Linda Janisch

Genetic Variants in the UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 Gene Predict the Risk of Severe Neutropenia of Irinotecan

PURPOSE Severe toxicity is commonly observed in cancer patients receiving irinotecan. UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 (UGT1A1) catalyzes the glucuronidation of the active metabolite SN-38. This study prospectively evaluated the association between the prevalence of severe toxicity and UGT1A1 genetic variation. PATIENTS AND METHODS Sixty-six cancer patients with advanced disease refractory to other treatments received irinotecan 350 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. Toxicity and pharmacokinetic data were measured during cycle 1. UGT1A1 variants (-3279G>T, -3156G>A, promoter TA indel, 211G>A, 686C>A) were genotyped. RESULTS The prevalence of grade 4 neutropenia was 9.5%. Grade 4 neutropenia was much more common in patients with the TA indel 7/7 genotype (3 of 6 patients; 50%) compared with 6/7 (3 of 24 patients; 12.5%) and 6/6 (0 of 29 patients; 0%) (P =.001). The TA indel genotype was significantly associated with the absolute neutrophil count nadir (7/7 < 6/7 < 6/6, P =.02). The relative risk of grade 4 neutropenia was 9.3 (95% CI, 2.4 to 36.4) for the 7/7 patients versus the rest of the patients. Pretreatment total bilirubin levels (mean +/- standard deviation) were significantly higher in patients with grade 4 neutropenia (0.83 +/- 0.08 mg/dL) compared to those without grade 4 neutropenia (0.47 +/- 0.03 mg/dL; P <.001). The -3156G>A variant seemed to distinguish different phenotypes of total bilirubin within the TA indel genotypes. The -3156 genotype and the SN-38 area under the concentration versus time curve were significant predictors of ln(absolute neutrophil count nadir; r(2) = 0.51). CONCLUSION UGT1A1 genotype and total bilirubin levels are strongly associated with severe neutropenia, and could be used to identify cancer patients predisposed to the severe toxicity of irinotecan. The hypothesis that the -3156G>A variant is a better predictor of UGT1A1 status than the previously reported TA indel requires further testing.

UGT1A1*28 polymorphism as a determinant of irinotecan disposition and toxicity

The metabolism of irinotecan (CPT-11) involves sequential activation to SN-38 and detoxification to the pharmacologically inactive SN-38 glucuronide (SN-38G). We have previously demonstrated the role of UGT1A1 enzyme in the glucuronidation of SN-38 and a significant correlation between in vitro glucuronidation of SN-38 and UGT1A1 gene promoter polymorphism. This polymorphism (UGT1A1*28) is characterized by the presence of an additional TA repeat in the TATA sequence of the UGT1A1 promoter, ((TA)7TAA, instead of (TA)6TAA). Here we report the results from a prospective clinical pharmacogenetic study to determine the significance of UGT1A1*28 polymorphism on irinotecan disposition and toxicity in patients with cancer. Twenty patients with solid tumors were treated with a 90 min i.v. infusion of irinotecan (300 mg m−2) once every 3 weeks. The frequency of UGT1A1 genotypes was as follows: 6/6—45%, 6/7—35% and 7/7—20%, with allele frequencies of 0.375 and 0.625 for (TA)7TAA and (TA)6TAA, respectively. Patients with the (TA)7TAA polymorphism had significantly lower SN-38 glucuronidation rates than those with the normal allele (6/6>6/7>7/7, P = 0.001). More severe grades of diarrhea and neutropenia were observed only in patients heterozygous (grade 4 diarrhea, n = 1) or homozygous (grade 3 diarrhea/grade 4 neutropenia, n = 1 and grade 3 neutropenia, n = 1) for the (TA)7TAA sequence. The results suggest that screening for UGT1A1*28 polymorphism may identify patients with lower SN-38 glucuronidation rates and greater susceptibility to irinotecan induced gastrointestinal and bone marrow toxicity.

