Library

Notes: Abstract Purpose: DMP 840, a novel bisnaphthalimide, has demonstrated promising schedule dependent anti-tumor activity in vitro and in vivo against several tumor cell lines. A phase I study was conducted to evaluate the effect of a 24-hour infusion schedule repeated every three weeks, on the therapeutic efficacy of DMP 840. Patients and methods: Fourteen patients with refractory solid tumor malignancies were treated with DMP 840 at doses of 20, 40, 50 and 60 mg/m2. Results: A combination of neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and stomatitis were dose-limiting at doses of 50 and 60 mg/m2 in both minimally- and extensively-pretreated patients. In contrast, all courses at lower dose levels were well tolerated. Pharmacokinetic analysis demonstrated that DMP 840 had a prolonged terminal half life (median 39 hours; range 25–86) and that dose-limiting events were significantly related to several indices of systemic DMP 840 exposure (P 〈 0.01, Wilcoxon Rank Sum test). Conclusion: The recommended dose of DMP 840 for further disease oriented evaluations is 40 mg/m2 administered over 24 hours every three weeks. The infusion duration evaluated in this study did not result in a substantial increase in the tolerable dose compared to shorter, less cumbersome schedules.

Notes: Abstract Purpose: The premise for the study was that topotecan (TPT) resistance in preclinical studies is associated with low level expression of the p-glycoprotein (Pgp) multi-drug transporter conferred by the multi-drug resistant (MDR) phenotype, which might be overcome in clinical practice by administering moderately (2.3-fold) higher doses of TPT that have been shown to be feasible with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support. This phase II study evaluated the anti-tumor activity of TPT administered at its highest possible solid tumor dose with G-CSF in patients with fluoropyrimdine-refractory advanced colorectal carcinoma. The study also sought to identify pharmacodynamic (PD) determinants of both activity and toxicity. Patients and methods: TPT was administered as a 30-minute infusion daily for five days every three weeks at a dose of 3.5 mg/m2/day to patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma who developed progressive disease either during treatment with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy for advanced disease or within six months after receiving fluoropyrimdine-based adjuvant chemotherapy. This dose of TPT was previously determined to be the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) with G-CSF support in a phase I study involving solid tumor patients with similar risk factors for myelosuppression. Plasma sampling was performed during course 1 to characterize the pharmacokinetic (PK) and PD behavior of TPT. Results: Seventeen patients who received 89 courses of TPT and G-CSF were evaluable for toxicity; 16 patients were evaluable for anti-tumor response. Toxicity, particularly myelosuppression, was substantial. At the 3.5 mg/m2/day dose level, absolute neutrophil counts (ANC) were less than 500/µl for longer than five days in 17% of courses involving seven of 17 (41%) patients. Severe neutropenia associated with fever occurred in 12.3% of courses; and platelet counts below 25,000/µl were noted in 26.9% of courses. These toxicities resulted in dose reductions in seven of 17 (41%) patients. Nevertheless, 90% of the planned total dose of TPT was administered. No major responses were observed, though minor activity was noted in several patients. Both the median time to progression and the median survival time were short – 2.5 and four months, respectively. Although interindividual variability in the disposition of total TPT was observed, the lack of objective responses precluded PD assessments related to disease activity. Total TPT exposure was significantly higher than drug exposure achieved in similar patients at an identical dose in a previous phase I study of TPT and G-CSF, which may explain why more severe myelosuppressive effects occurred in the present study. There were no PD relationships evident between relevant PK parameters and the percent decrements in platelets and ANCs during course 1, although patients with severe toxic effects (ANC below 500/µl for more than five days and/or platelets 〈25,000/µl) had higher drug exposure than patients with less severe toxicity (P 〈 0.018 and P = 0.09, respectively). Conclusions: Based on these results, the true response rate of TPT at its solid tumor MTD with G-CSF support is unlikely to approach 20%. Although a response rate of less than 20% might be viewed as significant in this disease setting and might be confirmed with sufficient statistical certainty by treating additional patients, the substantial toxicity, inconvenience, and cost associated with this high dose TPT/G-CSF regimen does not warrant the acceptance of a lower level of anti-tumor activity as a criterion for further development.

Notes: Abstract Background:This study was performed to evaluate thepharmacokinetics, bioequivalence, and feasibility of a combined oralformulation of 5-flurouracil (5-FU) and eniluracil (Glaxo Wellcome Inc.,Research Triangle Park, North Carolina), an inactivator of dihydropyrimidinedehydrogenase (DPD). The rationale for developing a combined eniluracil/5-FUformulation oral dosing form is to simplify treatment with these agents, whichhas been performed using separate dosing forms, and decrease the probabilityof severe toxicity and/or suboptimal therapeutic results caused byinadvertently high or conversely insufficient 5-FU dosing. Patients and methods:The trial was a randomized, three-waycrossover bioequivalence study of three oral dosing forms of eniluracil/5-FUtablets in adults with solid malignancies. Each period consisted of two daysof treatment and a five- to seven-day washout phase. Eniluracil at a dose of20 mg, which results in maximal DPD inactivation, was administered twice dailyon the first day and in the evening on the second day of each of the threetreatments. On the morning of the second day, all patients received a totaleniluracil dose of 20 mg orally and a total 5-FU dose of 2 mg orally as eitherseparate tablets (treatment A) or combined eniluracil/5-FU tablets in twodifferent strengths (2 tablets of eniluracil/5-FU at a strength (mg/mg) of10/1 (treatment B) or 8 tablets at a strength of 2.5/0.25 (treatment C)). Thepharmacokinetics of plasma 5-FU, eniluracil, and uracil, and the urinaryexcretion of eniluracil, 5-FU, uracil, and α-fluoro-β-alanine (FBAL),were studied. To determine the bioequivalence of the combined eniluracil/5-FUdosing forms compared to the separate tablets, an analysis of variance onpharmacokinetic parameters reflecting eniluracil and 5-FU exposure wasperformed. Results:Thirty-nine patients with advanced solid malignancies hadcomplete pharmacokinetic studies performed during treatments A, B, and C. Thepharmacokinetics of eniluracil and 5-FU were similar among the three types oftreatment. Both strengths of the combined eniluracil/5-FU dosing form and theseparate dosing forms were bioequivalent. Mean values for terminal half-life,systemic clearance, and apparent volume of distribution for oral 5-FU duringtreatments A/B/C were 5.5/5.6/5.6 hours, 6.6/6.6/6.5 liters/hour, and50.7/51.5/50.0 liters, respectively. The intersubject coefficient of variationfor pharmacokinetic variables reflecting 5-FU exposure and clearance intreatments ranged from 23% to 33%. The urinary excretion ofunchanged 5-FU over 24 hours following treatments A, B, and C averaged52.2%, 56.1%, and 50.8% of the administered dose of 5-FU,respectively. Parameters reflecting DPD inhibition, including plasma uraciland urinary FBAL excretion following treatments A, B, and C were similar.Toxicity was generally mild and similar following all three types oftreatments. Conclusions:The pharmacokinetics of 5-FU and eniluracil weresimilar and met bioequivalence criteria following treatment with the separateoral formulations of 5-FU and eniluracil and two strengths of the combinedformulation. The availability of a combined eniluracil/5-FU oral dosing formwill likely simplify dosing and decrease the probability of severe toxicityor suboptimal therapeutic results caused by an inadvertent 5-FU overdose orinsufficient 5-FU dosing in the case of separate oral formulations, therebyenhancing the overall feasibility and therapeutic index of oral 5-FU therapy.