Identifying patients with a history of ovarian cancer for referral for genetic counselling: non-randomised comparison of two case-finding strategies in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines recommend genetic counselling and DNA testing (GCT) for patients with ovarian cancer and survivors of ovarian cancer. Finding survivors of ovarian cancer is challenging. Detecting and referring them for GCT via primary care, to allow proper screening recommendations for patients and their family, may be a solution. AIM: To compare the effectiveness and acceptance of two pilot strategies directed at case finding women with a history of ovarian cancer for referral for GCT by their GP. DESIGN AND SETTING: Non-randomised comparison of the pilot implementation of two case-finding strategies for women with a history of ovarian cancer in Dutch primary care from May 2016 to April 2017. METHOD: Strategy A (unsupported) asked GPs to identify and refer eligible patients with a history of ovarian cancer. Strategy B (ICT-supported) provided GPs with information and communication technology (ICT) support to identify patients with a history of ovarian cancer electronically. The effectiveness of each strategy was assessed as the proportion of patients who were approached, referred for GCT, and seen by the clinical geneticist. Acceptance of each strategy was assessed by the intervention uptake of GP practices and GP and patient questionnaires. RESULTS: Nineteen out of 30 (63%) patients identified with a history of ovarian cancer were deemed eligible for referral for strategy A, and 39 out of 94 (41%) for strategy B. For each strategy, eight patients were referred and five (63%) were seen for GCT. The intervention uptake by GP practices was 31% (11 out of 36) for strategy A and 46% (21 out of 46) for strategy B. GPs considered 'relevance' and 'workability' as facilitators across both strategies whereas, for strategy B, technical barriers hindered implementation. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness and acceptance of both strategies for case finding of survivors of ovarian cancer in primary care for GCT is promising, but larger studies are required before wide-scale implementation is warranted.

Late release of circulating endothelial cells and endothelial progenitor cells after chemotherapy predicts response and survival in cancer patients.

We and others have previously demonstrated that the acute release of progenitor cells in response to chemotherapy actually reduces the efficacy of the chemotherapy. Here, we take these data further and investigate the clinical relevance of circulating endothelial (progenitor) cells (CE(P)Cs) and modulatory cytokines in patients after chemotherapy with relation to progression-free and overall survival (PFS/OS). Patients treated with various chemotherapeutics were included. Blood sampling was performed at baseline, 4 hours, and 7 and 21 days after chemotherapy. The mononuclear cell fraction was analyzed for CE(P)C by FACS analysis. Plasma was analyzed for cytokines by ELISA or Luminex technique. CE(P)Cs were correlated with response and PFS/OS using Cox proportional hazard regression analysis. We measured CE(P)Cs and cytokines in 71 patients. Only patients treated with paclitaxel showed an immediate increase in endothelial progenitor cell 4 hours after start of treatment. These immediate changes did not correlate with response or survival. After 7 and 21 days of chemotherapy, a large and consistent increase in CE(P)C was found (P < .01), independent of the type of chemotherapy. Changes in CE(P)C levels at day 7 correlated with an increase in tumor volume after three cycles of chemotherapy and predicted PFS/OS, regardless of the tumor type or chemotherapy. These findings indicate that the late release of CE(P)C is a common phenomenon after chemotherapeutic treatment. The correlation with a clinical response and survival provides further support for the biologic relevance of these cells in patients' prognosis and stresses their possible use as a therapeutic target.

Clinical and pharmacologic study of the novel prodrug delimotecan (MEN 4901/T-0128) in patients with solid tumors.

