A phase I and pharmacologic study of the MDR converter GF120918 in combination with doxorubicin in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Resistance to chemotherapy can partly be explained by the activity of membrane bound P-glycoprotein. Competitive inhibition of P-glycoprotein, by multidrug resistance (MDR) converters, may overcome this MDR. Previously studied MDR converters either have serious intrinsic side effects or considerably influence the pharmacokinetics of cytotoxic agents at concentrations theoretically required to convert MDR. GF120918 is a third-generation MDR converter with high affinity for P-glycoprotein and can be given orally. We performed a phase 1 study with escalating doses of GF120918 in combination with doxorubicin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study group comprised 46 patients with advanced solid tumors. Doxorubicin was administered on day 1 (cycle 1), GF120918 on days 22-24 (cycle 2), and on days 29-33 with doxorubicin administered on day 31 (cycle 3). Pharmacokinetics of both GF120918 and doxorubicin were studied. The starting daily dose of GF120918 was 50 mg and was to be increased in subsequent cohorts until a steady state plasma level of 100 ng/ml was reached. The starting dose of doxorubicin was 50 mg/m2 and was to be increased after reaching the target dose level of GF120918. RESULTS: In 37 of the 46 patients, full pharmacokinetic data from the three scheduled cycles were obtained. Pharmacokinetics of GF120918 showed a less than linear increase in Cmax with increasing doses, with considerable interpatient variation. The target steady-state plasma level for GF120918 was exceeded in 12 out of 19 patients who received 400 mg GF120918 alone twice daily and in 12 of 17 patients who received 400 mg GF120918 twice daily in combination with doxorubicin. GF120918 pharmacokinetics were not influenced by coadministration of doxorubicin. The doxorubicin AUC was only marginally influenced by GF120918 and only at the highest dose levels. In these patients there was a significant increase in the AUC of doxorubicinol in cycle 3 as compared to cycle 1. Hematologic toxicity mainly consisted of neutropenia and was more severe in cycle 3 than in cycle 1 (13 vs 5 patients with grade 4 neutropenia, P=0.003). Neutropenic fever was the dose-limiting toxicity at a doxorubicin dose of 75 mg/m2 with 400 mg GF120918 twice daily. The toxicity of GF120918 was limited to somnolence in eight patients and occasional gastrointestinal complaints. CONCLUSION: GF120918 is an MDR converter with only minimal side effects at a dose level yielding concentrations able to convert the action of P-glycoprotein in vitro. A doxorubicin dose of 60 mg/m2 on day 3 in combination with 400 mg GF120918 twice daily on days 1-5 is an acceptable regimen for further clinical trials.

Adaptive intrapatient dose escalation of cisplatin in combination with low-dose vp16 in patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer.

The objective of this phase II and pharmacologic study was to explore the feasibility, toxicity and activity of adaptive intrapatient dose escalation of cisplatin in a dose-intensive weekly schedule using predefined levels of exposure, with the ultimate aim to improve the antitumour activity of the therapy in patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Platinum DNA-adduct levels in peripheral white blood cells during treatment were used as the primary parameter for adaptive dosing. If DNA-adduct levels were not available, the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) of unbound platinum in plasma was used for dose adaptation. Target levels for DNA-adducts and AUC have been defined in a previously performed pharmacologic study. The feasibility of adaptive dosing was tested in 76 patients with stage IIIB and IV NSCLC, who were planned to receive 6 weekly courses of cisplatin at a starting dose of 70 mg m(-2), together with daily low oral dose of 50 mg VP16. In total, 37 patients (49%) who were given more than one course received a dose increase varying from 10 to 55%. The majority of patients reached the defined target levels by a dose increase during course two. Relevant grade 2 neurotoxicity was observed in eight (10%) patients and reversible ototoxicity grade 2 in 14 (18%) patients. The strategy of adaptive intrapatient dose adjustment of cisplatin is practically feasible in a research setting even when results for dose adaptation have to be reported within a short time-period of 1 week. The toxicity appeared to be manageable in this cohort of patients. In some patients, exposure after the standard dose was substantially lower than the defined target level and significant dose escalations of more than 50% had to be applied. The response rate (RR) was relatively high: overall 40% (29 out of 72 patients) partial remission (PR), in patients with stage IIIB the RR was 60% (15 out of 25 patients) and with stage IV 30% (14 out of 47 patients). Randomised studies are needed to determine whether the adaptive dosing strategy results in better efficacy than standard dosing.

