toxicity, pharmacokinetics, and clinical activity of the combination of ISIS 2503, an oligodeoxynucleotide antisense inhibitor of H-ras, and gemcitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The target dose of ISIS 2503 on this study was 6 mg/kg/day. Twenty-seven patients (16 male, 11 female) received 97 treatment courses (median, 2; range, 1-13). Nineteen patients were treated with a fixed gemcitabine dose of 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 and two escalating doses of ISIS 2503 (4 and 6 mg/kg/day) as a 14-day continuous infusion starting on day 1. In addition, 8 patients (5 male, 3 female) received a flat dose of ISIS 2503 based on ideal body weight. Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks. Toxicities, graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, were recorded as maximum grade/patient for all treatment cycles. Pharmacokinetic analyses were performed to evaluate any interaction between these two agents. RESULTS: The most common nondose-limiting toxicity was hematological, manifested as neutropenia (5 grade 2, 7 grade 3, and 1 grade 4) and thrombocytopenia (10 grade 1, 5 grade 2, 5 grade 3, and 1 grade 4). Nonhematological toxicities included anorexia (7 grade 1, 3 grade 2, and 1 grade 3), nausea (10 grade 1 and 1 grade 3), fatigue (6 grade 1, 5 grade 2, and 3 grade 3), fever (6 grade 1, 2 grade 2, 1 and grade 3), and thrombosis associated with central lines (5). The plasma concentration of gemcitabine at the end of infusion was altered in the presence of ISIS 2503, leading to alterations on other pharmacokinetic parameters, but the observed differences were not clinically relevant. The plasma disposition of ISIS 2503 was not altered by gemcitabine coadministration. One partial response was documented in a heavily pretreated patient with metastatic breast cancer. Disease stabilization for greater than six cycles of treatment was observed in 5 patients. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of gemcitabine and ISIS 2503 was well tolerated and clinically active in this group of heavily pretreated patients. The recommended Phase II dose of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2)) and ISIS 2503 (6 mg/kg/day) warrants additional evaluation.

A phase I and pharmacologic study of pyrazoloacridine (NSC 366140) and carboplatin in patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pyrazoloacridine (PZA) is the first of a new class of rationally synthesized acridine derivatives to undergo clinical testing as an anticancer agent. We previously demonstrated cytotoxic synergy between combinations of PZA and platinum compounds. Subsequent studies revealed that PZA inhibits removal of platinum-DNA adducts in cultured A549 cells. Based on these results, we undertook a phase I study of the combination of PZA and carboplatin (CBDCA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight patients received 76 28-day courses (median 2.5, range 1-6) of CBDCA (30-minute infusion) followed by PZA (3-hour infusion), through six dose levels [PZA/CBDCA] (200/AUC 3, 400/AUC 3, 400/AUC 4, 400/AUC 5, 500/AUC 5, 600/AUC 5 mg/m2/AUC). Pharmacokinetic analyses were performed to evaluate the disposition of PZA. Retention of platinum-DNA adducts in peripheral blood mononuclear cells of patients was also evaluated. RESULTS: The most common and dose-limiting toxicity was myelosuppression, consisting of neutropenia and leukopenia. Non-hematologic toxicities of anorexia, nausea and stomatitis were mild to moderate. In six patients evaluated at the MTD, CBDCA did not appear to affect the pharmacokinetics of PZA. One patient with malignant melanoma had a partial response. Disease stabilization for greater than 4 courses of treatment occurred in 4 patients. CONCLUSION: The combination of PZA and CBDCA was well tolerated and may have utility in some tumor types.

Comparative pharmacokinetic study of continuous venous infusion fluorouracil and oral fluorouracil with eniluracil in patients with advanced solid tumors.

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 alpha-fluoro-beta-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 > or = 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 x h/mL, respectively) were three-fold greater than those for oral 5-FU (38.1 +/- 7.7 ng/mL and 722 +/- 182 ng x 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.