PURPOSE: To investigate i.v. administration of delimotecan (MEN 4901/T-0128), a carboxymethyldextran polymer prodrug of the active camptothecin derivative T-2513, and to assess the maximum tolerated dose, safety profile, clinical pharmacology, and antitumor activity of delimotecan and metabolites. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with solid tumors refractory to standard therapy received i.v. delimotecan as 3-hour infusion once every 6 weeks. The starting dose was 150 mg/m2, followed by an accelerated dose escalation with at least one patient per dose level. The pharmacokinetics of delimotecan, T-2513, and its metabolites, SN-38, SN-38G, T-1335, T-0055, and T-3921, were assessed in plasma and urine, and their pharmacodynamics were determined by measuring the effect of the treatment on hematologic and nonhematologic toxicity. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients received 35 courses. Dose-limiting toxicities were observed at 5,400 mg/m2 (n = 1), 3,600 mg/m2 (n = 1), and 2,400 mg/m2 (n = 2). The dose level of 1,800 mg/m2 was determined as maximum tolerated dose. Two partial responses were observed in patients with anal cancer (1800 mg/m2) and head and neck cancer (2400 mg/m2). Delimotecan had a long terminal half-life of 109 h, and relatively high exposures to T-2513 and SN-38 were obtained. The percentage decrease in WBC and absolute neutrophil count significantly correlated with the dose of delimotecan. CONCLUSIONS: Based on its preliminary antitumor activity, safety profile, and pharmacokinetic profile, we recommend to evaluate delimotecan given as 3-hour infusion once every 6 weeks at a dose level of 1,800 mg/m2 in a phase II study.

Phase I pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of the oral protein kinase C beta-inhibitor enzastaurin in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: Enzastaurin targets the protein kinase C and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/AKT pathways to reduce tumor angiogenesis and cell proliferation and to induce cell death. A phase I trial was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of combining enzastaurin with gemcitabine and cisplatin. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with advanced cancer received a 14-day lead-in treatment with oral enzastaurin followed by subsequent 21-day cycles of daily enzastaurin, gemcitabine on days 1 and 8, and cisplatin on day 1. Enzastaurin doses were escalated between 350 mg once daily to 500 mg twice daily, whereas gemcitabine doses were either 1,000 or 1,250 mg/m(2) and cisplatin doses were either 60 or 75 mg/m(2). Circulating endothelial cell numbers and CD146 and CD133 mRNA expression were evaluated as pharmacodynamic markers. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients (median age, 58 years) were enrolled in seven dose levels. The maximum tolerated dose was not identified. Two dose-limiting toxicities (grade 2 QT interval corrected for heart rate prolongation and grade 3 fatigue) were reported. Other toxicities included grade 3/4 neutropenia (3 of 6 patients), thrombocytopenia (1 of 6 patients), grade 3 leukopenia (2 patients), and fatigue (5 patients). Enzastaurin twice daily (> or =250 mg) resulted in more discontinuations and low-grade toxicities. In the combination, enzastaurin exposures decreased slightly but remained above the target of 1,400 nmol/L, whereas gemcitabine/cisplatin exposures were unaltered. Three patients (9.1%) had partial responses and 13 (39.4%) had stable disease. Measurement of circulating endothelial cell numbers and CD146 and CD133 mRNA expression did not contribute to decision-making on dose escalation. CONCLUSIONS: Recommended phase II dose is 500 mg enzastaurin once daily, 1,250 mg/m(2) gemcitabine, and 75 mg/m(2) cisplatin. This regimen is well tolerated with no significant alterations in the pharmacokinetic variables of any drug.

A phase I, randomized, open-label, parallel-cohort, dose-finding study of elacridar (GF120918) and oral topotecan in cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer resistance protein (ABCG2) substantially limits the oral bioavailability of topotecan. Coadministration with elacridar, an inhibitor of breast cancer resistance protein-mediated drug transport, increases the bioavailability of topotecan. The aim of this study was to establish the lowest effective dose of elacridar to obtain maximum oral bioavailability of topotecan and to determine the optimal schedule of coadministration of oral topotecan and elacridar. In the second part of this study, dose-limiting toxicities and maximum tolerated dose of oral topotecan coadministered with elacridar, at a daily times five regimen administered every 21 days, were established. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In part I, 20 patients were randomized to receive 100, 300, 500, 700, or 1,000 mg of elacridar on days 1 and 8 1 h before or simultaneously with 2.0 mg oral topotecan, which was also randomized. On day 15, all patients were treated with 1.5 mg/m(2) i.v. topotecan. In part II of the study, patients were treated daily with oral topotecan and with the lowest effective dose of elacridar following from part I. The maximum tolerated dose and dose-limiting toxicity were determined in cohorts of three patients. Blood samples were taken on days 1, 8, and 15 of part I and on day 1 of cycles 1 and 2 of part II. RESULTS: Complete apparent oral bioavailability of topotecan (102 +/- 7%) for all treatment arms with elacridar in both schedules was seen in part I. In the topotecan dose escalation part, two dose-limiting toxicities were seen at the 2.5 mg topotecan dose level. CONCLUSION: The recommended schedule is 2.0 mg oral topotecan plus 100 mg elacridar administered concomitantly daily times five every 21 days.

