Roger B Cohen

Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Filadelfia, Pennsylvania, United States

Are you Roger B Cohen?

Claim your profile

Publications (68)609.07 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background This Phase-I-study aimed to determine the recommended Phase-II-dosing-schedule of LY2334737, an oral gemcitabine prodrug, in patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors. Pharmacokinetics, cytokeratin-18 (CK18) levels, genetic polymorphisms, and antitumor activity were additionally evaluated. Methods Patients received escalating doses of LY2334737 either every other day for 21 days (d) followed by 7 days-drug-free period (QoD-arm) or once daily for 7 days every other week (QD-arm). The 28 days-cycles were repeated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation was succeeded by a dose-confirmation phase (12 additional patients to be enrolled on the maximum tolerated dose [MTD]). Results Forty-one patients received QoD- (40-100 mg) and 32 QD-dosing (40-90 mg). On QoD, 3/9 patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) on the 100 mg dose (2 × G3 diarrhea, 1 × G3 transaminase increase); 1 additional DLT (G3 diarrhea) occurred during dose confirmation at 90 mg (12 patients). On QD, 1 patient each experienced DLTs on 60 mg (G3 transaminase increase) and 80 mg (G3 prolonged QTcF-interval); 2/7 patients had 3 DLTs on the 90 mg dose (diarrhea, edema, liver-failure; all G3). The MTD was established at 90 mg for the QoD-arm. Seven patients on QoD and 4 on QD achieved SD (no CR + PR). Pharmacokinetics showed a dose-proportional increase in exposure of LY2334737 and dFdC without accumulation after repeated dosing. Significant increases in CK18 levels were observed. Genetic polymorphism of the cytidine deaminase gene (rs818202) could be associated with ≥ G3 hepatotoxicity. Conclusions Both schedules displayed linear pharmacokinetics and acceptable safety profiles. The recommended dose and schedule of LY2334737 for subsequent Phase-II-studies is 90 mg given QoD for 21 day.
    Investigational New Drugs 09/2015; DOI:10.1007/s10637-015-0286-7 · 2.92 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The classical model for identification and clinical development of anticancer agents was based on small molecules, which were often quite toxic. Early studies in small groups of patients would seek to identify a maximum tolerated dose and major dose-limiting toxicities. Tumor response (shrinkage) would be assessed after a minimum number of doses in phase II testing. The decision to take the drug into the randomized phase III clinical setting was usually based on the proportion and duration of objective tumor responses, along with overall survival compared with historical controls. Immune-oncologics that are designed to fight cancer by direct CD8 T-cell priming and activation or by blocking a negative regulatory molecule have a number of sharp distinctions from cytotoxic drugs. These include cytoreductive effects that may be very different in timing of onset from traditional chemotherapy and the potential for inducing long-term durable remissions even in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic disease. In this paper we review the different classes of immune-oncologic drugs in clinical development with particular attention to the biostatistical challenges associated with evaluating efficacy in clinical trials. Confronting these issues upfront is particularly important given the rapidly expanding number of clinical trials with both monotherapy and combination trials in immunooncology.
    Journal of immunotherapy (Hagerstown, Md.: 1997) 09/2015; 38(7):259-266. DOI:10.1097/CJI.0000000000000089 · 4.01 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Taxane–gemcitabine combinations have demonstrated antitumor activity. This phase I study (NCT01001221) aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of cabazitaxel plus gemcitabine and to assess the preliminary efficacy of this combination. The patients included had metastatic or unresectable solid tumors and had exhausted standard treatment. Cohorts of three to six patients received cabazitaxel (15–20 mg/m2) before (part 1a) or after (part 1b) gemcitabine (700–1000 mg/m2) on Day 1 and gemcitabine alone on Day 8. Prophylactic growth factors were not allowed in cycle 1. In part 1a (n=12), five patients received 20 mg/m2 cabazitaxel plus 1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine (20/1000), five received 15/900, two received 15/700. In part 1b, all six patients received the lowest dose (700/15). At all doses, two or more patients experienced a DLT, regardless of administration sequence, including febrile neutropenia (n=4), grade 4 neutropenia (n=2), grade 4 thrombocytopenia (n=2), and grade 3 aspartate transaminase increase (n=1). The MTD was not established as all cohorts exceeded the MTD by definition. All patients experienced an adverse event; the most frequent all-grade nonhematologic events were fatigue (66.7%), decreased appetite (50.0%), and diarrhea (44.4%). The most frequent grade 3–4 hematologic abnormalities were neutropenia (83.3%), leukopenia (77.8%), and lymphopenia (72.2%). Toxicity was sequence-independent but appeared worse with gemcitabine followed by cabazitaxel. Durable partial responses were observed in three patients (prostate cancer, appendiceal cancer, and melanoma). The unacceptable DLTs with cabazitaxel plus gemcitabine, at doses reduced more than 25% from single-agent doses, preclude further investigation.
