Tolerance and activity of oxaliplatin with protracted topotecan infusion in patients with previously treated ovarian cancer. A phase I study.

BACKGROUND: Topotecan 14-day infusion combined with cisplatin was highly active in ovarian cancer, but too myelosuppressive. We therefore sought to evaluate the feasibility of substituting oxaliplatin for cisplatin to improve safety. METHODS: Ovarian and primary peritoneal cancer patients, pretreated with at least one prior platinum-containing regimen, performance status (PS) 0-1, without prior pelvic radiation were eligible. Topotecan was continuously infused days 1-15; oxaliplatin was given days 1 and 15; cycles were repeated every 28 days. Five dose levels were explored: topotecan (mg/m2/day)/oxaliplatin (mg/m2) doses: (1) 0.2/65; (2) 0.2/75; (3) 0.2/85; (4) 0.3/85; (5) 0.4/85. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients (20 ovarian, 1 tubal, and 2 peritoneal) were entered: median age 56 years (range, 37-77); PS: 0=12 and 1=11; histology: papillary serous 7, serous 4, adenocarcinoma 8, poorly differentiated 2. Median of 4 cycles were delivered. Grade 3 neutropenia occurred in 3 of 7 patients at level 5 (with fever at levels 4 and 5), without grade 4 neutropenia or thrombocytopenia. Other toxicities were mild and reversible (mainly gastrointestinal), except one grade 3 neuropathy and one oxaliplatin-related grade 3 hypersensitivity reaction. Six objective responses (five of them complete) were documented among 22 patients spanning several dose levels. CONCLUSION: Topotecan continuous infusion, combined with oxaliplatin, was associated with no grade 4 hematologic toxicity and evidence of activity. The recommended phase II dose is topotecan 0.4 mg/m2/day continuous infusion d1-15 with oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 on days 1 and 15. A phase II evaluation as second-line treatment for both platinum-sensitive and -resistant ovarian cancer recurrences is ongoing.

Phase I trial of continuous infusion 9-aminocamptothecin in patients with advanced solid tumors: 21-day infusion is an active well-tolerated regimen.

This study's objectives were to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of 9-aminocamptothecin (9-AC), given as a prolonged continuous infusion (CI) for 7-21 days, when formulated in dimethylacetamide/polyethylene glycol 400 (DMA) and then later as a colloidal dispersion (CD), and to determine the steady-state pharmacokinetics of 9-AC. Patients with solid tumors refractory to standard therapy were enrolled on this study. Total dose/cycle of 9-AC/DMA was initially escalated by duration (7-21 days), while keeping the dose rate constant at 6.2 microg/m/h (1.04-3.12 mg/m/4-week cycle). Then, the dose rate was escalated from 6.2 to 21.1 microg/m/h (3.12-10.6 mg/m/4-week cycle) while keeping the infusion duration constant at 21 days. CD formulation was escalated from 14.1 to 25 microg/m/h (7.11-12.60 mg/m/4-week cycle) while keeping the infusion duration constant at 21 days and then escalated from 28.1 to 37.5 microg/m/h (9.44-12.60 mg/m/3-week cycle) while keeping the infusion duration constant at 14 days. Sixty-two patients were evaluable for toxicity; 61 received prior chemotherapy (median 3 regimens/patient). No consistent dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was encountered with the DMA formulation until dose level 10.60 mg/m/cycle, when two patients experienced DLTs. With the 21-day CD formulation, the MTD was 12.60 mg/m/cycle with three DLTs out of five patients. When 9-AC was given on the 14-day schedule, DLT was seen at 9.44, 11.20 and 12.60 mg/m/cycle, with consistent DLT at the two highest dose levels. All DLTs for both formulations were grade 4 hematologic toxicities (neutropenia and/or thrombocytopenia), while non-hematologic toxicities were relatively mild (including gastrointestinal toxicities and fatigue). One patient with ovarian cancer had a complete response and three had partial responses (PRs). One patient each with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and cancer of unknown primary had a PR. Pharmacokinetic studies of both formulations of 9-AC revealed a linear relationship between increasing plasma 9-AC lactone concentration and dose. The median plasma 9-AC lactone concentration for 9-AC/CD was approximately twice that achieved by 9-AC/DMA for the same dose level. Both 9-AC formulations, given as a 21-day CI, were well tolerated with dose-limiting myelosupression at the MTD. This dose intensity exceeds that of other 9-AC phase I/II schedules. The recommended phase II dose (RPTD) is 9.42 mg/m/4-week cycle, given as a 21-day infusion. The 14-day schedule of 9-AC/CD was equally myelosuppressive with the RPTD of 9.44 mg/m/3-week cycle, although two heavily pre-treated patients (one with pelvic radiotherapy) could not tolerate this dose. Objective responses were observed in six out of 57 heavily pre-treated patients, most of which had ovarian cancer.

