Lean Body Mass and Total Body Weight Versus Body Surface Area as a Determinant of Docetaxel Pharmacokinetics and Toxicity.

AIM: This study examined whether anthropometric and body composition parameters such as body surface area (BSA), lean body mass (LBM), and total body weight (TBW) are correlated with docetaxel clearance and exposure by analyzing area under the curve. In addition, LBM, TBW, and a fixed dose were compared with BSA as dosing parameters for dose individualization of docetaxel. METHODS: Thirty-six patients receiving docetaxel chemotherapy for breast or metastatic castration-resistant prostate carcinoma were included. Before treatment, LBM was measured using a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scanner. Blood samples were collected up to 180 minutes after dosing to analyze docetaxel concentrations and determine individual pharmacokinetic parameters. RESULTS: No significant correlations were found between docetaxel clearance and the anthropometric and body composition variables (BSA, LBM, and TBW). The area under the curve was significantly but poorly correlated with BSA [r = 0.452 ( P = 0.016)] and TBW [r = 0.476 ( P = 0.011)]. The mean absolute percentage error and mean error of simulated dosing based on LBM and fixed dosing were not significantly different from those of BSA. For TBW, only mean absolute percentage error was significantly higher compared with dosing based on BSA (24.1 versus 17.1, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There was no clinically relevant correlation between docetaxel pharmacokinetics and the anthropometric and body composition variables BSA, LBM, and TBW. Therefore, dose individualization of docetaxel based on LBM, TBW, or fixed dosing cannot be recommended over BSA-based dosing.

The impact of a 1-hour time interval between pazopanib and subsequent intake of gastric acid suppressants on pazopanib exposure.

Co-treatment with gastric acid suppressants (GAS) in patients taking anticancer drugs that exhibit pH-dependant absorption may lead to decreased drug exposure and may hamper drug efficacy. In our study, we investigated whether a 1-hour time interval between subsequent intake of pazopanib and GAS could mitigate this negative effect on drug exposure. We performed an observational study in which we collected the first steady-state pazopanib trough concentration (Cmin ) levels from patients treated with pazopanib 800 mg once daily (OD) taken fasted or pazopanib 600 mg OD taken with food. All patients were advised to take GAS 1 hour after pazopanib. Patients were grouped based on the use of GAS and the geometric (GM) Cmin levels were compared between groups for each dose regimen. Additionally, the percentage of patients with exposure below the target threshold of 20.5 mg/L and the effect of the type of PPI was explored. The GM Cmin levels were lower in GAS users vs non-GAS users for both the 800 and 600 mg cohorts (23.7 mg/L [95% confidence interval [CI]: 21.1-26.7] vs 28.2 mg/L [95% CI: 25.9-30.5], P = .015 and 26.0 mg/L [95% CI: 22.4-30.3] vs 33.5 mg/L [95% CI: 30.3-37.1], P = .006). Subtherapeutic exposure was more prevalent in GAS users vs non-GAS users (33.3% vs 19.5% and 29.6% vs 14%). Sub-analysis showed lower GM pazopanib Cmin in patients who received omeprazole, while minimal difference was observed in those receiving pantoprazole compared to non-users. Our research showed that a 1-hour time interval between intake of pazopanib and GAS did not mitigate the negative effect of GAS on pazopanib exposure and may hamper pazopanib efficacy.

Third-line Life-prolonging Drug Treatment in a Real-world Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Population: Results from the Dutch Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Registry.