    Anti-cancer drugs 05/2015; 26(7). DOI:10.1097/CAD.0000000000000250 · 1.78 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Combination therapy with trabectedin and docetaxel was evaluated in patients with advanced malignancies. In this open-label phase 1 study, docetaxel (60 or 75 mg/m(2); 1-h intravenous infusion) was given on day 1 of a 21-day cycle in combination with escalating doses of trabectedin (0.4-1.3 mg/m(2) by 3-h intravenous infusion, 1 h after docetaxel) and prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Maximum tolerated dose (MTD) as primary objective and safety, plasma pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity as secondary objectives were assessed. Patients (N = 49) received a median of four cycles of treatment. MTD was 1.3 mg/m(2) trabectedin and 60 mg/m(2) docetaxel for patients with limited and 1.1 mg/m(2) trabectedin and 60 mg/m(2) docetaxel for patients with unlimited prior chemotherapy. Dose-limiting toxicities (during cycle 1) included elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and fatigue in patients with limited prior chemotherapy and elevated ALT and febrile neutropenia in those with unlimited prior chemotherapy. The most common drug-related adverse events were nausea (65 %), fatigue (63 %), and neutropenia (53 %). One patient achieved a complete response. Thirty patients had stable disease, and 11 had stable disease for ≥6 months. Pharmacokinetic results for trabectedin plus docetaxel were similar to those previously reported for the single agents. In patients with previously treated, advanced malignancies, the combination of therapeutic doses of trabectedin and docetaxel showed clinical activity and was tolerable with prophylactic G-CSF, with no evidence of clinically important drug interactions.
    Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology 03/2015; 75(5). DOI:10.1007/s00280-015-2705-z · 2.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Axitinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, platelet-derived growth factor receptor-α, and c-kit. Phase I studies demonstrated 5 mg twice daily as the recommended starting dose with notable effects seen in renal cell carcinoma, an observation confirmed in Phase II trials. The trial of comparative effectivess of axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (AXIS) was an international randomized Phase III study designed for registration purposes, compared axitinib to sunitinib. This trial randomized 723 patients with metastatic kidney cancer to axitinib or sunitinib in the second-line setting and demonstrated a median progression-free survival of 6.7 months for axitinib versus 4.7 months for sorafenib (P<0.0001). Clinical benefit was detected regardless of prior therapy, but no overall survival benefit has been observed. Axitinib is well tolerated without a significant effect on quality of life. The most common grade 3 toxicities are hypertension (16%), diarrhea (11%), and fatigue (11%), with other notable side effects being anorexia, nausea, hand-foot syndrome, and rash. Patients who developed diastolic blood pressure >90 mmHg were noted to have significantly longer median overall survival and overall response rates when compared to normotensive patients. Therefore, the manufacturer recommends escalating the twice-daily dose to 7 mg and 10 mg, as tolerated, if there is no significant increase in blood pressure on treatment. Currently, axitinib is approved for use in the second-line setting for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Research is ongoing in other disease settings.
