PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-12 (12)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  UGT1A1 Genotype-guided Phase I Study of Irinotecan, Oxaliplatin, and Capecitabine 
Investigational new drugs  2013;31(6):10.1007/s10637-013-0034-9.
Purpose
We performed a UGT1A1 genotype-guided study to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and evaluate the toxicities and pharmacokinetics of the combination of capecitabine (CAP), oxaliplatin (OX), and irinotecan (IRIN).
Experimental Design
Patients were screened for UGT1A1 *28 genotype prior to treatment. The starting dose (mg/m2) was IRIN (150), OX (85) and CAP (400), days 2-15. Doses were escalated or de-escalated within each genotype group (*28/*28, *1/*28 and *1/*1). IRIN pharmacokinetics was performed at the MTD.
Results
50 patients were evaluable for toxicity [11 (*28/*28); 18 (*1/*28); 21 (*1/*1)]. UGT1A1 *28/*28 patients experienced hematologic dose limiting toxicity (DLT), requiring dose-de-escalation. The UGT1A1 *28/*28 recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) was IRIN (75), OX (85), and CAP (400). In contrast, both UGT1A1 *1/*28 and *1/*1 tolerated higher doses of IRIN and non-hematologic toxicity was dose limiting for UGT1A1 *1/*1. The RP2D was IRIN (150), OX (85), and CAP (400) for UGT1A1*1/*28 and IRIN (150), OX (100), and CAP (1600) for UGT1A1 *1/*1. UGT1A1 *1/*28 and *1/*1 patients treated with IRIN (150) had similar AUCs for the active irinotecan metabolite, SN38 (366 +/− 278 and 350 +/− 159 ng/ml*hr, respectively). UGT1A1 *28/*28 patients (n=3) treated with a lower IRIN dose (100) had non-significantly higher mean SN38 exposures (604 +/− 289 ng/ml*hr, p=0.14). Antitumor activity was observed in all genotype groups.
Conclusions
UGT1A1 genotype affects the dose and pharmacokinetics of the CAPIRINOX regimen and UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing of CAPIRINOX is ongoing in a phase II study of small bowel cancer (NCT00433550).
doi:10.1007/s10637-013-0034-9
PMCID: PMC3880122  PMID: 24114122
Irinotecan; Capecitabine; Oxaliplatin; UGT1A1
2.  A Phase I Study of Vorinostat in Combination with Bortezomib in Patients with Advanced Malignancies 
Investigational new drugs  2013;31(6):1539-1546.
Background
A phase I study to assess the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), pharmacokinetics (PK) and antitumor activity of vorinostat in combination with bortezomib in patients with advanced solid tumors.
Methods
Patients received vorinostat orally once daily on days 1–14 and bortezomib intravenously on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 of a 21-day cycle. Starting dose (level 1) was vorinostat (400 mg) and bortezomib (0.7 mg/m2). Bortezomib dosing was increased using a standard phase I dose-escalation schema. PKs were evaluated during cycle 1.
Results
Twenty-three patients received 57 cycles of treatment on four dose levels ranging from bortezomib 0.7 mg/m2 to 1.5 mg/m2. The MTD was established at vorinostat 400 mg daily and bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2. DLTs consisted of grade 3 fatigue in three patients (1 mg/m2,1.3 mg/m2 and 1.5 mg/m2) and grade 3 hyponatremia in one patient (1.5 mg/m2). The most common grade 1/2 toxicities included nausea (60.9%), fatigue (34.8%), diaphoresis (34.8%), anorexia (30.4%) and constipation (26.1%). Objective partial responses were observed in one patient with NSCLC and in one patient with treatment-refractory soft tissue sarcoma. Bortezomib did not affect the PKs of vorinostat; however, the Cmax and AUC of the acid metabolite were significantly increased on day 2 compared with day 1.
Conclusions
This combination was generally well-tolerated at doses that achieved clinical benefit. The MTD was established at vorinostat 400 mg daily x 14 days and bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 of a 21-day cycle.
doi:10.1007/s10637-013-0029-6
PMCID: PMC3901262  PMID: 24114121
SAHA; vorinostat; PS-341; bortezomib; phase I
3.  A Pediatric Phase 1 Trial Of Vorinostat And Temozolomide In Relapsed Or Refractory Primary Brain Or Spinal Cord Tumors: A Children’s Oncology Group Phase 1 Consortium Study 
Pediatric blood & cancer  2013;60(9):1452-1457.
