Library

Notes: Abstract  Histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) are principal components of the premedication regimen used to prevent major hypersensitivity reactions in patients receiving paclitaxel. Several different H2RAs, including cimetidine, ranitidine and famotidine, have been used in clinical trials of paclitaxel, as well as by clinicians in different geographic regions and hospitals primarily because of differences in the availability of the various H2RAs. However, H2RAs have highly variable cytochrome P450-modulating capabilities, and the P450 system appears to play a major role in paclitaxel metabolism and disposition. Therefore, the use of different H2RAs may result in different pharmacologic, toxicologic and antitumor profiles due to differential effects on paclitaxel metabolism. This study evaluated whether cimetidine and famotidine, which possess disparate P450-modulating capabilities, differentially affect paclitaxel clearance rates and the agent’s principal toxicity, neutropenia. Women with advanced, platinum-refractory ovarian carcinoma received two courses of treatment with 135 mg/m2 paclitaxel over 24  h while participating in the National Cancer Institute’s Treatment Referral Center Protocol. A crossover design was employed in which consecutive patients received either 300 mg cimetidine i.v. or 20 mg famotidine i.v. before their first course of paclitaxel and the alternate H2RA before their second course. In order to evaluate the differential effects of cimetidine and famotidine on pertinent pharmacologic and toxicologic parameters in the same individual, paclitaxel concentrations at steady-state (Css), paclitaxel clearance rates, and absolute neutrophil counts (ANCs) were obtained during both courses. Paclitaxel Css values were not significantly different in individual patients when either cimetidine or famotidine preceded paclitaxel (p=0.16). Mean paclitaxel clearance rates were 271 and 243 ml/min per m2 following cimetidine and famotidine, respectively. These clearance rates were not significantly different in paired analysis (p=0.30). The likelihood of subsequently requiring granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) for severe neutropenia during course 1 did not differ significantly between the two H2RAs (p=0.9). Among patients who did not require G-CSF, mean percentage decreases in ANC were 87.7% and 84.2% after paclitaxel cycles preceded by cimetidine and famotidine, respectively. These measures of neutropenia did not differ significantly in paired analysis (p=0.13). These results show that the H2RAs cimetidine and famotidine do not differentially affect the pharmacologic and toxicity profiles of paclitaxel when used in the premedication regimen to prevent major hypersensitivity reactions, and may be interchanged.

Notes: Abstract  The effects of food and divided dosing on the bioavailability of a liquid-filled gelatin capsule formulation of vinorelbine (Navelbine), a semisynthetic vinca alkaloid with broad clinical activity, was evaluated in patients with advanced solid tumors. A group of 13 patients were randomized to treatment with the oral formulation at the recommended phase II dose of 80 mg/m2 per week either in the fasting state or after ingestion of a standard meal. Patients were treated 1 week later in the alternate state relative to their first dose. The effects of divided dosing were assessed during the 3rd week, at which time vinorelbine was administered in two divided doses. After the completion of pharmacokinetic and bioavailability studies, patients received the oral formulation at a dose of 80 mg/m2 per week in two divided doses to evaluate the feasibility of chronic oral drug administration. Both manipulations resulted in small, albeit statistically significant, reductions in the relative bioavailability of this oral formulation. The relative bioavailability decreased by 22±28% when treatment followed the ingestion of a standard meal, possibly due to a delay in gastrointestinal transit time. The mean time of maximum plasma concentration (Tmax) increased from 1.3±1.6 h in the fasting state to 2.5±1.6 h in the fed state, although this difference was not statistically significant. Similarly, the relative bioavailability declined by 16±51% when vinorelbine was administered in two divided doses. An analysis of dose proportionality revealed disproportionate increases in dose-normalized Cmax and AUC values with single oral doses above 120 mg, which may account for this phenomenon. The high clearance of vinorelbine, which approaches hepatic blood flow, and the lack of dose proportionality after oral administration, indicate that there is a large first-pass effect which may be saturable, or nonlinear, above single doses of 120 mg. In addition, the toxicological and pharmacological characteristics of oral vinorelbine indicate that treatment after a standard meal or on a divided dosing schedule is safe. Chronic oral administration of the agent in two divided doses was also well tolerated. However, the small reduction in the relative bioavailability following the ingestion of a standard meal and with divided dosing suggest the need for further pharmacodynamic studies to determine if reductions in drug exposure of this magnitude may portend diminished antitumor activity.