Adaptive intrapatient dose escalation of cisplatin in patients with advanced head and neck cancer.

The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility and toxicity of intrapatient dose adjustment using predefined levels of exposure to cisplatin, with the ultimate goal to further improve the antitumor activity of the treatment. The primary parameter for adaptive dosing was the level of platinum DNA adducts in peripheral white blood cells (WBC) and the secondary parameter the area under the curve (AUC) of unbound platinum in plasma, which were determined during the applied courses. Target levels had been defined in a previously performed pharmacologic study. The concept of adaptive dosing was tested in 16 patients with locally advanced head and neck (H/N) cancer who would receive six weekly courses of cisplatin at a starting dose level of 80 mg/m(2), which was previously investigated in a phase II study. Forty-seven percent of patients received a dose increase varying from 10 to 40%. Only two patients had exposure levels significantly below the defined target levels for DNA adducts and AUC. The majority of patients reached the defined target levels by modest dose increases of 10-20% during course 2. Relevant but reversible ototoxicity (temporary grade 3 in two patients) and renal toxicity (temporary grade 2 in two other patients) were observed. The pattern and severity of the toxicity was comparable to that encountered in the previous phase II study in H/N cancer patients. We conclude that the strategy of intrapatient dose adjustment for cisplatin is practically feasible in a research setting even when a short turn around time of 1 week is the limit for reporting results. Although in some patients the dose increase that had to be applied to reach target levels was substantial (up to 40%), this approach in H/N cancer patients is not expected to improve the response rate significantly, because these significantly underdosed patients represented only a small percentage of the investigated population. The great majority of patients needed only limited (10-20%) dose increases which very likely will not improve the response rate to a clinically significant extent. The outlined concept is currently being explored in other tumor types and schedules of cisplatin.

Phase I study of 3-week schedule of irinotecan combined with cisplatin in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility, pharmacokinetic interaction, and possible sequence-dependent effects of the irinotecan/cisplatin combination given every 3 weeks, and to assess the influence of additional granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) on the hematologic toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who had received no more than one prior combination chemotherapy regimen or two single-agent regimens were entered. Treatment consisted of a 90-minute irinotecan infusion followed by a 3-hour cisplatin infusion on day 1, with cycles repeated once every 3 weeks. After the maximum-tolerated dose was determined, the sequence of administration was reversed. In a separate cohort of six patients, we assessed the effect of G-CSF on the experienced hematologic toxicity and dose-intensity. Irinotecan doses ranged from 175 to 300 mg/m(2) and cisplatin doses ranged from 60 to 80 mg/m(2). RESULTS: Fifty-two patients entered the study; one was not eligible, and two were not assessable for response. Twenty-five patients were pretreated, and 26 were not. Fifty-one patients received a total of 223 courses. The dose-limiting toxicity was a combination of neutropenic fever, diarrhea, and fatigue at a dose level combining irinotecan 300 mg/m(2) with cisplatin 80 mg/m(2). Neutropenia was common (grades 3 to 4, 68%). Irinotecan pharmacokinetics were linear over the dose range studied. No sequence-dependent side effects were observed. Tumor responses included three complete responses and eight partial responses. CONCLUSION: For phase II studies, we recommend irinotecan 260 mg/m(2) combined with cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) once every 3 weeks for chemotherapy-naive patients in good physical condition, and irinotecan 200 mg/m(2) combined with cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) for other patients.

