A phase I dose-escalation study of eribulin and S-1 for metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the safety, maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics, recommended dose for phase II (P2RD), and preliminary anticancer activity of a combination eribulin and S-1 therapeutic in metastatic breast cancer patients pretreated with anthracycline and taxane. METHOD: Patients aged 20-74 years were recruited. In level 1, patients received S-1 (65 mg m(-2)) from day 1 to 14, and eribulin (1.1 mg m(-2)) on day 1 and 8 in a 21-day cycle. In level 2, eribulin was increased to 1.4 mg m(-2). In level 3, S-1 was increased to 80 mg m(-2). RESULTS: Twelve patients were enrolled into three cohorts. Planned dose escalation was completed, with one case exhibiting dose-limiting toxicity (grade 3 hypokalaemia) at level 3, without reaching the MTD. The P2RD was determined to be level 2 (eribulin 1.4 mg m(-2) and S-1 65 mg m(-2)). The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicity was neutropenia (83.3%), followed by febrile neutropenia (25.0%). Five of eleven patients (41.7%) with measurable disease had a partial response. Pharmacokinetics were characterised by dose-dependent elimination and nonlinear exposure. CONCLUSION: Dose level 3 was not tolerated owing to febrile neutropenia development. Thus, intermediate dose level 2 was recommended for further evaluation. Preliminary antitumour activity warrants further investigation in this setting.

An open-label, dose-escalation, safety, and pharmacokinetics phase I study of ombrabulin, a vascular disrupting agent, administered as a 30-min intravenous infusion every 3 weeks in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: To determine ombrabulin's maximum tolerated dose and dose recommended for Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors and to assess its antitumor activity and overall safety and pharmacokinetic profiles. METHODS: This was a multi-center, open-label, sequential-cohort, dose-escalation phase I study of ombrabulin, a vascular disrupting agent, administered once every 3 weeks. Patients were treated with 15.5, 25, 35, or 50 mg/m(2) ombrabulin over a 30-min intravenous infusion. The recommended dose was the highest dose at which <33 % of all evaluable patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) during the first treatment cycle or 50 mg/m(2) (recommended in Caucasian patients) if the previous definition was not met. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were treated. No DLT occurred with 15.5, 25, or 35 mg/m(2) ombrabulin. In the 50 mg/m(2) group, one patient had Grade 3 lymphopenia, and another experienced Grade 2 hypertension and Grade 3 diarrhea judged as DLTs. The most frequent related adverse events in this group were diarrhea, nausea, and hypertension. Two patients had Grade 3 anemia, one at the 15.5 mg/m(2) and the other at the 50 mg/m(2). No AEs necessitating dose reduction or Grade 4 AEs were observed. Overall, five patients had stable disease. Pharmacokinetic parameters were comparable to those in non-Japanese patients. CONCLUSIONS: Ombrabulin treatment once every 3 weeks was well tolerated in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors. The dose recommended is 50 mg/m(2), as in Caucasian patients. The safety and pharmacokinetic profiles were comparable between Japanese and Caucasian patients (funded by Sanofi; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00968916).

CYP2C19 genotype-based phase I studies of a c-Met inhibitor tivantinib in combination with erlotinib, in advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: A previous clinical study in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in Western countries suggested the potential for combination of a first-in-class non-ATP-competitive c-Met inhibitor tivantinib with an epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib. Polymorphisms of CYP2C19, the key metabolic enzyme for tivantinib, should be addressed to translate the previous Western study to Asian population, because higher incidence of poor metabolisers (PMs) is reported in Asian population. METHODS: Japanese patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC received tivantinib in combination with erlotinib to evaluate safety and pharmacokinetics. Doses of tivantinib were escalated separately for extensive metabolisers (EMs) and PMs. RESULTS: Tivantinib, when combined with erlotinib, was well tolerated up to 360 mg BID for EMs and 240 mg BID for PMs, respectively. Among 25 patients (16 EMs and 9 PMs), the adverse events (AEs) related to tivantinib and/or erlotinib (>20%, any grade) were rash, diarrhoea, dry skin and nausea. Grade ≥3 AEs were leukopenia, anaemia and neutropenia. No dose-limiting toxicity was observed. Pharmacokinetics profile of tivantinib was not clearly different between the combination and monotherapy. Three partial response and three long-term stable disease (≥24 weeks) were reported. CONCLUSION: Two doses of tivantinib in combination with erlotinib were recommended based on CYP2C19 genotype: 360 mg BID for EMs and 240 mg BID for PMs.

Randomised, phase III trial of epoetin-ß to treat chemotherapy-induced anaemia according to the EU regulation.

BACKGROUND: Erythropoietin-stimulating agents (ESAs) effectively decrease the transfusion requirements of patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia (CIA). Recent studies indicate that ESAs increase mortality and accelerate tumour progression. The studies also identify a 1.6-fold increased risk of venous thromboembolism. The ESA labelling was thus revised in Europe and the United States in 2008. This is the first randomised, phase III trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of epoetin-ß (EPO), an ESA, dosed in accordance with the revised labelling, which specifies that ESAs should be administered to CIA patients with a haemoglobin level of ≤ 10 g dl⁻¹ and that a sustained haemoglobin level of > 12 g dl⁻¹ should be avoided. METHODS: A total of 186 CIA patients (8.0 g dl⁻¹ ≤ haemoglobin ≤ 10.0 g dl⁻¹) with lung or gynaecological cancer were randomised to receive EPO 36,000 IU or placebo weekly for 12 weeks. RESULTS: The proportion of patients receiving transfusions or with haemoglobin < 8.0 g dl⁻¹ between week 5 and the end of the treatment period as the primary end point was significantly lower in the EPO group (n=89) than in the placebo group (n=92; 10.0% vs 56.4%, P < 0.001). The proportion receiving transfusions was significantly lower in the EPO group (4.5% vs 19.6%, P=0.002). Changes in quality of life were not different. No significant differences in adverse events - for example, the incidence of thromboembolic events was 1.1% for each group - or the 1-year overall survival were observed between groups. CONCLUSION: Weekly EPO administered according to the revised labelling approved by the European Medicines Agency is effective and well tolerated for CIA treatment. Further investigations are needed on the effect of ESAs on mortality.