BACKGROUND: Evidence concerning third-line life-prolonging drugs (LPDs) in the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients is incomplete. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate third-line LPD outcomes in a real-world cohort of mCRPC patients, identify variables associated with overall survival (OS), and establish a prognostic model. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with mCRPC who were progressive on second-line LPD before July 1, 2017 were retrospectively identified from the Dutch Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Registry (CAPRI) and followed until December 31, 2017. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Association of potential risk factors with OS was tested by Cox proportional hazard models after multiple imputation of missing baseline characteristics. A predictive score was computed from the regression coefficient and used to classify patients into risk groups. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 1011 mCRPC patients progressive on second-line LPD, 602 (60%) received third-line LPD. Patients receiving third-line LPD had a more favorable prognostic profile at baseline and longer median OS than patients with best supportive care (10.4 vs 2.4 mo, p < 0.001). Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 1 and ≥2 (hazard ratio [HR] 1.51, p < 0.007 and HR 3.08, p < 0.001, respectively), opioid use (HR 1.55, p = 0.019), visceral metastases (HR 2.09, p < 0.001), hemoglobin <7 mmol/l (HR 1.44, p < 0.002), prostate-specific antigen ≥130 µg/l (HR 1.48, p = 0.001), alkaline phosphatase ≥170 U/l (HR 1.52, p < 0.001), and lactate dehydrogenase ≥250 U/l (HR 1.44; p = 0.015) were associated with shorter survival. Harrell's C-index was 0.74. The median OS values for low-, low-intermediate-, high-intermediate-, and high-risk groups were 14, 7.7, 4.7, and 1.8 mo, respectively. Limitations include the retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a prognostic model and identified a subgroup of patients in whom third-line LPD treatment has no meaningful benefit. Our results need to be confirmed by prospective clinical trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reported outcomes from third-line life-prolonging drugs in metastatic prostate cancer patients and developed a prognostic model that could be used to guide treatment decisions.

The Effect of Using Pazopanib With Food vs. Fasted on Pharmacokinetics, Patient Safety, and Preference (DIET Study).

Pazopanib is taken fasted in a fixed oral daily dose of 800 mg. We hypothesized that ingesting pazopanib with food may improve patients' comfort and reduce gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events. Therefore, we investigated the bioequivalent dose of pazopanib when taken with food compared with 800 mg pazopanib taken fasted. In addition, we investigated the differences in GI toxicity, patient satisfaction, and patient's preference for either intake. The intake of 600 mg pazopanib with food resulted in a bioequivalent exposure and was preferred over a standard pazopanib dose without food. No differences were seen in GI toxicities under both intake regimens. Patients seem to be more positive about their feelings about side effects and satisfaction with their therapy when pazopanib was taken with food. Forty-one of the patients (68%) preferred the intake with a continental breakfast.

A randomised phase II trial of docetaxel versus docetaxel plus carboplatin in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer who have progressed after response to prior docetaxel chemotherapy: The RECARDO trial.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel is standard first-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate carcinoma (mCRPC). Docetaxel re-challenge has never been tested in a prospective randomised controlled study. As some studies support the addition of carboplatin to docetaxel, we performed a phase II trial investigating the combination of docetaxel plus carboplatin versus docetaxel re-treatment in docetaxel pre-treated mCRPC patients. METHODS: Patients with mCRPC with a progression-free interval of ≥3 months after initial docetaxel treatment were randomised between docetaxel 75 mg/m2 or docetaxel 60 mg/m2 plus carboplatin AUC4. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS; PSA/RECIST). RESULTS: Owing to insufficient recruitment, the study was discontinued early after inclusion of 75 patients (targeted 150) PFS and overall survival (OS) were comparable between both groups (median PFS 12.7 months (95% CI 9.9-17.5 months) with docetaxel monotherapy and 11.7 months (95% CI 8.5-21.0 months) with combination therapy (p = 0.98); OS 18.5 months (95% CI 11.8-24.5 months) versus 18.9 months (95% CI 16.0-23.7 months) (p = 0.79). An interim analysis (SEQTEST) showed that the null hypothesis could already be excepted, and no significant difference between both study arms was expected if inclusion would be completed. The incidence of grade 3-4 infections and gastrointestinal side-effects was numerical higher in the carboplatin arm (p = 0.056). CONCLUSION: This early terminated study suggests no benefit from the addition of carboplatin to docetaxel re-treatment in patients with mCRPC, whereas the combination resulted in more toxicity. Re-treatment with docetaxel monotherapy appears to be feasible, save and effective for patients with mCRPC and an initial good response to docetaxel. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR3070.