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.

Notes: Abstract Purpose: This study was undertaken to evaluate the feasibility of administering docetaxel (Taxotere; Rhône- Poulenc-Rorer) as a one-hour intravenous (i.v.) infusion on day 1 combined with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) as a bolus i.v. injection for five (days 1–5) or three (days 1–3) consecutive days every four weeks. Patients and methods: Thirty-seven patients with advanced solid malignancies were treated with 115 total courses involving seven dose levels of the two regimens of docetaxel and 5-FU (docetaxel/5-FU [mg/m2]/mg/m2/d]). In an effort to reduce fluid retention and hypersensitivity phenomena related to docetaxel, patients received premedication with dexamethasone 8 mg orally twice daily for three consecutive days beginning 24 hours before treatment. Results: Severe (grade 4) neutropenia lasting longer than seven days with or without fever and/or severe mucositis, precluded further dose escalation above docetaxel 60 mg/m2 on day 1 and 5-FU 300 mg/m2/day administered on days 1–5 every four weeks. The rates of these toxic effects were also unacceptably high above docetaxel 60 mg/m2 on day 1 and 5- FU 300 mg/m2/day administered on days 1–3 every four weeks. Nine patients experienced various manifestations of fluid- retention that were potentially related to study drugs. However, neither treatment delay nor discontinuation of treatment was required. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and fatigue, were mild to modest in severity and occurred infrequently (〈10% of courses). Two patients with metastatic breast cancer experienced complete responses and a partial response occurred in a patient with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, the regimen of docetaxel 60 mg/m2 on day 1 followed by 5-FU 300 mg/m2/d i.v. for three or five days every four weeks is well tolerated and these doses are recommended for further evaluations. The feasibility of administering docetaxel 60 mg/m2 followed by 5-FU 300 mg/m2 for three or five days every four weeks and the preliminary antitumor activity noted indicate that further disease-directed studies of docetaxel and 5-FU are warranted in patients with relevant solid malignancies.

Notes: Abstract Background: BCH-4556 ((-)-2′-deoxy-3′-oxacytidine) is an L-nucleoside analogue shown to have broad preclinical anticancer activity, particularly against solid neoplasms such as prostate, renal, and hepatoma in vitro and in vivo, in contrast to cytosine arabinoside (ara-C) which is preferentially active against leukemia. Materials and methods: The antitumor activity of BCH-4556 was evaluated using human tumor colony-forming unit (HTCFU) assay, in which fresh tumor specimens were taken directly from patients with and without prior chemotherapy. Results: Overall, in vitro responses (50% or less survival compared to untreated controls) were observed in 11% (two of 18), 29% (five of 17) and 50% (nine of 18) of specimens treated for one hour with BCH-4556 at 1, 10 and 100 µg/ml, respectively; and 16% (nine of 55), 32% (24 of 74), 48% (35 of 73) and 65% (11 of 17) of specimens treated continuously with BCH-4556 at 0.1, 1, 10 and 100 µg/ml, respectively. With the one-hour schedule, a significant difference in response rates was noted between 100 µg/ml and 1 µg/ml (P = 0.02). With the continuous schedule, significant differences in response rates were observed between 1 µg/ml and 0.1 µg/ml (P = 0.02), between 10 µg/ml and 0.1 µg/ml (P = 0.0001), as well as between 10 µg/ml and 1 µg/ml (P = 0.01). A trend suggesting the superiority of continuous exposure was observed in paired specimens (n = 18) at comparable drug concentrations. Activity was noted against ovarian (nine of 16 = 56%), renal (three of four = 75%), and melanoma (two of two = 100%) HTCFU at 10 µg/ml using the continuous schedule. Comparisons between BCH-4556 and paclitaxel were made in 32 specimens at 10 µg/ml using the continuous exposure. Twenty-three specimens showed similar responses with both drugs; seven showed better responses with BCH-4556; and two showed better responses with paclitaxel (P = 0.18). Conclusions: Promising activity was observed with BCH-4556 against ovarian, renal, and melanoma HTCFU. There appeared to be a positive relationship between BCH-4556 concentration and response using both one-hour and continuous exposures. Continuous exposure to BCH-4556 provided high response rates especially at concentrations above 10 µg/ml. For both one-hour and continuous exposures, BCH-4556 had similar, and at times, greater potency than paclitaxel against the same tumor specimens in the present study.