Pharmacokinetic, metabolic, and pharmacodynamic profiles in a dose-escalating study of irinotecan and cisplatin.

PURPOSE: To investigate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of irinotecan and cisplatin administered once every 3 weeks in a dose-escalating study in patients with solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-two cancer patients were treated with irinotecan administered as a 90-minute infusion at doses ranging from 175 to 300 mg/m(2) followed by cisplatin administered as a 3-hour intravenous infusion at doses ranging from 60 to 80 mg/m(2). After reaching the maximum-tolerated dose, the sequence of drug administration was revised. For pharmacokinetic analysis, serial plasma samples were obtained on days 1 through 3 of the first cycle. Forty-five patients were assessable for irinotecan pharmacokinetics, and 46 were assessable for cisplatin pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: Irinotecan and cisplatin demonstrated linear pharmacokinetics comparable to that observed with single-agent administration, which suggests an absence of pharmacokinetic interaction. SN-38G constituted the major plasma metabolite of irinotecan, whereas 7-ethyl-10-[4-N-(1-piperidino)1-amino]-carbonyloxycamptothecine (NPC) was only a minor metabolite in plasma, possibly indicating a rapid conversion of NPC to SN-38. The terminal elimination phases of SN-38 and SN-38G were similar and relatively delayed when compared with the elimination of irinotecan. Maximal DNA adduct formation did not significantly differ from that observed with single-agent administration. The percentage decrease in WBC was significantly related to the areas under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUCs) of the lactone form of irinotecan (P =.0245) and SN-38 (P =. 0123). The severity of diarrhea was not significantly related to the AUCs of irinotecan and SN-38, nor to the systemic glucuronidation rate of SN-38. CONCLUSION: There was no apparent pharmacokinetic interaction between irinotecan and cisplatin in this study. Reversion of the administration sequence of the drugs did not seem to have any influence on the pharmacokinetics. The incidence and severity of delayed-type diarrhea was not related to any of the studied parameters.

Phase I and pharmacologic study of BMS-181174 given as a 6 h infusion every 4 weeks to patients with advanced solid tumors.

BMS-181174, a new mitomycin C (MMC) analog, showed more activity than the parent compound in tumor xenografts. In a phase I study with a 5-30 min slow bolus administration, hematologic and vascular toxicity were observed as major side effects. A prolonged infusion was suggested to circumvent the vascular toxicity. In this phase I study BMS-181174 was administered as a 6 h infusion every 4 weeks; the doses studied were 3.2, 6.4, 11.5, 19.0, 32.0, 50.0, 75.0 and 100 mg/m2. Twenty-eight patients were enrolled in the study, the majority with colorectal cancer. Hematologic side effects consisted of thrombocytopenia, and mild leuko- and granulocytopenia. The most distressing non-hematologic side effect was vascular toxicity consisting of phlebosclerosis and phlebitis, becoming dose limiting at 100 mg/m2. One patient developed a hemolytic uremic syndrome at a cumulative dose of 350 mg/m2. Pharmacokinetic data are available for 24 patients. The AUC ranged from 3.35 to 41.49 (microg x h/ml) and was highly correlated with the dose administered (r = 0.83). The kinetics appeared to be linear. One patient with metastatic colon cancer had a partial response of liver metastases. BMS-181174 is a MMC analog with a toxicity profile comparable to that of the parent compound. As doses above 50 mg/m2 are complicated by vascular toxicity precluding multiple administrations, further exploration of BMS-181174 will not be performed.

Drug-administration sequence does not change pharmacodynamics and kinetics of irinotecan and cisplatin.