Phase I clinical evaluation of weekly administration of the novel vascular-targeting agent, ZD6126, in patients with solid tumors.

PURPOSE: ZD6126 is a novel vascular-targeting agent that induces selective effects on the morphology of endothelial cells by disrupting the tubulin cytoskeleton. This leads to cell detachment and tumor vessel congestion, resulting in extensive central necrosis in a range of tumor xenograft models. Results from a phase I dose-escalation study of ZD6126 are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-two patients with advanced cancer received weekly ZD6126 infusion (5 to 28 mg/m2). Assessments for safety and pharmacokinetics were performed. Circulating endothelial cells (CECs) were quantified as a pharmacodynamic marker of vascular damage. RESULTS: Maximum concentrations of the active species were observed 5 to 25 minutes from the start of infusion, and decayed in a biexponential manner with a half-life of 1 to 3 hours. Maximum serum concentration and area under the time-concentration curve increased with dose in a linear fashion across the dose range of 5 to 28 mg/m2. One patient treated at 10 mg/m2 with a history of ischemic heart disease experienced acute myocardial infarction 2 weeks after drug discontinuation. Four others had asymptomatic creatine phosphokinase-muscle-brain elevation. Maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) was reached at 20 mg/m2/wk. Dose-limiting toxicities at 28 mg/m2 were hypoxia caused by pulmonary embolism and an asymptomatic decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction. No objective antitumor responses were observed. CEC levels increased in the hours after infusion, indicating potential effect of the compound on the vasculature. CONCLUSION ZD6126 administered as a weekly infusion was clinically well tolerated. The MTD was reached at 20 mg/m2.

Recombinant human angiostatin by twice-daily subcutaneous injection in advanced cancer: a pharmacokinetic and long-term safety study.

PURPOSE: A clinical study was performed to evaluate the pharmacokinetics (PK) and toxicity of three dose levels of the angiogenesis inhibitor recombinant human (rh) angiostatin when administered twice daily by s.c. injection. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Eligible patients had cancer not amenable to standard treatments. Three groups of 8 patients received 7.5, 15, or 30 mg/m(2)/day divided in two s.c. injections for 28 consecutive days followed by a 7-day washout period. PK assessment was done at days 1 and 28. Thereafter, in absence of toxicity or a 100% increase in tumor size, treatment was continued without interruption. RESULTS: Median age was 53 years (range, 43-75), male:female ratio 10:14, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance 0-1. At the range of doses evaluated, serum PK of all 24 of the patients showed linear relation between dose and area under the curve (0- infinity) and C(max) (reached after 2 h). Thirteen of 24 patients developed erythema at injection sites (11 patients, CTC grade 1; 2 patients, CTC grade 2) without pain or itching, spontaneously resolving within 2-3 weeks of treatment. Two patients went off study after developing hemorrhage in brain metastases, and 2 patients developed deep venous thrombosis. No other relevant treatment-related toxicities were seen, even during prolonged treatment. A panel of coagulation parameters was not influenced by rhAngiostatin treatment. Long-term (>6 months) stable disease (<25% growth of measurable uni- or bidimensional tumor size) was observed in 6 of 24 patients. Five patients received rhAngiostatin treatment for >1 year (overall median time on treatment 99 days). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term twice-daily s.c. treatment with rhAngiostatin is well tolerated and feasible at the selected doses, and merits additional evaluation. Systemic exposure to rhAngiostatin is within the range of drug exposure that has biological activity in preclinical models.