Phase I study of combined pegylated liposomal doxorubicin with protracted daily topotecan for ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine the maximum tolerated dose and dose-limiting toxicity of Doxil with low-dose continuous infusion topotecan and subsequently with low-dose oral topotecan. Other specific aims were preliminary assessment of activity in advanced ovarian and tubal malignancies, pharmacokinetics of oral topotecan, and correlation of response with topoisomerase I and II expression in tumors. METHODS: Eligible patients had histopathologically documented advanced cancers beyond standard therapy, performance status <2, and adequate organ functions. Doxil (30-40 mg/m2 i.v.) was given on day 1, with topotecan either oral topotecan 0.4 mg/m2 bid for 14 days or continuous infusion topotecan (0.3-0.4 mg/m2/d) for 14 to 21 days, in 28-day cycles. Fifty-seven patients, 23 with epithelial ovarian or tubal cancers were enrolled. Plasma levels of lactone form of topotecan were determined on patients receiving oral topotecan. RESULTS: Grade 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia and grade 3 diarrhea were dose-limiting toxicities at the highest dose levels explored. Doxil (40 mg/m2/day 1) and continuous infusion topotecan at 0.4 mg/m2/days 1 to 14 could be safely given and is the recommended phase II dose. Oral topotecan was limited by low and erratic plasma topotecan levels and frequent gastrointestinal toxicity. Particularly long partial responses and stable disease were observed in patients with epithelial ovarian or tubal cancers. Clinical benefit (objective responses and stable diseases) correlated with elevated expression of both topoisomerases by immunohistochemistry in four of six epithelial ovarian or tubal cancer tumor samples. CONCLUSION: Doxil with 14-day topotecan infusion is a well-tolerated regimen and suitable for study in platinum-resistant or refractory ovarian or tubal cancers. Frequent gastrointestinal toxicity and/or erratic absorption complicate treatment with a longer topotecan infusion or with oral topotecan, respectively, and these combinations are not recommended.

Oxaliplatin: practical guidelines for administration.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) accounts for about 11% of all new cancers in the United States and kills approximately 56,000 people each year. Although the use of antineoplastic agents has demonstrated palliation of symptoms, increased survival, and improved quality of life when compared with best supportive care, improved therapies still are needed. Oxaliplatin, released in August 2002, offers an effective expansion of the CRC treatment armamentarium. Proper dosage and administration of oxaliplatin are vital to maximizing its efficacy and safety. This article reviews administration guidelines, adverse events, side effects, and key areas for patient education.

A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of docetaxel combined with Doxil (pegylated liposomal doxorubicin) without and with granulocyte colony stimulating factor.

The purpose of this study was (i) to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of docetaxel that can be administered in combination with Doxil, given without and with granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), (ii) to define the pharmacokinetics (PK) of docetaxel when used in combination with Doxil, and (iii) to make preliminary observations on the anti-tumor activity of this combination in patients with metastatic solid tumors. Thirty-seven patients with metastatic cancer were enrolled. Courses were repeated every 3 weeks. Patients received a fixed dose of Doxil 30 mg/m(2) in combination with escalating doses of docetaxel ranging from 40 to 100 mg/m(2). After encountering dose-limiting febrile neutropenia, subsequent escalation was accomplished with G-CSF support. Selected patients at the recommended phase II dose underwent PK evaluation. The most common toxicity observed was neutropenia. Dose-limiting toxicity (30 mg/m(2) Doxil + 80 mg/m(2) docetaxel) was febrile neutropenia in three of six patients treated without G-CSF. Major non-hematological toxicities included alopecia, mucositis and hand-foot syndrome, and were observed after cumulative doses of chemotherapy. Objective responses (complete/partial) were documented in eight of 37 patients (four with breast cancer) and stable disease was seen in 17 patients. PK studies showed an increased tissue retention (decreased clearance) of docetaxel when given with Doxil. The recommended phase II dose of Doxil/docetaxel is 30/60 mg/m(2), q3 weeks, without G-CSF. Further dose escalation to 30/80 mg/m(2) is safe with G-CSF support. Anti-tumor activity, particularly against breast cancer, was observed at various dose levels. Our observations should provide evidence for phase II studies of this combination in patients with breast cancer and other anthracycline/taxane-sensitive cancers.