Purpose
We conducted a pediatric phase I study to estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), and pharmacokinetic properties of vorinostat, a histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor, when given in combination with temozolomide in children with refractory or recurrent CNS malignancies.
Patients and Methods
Vorinostat, followed by temozolomide approximately one hour later, was orally administered, once daily, for 5 consecutive days every 28 days at 3 dose levels using the rolling 6 design. Studies of histone accumulation in peripheral blood mononuclear cells were performed on day 1 at 0, 6, and 24 h after vorinostat dosing. Vorinostat pharmacokinetics (PK) and serum MGMT promoter status were also assessed
Results
Nineteen eligible patients were enrolled and eighteen patients were evaluable for toxicity. There were no DLTs observed at dose level 1 or 2. DLTs occurred in 4 patients at dose level 3: thrombocytopenia (4), neutropenia (3), and leucopenia (1). Non-dose limiting grade 3 or 4 toxicities related to protocol therapy were also hematologic and included neutropenia, lymphopenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, and leucopenia. Three patients exhibited stable disease and one patient had a partial response. There was no clear relationship between vorinostat dosage and drug exposure over the dose range studied. Accumulation of acetylated H3 histone in PBMC was observed after administration of vorinostat.
Conclusion
Five-day cycles of vorinostat in combination with temozolomide are well tolerated in children with recurrent CNS malignancies with myelosuppression as the DLT. The recommended phase II combination doses are vorinostat, 300 mg/m2/day and temozolomide,150 mg/m2/day.
doi:10.1002/pbc.24541
PMCID: PMC4139006  PMID: 23554030
vorinostat; temozolomide phase I trial; pediatric cancer; Children’s Oncology Group
4.  Tuning Pharmacokinetics and Biodistribution of a Targeted Drug Delivery System Through Incorporation of a Passive Targeting Component 
Scientific Reports  2014;4:5669.
Major challenges in the development of drug delivery systems (DDSs) have been the short half-life, poor bioavailability, insufficient accumulation and penetration of the DDSs into the tumor tissue. Understanding the pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters of the DDS is essential to overcome these challenges. Herein we investigate how surface chemistry affects the PK profile and organ distribution of a gold nanoparticle-based DDS containing both a passive and active targeting moiety via two common routes of administration: intravenous and intraperitoneal injections. Using LC/MS/MS, ELISA and INAA we report the half-life, peak plasma concentrations, area under the curve, ability to cross the peritoneal barrier and biodistribution of the nanoconjugates. The results highlight the design criteria for fine-tuning the PK parameters of a targeted drug delivery system that exploits the benefits of both active and passive targeting.
doi:10.1038/srep05669
PMCID: PMC4092331  PMID: 25011609
5.  A Phase I Trial of Vorinostat and Alvocidib in Patients with Relapsed, Refractory or Poor Prognosis Acute Leukemia, or Refractory Anemia with Excess Blasts-2 
Purpose
This phase I study was conducted to identify the MTD of alvocidib when combined vorinostat in patients with relapsed, refractory, or poor prognosis acute leukemia, or refractory anemia with excess blasts-2 (RAEB-2). Secondary objectives included investigating the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects of the combination.
Experimental Design
Patients received vorinostat (200 mg orally, 3 times a day [TID], for 14 days), on a 21-day cycle, combined with 2 different alvocidib administration schedules: a 1-h intravenous infusion, daily x 5; or a 30-min loading infusion followed by a 4-h maintenance infusion, weekly x 2. The alvocidib dose was escalated using a standard 3+3 design.
Results
Twenty-eight patients were enrolled and treated. The alvocidib MTD was 20 mg/m2 (30-min loading infusion) followed by 20 mg/m2 (4-h maintenance infusion) on days 1 and 8, in combination with vorinostat. The most frequently encountered toxicities were cytopenias, fatigue, hyperglycemia, hypokalemia, hypophosphatemia, and QT prolongation. Dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) were cardiac arrhythmia-atrial fibrillation and QT prolongation. No objective responses were achieved, although 13 of 26 evaluable patients exhibited stable disease. Alvocidib appeared to alter vorinostat pharmacokinetics, whereas alvocidib pharmacokinetics were unaffected by vorinostat. Ex vivo exposure of leukemia cells to plasma obtained from patients after alvocidib treatment blocked vorinostat-mediated p21CIP1 induction and down-regulated Mcl-1 and p-RNA Pol II for some specimens, although parallel in vivo bone marrow responses were infrequent.