Notes: Abstract Background: The objectives were to determine the dose-limiting toxicity of topotecan in combination with cisplatin, to describe the principal toxicities, and to define the maximally-tolerated doses of the drugs in previously untreated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung carcinoma. Patients and methods: The study was designed to evaluate escalated doses of topotecan (starting at 0.75 mg/m2/day) as a 30-minute infusion daily for five consecutive days with a fixed clinically-relevant dose of 75 mg/m2 cisplatin given on day 1, every three weeks. Results: Fifteen chemotherapy-naïve patients entered the study and 14 were evaluable for toxicity. All 11 patients treated at the first topotecan/cisplatin dose level of 0.75/75 mg/m2, experienced at least one episode of grade 4 neutropenia. For six patients, absolute neutrophil counts were below 500/ml for more than five days, and two of them developed a grade 4 thrombocytopenia. At the next higher topotecan/cisplatin dose level (1.0/75 mg/m2), grade 4 neutropenia lasting longer than five days occurred in all three evaluable patients, including one patient who expired due to a severe neutropenia associated with sepsis. Non-hematologic toxicities, predominantly nausea and vomiting, were mild to moderate in severity and manageable. Four patients had partial responses (30.7%; 95% confidence interval (9%–61%) of relatively short duration. Conclusion: Both severe neutropenia and thrombocytopenia precluded dose escalation of topotecan and cisplatin administered on this schedule. In previously untreated patients, the first topotecan/cisplatin dose level (0.75/75 mg/m2), was associated with intolerable myelosuppression, and, therefore, the dose levels evaluated in this study cannot be recommended for subsequent phase II investigations. The high toxicity of this schedule and the recent understanding of the pharmacokinetic interaction between those drugs may encourage the investigation of the alternate sequence of cisplatin after TPT in phase II studies.

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:Rhizoxin (NSC 332598) is a novel macrolide antitumorantibiotic that inhibits microtubule assembly and also depolymerizes preformedmicrotubules. In preclinical evaluations, rhizoxin demonstrated broadantitumor activityin vitroand in vivoincluding bothvincristine- and vindesine-resistant human lung cancers. Prolonged exposureschedules in xenograft models demonstrated optimal efficacy indicatingschedule-dependent antitumor activity. The early phase I and II evaluationsa five-minute bolus infusion schedule was studied, however, only modestanti-tumor activity was noted, possibly due to rapid systemic clearance. Toovercome these limitations and to exploit the potential for schedule-dependentbehavior of rhizoxin, the feasibility of administering rhizoxin as a 72-hourcontinuous intravenous (i.v.) infusion was evaluated. Patients and methods:Patients with advanced solid malignancieswere entered into this phase I study, in which both the infusion duration anddose of rhizoxin were increased. The starting dose was 0.2 mg/m2over 12 hours administered every 3 weeks. In each successive dose level, thedose and infusion duration were incrementally increased in a stepwise fashion.Once a 72-hour i.v. infusion duration was reached, rhizoxin dose-escalationsalone continued until a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was determined. Results:Nineteen patients were entered into the study. Rhizoxinwas administered at doses ranging from 0.2 mg/m2 i.v. over 12 hoursto 2.4 mg/m2 i.v. over 72 hours every 3 weeks. The principaldose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were severe neutropenia and mucositis, and theincidence of DLT was unacceptably high at rhizoxin doses above 1.2mg/m2, which was determined to be the MTD and dose recommended forphase II studies. At these dose levels, rhizoxin could not be detected in theplasma by a previously validated and sensitive high-performance liquidchromatography assay with a lower limit of detection of 1 ng/ml. No antitumorresponses were observed. Conclusions:Rhizoxin can be safely administered using a 72-houri.v. infusion schedule. The toxicity profile is similar to that observedpreviously using brief infusion schedules. Using this protracted i.v. infusionschedule the maximum tolerated dose is 1.2 mg/m2/72 hours.

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.