    Cancer Management and Research 02/2015; 7:65-73. DOI:10.2147/CMAR.S74202
  • Source
    11/2014; 2(Suppl 3):P82-P82. DOI:10.1186/2051-1426-2-S3-P82
  • Cancer Research 10/2014; 74(19 Supplement):CT340-CT340. DOI:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-CT340 · 9.33 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: LCL161 antagonizes the function of inhibitor of apoptosis proteins (IAPs), thereby promoting cancer cell death. This first-in-human dose-escalation study assessed the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of LCL161 in patients with advanced solid tumors. A second part of the study assessed the relative bioavailability of a tablet versus solution formulation. Patients and methods: LCL161 was administered orally, once weekly, on a 21-day cycle to adult patients with advanced solid tumors by using an adaptive Bayesian logistic regression model with overdose control-guided dose escalation. Results: Fifty-three patients received at least one dose of LCL161 (dose range, 10 to 3,000 mg). LCL161 was well tolerated at doses up to 1,800 mg. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was the only dose-limiting toxicity (in three [6%] of 53 patients) and was the most common grades 3 to 4 event (in five [9%] of 53 patients). Vomiting, nausea, asthenia/fatigue, and anorexia were common but not severe. Although the MTD was not formally determined, an 1,800-mg dose was selected in compliance with the protocol for additional study, given the dose-limiting CRS at higher doses and pharmacodynamic activity at lower doses. LCL161 was rapidly absorbed, and exposure was generally increased with dose. The tablet formulation of LCL161 was better tolerated than the solution; tablet and solution formulations had similar exposures, and the solution was discontinued. No patient had an objective response. LCL161 induced degradation of cellular IAP1 protein in the blood, skin, and tumor and increased circulating cytokine levels. Conclusion: The 1,800-mg dose of LCL161, administered as a single agent once weekly, in tablet formulation is the recommended dose for additional study. This combined dose and formulation was well tolerated and had significant pharmacodynamic activity, which warrants additional investigation.
    Journal of Clinical Oncology 08/2014; 32(28). DOI:10.1200/JCO.2013.52.3993 · 18.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: The IGF-1R signaling pathway has been implicated in multiple cancers as important for cell survival, proliferation, invasion and metastasis. BIIB022 is a non-glycosylated human IgG4 monoclonal antibody (mAb) with specificity for IGF-1R. Unlike other anti-IGF1R antibodies, BIIB022 has no effector functions. Additionally, inhibition is via an allosteric rather than competitive mechanism, which further differentiates this antibody from others. We sought to determine the safety and tolerability of BIIB022 and determine the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profile of this antibody. Methods: A multi-institutional phase I study evaluated the safety of escalating doses of BIIB022 given IV q3wk until progression or unacceptable toxicity in patients with advanced solid tumors. Five sequential BIIB022 dose cohorts were evaluated using a standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation design (1.5, 5. 10, 20, 30 mg/kg); 10 additional patients were treated at the recommended phase 2 dose. Results: 34 patients were treated. Toxicities were manageable and mostly low grade; grade 3-4 hyperglycemia was not observed. No RECIST responses were observed, although three patients had metabolic responses associated with prolonged stable disease. The PK of BIIB022 was nearly linear in the dose range from 10 to 30 mg/kg, with some nonlinearity at lower doses (1.5-5.0 mg/kg), likely due to target-mediated drug disposition of BIIB022 at low serum concentrations. PD analyses showed decrease in IGF-1R levels on leucocytes, with stable serum values of IGF-1 and IGF-2. Conclusions: BIIB022 can be safely given at 30 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks with preliminary evidence of biological activity in selected patients.
