Single-agent erlotinib versus oral etoposide in patients with recurrent or refractory pediatric ependymoma: a randomized open-label study.

Overexpression of human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER/EGFR) is associated with various tumors, including ependymomas. To investigate whether EGFR inhibition was of benefit in pediatric patients with recurrent ependymoma, a multi-center, randomized, open-label, phase 2 study of oral erlotinib versus oral etoposide was undertaken. Twenty-five patients were randomized to receive erlotinib 85 mg/m(2) daily or etoposide 50 mg/m(2)/day for 21 consecutive days followed by a 7-day rest period. Courses were repeated every 28 days. In the erlotinib arm, no patient achieved a complete, partial, or minor response, and only 2 (15.4 %) patients showed stable disease as their best response. In the etoposide arm, 2 patients (16.7 %) demonstrated partial responses, 1 (8.3 %) patient demonstrated a minor response, and 2 (16.7 %) showed prolonged stable disease, for a prolonged disease control rate of 41.7 %. Three patients received at least nine cycles of etoposide (range 9-24 cycles) before discontinuing at the request of the physician and/or family. Four patients who failed etoposide in this study received erlotinib in a companion single arm study; none had a response. The futility criteria were met at the second interim analysis, and both studies were discontinued. Pharmacokinetics of erlotinib were similar to previous observations in pediatric patients. Overall, erlotinib was well tolerated and safety was consistent with its established profile in adults. The overall risk-benefit profile does not support the use of erlotinib in pediatric patients with recurrent ependymoma, whereas single-agent etoposide appears to have efficacy in a subset of patients.

A phase 1b study of erlotinib in combination with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in patients with previously untreated advanced pancreatic cancer: an Academic Oncology GI Cancer Consortium study.

PURPOSE: Addition of either nab-paclitaxel or erlotinib to gemcitabine to treat advanced pancreatic cancer has demonstrated overall survival benefit. This study was conducted to evaluate the tolerability and safety of combining all three drugs and assess preliminary evidence of efficacy. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 1b study, patients with previously untreated, advanced pancreatic cancer were treated in 28-day cycles with intravenous gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel on days 1, 8, and 15, and once daily oral erlotinib. A standard "3 + 3" design was used. Dose level 1 (DL1) for gemcitabine (mg/m(2))/nab-paclitaxel (mg/m(2))/erlotinib (mg) was 1000/125/100, respectively, with de-escalation to DL-1 (1000/100/100), DL-2b (1000/75/100), and DL-3 (1000/75/75). The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was defined by occurrence of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in ≤1 of six patients within the first cycle. Efficacy was assessed with CT scans performed at two-cycle intervals. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were enrolled. DLTs occurred in two patients at DL1, three patients at DL-1, two patients at DL-2b, and one patient at DL-3. The MTD for the combination of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel/erlotinib was DL-3 (1000/75/75). In analyses of efficacy among 14 evaluable patients, partial responses were observed in four of six patients at DL1, one of two patients at DL-2b, and two of six patients at DL-3. CONCLUSION: The addition of erlotinib to gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel is not tolerable at standard single-agent dosing of all drugs. However, significant clinical activity was noted, even at DL-3. Further study of the combination will need to incorporate reduced dosing.

Adjuvant Erlotinib Versus Placebo in Patients With Stage IB-IIIA Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (RADIANT): A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) -tyrosine kinase inhibitors have proven efficacy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We hypothesized that erlotinib would be efficacious in the adjuvant setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An international randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in patients with completely resected IB to IIIA NSCLC whose tumors expressed EGFR protein by immunohistochemistry or EGFR amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Patients were assigned 2:1 to erlotinib 150 mg once per day or placebo for 2 years. Stratification factors were stage, histology, previous adjuvant chemotherapy, smoking status, EGFR amplification status, and country. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS); key secondary end points were overall survival (OS) and DFS and OS in patients whose tumors had EGFR-activating mutations (EGFRm-positive). RESULTS: A total of 973 patients were randomly assigned (November 26, 2007, to July 7, 2010). There was no statistically significant difference in DFS (median, 50.5 months for erlotinib and 48.2 months for placebo; hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.10; P = .324). Among the 161 patients (16.5%) in the EGFRm-positive subgroup, DFS favored erlotinib (median, 46.4 v 28.5 months; hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.98; P = .039), but this was not statistically significant because of the hierarchical testing procedure. OS data are immature. Rash and diarrhea were common adverse events occurring in 528 (86.4%) and 319 (52.2%) patients treated with erlotinib, respectively, versus 110 (32.1%) and 54 (15.7%) patients receiving placebo. The most common grade 3 adverse events in patients treated with erlotinib were rash (22.3%) and diarrhea (6.2%). CONCLUSION: Adjuvant erlotinib did not prolong DFS in patients with EGFR-expressing NSCLC or in the EGFRm-positive subgroup. Further evaluation of erlotinib is warranted in the EGFRm-positive subgroup.

Phase I, pharmacokinetic and biological correlative study of OSI-7904L, a novel liposomal thymidylate synthase inhibitor, and cisplatin in patients with solid tumors.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and describe the pharmacokinetic profile of OSI-7904L, a novel liposomal thymidylate synthase inhibitor, in combination with cisplatin (CDDP) in adults with advanced solid tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: CDDP was administered as a 2-h intravenous infusion followed by OSI-7904L intravenously over 30 min, both given every 3 weeks. Doses of each drug were escalated in separate cohorts of patients. Five dose levels of CDDP/OSI-7904L were explored: 60/6, 60/9, 60/12, 60/7.5, and 75/7.5 mg/m2. Pharmacokinetic samples, baseline plasma homocysteine, and genotype polymorphisms were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were treated with 101 total courses of CDDP/OSI-7904L. Dose-limiting toxicity was observed in 2 patients in the CDDP/OSI-7904L 60/12 mg/m2 cohort. One patient experienced rash, stomatitis, dehydration, renal failure, hyperbilirubinemia, and fatal neutropenic sepsis, whereas the other patient experienced grade 3 nausea, vomiting, and ileus. Therefore, the CDDP/OSI-7904L 60/9 mg/m2 cohort was expanded, with 2 of 6 patients reporting significant fatigue. Other toxicities were mild or moderate. Intermediate dose levels of 60/7.5 and 75/7.5 mg/m2 were evaluated, and the latter was identified as the recommended dose for phase II studies. No major pharmacokinetic interactions between CDDP and OSI-7904L were observed. Three patients had partial responses (gastric adenocarcinoma and heavily pretreated breast cancer). There was no significant relationship between baseline homocysteine and toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended doses for CDDP and OSI-7904L administered once every 3 weeks are 75 and 7.5 mg/m2, respectively. Pharmacokinetic interaction between the agents was not apparent. Preliminary clinical activity was observed in breast and gastric cancer.