Activity of XL184 (Cabozantinib), an Oral Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor, in Patients With Medullary Thyroid Cancer

PURPOSE XL184 (cabozantinib) is a potent inhibitor of MET, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2), and RET, with robust antiangiogenic, antitumor, and anti-invasive effects in preclinical models. Early observations of clinical benefit in a phase I study of cabozantinib, which included patients with medullary thyroid cancer (MTC), led to expansion of an MTC-enriched cohort, which is the focus of this article. PATIENTS AND METHODS A phase I dose-escalation study of oral cabozantinib was conducted in patients with advanced solid tumors. Primary end points included evaluation of safety, pharmacokinetics, and maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) determination. Additional end points included RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) response, pharmacodynamics, RET mutational status, and biomarker analyses. RESULTS Eighty-five patients were enrolled, including 37 with MTC. The MTD was 175 mg daily. Dose-limiting toxicities were grade 3 palmar plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE), mucositis, and AST, ALT, and lipase elevations and grade 2 mucositis that resulted in dose interruption and reduction. Ten (29%) of 35 patients with MTC with measurable disease had a confirmed partial response. Overall, 18 patients experienced tumor shrinkage of 30% or more, including 17 (49%) of 35 patients with MTC with measurable disease. Additionally, 15 (41%) of 37 patients with MTC had stable disease (SD) for at least 6 months, resulting in SD for 6 months or longer or confirmed partial response in 68% of patients with MTC. CONCLUSION Cabozantinib has an acceptable safety profile and is active in MTC. Cabozantinib may provide clinical benefit by simultaneously targeting multiple pathways of importance in MTC, including MET, VEGFR2, and RET. A global phase III pivotal study in MTC is ongoing (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00215605).

Pharmacogenomic and Pharmacokinetic Determinants of Erlotinib Toxicity

PURPOSE To assess the pharmacogenomic and pharmacokinetic determinants of skin rash and diarrhea, the two primary dose-limiting toxicities of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib. PATIENTS AND METHODS A prospective clinical study of 80 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, head and neck cancer, and ovarian cancer was performed. Detailed pharmacokinetics and toxicity of erlotinib were assessed. Polymorphic loci in EGFR, ABCG2, CYP3A4, and CYP3A5 were genotyped, and their effects on pharmacokinetics and toxicities were evaluated. RESULTS A novel diplotype of two polymorphic loci in the ABCG2 promoter involving -15622C/T and 1143C/T was identified, with alleles conferring lower ABCG2 levels associated with higher erlotinib pharmacokinetic parameters, including area under the curve (P = .019) and maximum concentration (P = .006). Variability in skin rash was best explained by a multivariate logistic regression model incorporating the trough erlotinib plasma concentration (P = .034) and the EGFR intron 1 polymorphism (P = .044). Variability in diarrhea was associated with the two linked polymorphisms in the EGFR promoter (P < .01), but not with erlotinib concentration. CONCLUSION Although exploratory in nature, this combined pharmacogenomic and pharmacokinetic model helps to define and differentiate the primary determinants of skin and gastrointestinal toxicity of erlotinib. The findings may be of use both in designing trials targeting a particular severity of rash and in considering dose and schedule modifications in patients experiencing dose-limiting toxicities of erlotinib or similarly targeted agents. Further studies of the relationship between germline polymorphisms in EGFR and the toxicity and efficacy of EGFR inhibitors are warranted.