    Investigational New Drugs 01/2014; 32(3). DOI:10.1007/s10637-014-0064-y · 2.92 Impact Factor
  • Roger B Cohen
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Overexpression of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is a common characteristic of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC). Cetuximab is a chimeric anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody (mAb) with multiple approved indications in HNSCC, including with radiation therapy (RT) for locoregionally advanced disease, as monotherapy after platinum progression, and with platinum/5-fluorouracil for recurrent or metastatic disease. There remain, however, numerous unanswered questions regarding the optimal use of cetuximab in HNSCC, including patient selection, its mechanisms of action and resistance, the effect of human papillomavirus status on outcomes, its role when combined with induction chemotherapy or adjuvant radiation, and optimal management of skin toxicity and hypersensitivity reactions. In addition, a variety of other anti-EGFR agents (the multitargeted small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors [TKIs] lapatinib, dacomitinib, and afatinib and the anti-EGFR mAbs zalutumumab, nimotuzumab, and panitumumab) are currently under investigation in phase II and III clinical trials in different HNSCC therapeutic settings. The anti-EGFR TKI erlotinib is currently in phase III development for oral cancer prevention. Numerous other drugs are in earlier stages of development for HNSCC treatment, including novel anti-EGFR mAbs (MEHD7945A, necitumumab, and RO5083945), small-molecule TKIs (vandetanib, icotinib, and CUDC-101), EGFR antisense, various add-on therapies to radiation and chemotherapy (bevacizumab, interleukin-12, lenalidomide, alisertib, and VTX-2337), and drugs (temsirolimus, everolimus, OSI-906, dasatinib, and PX-866) intended to overcome resistance to anti-EGFR agents. Overall, a wealth of clinical trial data is expected in the coming years, with the potential to modify significantly the approach to anti-EGFR therapy for HNSCC.
    Cancer Treatment Reviews 10/2013; 40(4). DOI:10.1016/j.ctrv.2013.10.002 · 7.59 Impact Factor
  • Cancer Research 08/2013; 73(8 Supplement):2419-2419. DOI:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2013-2419 · 9.33 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: To assess the overall safety, including rare events, of intravenous (IV) abatacept treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: Data from 8 clinical trials of IV abatacept in RA were pooled. Safety events were assessed during the short-term (duration ≤ 12 months) and cumulative (short-term plus longterm extensions) abatacept treatment periods. Incidence rates per 100 patient-years were calculated. Standardized incidence ratios (SIR) for hospitalized infections and malignancies were compared with external RA cohorts and, for malignancies, with the US general population. Results: There were 3173 IV abatacept-treated patients with 2331 patient-years of exposure in the short-term periods, and 4149 IV abatacept-treated patients with 12,132 patient-years of exposure in the cumulative period. Incidence rates for serious infections were low and consistent over time (3.68 for abatacept vs 2.60 for placebo during the short-term, and 2.87 for abatacept during the cumulative period). Hospitalized infections were generally similar to external RA patient cohorts and were consistent over time. Incidence rates of malignancies were similar for abatacept- and placebo-treated patients during the short-term period (0.73 vs 0.59) and remained low during the abatacept cumulative period (0.73). SIR of some tissue-specific malignancies (e.g., colorectal and breast) in the cumulative period tended to be lower, while others (lymphoma and lung) tended to be higher, compared with the general population; however, incidence rates were comparable with RA cohorts. Autoimmune events were rare and infusion reactions uncommon. Conclusion: Longterm safety of IV abatacept was consistent with the short-term, with no unexpected events and low incidence rates of serious infections, malignancies, and autoimmune events.
    The Journal of Rheumatology 04/2013; 40(6). DOI:10.3899/jrheum.120906 · 3.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Cancer patients and their oncologists often report differing perceptions of consultation discussions and discordant expectations regarding treatment outcomes. CONNECT, a computer-based communication aid, was developed to improve communication between patients and oncologists. Methods: CONNECT includes assessment of patient values, goals, and communication preferences; patient communication skills training; and a preconsultation physician summary report. CONNECT was tested in a 3-arm, prospective, randomized clinical trial. Prior to the initial medical oncology consultation, adult patients with advanced cancer were randomized to the following arms: 1) control; 2) CONNECT with physician summary; or 3) CONNECT without physician summary. Outcomes were assessed with postconsultation surveys. Results: Of 743 patients randomized, 629 completed postconsultation surveys. Patients in the intervention arms (versus control) felt that the CONNECT program made treatment decisions easier to reach (P = .003) and helped them to be more satisfied with these decisions (P < .001). In addition, patients in the intervention arms reported higher levels of satisfaction with physician communication format (P = .026) and discussion regarding support services (P = .029) and quality of life concerns (P = .042). The physician summary did not impact outcomes. Patients with higher levels of education and poorer physical functioning experienced greater benefit from CONNECT. Conclusions: This prospective randomized clinical trial demonstrates that computer-based communication skills training can positively affect patient satisfaction with communication and decision-making. Measurable patient characteristics may be used to identify subgroups most likely to benefit from an intervention such as CONNECT.