Conclusions
Alvocidib combined with vorinostat is well tolerated. Although disease stabilization occurred in some heavily pretreated patients, objective responses were not obtained with these schedules.
doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-2926
PMCID: PMC3618599  PMID: 23515411
Vorinostat; Alvocidib; Acute Leukemia; Clinical Trial; Phase I
6.  Phase I Study of Vorinostat in Combination with Temozolomide in Patients with High-Grade Gliomas: North American Brain Tumor Consortium Study 04-03 
Purpose
A phase I, dose-finding study of vorinostat in combination with temozolomide (TMZ) was conducted to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, and pharmacokinetics in patients with high-grade glioma (HGG).
Experimental Design
This phase I, dose-finding, investigational study was conducted in two parts. Part 1 was a dose-escalation study of vorinostat in combination with TMZ 150 mg/m2/day × 5 days every 28 days. Part 2 was a dose-escalation study of vorinostat in combination with TMZ 150 mg/m2/day × 5 days of the first cycle and 200 mg/m2/day × 5 days of the subsequent 28-day cycles.
Results
In Part 1, the MTD of vorinostat administered on days 1-7 and 15-21 of every 28 day cycle in combination with TMZ was 500 mg daily. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) included grade 3 anorexia, grade 3 ALT, and grade 5 hemorrhage in the setting of grade 4 thrombocytopenia. In Part 2, the MTD of vorinostat on days 1-7 and 15-21 of every 28 day cycle combined with TMZ was 400 mg daily. No DLTs were encountered, but vorinostat dosing could not be escalated further due to thrombocytopenia. The most common serious adverse events were fatigue, lymphopenia, thrombocytopenia, and thromboembolic events. There were no apparent pharmacokinetic interactions between vorinostat and TMZ. Vorinostat treatment resulted in hyperacetylation of histones H3 and H4 in peripheral mononuclear cells.
Conclusion
Vorinostat in combination with temozolomide is well-tolerated in patients with HGG. A phase I/II trial of vorinostat with radiotherapy and concomitant TMZ in newly diagnosed glioblastoma is underway.
doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-1841
PMCID: PMC3947570  PMID: 22923449
High-grade glioma; Temozolomide; Vorinostat; HDAC Inhibitor
7.  A Phase I Trial of Vorinostat and Bortezomib in Children with Refractory or Recurrent Solid Tumors: A Children’s Oncology Group Phase I Consortium Study (ADVL0916) 
Pediatric blood & cancer  2012;60(3):390-395.
Background
A pediatric phase I trial was performed to determine the maximum tolerated dose, dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), and pharmacokinetics (PK) of vorinostat and bortezomib, in patients with solid tumors.
Procedure
Oral vorinostat was administered on days 1–5 and 8–12 of a 21 day cycle (starting dose 180 mg/m2/day with dose escalations to 230 and 300 mg/m2/day). Bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2 i.v.) was administered on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of the same cycle. PK and correlative biology studies were performed during cycle 1.
Results
Twenty-three eligible patients [17 male, median age 12 years (range, 1–20)] were enrolled of whom 17 were fully evaluable for toxicity. Cycle 1 DLTs that occurred in 2/6 patients at dose level 3 (vorinostat 300 mg/m2/day) were grade 2 sensory neuropathy that progressed to grade 4 (n=1) and grade 3 nausea and anorexia (n=1). No objective responses were observed. There was wide interpatient variability in vorinostat PK parameters. Bortezomib disposition was best described by a three-compartment model that demonstrated rapid distribution followed by prolonged elimination. We did not observe a decrease in NF-κB activity or Grp78 induction after bortezomib treatment in PBMCs from solid tumor patients.
Conclusion
The recommended phase 2 dose and schedule is vorinostat (230 mg/m2/day PO on days 1–5 and 8–12) in combination with bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2/day i.v. on days 1,4, 8, and 11 of a 21 day cycle) in children with recurrent or refractory solid tumors.
doi:10.1002/pbc.24271
PMCID: PMC3511610  PMID: 22887890
vorinostat; bortezomib; phase I trial; pediatric cancer; solid tumors; Children’s Oncology Group
8.  A phase I pharmacokinetic study of pulse-dose vorinostat with flavopiridol in solid tumors 
Investigational new drugs  2010;29(5):1004-1012.