Phase I clinical and pharmacologic study of eniluracil plus fluorouracil in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE To determine the highest dose of fluorouracil (5-FU) that could be safely administered with Eniluracil (776C85; Glaxo Wellcome Inc, Research Triangle Park, NC), an inactivator of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), on a daily schedule for 5 days, and to define the toxicities of the combination and the pharmacokinetics of 5-FU when administered with 776C85. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with advanced solid tumors refractory to standard therapy were enrolled at two institutions. The study consisted of three periods designed to evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of 776C85 alone (period 1); the effects of 776C85 on the pharmacokinetics of 5-FU (period 2); and the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) of 5-FU, with or without leucovorin, that could be safely administered with 776C85 (period 3). Cohorts of at least three patients each received oral 776C85 alone at doses of 3.7 mg/m2/d, 18.5 mg/m2/d and 0.74 mg/m2/d. After a 14-day washout period, each patient then received 776C85 daily for 3 days, with a single intravenous (i.v.) bolus dose of 5-FU 10 mg/m2 on day 2. After a second washout period, patients were treated with 776C85 daily for 7 days and 5-FU i.v. bolus on days 2 through 6. The starting dose of 5-FU 10 mg/m2/d was escalated until the MTD was determined. After determination of the MTD of 5-FU given with 776C85, oral leucovorin 50 mg/d on days 2 through 6 was added to determine the MTD of 5-FU with leucovorin in the presence of 776C85. Near the completion of the study, additional cohorts of patients were treated with 776C85 at 50 mg/d and oral 5-FU with or without leucovorin. RESULTS Sixty-five patients were enrolled onto the study and 60 were assessable for toxicity and response. Bone marrow suppression was the primary and dose-limiting toxicity of this regimen. Other toxicities included diarrhea, mucositis, anemia, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, and fatigue. 776C85 suppressed DPD activity in peripheral-blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) by at least 90% for at least 24 hours at all dose levels tested. In the presence of 776C85, 5-FU half-life was prolonged, clearance was reduced, and the drug displayed linear pharmacokinetics. Recommended doses for further testing on a daily for 5-day schedule are 776C85 10 mg/d with i.v. 5-FU 25 mg/m2/d; 776C85 10 mg/d with i.v. 5-FU 20 mg/m2/d plus leucovorin 50 mg/d; 776C85 50 mg/d with 5-FU given orally at 15 mg/m2/d with leucovorin at 50 mg/d. CONCLUSION 5-FU can be safely administered with 776C85; however, the MTDs are considerably lower than those conventionally used, caused, at least in part, by marked alterations in 5-FU plasma pharmacokinetics.

A phase I trial to determine the safety, tolerability, and maximum tolerated dose of deforolimus in patients with advanced malignancies.

Purpose: This was a phase I trial to determine the maximum tolerated dose and toxicity of deforolimus (AP23573, MK-8669), an inhibitor of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR). The pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antineoplastic effects were also studied. Experimental Design: Deforolimus was administered intravenously over 30 min every 7 days according to a flat dosing schedule. Dose was escalated according to an accelerated titration design. Patients remained on study until disease progression as long as they tolerated the drug without significant toxicities. Results: Forty-six patients were enrolled on the study. Common side effects included fatigue, anorexia, and mucositis. The maximum tolerated dose was 75 mg and mucositis was the dose-limiting toxicity. Similar to other mTOR inhibitors, deforolimus exhibited nonlinear pharmacokinetics and a prolonged half-life. Among 34 patients evaluable for response, 1 patient had a partial response, 21 patients had stable disease, and 12 had progressed. Percent change in tumor size was significantly associated with AUC (P = 0.015). A significant association was also detected for maximum change in cholesterol within the first two cycles of therapy and change in tumor size (r = −0.38; P = 0.029). Conclusions: Deforolimus was well tolerated on the schedule tested in this trial with toxicity and pharmacokinetic profiles that were similar to that of other mTOR inhibitors. Additional phase II studies are needed to determine if deforolimus is superior to other mTOR inhibitors in terms of efficacy. The change in serum cholesterol as a potential biomarker of activity should be studied further.

Paradoxical relationship between acetylator phenotype and amonafide toxicity

Patients receiving the investigational antineoplastic agent amonafide underwent prospective determination of acetylator phenotype with use of caffeine as a test drug. Fast acetylators of caffeine had significantly greater toxicity (myelosuppression) after amonafide treatment than slow acetylators, presumably because of greater conversion of amonafide to the active acetylated metabolite. Furthermore, the estimated area under the plasma concentration—time curve of amonafide was significantly greater in the fast acetylators, indicating that the total plasma clearance was paradoxically lower in this group. It is hypothesized that this paradox is attributable to competition for oxidation of amonafide by its acetylated metabolite (parallel pathway interaction). Pretreatment white blood count and patient age were also independent predictors of leukopenia. In addition, it was noted that the ratio of actual to ideal body weight was significantly higher in the fast acetylators. Studies are in progress to determine the optimal amonafide dose in both acetylator subgroups.