    Cancer 04/2013; 119(7). DOI:10.1002/cncr.27874 · 4.89 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: This is the first clinical study of the MEK1/2 inhibitor AZD8330 (ARRY-424704). This phase I study defined the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and assessed the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of AZD8330 in patients with advanced malignancies. Methods: Patients with refractory cancer or cancer with no standard therapy received either once-daily (OD) or twice-daily (BID) oral AZD8330 on day 1 followed by a 7-day washout period and continuous dosing from day 8. The starting dose was 0.5 mg with dose escalations in subsequent cohorts until a non-tolerated dose was reached. Results: Eighty-two patients received AZD8330 across 11 cohorts. The most frequent AZD8330-related adverse events were acneiform dermatitis (13/82, 16%), fatigue (11/82, 13%), diarrhoea (11/82, 13%) and vomiting (9/82, 11%). Four patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities: mental status changes (40 mg OD; 2/9 patients and 60 mg OD; 1/3) and rash (20 mg BID; 1/9). The MTD was defined as 20mg BID. AZD8330 exposure increased approximately proportionally with dose across the dose range 0.5-60 mg OD. Dose-dependent modulation of phosphorylated ERK in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) was observed at doses ≥3 mg. One patient had a partial response and thirty-two (39%) had stable disease, with a duration >3 months in 22 patients, assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Conclusion: AZD8330 has a manageable toxicity profile at the MTD of 20 mg BID, and target inhibition was confirmed in PBMCs. One patient with malignant melanoma had a partial response.
    European journal of cancer (Oxford, England: 1990) 02/2013; 49(7). DOI:10.1016/j.ejca.2013.01.013 · 5.42 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: The high prevalence of v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1 (BRAF) and neuroblastoma v-ras oncogene homolog (NRAS) mutations in melanoma provides a strong rationale to test the clinical efficacy of mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) inhibition in this disease. The authors hypothesized that the presence of BRAF or NRAS mutations would correlate with clinical benefit among patients who received treatment with combination regimens that included the MEK inhibitor selumetinib. Methods: BRAF and NRAS mutation status was determined retrospectively in available tissue specimens from patients with melanoma who were enrolled in a phase 1 trial of selumetinib in combination with 1 of 4 drugs (dacarbazine, docetaxel, temsirolimus, or erlotinib). The clinical response rate and the time to progression (TTP) were assessed as a function of BRAF and NRAS mutation status. Results: Among 18 patients analyzed, 9 patients (50%) harbored a BRAF mutation (8 had a valine-to-glutamic acid substitution at residue 600 [V600E]; 1 had an arginine nonsense mutation at residue 603 [R603]), 4 patients (22%) harbored an NRAS mutation (2 had a glutamine-to-arginine substitution at residue 61 [Q61R], 1 had a glutamine-to-lysine substitution at residue 61 [Q61K], and 1 had a glycine-to-lysine substitution at residue 12 [G12S]), and 5 patient (28%) had the wild type of both genes. These mutations were mutually exclusive. Among the 9 patients who had BRAF mutations, 5 patients (56%) achieved a partial response, and 4 patients (44%) achieved stable disease for at least 6 weeks. No patient with the wild-type BRAF gene achieved a clinical response (P = .01 vs patients with BRAF mutations). The presence of an NRAS mutation did not correlate with the clinical response rate. The presence of a BRAF mutation was correlated significantly with the TTP in a multivariate model (hazard ratio, 0.22; P = .02 vs wild-type BRAF). Conclusions: Higher response rates and longer TTP were observed with selumetinib-containing regimens in patients who had tumors that harbored a BRAF mutation compared with patients who had wild-type BRAF.