SWITCH: A Randomised, Sequential, Open-label Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Sorafenib-sunitinib Versus Sunitinib-sorafenib in the Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how to sequence targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is important for maximisation of clinical benefit. OBJECTIVES: To prospectively evaluate sequential use of the multikinase inhibitors sorafenib followed by sunitinib (So-Su) versus sunitinib followed by sorafenib (Su-So) in patients with mRCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 SWITCH study assessed So-Su versus Su-So in patients with mRCC without prior systemic therapy, and stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk score (favourable or intermediate). INTERVENTION: Patients were randomised to sorafenib 400mg twice daily followed, on progression or intolerable toxicity, by sunitinib 50mg once daily (4 wk on, 2 wk off) (So-Su), or vice versa (Su-So). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with So-Su versus Su-So, assessed from randomisation to progression or death during second-line therapy. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In total, 365 patients were randomised (So-Su, n=182; Su-So, n=183). There was no significant difference in total PFS between So-Su and Su-So (median 12.5 vs 14.9 mo; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; 90% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-1.27; p=0.5 for superiority). OS was similar for So-Su and Su-So (median 31.5 and 30.2 mo; HR 1.00, 90% CI 0.77-1.30; p=0.5 for superiority). More So-Su patients than Su-So patients reached protocol-defined second-line therapy (57% vs 42%). Overall, adverse event rates were generally similar between the treatment arms. The most frequent any-grade treatment-emergent first-line adverse events were diarrhoea (54%) and hand-foot skin reaction (39%) for sorafenib; and diarrhoea (40%) and fatigue (40%) for sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS: Total PFS was not superior with So-Su versus Su-So. These results demonstrate that sorafenib followed by sunitinib and vice versa provide similar clinical benefit in mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We investigated if total progression-free survival (PFS) is improved in patients with advanced/metastatic kidney cancer who are treated with sorafenib and then with sunitinib (So-Su), compared with sunitinib and then sorafenib (Su-So). We found that total PFS was not improved with So-Su compared with Su-So, but both treatment options were similarly effective in patients with advanced/metastatic kidney cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00732914, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Phase II trial of Uracil/Tegafur plus leucovorin and celecoxib combined with radiotherapy in locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy and toxicity of a short intensive Uracil/Tegafur (UFT) based chemoradiotherapy scheme combined with celecoxib in locally advanced pancreatic cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam and the Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam enrolled 83 eligible patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer in a prospective multicentre phase II study. Median age was 62 years, median tumour size 40 mm and the majority of the patients (85%) had pancreatic head cancers. Treatment consisted of 20×2.5 Gy radiotherapy combined with UFT 300 mg/m(2) per day, leucovorin (folinic acid) 30 mg and celecoxib 80 0mg for 28 days concomitant with radiotherapy. Four patients were lost to follow-up. RESULTS: Full treatment compliance was achieved in 55% of patients, 80% received at least 3 weeks of treatment. No partial or complete response was observed. Median survival was 10.6 months and median time to progression 6.9 months. Toxicity was substantial with 28% grades III and IV gastro-intestinal toxicity and two early toxic deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the lack of response, the substantial toxicity of mainly gastro-intestinal origin and the reported mediocre overall and progression free survival, we cannot advise our short intensive chemoradiotherapy schedule combined with celecoxib as the standard treatment.

