A phase I/II study of the Src inhibitor saracatinib (AZD0530) in combination with gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer.

AIM: This phase I/II study of saracatinib in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer was conducted by the NCIC Clinical Trials Group. The aims were to define the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of saracatinib when combined with gemcitabine, and assess the efficacy of this combination in advanced pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligibility criteria included locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma and no prior chemotherapy. In phase I saracatinib was escalated in combination with gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2)) to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). The study was then expanded to a single arm phase II trial using a Simon 2-stage design. The primary endpoint was objective tumor response (OR) plus stable disease ≥ 4 months (SD4) rate; if ≥ 8 patients had OR+SD4, the study would proceed to stage 2. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were enrolled into the phase I portion of this study. Saracatinib 175 mg PO daily was chosen as the RP2D in combination with gemcitabine. Twenty-one additional patients were then enrolled at the RP2D (phase II). Of the 22 response evaluable patients treated at the RP2D, 9 patients (40.9%) had progressive disease, 6 patients (27.3%) had stable disease for less than 4 months, 5 patients (22.7%) had SD4, and 2 patients (9.1%) had a partial response to treatment. Objective criteria for continuing to stage 2 were thus not met and the trial was closed following the accrual of 34 patients. CONCLUSION: Saracatinib 175 mg daily in combination with gemcitabine is well tolerated but the combination did not improve efficacy over what would be expected from gemcitabine alone.

A phase I study of temozolomide and everolimus (RAD001) in patients with newly diagnosed and progressive glioblastoma either receiving or not receiving enzyme-inducing anticonvulsants: an NCIC CTG study.

PURPOSE: This phase I trial was designed to determine the recommended phase II dose(s) of everolimus (RAD001) with temozolomide (TMZ) in patients with glioblastoma (GBM). Patients receiving enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs (EIAEDs) and those not receiving EIAEDs (NEIAEDs) were studied separately. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Enrollment was restricted to patients with proven GBM, either newly diagnosed or at first progression. Temozolomide was administered at a starting dose of 150 mg/m(2)/day for 5 days every 28 days, and everolimus was administered continuously at a starting dose of 2.5 mg orally on a daily schedule starting on day 2 of cycle 1 in 28-day cycles. RESULTS: Thirteen patients receiving EIAEDs and 19 not receiving EIAEDs were enrolled and received 83 and 116 cycles respectively. Everolimus 10 mg daily plus TMZ 150 mg/m(2)/day for 5 days was declared the recommended phase II dose for the NEIAEDs cohort. In the EIAEDs group, doses were well tolerated without DLTs, and pharmacokinetic parameters indicated decreased everolimus exposure. Temozolomide pharmacokinetic parameters were unaffected by EIAEDs or everolimus. In the subset of 28 patients with measurable disease, 3 had partial responses (all NEIAEDs) and 16 had stable disease. CONCLUSION: A dosage of 10 mg everolimus daily with TMZ 150 mg/m(2)/day for five consecutive days every 28 days in patients is the recommended dose for this regimen. Everolimus clearance is increased by EIAEDs, and patients receiving EIAEDs should be switched to NEIAEDs before starting this regimen.

A randomized phase I clinical and biologic study of two schedules of sorafenib in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia: a NCIC (National Cancer Institute of Canada) Clinical Trials Group Study.

Sorafenib is a small molecule inhibitor of RAF kinase, VEGFR-2, c-KIT, and FLT3. In this randomized phase I study, eligible patients had relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and one prior induction regimen, or were age >65 with untreated myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) or secondary AML. Sorafenib was given orally for 28 days (cont) or 14 days (int) every 4 weeks at three dose levels (100, 200, and 400 mg BID); 300 mg cont was also tested. Forty-two patients were enrolled (median age 71 [37-82]; prior chemotherapy: 22). Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was: 100 mg BID: 0/7 patients; 200 mg BID: 2/12 patients; 400 mg BID: 1/17 patients. Sorafenib 400 mg cont was not tolerated in this population: 6/8 received <14 days of treatment due to toxicity; no DLT was seen with 300 mg cont. One CR was seen in a patient with AML with FLT3-ITD. Flow cytometry studies suggest that sorafenib inhibits ERK phosphorylation via c-KIT. The recommended phase II dose in AML is 300 mg BID continuously, and testing in combination and in FLT3-ITD AML is warranted.