In this study, 11 patients with solid tumors were randomized to receive irinotecan (CPT-11; 200 mg/m2) as a 90-min i.v. infusion, immediately followed by cisplatin (CDDP; 80 mg/m2) as a 3-h i.v. infusion in the first course and the reversed sequence in the second course or vice versa. No significant differences in any toxicity were observed between the treatment schedules (decrease in absolute neutrophil count, 74.7 +/- 18.3 versus 80.3 +/- 18.0%; P = 0.41). CPT-11 lactone clearance was similar to single agent data and not significantly different between study courses (60.4 +/- 17.1 versus 65.5 +/- 16.3 liter/h/m2; P = 0.66). The kinetic profiles of the major CPT-11 metabolites SN-38, SN-38 glucuronide, 7-ethyl-10-[4-N-(5-aminopentanoic acid)-1-piperidinolcarbonyloxycamptothecine (APC), and 7-ethyl-10-[4-N-(1-piperidino)-1-amino]carbonyloxycamptothecine (NPC) were also sequence independent (P > or = 0.20). In addition, CPT-11 had no influence on the clearance of nonprotein-bound CDDP (40.8 +/- 16.7 versus 50.3 +/- 18.6 liter/h/m2; P = 0.08) and the platinum DNA-adduct formation in peripheral leukocytes in either sequence (1.94 +/- 2.20 versus 2.42 +/- 1.62 pg Pt/microg DNA; P = 0.41). These data indicate that the toxicity of the combination CPT-11 and CDDP is schedule independent and that there is no mutual pharmacokinetic interaction.

Phase I and pharmacologic study of the arotinoid Ro 40-8757 in combination with cisplatin and etoposide in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

This phase I study was performed to assess the feasibility of combining cisplatin/etoposide (VP-16) with the arotinoid Ro 40-8757 and to determine the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of Ro 40-8757 in this combination. Patients with non-small cell lung cancer were eligible. Treatment consisted of Ro 40-8757 p.o. day 1-21, cisplatin 100 mg/m2 i.v. on day 2 and VP-16 100 mg/m2 i.v. on day 2-4, repeated every 3 weeks. Eighteen patients were evaluable for toxicity and response. The doses of Ro 40-8757 ranged from 84 mg/m2 once daily to 42 mg/m2 thrice daily (tid). DLT consisting of delayed nausea/vomiting was reached at 42 mg/m2 tid. Consequently, the maximum tolerated dose was set at one dose level below the DLT, i.e. 28 mg/m2 tid. Skin toxicity occurred but was well manageable. Pharmacological analyses showed a small increase in the volume of distribution of cisplatin and VP-16 between the first and third course. However, no relationship with side effects was found. A response was achieved in 50% of patients. The combination of cisplatin/VP-16 with Ro 40-8757 appears to be feasible at a dose schedule of 28 mg/m2 tid. The response rate was at the upper rate of what can be expected with cisplatin and VP-16.

The venotonic drug hydroxyethylrutosiden does not prevent or reduce docetaxel-induced fluid retention: results of a comparative study.

PURPOSE: Fluid retention, which includes peripheral edema, ascites, pleural or pericardial effusion, or a combination of these that is sometimes associated with significant weight gain, is one of the most troublesome cumulative side effects of docetaxel. A suggestive observation from the data base available at the manufacturer (Rhone-Poulenc Rorer) was that patients who received venotonic drugs appeared to tolerate more courses of docetaxel. This prompted a comparative study to investigate whether the venotonic drug hydroxyethylrutosiden could reduce or delay docetaxel-related fluid retention. METHODS: A total of 85 patients with metastatic breast cancer who were treated with docetaxel at a dose of 100 mg/m2 with corticoid comedication were allocated to receive either 300 mg hydroxyethylrutosiden given orally four times daily (group A) or no hydroxyethylrutosiden (group B). The end point for analysis was the development of fluid retention of > or = grade 2. RESULTS: Fluid retention of > or = grade 2 was reported in 14 of 42 patients (33%) in group A and in 15 of 43 patients (35%) in group B and occurred after a median of 4 cycles of docetaxel in both groups. Weight gain was similar in groups A and B. CONCLUSION: We conclude that hydroxyethylrutosiden does not reduce or delay the incidence and severity of docetaxel-related fluid retention.

