[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Imatinib mesylate (IM) is a small molecule inhibitor of protein tyrosine kinases. In addition to its direct effect on malignant cells, it has been suggested IM may activate of natural killer (NK) cells, hence exerting immunomodulatory functions. In preclinical settings, improved antitumor responses have been observed when IM and interleukin-2 (IL-2), a cytokine that enhances NK cells functions, were combined. The goals of this study were to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of IL-2 combined with IM at a constant dose of 400 mg, the pharmacokinetics of IM and IL-2, as well as toxicity and clinical efficacy of this immunotherapeutic regimen in patients affected by advanced tumors. The treatment consisted in 50 mg/day cyclophosphamide from 21 d before the initiation of IM throughout the first IM cycle (from D-21 to D14), 400 mg/day IM for 14 d (D1 to D14) combined with escalating doses of IL-2 (3, 6, 9 and 12 MIU/day) from days 10 to 14. This treatment was administered at three week intervals to 17 patients. Common side effects of the combination were mild to moderate, including fever, chills, fatigue, nausea and hepatic enzyme elevation. IL-2 dose level II, 6 MIU/day, was determined as the MTD with the following dose-limiting toxicities: systemic capillary leak syndrome, fatigue and anorexia. Pharmacokinetic studies revealed that the area under the curve and the maximum concentration of IM and its main metabolite CGP74588 increased significantly when IM was concomitantly administered with IL-2. In contrast, IM did not modulate IL-2 pharmacokinetics. No objective responses were observed. The best response obtained was stable disease in 8/17 (median duration: 12 weeks). Finally, IL-2 augmented the impregnation of IM and its metabolite. The combination of IM (400 mg/day) and IL-2 (6 MIU/day) in tumors that express IM targets warrants further investigation.
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: PM00104 (Zalypsis®) is a new synthetic alkaloid with potent cytotoxic activity against tumor cell lines. This phase I clinical trial determined the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended dose (RD) for phase II trials of PM00104 administered as a 1-hour intravenous (i.v.) infusion weekly for three consecutive weeks resting every fourth week (d1,8,15 q4wk). Forty-nine patients with advanced solid malignancies received PM00104 following a toxicity-guided, accelerated, dose-escalation design. Doses evaluated ranged from 0.07 to 3.0 mg/m(2). Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) appeared at the highest doses tested and comprised grade 3 diarrhea and grade 4 lipase increase at 2.0 mg/m(2); grade 1 thrombocytopenia and grade 2 neutropenia with two infusion omissions, grade 3 fatigue and grade 4 febrile neutropenia at 2.5 mg/m(2); and grade 3/4 fatigue, grade 4 neutropenia lasting >5 days and grade 4 thrombocytopenia at 3.0 mg/m(2). RD was established at 2.0 mg/m(2). PM00104-related adverse events at the RD were mostly grade 1/2, with fatigue, nausea and vomiting as the most common. Transient and manageable myelosuppression and transaminase increases were also reported. Main pharmacokinetic parameters increased linearly with dose. Disease stabilization lasting ≥3 months was found in 4 patients with cervical carcinoma, colorectal adenocarcinoma, lachrymal adenoid carcinoma, and bladder carcinoma (n = 1 each). In conclusion, PM00104 2.0 mg/m(2) 1-hour, d1,8,15 q4wk showed a positive risk-benefit ratio, which has supported its further evaluation in three ongoing phase II clinical trials.
Investigational New Drugs 06/2012; · 3.50 Impact Factor
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The evaluation of treatment efficacy with RECIST criteria does not take into account tumour growth dynamics. We notably investigated the impact of the pre-treatment tumour growth rate (GR) on the evaluation of treatment response.
Seventy-six patients included in phase I clinical trials had scanographic evaluations before and after starting an experimental treatment. The GR was calculated for the pre-treatment period and for the experimental period (i.e. during the new treatment). Tumour response was evaluated per protocol at week 12 and at week 24 of the experimental period according to RECIST criteria. We studied the relation between pre-treatment and experimental GRs and RECIST tumour response.
On average the tumour GR was decreased by 40% during the experimental period; compared to the pretreatment period (p=0.03). An increased growth rate (acceleration of GR during experimental treatment compared to pretreatment) was observed in 20 (38%) of the 53 patients considered as non-progressive at week 12 according to RECIST. Conversely a decreased GR was observed in 12 out of 23 (53%) patients classified as progressive according to RECIST. The variation in the GR between the pre-treatment and experimental period was not significantly correlated with response evaluated according to RECIST at week 12 or at week 24 (p=0.45 and 0.44, respectively).
RECIST evaluation of tumour response depends on the natural history of the tumours and poorly measures the impact of treatment on the kinetics of tumour growth. Integrating pre-treatment GR evaluations could substantially improve the assessment of treatment efficacy in drug development.
European journal of cancer (Oxford, England: 1990) 07/2011; 47(17):2512-6. · 4.12 Impact Factor
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Pemetrexed is a structurally novel antifolate agent approved in combination with cisplatin for the treatment of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma who have unresectable disease and for the therapy of previously treated patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as a single agent or in association with cisplatin as a first-line treatment in patients with nonsquamous histology. Herein, we report a case of pemetrexed-induced pneumonitis. Because pemetrexed is being prescribed with increasing frequency for NSCLC and mesothelioma, we believe that physicians should be aware of this rare but serious complication.
Clinical Lung Cancer 09/2009; 10(5):364-6. · 2.04 Impact Factor