A phase I/II trial of GW572016 (lapatinib) in recurrent glioblastoma multiforme: clinical outcomes, pharmacokinetics and molecular correlation.

PURPOSE: We undertook a phase I/II study of the EGFR/erbB2 inhibitor lapatinib in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) to determine response rate, pharmacokinetics (PK) and recommended dose in patients taking enzyme-inducing anti-epileptic drugs (EIAEDs) and to explore relationships of molecular genetics to outcome. METHODS: Recurrent GBM patients taking EIAEDs were enrolled on the phase I portion (starting dose of lapatinib 1,000 mg po bid). In the absence of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), escalation continued in cohorts of three patients. Patients not on EIAEDs enrolled in the phase II arm (lapatinib 750 mg bid po). Immunohistochemical and quantitative RT PCR studies were performed on tumor to determine PTEN and EGFRvIII status, respectively. Lapatinib PK was analyzed using HPLC with tandem mass spectrometry. RESULTS: Phase II: Of 17 patients, 4 had stable disease and 13 progressed. Accrual ceased because of no responses. Phase I: Four patients received 1,000 mg bid and three, 1,500 mg bid. No DLT occurred, but escalation stopped because of lack of phase II efficacy. Lapatinib apparent oral clearance in patients taking EIAEDs was 106.9 L h(-1) m(-2) in comparison to 12.1 L h(-1) m(-2) in those not on EIAEDs. In 16 phase II patients, PTEN loss was seen in 6 and EGFRvIII expression in 4. No correlation was seen with outcome and molecular results. CONCLUSIONS: Lapatinib apparent oral clearance increased by approximately tenfold when given with EIAEDs. In this small sample, EGFRvIII expression and PTEN loss did not predict a favorable subtype. Overall, lapatinib did not show significant activity in GBM patients.

Randomized phase II study comparing two schedules of everolimus in patients with recurrent/metastatic breast cancer: NCIC Clinical Trials Group IND.163.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral everolimus, a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor, in two different schedules in minimally pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer and to explore for possible biologic correlates of response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who received no or one prior chemotherapy regimen for metastatic breast cancer were entered onto this multicenter, noncomparative, randomized phase II study of everolimus 10 mg daily versus 70 mg weekly; the multinomial end points of response and progression were evaluated at 8 weeks. A two-stage accrual design was used, with 15 evaluable patients in each schedule in stage 1. Only daily therapy met criteria for continuing, and another 15 patients were added. pAKT, PTEN, carbonic anhydrase 9, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) were evaluated for possible correlation with response. RESULTS: The most common drug-related toxicities were fatigue, rash, anorexia, diarrhea, stomatitis, cough, and pneumonitis. Pneumonitis occurred at higher than expected rates and seemed to be schedule dependent, with the highest incidence on the daily schedule. Response rate with daily therapy was 12% (95% CI, 3.4% to 28.2%) compared with 0% (95% CI, 0.0% to 20.6%) for weekly therapy. Twenty-seven percent of patients on daily therapy discontinued treatment compared with 13% on weekly therapy (16% v 6% with pneumonitis, respectively). No biologic correlates of response could be identified, although there were trends favoring benefit in ER-positive and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Oral everolimus has activity in metastatic breast cancer that is schedule dependent. Daily therapy with 10 mg is worthy of further study in this patient population.

Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of Bay 38-3441, a camptothecin glycoconjugate, administered as a 30-minute infusion daily for five days every 3 weeks in patients with advanced solid malignancies.