Phase III trial of bevacizumab in combination with gemcitabine and erlotinib in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: Treatment with gemcitabine provides modest benefits in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. The addition of erlotinib to gemcitabine shows a small but significant improvement in overall survival (OS) versus gemcitabine alone. Phase II results for bevacizumab plus gemcitabine provided the rationale for a phase III trial of gemcitabine-erlotinib plus bevacizumab or placebo. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2)/week), erlotinib (100 mg/day), and bevacizumab (5 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or gemcitabine, erlotinib, and placebo in this double-blind, phase III trial. Primary end point was OS; secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), disease control rate, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 301 patients were randomly assigned to the placebo group and 306 to the bevacizumab group. Median OS was 7.1 and 6.0 months in the bevacizumab and placebo arms, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.07; P = .2087); this difference was not statistically significant. Adding bevacizumab to gemcitabine-erlotinib significantly improved PFS (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.86; P = .0002). Treatment with bevacizumab plus gemcitabine-erlotinib was well tolerated: safety data did not differ from previously described safety profiles for individual drugs. CONCLUSION: The primary objective was not met. The addition of bevacizumab to gemcitabine-erlotinib did not lead to a statistically significant improvement in OS in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. PFS, however, was significantly longer in the bevacizumab group compared with placebo. No unexpected safety events were observed from adding bevacizumab to gemcitabine-erlotinib.

Differential responses of cellular immunity in patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery for carcinoma of the oesophagus.

BACKGROUND: To compare immune responses following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in combination with hyperthermia plus surgery to those induced by surgery alone in patients with oesophageal cancer. METHODS: Thirty-two patients with histopathologically proven oesophageal cancer, scheduled for potentially curative transhiatal or transthoracic oesophagectomy with (neo, n = 20) or without (control, n = 12) neoadjuvant thermochemoradiation therapy (ThCR) were included. Peripheral blood samples were obtained before ThCR, after 2 weeks of ThCR, 1 day before surgery, on postoperative days 1, 3, 7, and 6 weeks after surgery, for white blood cell counts, lymphocyte subsets and T helper type 1 (Th1) and type 2 (Th2) lymphocyte responses. RESULTS: Neo patients showed a significant decrease in granulocytes and lymphocyte subsets, and T cell cytokines after 2 weeks of ThCR. Only CD8+ (cytotoxic) T cells recovered after ThCR to reach normal levels prior to surgery. In contrast, CD4+ T (helper) cells, and NK- and B cells in neo patients did not recover prior to surgery (all P < 0.05). Oesophagectomy induced a significant increase in granulocytes and a decrease in lymphocytes (and subsets). Only those subsets that had not recovered after ThCR (CD4+ T cells, NK and B cells but not CD8+ T cells), were significantly lower (all P < 0.05) during the entire postoperative study period. Postoperatively, the stimulated cytokine production capacity of Th1 and Th2 cells, corrected for number of T cells, was not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant thermochemoradiation for oesophageal cancer caused significant disturbances of host cellular immunity with reduced T, NK and B cell counts, and differential recovery of cytotoxic and helper T cells leading to prolonged T cell imbalance that extends beyond the time of surgery. The functional and anti-tumour consequences of this immunodisturbance need further investigation, as recovery of T helper cytokine production towards surgery was less impaired than T helper cell counts.

Phase I pharmacokinetic study of the safety and tolerability of lapatinib (GW572016) in combination with oxaliplatin/fluorouracil/leucovorin (FOLFOX4) in patients with solid tumors.