    Cancer 02/2013; 119(4). DOI:10.1002/cncr.27790 · 4.89 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: A Phase I study to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and pharmacokinetics of afatinib (BIBW 2992), a novel irreversible ErbB Family Blocker, administered orally once daily in a 3-week-on/1-week-off dosing schedule. Methods: Patients with advanced solid tumors received single-agent afatinib at 10, 20, 40, 55 or 65 mg/day. Safety, antitumor activity, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic modulation of biomarkers were assessed. Results: Forty-three patients were enrolled. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurred in five patients in the dose escalation phase (1/8 at 40 mg/day; 1/6 at 55 mg/day; 3/6 at 65 mg/day). The MTD was established at 55 mg/day. In the expansion cohort at the MTD, 6 patients experienced a DLT in the first 28-day treatment period. The most frequent DLT was diarrhea. The most common adverse events were diarrhea, rash, nausea, vomiting and fatigue. Overall, the afatinib safety profile in a 3-week-on/1-week-off dose schedule was similar to that of our daily-continuous schedule. Afatinib displayed dose-dependent pharmacokinetics at doses up to and including 55 mg/day, with a terminal half-life suitable for once-daily dosing. Signs of clinical antitumor activity were observed. In biopsies taken from clinically normal forearm skin, afatinib caused a reduced proliferation rate, with a concomitant increase in differentiation of epidermal keratinocytes. Conclusion: Afatinib in a 3-week-on/1-week-off schedule showed a good safety profile. The MTD was 55 mg/day, although excess DLTs in the expansion cohort indicated that the 40 mg/day dose would have an acceptable safety profile for future studies. Dose cohorts between 40 and 55 mg/day were not examined in this study.
    Investigational New Drugs 11/2012; 31(2). DOI:10.1007/s10637-012-9890-y · 2.92 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSETo determine whether patients' expectations of benefit in early-phase oncology trials depend on how patients are queried and to explore whether expectations are associated with patient characteristics. PATIENTS AND METHODS Participants were 171 patients in phase I or II oncology trials in the United States. After providing informed consent for a trial but before receiving the investigational therapy, participants answered questions about expectations of benefit. We randomly assigned participants to one of three groups corresponding to three queries about expectations: frequency type, belief type, or both. Main outcomes were differences in expectations by question type and the extent to which expectations were associated with demographic characteristics, numeracy, dispositional optimism, religiousness/spirituality, understanding of research, and other measures.ResultsThe belief-type group had a higher mean expectation of benefit (64.4 of 100) than the combination group (51.6; P = .01) and the frequency-type group (43.1; P < .001). Mean expectations in the combination and frequency groups were not significantly different (P = .06). Belief-type expectations were associated with a preference for nonquantitative information (r = -0.19; 95% CI, -0.19 to -0.36), knowledge about research (r = -0.21; 95% CI, -0.38 to -0.03), dispositional optimism (r = 0.20; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.37), and spirituality (r = 0.22; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.38). Frequency-type expectations were associated with knowledge about clinical research (r = -0.27; 95% CI, -0.27 to -0.51). CONCLUSION In early-phase oncology trials, patients' reported expectations of benefit differed according to how patients were queried and were associated with patient characteristics. These findings have implications for how informed consent is obtained and assessed.
    Journal of Clinical Oncology 10/2012; 30(35). DOI:10.1200/JCO.2011.40.6587 · 18.43 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This phase I study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy of the investigational oral drug MLN8237 (alisertib), a small-molecule Aurora A kinase (AAK) inhibitor, in 87 adult patients with advanced solid tumors. Sequential cohorts of patients received MLN8237 5 to 150 mg orally once daily or twice daily for 7, 14, or 21 days, followed by 14 days' rest per cycle. MLN8237 pharmacokinetics was characterized, and the relative bioavailability of an enteric-coated tablet (ECT) formulation was evaluated in reference to the original powder-in-capsule (PIC) formulation. Pharmacodynamic effects of MLN8237 on inhibition of AAK activity were evaluated in skin biopsies. Tolerability and response to treatment were assessed. Common toxicities included fatigue, nausea, and neutropenia. Plasma exposures increased dose proportionally (5-150 mg/d), and were similar for PIC and ECT. The terminal half-life was 23 hours. At the maximum tolerated dose of 50 mg twice daily on the 7-day schedule, the mitotic index of the skin basal epithelium was increased within 24 hours after MLN8237 administration on days 1 and 7, a finding consistent with AAK inhibition. One (1%) patient achieved a partial response lasting for more than 1 year and received MLN8237 for 51 cycles; 20 (23%) patients achieved stable disease for ≥3 months. This first-in-human trial of MLN8237 showed tolerability and favorable pharmacokinetics in this patient population. The recommended phase II dose of MLN8237 is 50 mg twice daily orally for 7 days in 21-day cycles, which is being evaluated further in the treatment of various solid tumors and hematologic malignancies.