Summary
Purpose
Vorinostat (V) at levels >2.5 μM enhances chemotherapy in vitro. Yet the approved oral dose of 400 mg inconsistently achieves this level in patients. We developed an intermittent oral pulse-dose schedule of V to increase serum levels. We combined V with the cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor flavopiridol (F) which increases V-induced apoptosis.
Experimental Design
One week before combination treatment, V alone was given daily for 3d (cycle −1). Then V was given on d1-3 and d8-10, and F on d2 and d9, every 21-d. Due to neutropenia, this was modified to V on d1-3 and d15–17, and F on d2 and d16, every 28-d. Bolus and split-dose F schedules were studied.
Results
34 patients were treated. On the 21-d schedule, the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was V 600 mg/d and F 60 mg/m2 bolus. On the 28-d schedule, the MTD was V 800 mg/d and F 30 mg/m2 over 30 min and 30 mg/m2 over 4 h. V Cmax at the 800 mg dose was 4.8 μM (± 2.8). V Cmax ≥2.5 μM was achieved in 86% of patients at the MTD. F increased the Cmax of V by 27% (95% CI 11%–43%). F Cmax of ≥2 μM was achieved in 90% of patients. 8 patients had stable disease for on average 5.5 m (range 1.6–13.2 m).
Conclusions
Intermittent high dose oral V in combination with F is feasible and achieves target serum levels >2.5 μM. V concentrations higher than previously reported with oral dosing were achieved.
doi:10.1007/s10637-010-9447-x
PMCID: PMC3545439  PMID: 20461440
CDKs and CDK inhibitors; Histone deacetylase inhibitors; Phase I trials; Combination chemotherapy; Pharmacokinetics
9.  Randomized Clinical Trial of Imiquimod: An Adjunct to Treating Cervical Dysplasia 
Objectives
HPV infection is a major risk factor for cervix cancer. Imiquimod is a topical medication that enhances the immune response to HPV-induced genital warts. This study evaluated cervical application of imiquimod as an adjunct to standard treatment for cervical dysplasia.
Study Design
Fifty-six patients were randomized to standard excisional/ablative treatment versus applications of imiquimod followed by standard treatment. The primary endpoint was dysplasia recurrence within two years.
Results
There were no differences in dysplasia recurrence between the two groups. Treatment was well tolerated, with side effects being mild, but significantly worse in women receiving imiquimod for, chills, fatigue, fever, headache, myalgias and vaginal discharge.
Conclusion
This trial does not support the hypothesis that imiquimod, as used in this trial, impacts recurrence of cervical dysplasia, but adequacy of findings are limited by sample size. The trial does support the feasibility and acceptability of the use of imiquimod on the cervix.
doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2011.06.105
PMCID: PMC3237774  PMID: 21907959
Cervical Dysplasia; HPV; Imiquimod; LEEP
10.  Phase II study of oral capsular 4-hydroxyphenylretinamide (4-HPR/fenretinide) in pediatric patients with refractory or recurrent neuroblastoma: A report from the Children’s Oncology Group NSC #374551; IND# 40294 
Purpose
To determine the response rate to oral capsular fenretinide in children with recurrent or biopsy proven refractory high-risk neuroblastoma.
Experimental Design
Patients received 7 days of fenretinide: 2475 mg/m2/day divided TID (<18 years) or 1800 mg/m2/day divided BID (≥18 years) every 21 days for a maximum of 30 courses. Patients with stable or responding disease after course 30 could request additional compassionate courses. Best response by course 8 was evaluated in Stratum 1 (measurable disease on CT/MRI +/− bone marrow and/or MIBG avid sites) and Stratum 2 (bone marrow and/or MIBG avid sites only).
Results
Sixty-two eligible patients, median age 5 years (range 0.6–19.9), were treated in Stratum 1 (n=38) and Stratum 2 (n=24). One partial response (PR) was seen in Stratum 2 (n=24 evaluable). No responses were seen in Stratum 1 (n=35 evaluable). Prolonged stable disease (SD) was seen in 7 patients in Stratum 1 and 6 patients in Stratum 2 for 4–45+ (median 15) courses. Median time to progression was 40 days (range 17–506) for Stratum 1 and 48 days (range 17–892) for Stratum 2. Mean 4-HPR steady state trough plasma concentrations were 7.25 µM (coefficient of variation 40–56%) at day 7 course 1. Toxicities were mild and reversible.