Biweekly 72-hour 9-aminocamptothecin infusion as second-line therapy for ovarian carcinoma: phase II study of the New York Gynecologic Oncology Group and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: To determine the antitumor activity of the novel topoisomerase I inhibitor 9-aminocamptothecin (9-AC) given over 72 hours every 2 weeks in patients with ovarian carcinoma previously treated with one platinum-containing regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with ovarian carcinoma who received one prior platinum-containing regimen were eligible. Patients were stratified based on whether their disease was measurable, or nonmeasurable but assessable. 9-AC 35 microg/m(2)/h was administered by continuous infusion for 72 hours every 2 weeks via ambulatory pump. RESULTS: Sixty patients were entered, 32 with measurable and 28 with nonmeasurable but assessable disease. Ten (16.7%) of 60 patients responded (95% CI, 7.2% to 26.1%), with four complete responses and six partial remissions. The response rate for patients with measurable and nonmeasurable but assessable disease was 22% (95% CI, 7.6% to 36.2%) and 10.7% (95% CI, 2.3% to 28.2%), respectively. None of the responders were platinum-resistant. Nineteen patients (32%) had stable disease. The major toxicities were hematologic, with 25% of patients having grade 3 and 35% having grade 4 neutropenia, including five episodes of febrile neutropenia, 17% having grade 3 to 4 thrombocytopenia, and 27% having grade 3 to 4 anemia. Nonhematologic toxicity included grade 3 to 4 nausea (27%) and grade 3 to 4 vomiting (12%). CONCLUSION: This phase II multicenter trial of biweekly 72 hour 9-AC infusion as second-line therapy for ovarian cancer demonstrates comparable activity to standard approved agents in patients with both measurable and nonmeasurable but assessable disease. Toxicity consists mainly of moderate but controllable myelosuppression. Further studies combining 9-AC with other agents active in ovarian cancer for use as second-line therapy are warranted.

Intraperitoneal therapy as consolidation for patients with ovarian cancer and negative reassessment after platinum-based chemotherapy.

Although three large phase III trials have documented the benefit of IP chemotherapy, this therapy as consolidation has been studied in only a few pilot studies. These small studies have included patients with a variety of baseline prognostic characteristics, and only one series had a comparator group of surgically documented pathologic complete response to uniform systemic chemotherapy. No randomized trials have been done to assess the impact of IP consolidation on progression-free survival or survival in either positively or negatively reassessed patients. It is hoped that the current experience will trigger further consideration of future phase III trials to assess the value of IP consolidation after initial induction with chemotherapy (ie, chemical debulking).

Phase I study of amifostine as a cytoprotector of the gemcitabine/cisplatin combination in patients with advanced solid malignancies.

Our objective was to evaluate the role of amifostine as a cytoprotector in patients with solid tumors receiving the myelosuppressive regimen of gemcitabine/cisplatin combination. Patients with advanced solid tumors were randomized to gemcitabine-amifostine-cisplatin (GAP) or gemcitabine-cisplatin (GP) in Cycle 1 (C1) and then were crossed over to the other treatment in Cycle 2 (C2). Amifostine at 740 mg/m2, followed by gemcitabine and cisplatin, were given for 2 consecutive weeks, every 4 weeks. Two GP combinations were studied: G 1000 mg/m2 and P 40 mg/m2 days 1, 8 (high dose), and G 800 mg/m2 and P 30 mg/m2 days 1, 8 (low dose). Forty patients were enrolled. Of the 19 patients treated with high-dose GP, 11 (nine patients GP in C1 and GAP in C2, two patients GAP in C1 and GP in C2) completed 2 cycles of therapy. Of the eight non-evaluable patients, five patients dropped out due to toxicity or refusal after treatment with amifostine in C1. Of the 21 patients treated with low-dose GP, 15 (eight patients GP in C1 and GAP in C2, seven patients GAP in C1 and GP in C2) were likewise evaluable. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicities was similar for GP and GAP during the first 2 cycles of treatment, and there were no statistically significant differences in mean absolute neutrophil count, hemoglobin level and platelet levels between the cycles in each arm. We conclude that amifostine, at 740 mg/m2, does not lead to less myelosuppression when combined with gemcitabine/cisplatin chemotherapy regimens and may possibly contribute to subjective intolerance.

A phase I study of paclitaxel, estramustine phosphate and vinorelbine (Pacl-E-Vin) in advanced malignancies: triple tubulin targeting.