PURPOSE: This phase I study was designed to determine the optimally tolerated regimen (OTR), safety, and clinical activity of lapatinib in combination with FOLFOX4 [oxaliplatin/leucovorin/5-fluorouracil (5-FU)] in patients with solid tumors. Furthermore, the pharmacokinetics of lapatinib, oxaliplatin, and 5-FU when given alone and in combination were evaluated. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This study was conducted in two parts. Part 1 was designed to determine the OTR and part 2 was the pharmacokinetic part of the study. Lapatinib was administered once daily for the entire duration of the study. Leucovorin and oxaliplatin were given concurrently over 2 h as an i.v. infusion, after which 5-FU was given as a bolus followed by continuous infusion over 22 h on day 1. 5-FU and leucovorin administration were repeated in an identical manner on day 2. Cycles were repeated every 2 weeks. Once the OTR was determined, it was to become the dose level for patients included in the pharmacokinetic part of the study. RESULTS: A total of 34 patients was treated in this study. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed and the OTR was established at 1,500 mg/d lapatinib in combination with the standard FOLFOX4 regimen. Nonhematologic toxicities consisted mainly of nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, fatigue, neuropathy, and mucositis. The most important hematologic toxicity was neutropenia. No drug-drug interactions between lapatinib and the FOLFOX4 regimen were observed. CONCLUSION: Lapatinib can be safely administered in combination with the standard FOLFOX4 regimen. Further studies are warranted to explore the potential additive antitumor effect of lapatinib in combination with the FOLFOX4 regimen.

Radiopharmaceutical management of 90Y/111In labeled antibodies: shielding and quantification during preparation and administration.

BACKGROUND: The combined application of potent beta-emitting isotopes for therapy with remitting isotopes for scintigraphy requires a profound regimen concerning team member safety and radionuclide quantification. METHODS: We have developed materials and methods for a proper and easy manipulation of 90Y during preparation and administration of 90Y/111In pharmaceuticals used for radioimmunotherapy. RESULTS: The efficacy of the shielding measures is documented. Protocols for the calibration of gamma-dose calibrators with respect to 90Y are extended to the assessment of quench-corrected liquid scintillation counting of 90Y. The contribution of 90Y backscatter to 111 In counting is quantified. Newly developed shielding equipment allows an adequate administration of relatively large volumes (100 ml) of 90Y/111In labeled pharmaceuticals to patients. CONCLUSIONS: The procedures described combine pharmaceutical (Good Manufacturing Practice) and radiation safety requirements with an accurate logging of relevant data.

Monitoring of response to pre-operative chemoradiation in combination with hyperthermia in oesophageal cancer by FDG-PET.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the use of positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) to assess early response to pre-operative chemoradiation therapy in combination with external locoregional hyperthermia in patients with oesophageal cancer by correlating the reduction of metabolic activity with histopathologic response. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-six patients with histopathologically proven intra-thoracic oesophageal cancer (with < or =2 cm gastric involvement), scheduled to undergo a 5-week course of pre-operative chemoradiation therapy and hyperthermia, were included. FDG-PET was performed before (n = 26) and 2 weeks after initiation of therapy (n = 17). FDG uptake was quantitatively assessed by standardized uptake values. RESULTS: After neoadjuvant therapy, 24 of the 26 patients underwent surgery. In 16 patients changes in FDG uptake were correlated to histopathologic response. In these patients, histopathologic evaluation revealed less than 10% viable tumour cells in eight patients (responders) and more than 10% viable tumour cells in eight patients (non-responders). In responders, FDG uptake decreased by a median -44% (-75 to 2); in non-responders, it decreased by a median of -15% (-46 to 40). At a threshold of 31% decrease of FDG uptake compared with baseline, sensitivity to detect response was 75%, with a corresponding specificity of 75%. The positive and negative predictive values were both 75%. CONCLUSION: FDG-PET is a promising tool for early response monitoring in patients undergoing chemoradiation therapy in combination with hyperthermia.

Predictive factors for outcome in a phase II study of gefitinib in second-line treatment of advanced esophageal cancer patients.