Conclusions
Although neither stratum met protocol criteria for efficacy, 1 PR + 13 prolonged SD occurred in 14/59 (24%) of evaluable patients. Low bioavailability may have limited fenretinide activity. Novel fenretinide formulations with improved bioavailability are currently in pediatric Phase I studies.
doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-0995
PMCID: PMC3207022  PMID: 21908574
fenretinide; neuroblastoma; Phase II; ANBL0321
11.  Phase II NCCTG trial of RT + irinotecan and adjuvant BCNU plus irinotecan for newly diagnosed GBM 
Journal of neuro-oncology  2010;99(1):73-80.
Irinotecan has radiosensitizing effects and shows synergism with nitrosoureas. We performed a Phase II study of RT and irinotecan, followed by BCNU plus irinotecan in newly-diagnosed GBM. The MTD for patients receiving enzyme-inducing anticonvulsants (EIAC) was as follows: irinotecan 400 mg/m2/week on Days 1, 8, 22 and 29 during RT, followed by BCNU 100 mg/m2 Day 1, and irinotecan, 400 mg/m2 on Days 1, 8, 22 and 29, every 6 weeks. The MTD for non-EIAC patients was as follows: irinotecan 125 mg/m2/week on Days 1, 8, 22 and 29 during RT, followed by BCNU 100 mg/m2 Day 1 and irinotecan 75 mg/m2 Days 1, 8, 22 and 29, every 6 weeks. Median OS was 10.8 mos. (95% CI: 7.7–14.9); OS at 12 months was 44.6% (95% CI: 33.3–59.8) and PFS 6 was 28.6% (95% CI: 18.9–43.2). Patients went off treatment due to adverse events (7%), refusal (11%), progressive disease (48%), death (9%), and other (9%); 16% completed protocol treatment. Survival was similar in patients with variant (6/7 or 7/7) and wild-type (6/6) UGT1A1*28 genotypic alleles. Grade 3–4 toxicity was more common in non-EIAC patients with variant alleles. SN-38 Cmax and AUC in EIAC patients receiving 400 mg/m2 irinotecan were 20.9 ng/ml and 212 ng/ml h, and in non-EIAC patients receiving 125 mg/m2, 15.5 ng/ml and 207 ng/ml h. SN-38 AUC varied by UGT1A1*28 status in non-EIAC patients. This regimen was not significantly active and radiosensitization was not observed. Non-EIAC patients with UGT1A1*28 variant alleles appear particularly sensitive to toxicity from irinotecan.
doi:10.1007/s11060-009-0103-2
PMCID: PMC2897141  PMID: 20063115
Glioblastoma; BCNU; Nitrosourea; Irinotecan; NCCTG; UGT1A1; Enzyme-inducing anticonvulsant
12.  Comparative Bioavailability of Sulindac in Capsule and Tablet Formulations 
The cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) enzyme appears to be an important target for cancer chemoprevention. Given the recent emergence of potentially serious cardiovascular toxicity associated with selective COX-2 inhibitors, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which inhibit both COX-1 and COX-2, have received renewed attention as candidate chemoprevention agents. Sulindac has demonstrated consistent chemopreventive potential in preclinical studies, as well as in a limited number of clinical trials reported to date. For the current pharmacokinetic study, sulindac capsules were prepared to facilitate ample agent supplies for future intervention studies. Encapsulation of the parent compound (sulindac sulfoxide) can be readily accomplished, but the effects of alternate formulations on bioavailability have not been rigorously examined. In the present single-dose, two-period crossover trial, we conducted pharmacokinetic analyses of sulindac in capsule (test) versus tablet (reference) formulations. Overall, bioavailability appeared to be higher for the capsule compared to the tablet formulation, based on test-to-reference pharmacokinetic parameter ratios for the parent compound. However, additional analyses based on the sulfide and sulfone metabolites of sulindac with the same pharmacokinetic parameters indicated similar chemopreventive exposures between the capsule and tablet formulations. These data support the use of sulindac capsules, which can be readily prepared with matching placebos, in future blinded chemoprevention trials.
doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2510
PMCID: PMC2435402  PMID: 18349286

Results 1-12 (12)