Phase I study of subcutaneously administered recombinant human interleukin 12 in patients with advanced renal cell cancer.

A phase I study was conducted to characterize the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), and pharmacokinetics of a single dose followed by three times weekly s.c. injections of recombinant human interleukin 12 (rHuIL-12). The study encompassed 28 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. rHuIL-12 was administered on day 1, followed by an observation period of 7 days. Starting on day 8, repeated s.c. injections were administered 3 times a week for 2 weeks. The MTD of the initial injection was evaluated at dose levels of 0.1, 0.5, and 1.0 microg/kg. DLT was observed at 1.0 microg/kg and consisted of fever, perivasculitis of the skin, and leukopenia. The MTD of the subsequent repeated injections after 1 week of rest was studied at dose levels 0.5, 1.0, and 1.25 microg/kg. DLT at 1.25 microg/kg comprised deterioration of performance status, fever, vomiting, mental depression, and leukopenia. Other notable toxicities were oral mucositis and elevation of hepatic enzymes. Fever, leukopenia, and elevation of hepatic enzymes were more severe after the initial injection than after repeated injections at the same dose level. At dose level 0.5 microg/kg, the mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve decreased from 7.4 ng/h/ml after the first injection to 3.3 ng x h/ml (P = 0.034) after repeated administrations, and at dose level 1.0 microg/kg, it ranged from 31.8 ng/h/ml to 6.0 ng x h/ml (P = 0.041). One patient had a partial response and seven had stable disease. The MTD of a single s.c. injection of rHuIL-12 was 0.5 microg/kg, and the MTD of three subsequent administrations per week was 1.0 microg/kg. In comparison with a single administration, the three times weekly administrations at the same dose level was accompanied with a milder pattern of side effects and a reduction of the area under the plasma concentration-time curve.

Phase I and pharmacologic study of docetaxel and cisplatin in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: This phase I study was performed to assess the feasibility of the combination of docetaxel and cisplatin and to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and the side effects with an emphasis on sequence-dependent side effects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who were not pretreated with taxanes or cisplatin derivatives and who had received no more than one prior combination chemotherapy regimen or two single-agent regimens were entered. Treatment consisted of docetaxel given as a 1-hour infusion followed by cisplatin as a 3-hour infusion (schedule A), or cisplatin followed by docetaxel (schedule B). Docetaxel doses ranged from 55 to 100 mg/m2 and cisplatin doses from 50 to 100 mg/m2. RESULTS: Leukocytopenia and granulocytopenia were common (overall, 90%; grade 3 or 4, 87%), short-lasting, and docetaxel dose-dependent. Infections and neutropenic fever occurred in 10% and 4.5% of courses, respectively. Nonhematologic toxicities were mild to moderate and included alopecia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, mucositis, neurotoxicity, fluid retention, and skin and nail toxicity. There were no significant differences in pharmacokinetic parameters between schedules A and B. Tumor responses included one complete response (CR) and nine partial responses (PRs). CONCLUSION: The dose levels docetaxel 100 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 and docetaxel 85 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m2 appeared to be manageable. At these dose levels, the median relative dose-intensity was high and 81% and 88% of all cycles, respectively, could be given at full dose. Schedule A is advocated for further treatment.

A phase II study of weekly high-dose cisplatin combined with oral etoposide in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