Bay 38-3441 is a camptothecin glycoconjugate which stabilizes the active lactone form of camptothecin and allows selective uptake into tumor cells. We conducted a phase I study of Bay 38-3441 administered as a 30-minute infusion daily for five consecutive days every 21 days. Thirty-one patients were enrolled at 8 dose levels. Most common nonhematologic side effects were diarrhea (29%), vomiting (19%), nausea (19%), lethargy (13%), and abdominal pain (10%). The main hematologic toxicity was prolonged neutropenia. Nine patients had a best response of stable disease with a median duration of 2.7 months (range: 2.3-20.6 months). The study was closed without reaching the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) due to excessive toxicity in a companion trial resulting in termination of development of this agent. Bay 38-3441 was well tolerated in this study with granulocytopenia as the main hematologic toxicity. This study showed that glycoconjugation is a feasible delivery technique for camptothecin.

Randomized trial of two intravenous schedules of the topoisomerase I inhibitor liposomal lurtotecan in women with relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer: a trial of the national cancer institute of Canada clinical trials group.

PURPOSE: Liposomal lurtotecan (OSI-211) is a liposomal formulation of the water-soluble topoisomerase I inhibitor lurtotecan (GI147211), which demonstrated superior levels of activity compared with topotecan in preclinical models. We studied two schedules of OSI-211 in a randomized design in relapsed ovarian cancer to identify the more promising of the two schedules for further study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had measurable epithelial ovarian, fallopian, or primary peritoneal cancer that was recurrent after one or two prior regimens of chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either arm A (OSI-211 1.8 mg/m(2)/d administered by 30-minute intravenous infusion on days 1, 2, and 3 every 3 weeks) or arm B (OSI-211 2.4 mg/m(2)/d administered by 30-minute intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks). The primary outcome measure was objective response, which was confirmed by independent radiologic review, and a pick the winner statistical design was used to identify the schedule most likely to be superior. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients were randomized between October 2000 and September 2001. The hematologic toxic effects were greater on arm A than on arm B (grade 4 neutropenia, 51% v 22%, respectively), as was febrile neutropenia (26% v 2.4%, respectively). Of the 80 eligible patients, eight patients (10%) had objective responses; six responders (15.4%; 95% CI, 6% to 30%) were in arm A and two responders (4.9%; 95% CI, 1% to 17%) were in arm B. CONCLUSION: The OSI-211 daily for 3 days intravenous schedule met the statistical criteria to be declared the winner in terms of objective response. This schedule was also associated with more myelosuppression than the schedule of OSI-211 administered in arm B.

Phase II randomized study of ISIS 3521 and ISIS 5132 in patients with locally advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer: a National Cancer Institute of Canada clinical trials group study.

BACKGROUND: Because treatment of metastatic colon cancer is noncurative, new treatments are needed. This trial evaluated the antitumor effects of two targeted anticancer agents: (a) ISIS 3521, an antisense inhibitor of the protein kinase C alpha; and (b) ISIS 5132, an antisense inhibitor of c-raf kinase in patients untreated previously with recurrent or metastatic colorectal carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients had colorectal adenocarcinoma with measurable disease and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Patients were randomized to receive either ISIS 3521 or ISIS 5132 at a dose of 2 mg/kg/day as a continuous i.v. infusion 21 of 28 days. Cycles were repeated as long as progression was not seen, and doses of both agents were modified according to toxic effects. A two-arm study design was used with each study arm considered independently. Steady-state blood levels of both antisense molecules were measured on days 8, 15, and 22 of the first cycle of therapy. RESULTS: Thirty-seven eligible patients were enrolled, and 32 were evaluable for response (17 receiving ISIS 3521 and 15 receiving ISIS 5132). No responses were noted. Four of the patients receiving ISIS 3521 had stable disease, and 5 patients receiving ISIS 5132 were stable. CONCLUSION: Neither ISIS 5132 nor ISIS 3521given in the dose and schedule studied induced objective responses in untreated colorectal cancer patients.