PURPOSE: The efficacy of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) gefitinib was assessed in a phase II study in patients with advanced esophageal cancer. Several biologic features were investigated as potential markers of gefitinib activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced esophageal cancer, who had failed one line of prior chemotherapy, were administered gefitinib 500 mg/d. Response was evaluated every 8 weeks. Tumor material obtained before gefitinib treatment was investigated for gene mutations in EGFR, k-ras, and PIK3CA; protein expression levels of EGFR, p-Akt, and p-Erk; and EGFR gene amplification. RESULTS: Of the 36 enrolled patients, one (2.8%) achieved a partial response, 10 (27.8%) had stable disease, 17 (47.2%) experienced progression on treatment, and eight (22.2%) were not assessable for response. The progression-free survival time was 59 days, and the median overall survival time was 164 days. Although EGFR or PIK3CA mutations were absent, k-ras mutations were found in two patients with progressive disease. High EGFR gene copy number was identified in two patients experiencing partial response or progressive disease. A higher disease control rate (response plus stable disease) was observed in females (P = .038) and in patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC; P = .013) or high EGFR expression (P = .002). CONCLUSION: Gefitinib has a modest activity in second-line treatment of advanced esophageal cancer. However, the patient outcome was significantly better in female patients and in patients demonstrating high EGFR expression or SCC histology. The selection of esophageal cancer patients for future studies with EGFR-TKIs based on the level of EGFR expression in their tumors or SCC histology should be considered.

Systemic treatment of oesophageal cancer.

Most patients with oesophageal cancer present with locally advanced or metastatic disease. In an effort to improve the results of surgery in patients with operable disease, strategies to incorporate radiotherapy and chemotherapy, preoperatively (neoadjuvant) and postoperatively (adjuvant), have been extensively investigated in numerous clinical trials. Meta-analyses of neoadjuvant trials did not demonstrate a survival advantage for neoadjuvant chemotherapy or concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Although local control seems to be improved with neoadjuvant treatment, the currently used chemotherapeutic agents are simply not effective enough to eradicate micro-metastatic disease. Patients who undergo neoadjuvant treatment and achieve a histologically confirmed complete response have a significant better survival than those who do not achieve such a response. Although neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is able to induce a higher rate of complete pathological responses compared to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (25-30% vs 5-15%), this advantage is counteracted by a higher incidence of operative mortality. In patients with metastatic disease there is no evidence that chemotherapy (cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil and anthracyclins) improves survival. Several new agents such as taxanes, irinotecan and vinorelbine in combination with cisplatin and carboplatin have shown promising activity in neoadjuvant settings and as palliative treatment of metastatic oesophageal cancer. However, the benefit of these new drugs in the treatment of oesophageal cancer has to be confirmed in randomized trials.

Farnesyl protein transferase inhibition interferes with activation of MAP kinase family members in human peripheral blood monocytes.

BACKGROUND: Farnesyl protein transferase inhibitors have emerged as promising novel agents for combating cancerous disease. Nevertheless, the importance for farnesyl protein transferase enzymatic activity for cellular physiology of untransformed cells remains poorly investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Peripheral blood monocytes, isolated from the blood of eight healthy volunteers, were treated with a farnesyl protein transferase inhibitor (FTI 744,832) or vehicle control for 16 hr. Subsequently cells were challenged with different concentrations of lipopolysaccharide (LPS), colony stimulating factor-1 (CSF-1), or phorbol esters for 10 min, after which the activation state of p42/p44 MAP kinase, p38 MAP kinase, and Jun-N-terminal kinase was investigated using Western blotting and phosphospecific antibodies. RESULTS: We observed that farnesyl protein transferase inhibition abrogated activation of p38 MAP kinase by LPS, CSF-1, and phorbol esters. Also the activation of Jun-N-terminal kinase by LPS was not seen after farnesyl protein transferase inhibition. Finally, stimulation of p42/p44 MAP kinase with CSF-1 was strongly reduced by farnesyl protein transferase inhibition, whereas activation of p42/p44 MAP kinase by phorbol ester was only slightly effected. CONCLUSIONS: Farnesyl protein transferase enzymatic activity is required for proper activation of all major members of the MAP kinase family. The observation that activation the p38 MAP kinase and Jun-N-terminal kinase is sensitive to farnesyl protein transferase inhibition raises the possibility that, in addition to cancerous disease, farnesyl protein transferase inhibitors may be useful compounds in combating inflammatory disease.