As a dose-response relationship has been suggested for cisplatin, it appeared attractive to explore high-dose-intensity regimens in non-small-cell lung cancer. In a phase I study of weekly administration of cisplatin combined with oral etoposide we achieved a cisplatin dose intensity of 52.5-60 mg/m2 per week in most patients. We subsequently explored this regimen in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients were treated with cisplatin infused at 70 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15 and 29, 36, 43 in combination with oral etoposide given at 50 mg on days 1-15 and 29-43. Patients showing stable disease or a better response were continued on treatment with oral etoposide given at 50 mg/m2 per day on days 1-21 every 28 days for a maximum of four cycles. In all, 22 patients with stage III disease and 31 patients with stage IV disease entered the study. The median number of cisplatin administration was 6 per patient; 17 patients reached the planned cisplatin dose intensity of 60 mg/m2 per week, 11 patients achieved 52.5 mg/m2 per week, and 7 patients reached 47 mg/m2 per week. Overall, 11 of 21 stage III patients had a partial response [response rate 51%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 36-81%], as did 9 of 28 patients with stage IV disease (32%; 95% CI 15-49%). Toxicity was mainly hematologic, with leukocytopenia being the most frequent cause of treatment delay. Nephrotoxicity of grade 1 was observed in seven patients. Two patients developed clinical hearing loss. With this schedule a high median cisplatin dose intensity of 52.5-60 mg/m2 per week was reached. The 51% response rate achieved in stage III disease makes this schedule attractive for further exploration; however, it is not recommended for routine use in stage IV disease.

The bioavailability of oral GI147211 (GG211), a new topoisomerase I inhibitor.

Topoisomerase I inhibitors are new compounds of interest for cancer chemotherapy. We performed a study with GI147211, a new semisynthetic camptothecin analogue, to determine the absolute bioavailability of the drug given orally. Patients with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of a solid tumour refractory to standard forms of therapy were eligible for the study. GI147211 was given orally on day 1 and as a 30-min infusion daily on days 2-5. The treatment course was repeated every 3 weeks. In subsequent patient cohorts, the dose of the oral formulation was escalated from 1.5 mg m(-2) to 6.0 mg m(-2); the dose for i.v. administration was fixed at 1.2 mg m(-2). Plasma pharmacokinetics was performed on day 1 and 2 of the first course and on day 1 of the second course using a validated high-performance liquid chromatographic assay. Nineteen patients were entered into the study; one patient was not evaluable because the treatment course was stopped prematurely. Eighteen patients received a total of 47 treatment courses. The absolute bioavailability of GI147211 averaged 1.3 +/- 5.2%. Drug appeared quickly in plasma with a median Tmax at 0.5 h. Fasting or fed state had no significant influence on the bioavailability of GI147211. The terminal half-life after administration of oral GI147211 was 6.85 +/- 3.13 h, similar to the half-life after intravenous administration. The major toxicities were neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Nadirs for neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred on day 8 and day 15 respectively. Other toxicities predominantly consisted of mild and infrequent nausea and vomiting, and fatigue. The oral administration of the drug is well tolerated. Oral administration of topoisomerase I inhibitor GI147211 results in a low bioavailability with relatively wide interpatient variation. The intravenous route of administration is advised for further development of this promising topoisomerase I inhibitor.

Patient perceptions of the side-effects of chemotherapy: the influence of 5HT3 antagonists.

In 1983, Coates conducted a survey that ranked the side-effects perceived by patients receiving chemotherapy in the order of their severity. Vomiting and nausea were found to be the two most distressing side-effects. They have an impact on quality of life and compliance with treatment. The development of 5HT3 antagonists has been a major step forward in the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Presently, these antiemetics are routinely used as concomitant therapy in emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of 5HT3 antagonists on patient perceptions of the side-effects of chemotherapy. Coates' survey was replicated in patients who received 5HT3 antagonists for acute nausea and vomiting resulting from emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients received the survey to identify those physical and non-physical side-effects that they attributed to chemotherapy and were asked to rank the five most distressing side-effects. Of the 197 patients who consented to take part in the study, 181 were evaluable. Nausea, hair loss and vomiting were described as the three most distressing side-effects of chemotherapy. Eighty per cent of all the patients actually experienced nausea and 57% experienced vomiting. Hair loss appeared to be more distressing to women (P < 0.001) but, in other aspects, gender, age and marital status did not influence the ranking of the three most distressing side-effects. Constipation was ranked as 6th and was not identified as a distressing side-effect in 1983. Nausea and vomiting remain to be the first and third most distressing side-effects of chemotherapy, even though the incidence and severity of acute nausea and vomiting are now significantly reduced.