Prognostic factors for survival in patients treated in phase I clinical trials.

Background. Patients with advanced or metastatic cancer treated in Phase I clinical trials are considered to have a poor prognosis. Survival from first treatment in a Phase I trial was determined for 349 patients. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses were performed to determine whether potential prognostic factors and distinct risk groups could be identified.

Dose-Finding and Pharmacokinetic Study to Optimize the Dosing of Irinotecan According to the UGT1A1 Genotype of Patients With Cancer

PURPOSE The risk of severe neutropenia from treatment with irinotecan is related in part to UGT1A1*28, a variant that reduces the elimination of SN-38, the active metabolite of irinotecan. We aimed to identify the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of irinotecan in patients with advanced solid tumors stratified by the *1/*1, *1/*28, and *28/*28 genotypes. PATIENTS AND METHODS Sixty-eight patients received an intravenous flat dose of irinotecan every 3 weeks. Forty-six percent of the patients had the *1/*1 genotype, 41% had the *1/*28 genotype, and 13% had the *28/*28 genotype. The starting dose of irinotecan was 700 mg in patients with the *1/*1 and *1/*28 genotypes and 500 mg in patients with the *28/*28 genotype. Pharmacokinetic evaluation was performed at cycle 1. RESULTS In patients with the *1/*1 genotype, the MTD was 850 mg (four DLTs per 16 patients), and 1,000 mg was not tolerated (two DLTs per six patients). In patients with the *1/*28 genotype, the MTD was 700 mg (five DLTs per 22 patients), and 850 mg was not tolerated (four DLTs per six patients). In patients with the *28/*28 genotype, the MTD was 400 mg (one DLT per six patients), and 500 mg was not tolerated (three DLTs per three patients). The DLTs were mainly myelosuppression and diarrhea. Irinotecan clearance followed linear kinetics. At the MTD for each genotype, dosing by genotype resulted in similar SN-38 areas under the curve (AUCs; r(2) = 0.0003; P = .97), but the irinotecan AUC was correlated with the actual dose (r(2) = 0.39; P < .001). Four of 48 patients with disease known to be responsive to irinotecan achieved partial response. CONCLUSION The UGT1A1*28 genotype can be used to individualize dosing of irinotecan. Additional studies should evaluate the effect of genotype-guided dosing on efficacy in patients receiving irinotecan.

Two Drug Interaction Studies of Sirolimus in Combination with Sorafenib or Sunitinib in Patients with Advanced Malignancies

Purpose: Sirolimus is the prototypical mTOR inhibitor. Sorafenib and sunitinib are small molecule inhibitors of multiple kinases including VEGF receptor (VEGFR) kinases. These agents have different mechanisms of action, providing a strong rationale for combination. Experimental Design: Patients with advanced cancer were assigned to receive either sirolimus or the VEGFR inhibitor alone for a 2-week lead-in period, followed by combination therapy. The primary end point of each trial was to determine whether a drug interaction exists between sirolimus and either sorafenib or sunitinib, as defined by a difference in Cmax for each drug alone compared with its Cmax during combination therapy. Results: The sorafenib and sunitinib trials enrolled 34 and 23 patients, respectively. There were no clinically significant differences in Cmax for any of the drugs alone compared with the Cmax during combination therapy. Toxicity profiles were similar to those expected for each drug alone. One patient with adrenal cortical cancer had a partial response to sirolimus and sunitnib. Conclusions: Sirolimus can be safely combined with sorafenib or sunitinib. Our trial design is feasible and informative in screening for potential drug–drug interactions, using a relatively small number of patients and limited pharmacokinetic sampling. Clin Cancer Res; 17(7); 1956–63. ©2011 AACR.