Anti-tubulin couplets have activity in hormone-resistant prostate cancer. This study was designed to define the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and recommended phase II dose (RPTD) of the unique triplet combination of paclitaxel, estramustine phosphate (EMP) and vinorelbine (Pacl-E-Vin). Patients with advanced malignancies who had failed standard therapy, ECOG performance status (PS 0-2) and adequate organ function were included. Dose of EMP was fixed at 300 mg/m2/dose p.o. t.i.d. on days 1-3 and 8-10. Vinorelbine dose was 20 mg/m2/day i.v. on days 3 and 10. Paclitaxel was dose escalated from 40 to 50 mg/m /day i.v. on days 3 and 10. Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks. Twelve adults (median age 72) were entered on this study. Primary tumors included prostate (n=7), cervix (n=2), melanoma (n=1), colon (1) and lung with synchronous prostate cancer (n=1). Nine patients had received no prior chemotherapy, one had received a prior regimen and two had received two or more prior regimens. Of four evaluable patients at dose level 1, one patient had grade 3 neutropenia leading to the day 10 dose being withheld. Of five evaluable patients at dose level 2, there was one DLT (febrile neutropenia) and two grade 3 neutropenias leading to the day 10 dose being withheld. One patient had a lower extremity deep vein thrombosis. Other side effects were mild and reversible. Nine patients were evaluable for efficacy: three with prostate cancer had a greater than 50% prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, and a patient with synchronous prostate and lung cancer had a greater than 50% PSA response. We conclude that the DLT of Pacl-E-Vin is neutropenia. RPTD is vinorelbine 20 mg/m2, paclitaxel 40 mg/m2, both administered on days 3 and 10, and EMP 900 mg/m2/day on days 1-3 and 8-10, q3w. Dose omission at day 10 followed by 20% dose reduction of paclitaxel and vinorelbine is recommended in the event of grade 3 neutropenia. Activity in hormone-refractory prostate cancer is promising and warrants phase II evaluation.

Phase I and pharmacologic study of i.p. 9-aminocamptothecin given as six fractions over 14 days.

We sought to define the tolerance of 9-amino-20(S)-camptothecin (9-AC) when given by the i.p. route to patients with cancer in the peritoneal cavity consisting of nodules that did not exceed 1 cm in maximum diameter. 9-AC was given in six fractions over 12 days, at doses ranging from 1.25 to 13.5 mg/m(2) in cycles repeated every 28 days. Dose escalations after the first two dose levels took place in cohorts of three patients, with expansion of the dose level once a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was encountered. All patients had blood and i.p. pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis during cycle 1 of each dose level. Topoisomerase (Topo) I signal was serially measured in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) in blood and cells collected in i.p. cytologic washings. Twelve patients received 31 cycles of 9-AC. Tolerance to repeated i.p. drug administration was generally excellent. The DLT was neutropenia encountered at the highest dose level in two patients, whereas the dose of 9 mg/m(2) was well tolerated. The DLTs were associated with peak plasma levels ranging from 47 to 81 ng/ml and also depletion of Topo I in PBMCs. The i.p.:plasma AUC ratio (+/-SD) was 11.5 (+/-3.8). Two patients had objective evidence of clinical benefit and only one of seven patients deemed evaluable for response had progressive disease. We conclude that i.p. 9-AC demonstrates excellent local tolerance at a dose and schedule associated with evidence of systemic effects. A dose of 9 mg/m(2)/cycle administered in a schedule of six divided fractions is suitable for further evaluation against tumors involving primarily the peritoneal cavity.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with CPT-11 and cisplatin downstages locally advanced gastric cancer.

We examined the role of neoadjuvant therapy in downstaging locally advanced gastric cancer. Preoperative staging was performed with a combination of CT scans, endoscopic ultrasonography and/or laparoscopy, and laparoscopic ultrasonography. Patients with T > or =3 tumors and/or node-positive disease by preoperative clinical staging were eligible for entry. Neoadjuvant therapy consisted of two cycles of CPT-11 (75 mg/m(2)) with cisplatin (25 mg/m(2)) weekly four times every 6 weeks. This was followed by resection with D2 lymph node dissection and two cycles of intraperitoneal chemotherapy with floxuridine and cisplatin. Twenty-two patients were entered into the study (4 with T3N0 disease and 18 with T3N1 disease). Induction chemotherapy was well tolerated with major toxicities being neutropenia and diarrhea. A median of 78%/75% of the planned dosage of CPT-11/cisplatin was delivered. Two patients withdrew consent during the first cycle and were lost to follow-up. One patient progressed to stage IV disease during induction chemotherapy and did not undergo surgery. Nineteen patients underwent surgery. One patient had undetected stage IV disease (liver) and underwent a palliative R2 resection. Of the 18 remaining patients, 17 had curative R0 resections and one had a palliative R1 resection. A median of 21 lymph nodes (range 1 to 121) were examined histologically. There was one postoperative death. Surgical morbidity did not appear to increase after the neoadjuvant regimen. The median postoperative length of hospital stay was 9 days (range 3 to 75 days). Postoperative pathologic staging yielded 16% T3 lesions compared to 85% before treatment based on clinical staging; postoperative American Joint Committee on Cancer staging yielded 37% stage IIIA disease compared to 70% stage IIIA before treatment. With a median follow-up of 15 months, median survival has not yet been reached. We conclude that CPT-11-based neoadjuvant therapy downstages locally advanced gastric cancer. Further follow-up is necessary to determine the ultimate impact of this combination therapy on recurrence and survival.