Phase II study of a short course of weekly high-dose cisplatin combined with long-term oral etoposide in metastatic malignant melanoma.

The results of cytostatic therapy in metastatic melanoma are very disappointing. In phase II studies with high-dose cisplatin regimens, a remarkably high response rate was observed. In a phase I study with a short course of weekly cisplatin, combined with oral etoposide, we were able to reach, in most patients, a cisplatin dose intensity of 60 mg/m2/week. We performed a phase II study with this schedule in metastatic malignant melanoma. 15 consecutive patients were entered in the study. Treatment consisted of cisplatin 70 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15 and days 29, 36, 43 combined with oral etoposide 50 mg daily, days 1-15 and days 29-43. Patients with a response or stable disease continued treatment with oral etoposide 50 mg/m2 daily, days 1-21 every 4 weeks. All patients were evaluable for response and toxicity. The majority of the patients received six cycles of cisplatin with the planned cisplatin dose intensity of 60 mg/m2/week. A partial response was observed in 2 patients (13%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2-44%) of, respectively, 22 and 12 weeks; stable disease was observed in 6 patients. Toxicity consisted mainly of alopecia and bone marrow suppression. 4 patients had tinnitus, one patient had neurotoxicity grade 1. The regimen studied has only limited activity in metastatic melanoma in spite of the high-dose intensity of cisplatin reached with this schedule.

Phase II and pharmacologic study of topotecan administered as a 21-day continuous infusion to patients with colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Topotecan is a specific inhibitor of topoisomerase I. Preclinical data have indicated that topoisomerase I inhibitors demonstrate more efficacy and have a greater therapeutic index with prolonged continuous exposure. The feasibility of this concept in humans using a 21-day continuous infusion of topotecan has been reported. We conducted a phase II study of this 21-day continuous topotecan administration schedule in patients with locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Topotecan, initially applied at a dose of 0.6 mg/m2/d, was administered as a continuous infusion via an ambulatory pump for 21 days repeated every 4 weeks. The starting dose was reduced to 0.5 mg/m2/d, because in five of the first 11 patients, the second course had to be delayed due to prolonged myelosuppression. Forty-two patients entered the study; one patient was ineligible and was excluded from further analyses. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 10%, with one complete and three partial responses. The median response duration was 7 months (range, 4 to 11). With this schedule, the major toxicity was prolonged cumulative myelosuppression, including a marked inhibition of erythropoiesis. A total transfusion of 250 U of erythrocytes was needed to maintain a hemoglobin level greater than 6.0 mmol/L. Other side effects were mild, and included alopecia (47%), periodic nausea (40%)/vomiting (22%), and fatigue (16%). Pharmacokinetic evaluation showed a mean steady-state plasma concentration (Css) of topotecan of 0.62 ng/mL (range, 0.33 to 1.1), with a significant relationship between the Css of topotecan and common cytotoxicity criteria (CTC) grade of leukocytopenia. CONCLUSION: Topotecan administered as a 21-day continuous infusion exerts minor activity as single-agent therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Pharmacokinetic profile and clinical efficacy of a once-daily ondansetron suppository in cyclophosphamide-induced emesis: a double blind comparative study with ondansetron tablets.