    Clinical Cancer Research 07/2012; 18(17):4775-84. DOI:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-0589 · 8.72 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Roger B Cohen · Stéphane Oudard
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has evolved rapidly over the last two decades as major pathways involved in pathogenesis have been elucidated. These include the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) axis and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR). Therapies targeting the VEGF pathway include bevacizumab, sorafenib, sunitinib, pazopanib, and axitinib, whereas temsirolimus and everolimus inhibit the mTOR pathway. All of these novel therapies-VEGF and mTOR inhibitors-are associated with a variety of unique toxicities, some of which may necessitate expert medical management, treatment interruption, or dose reduction. Common adverse events with newer drugs include hypertension, skin reactions, gastrointestinal disturbances, thyroid dysfunction, and fatigue. Skilled management of these toxicities is vital to ensure optimal therapeutic dosing and maximize patient outcomes, including improved survival and quality of life. This review describes and compares the toxicity profiles of novel molecularly targeted agents used in the treatment of mRCC and presents guidance on how best to prevent and manage treatment-related toxicities. Particular attention is given to axitinib, the newest agent to enter the armamentarium. Axitinib is a second-generation receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor with potent VEGF receptor inhibition that provides durable responses and superior progression-free survival in advanced RCC compared with sorafenib.
    Investigational New Drugs 02/2012; 30(5):2066-79. DOI:10.1007/s10637-012-9796-8 · 2.92 Impact Factor
  • Brian Patson · Roger B Cohen · Anthony J Olszanski
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: The role of angiogenic inhibitors is clearly established in the treatment of diverse malignancies. The field of antiangiogenesis is expanding rapidly, with an increasing number of agents currently approved by the FDA. Axitinib is a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-specific inhibitor currently being developed for the treatment of various malignancies. The pharmacokinetic (PK) properties of axitinib may provide a selective treatment effect while minimizing adverse reactions and enhancing safety. It is paramount that health-care providers understand the properties and nuances of each agent inclusive of PK variability in the patient population as well as current safety and tolerability data. AREAS COVERED: This article provides a comprehensive and critical review of the PK properties of axitinib as they relate to safety and tolerability, as well as potential pharmacodynamic and efficacy parameters. EXPERT OPINION: Axitinib is a unique VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which acts through greater receptor specificity compared with many other VEGFR TKIs. An understanding of axitinib's PK characteristics and common adverse events may allow for a tailored dosing approach in patients with cancer, in an attempt to maximize efficacy while minimizing toxicity.
    Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism &amp Toxicology 02/2012; 8(2):259-70. DOI:10.1517/17425255.2012.652947 · 2.83 Impact Factor

Publication Stats

6k Citations
609.07 Total Impact Points


  • 2015
    • Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania
      • Division of Hematology/Oncology
      Filadelfia, Pennsylvania, United States
  • 2003–2014
    • Fox Chase Cancer Center
      • Department of Medical Oncology
      Filadelfia, Pennsylvania, United States
  • 2012
    • William Penn University
      Filadelfia, Pennsylvania, United States
    • University of Pennsylvania
      • Division of Hematology/Oncology
      Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
  • 2011
    • University of Valencia
      Valenza, Valencia, Spain
  • 2009
    • The Princess Margaret Hospital
      Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • 2006–2008
    • University of Wisconsin–Madison
      • • Department of Human Oncology
      • • School of Medicine and Public Health
      Madison, Wisconsin, United States
    • University of Alabama at Birmingham
      • Department of Medicine
      Birmingham, AL, United States
  • 2007
    • University of Chicago
      Chicago, Illinois, United States