We investigated the pharmacokinetic profile and the efficacy of ondansetron (day 1) given as 16 mg suppository once a day, as compared with ondansetron 8 mg tablets twice daily, in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The study was primarily aimed at investigating the pharmacokinetics and was part of a large multinational, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy efficacy trial. Pharmacokinetic data were obtained in a total of 20 patients, 11 of whom had received a suppository containing ondansetron, and nine patients had received the oral formulation. The median area under the plasma concentration curve (AUC) obtained with the oral formulation was 226 ng ml-1h-1 (range 91-750), and the median maximum plasma level (Cmax) was 50.5 ng ml-1 (range 24.7-199.6) after a dose of 8 mg. For the ondansetron suppository the median AUC was 140 ng ml-1h-1 range (77-405) and the median Cmax was 17.1 ng ml-1 (range 13-48.3) after a dose of 16 mg. The systemic exposure after correction for the dose difference after the suppository was on average 70% lower than after the tablet. The median time to reach the maximum level (Tmax) was 60 min (range 28-120) with the oral formulation and 209 min (range 90-420) with the suppository. For both the tablet and suppository, there was no apparent relationship between either Cmax or AUC, and efficacy. Although the patient numbers were too small for a formal exposure-response relationship to be derived, the slightly poorer pharmacokinetic performance of the suppository did not appear to be associated with a lessening of control of emesis following chemotherapy. The study demonstrates that the pharmacokinetic analysis of a once-daily 16 mg ondansetron suppository results in appropriate plasma concentrations and AUC, and that this rectal formulation is effective in the protection against nausea and vomiting associated with cyclophosphamide chemotherapy. This formulation will provide a useful alternative to the currently available oral formulation.

Relationship between the exposure to cisplatin, DNA-adduct formation in leucocytes and tumour response in patients with solid tumours.

The study was designed to investigate possible relationships between tumour response and exposure to cisplatin (area under the curve of unbound cisplatin in plasma, AUC) and DNA-adduct formation in leucocytes (WBC) in patients with solid tumours. Patients were treated with six weekly courses of cisplatin at a dose of 70 or 80 mg m-2. The AUC was determined during the first course and DNA-adduct levels in WBC during all courses at baseline, 1 h (A(max)) and 15 h after a 3 h infusion of cisplatin. The area under the DNA-adduct-time curve (AUA) was calculated. The tumour response was determined after six courses. Forty-five evaluable patients received 237 courses of cisplatin. Sixteen patients with head and neck cancer received a dose of 80 mg m-2 and 29 with various other tumour types received 70 mg m-2 plus daily 50 mg oral etoposide. There were 20 responders (partial and complete) and 25 non-responders (stable and progressive disease). The AUC was highly variable (mean +/- s.d. = 2.48 +/- 0.51 micrograms h-1 ml-1; range 1.10-3.82) and was closely correlated with the AUA (r = 0.78, P < 0.0001) and A(max) (r = 0.73, P < 0.0001). The AUC, AUA and A(max) were significantly higher in responders than in non-responders in the total population (P < 0.0001) and in the two subgroups treated at 70 or 80 mg m-2. In logistic regression analysis AUC, AUA and A(max) were important predictors of response. The magnitude of exposure to cisplatin is, through DNA-adduct formation, the major determinant of the response rate in this population. Hence, individualised dosing of cisplatin using AUC or DNA-adducts should lead to increased response rates.

Phase II study of a short course of weekly high-dose cisplatin combined with long-term oral etoposide in metastatic colorectal cancer.

In a phase I study of weekly administered cisplatin combined with oral etoposide, we observed a partial response in 4 out of 11 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Subsequently, we performed a phase II study to investigate the activity of this combination as first-line treatment in this disease. Fourteen patients with metastatic colorectal cancer were enrolled in this study. Treatment consisted of cisplatin, administered in 3% sodium chloride, at a dose of 70 mg m-2 on days 1, 8 and 15 and days 29, 36 and 43 combined with oral etoposide 50 mg absolute dose daily on days 1-15 of both courses. Patients with stable disease or better continued treatment with etoposide 50 mg m-2 orally on days 1-21 every 28 days. A partial response was observed in two patients with liver metastases (14%; 95% confidence limits 2-42%) for 30 and 32 weeks. Five patients had stable disease. Toxicity consisted mainly of anaemia, leucocytopenia, nausea and vomiting. Tinnitus was reported by six patients. The activity of the combination cisplatin-oral etoposide in the schedule is only minimal in metastatic colorectal cancer.