Mirjam Crul

Phase I and pharmacological study of daily oral administration of perifosine (D-21266) in patients with advanced solid tumours

Alkylphosphocholines are a novel class of antitumour agents structurally related to ether lipids that interact with the cell membrane and influence intracellular growth signal transduction pathways. We performed a phase I trial with an analogue of miltefosine, perifosine (D-21266), which was expected to induce less gastrointestinal toxicity. Objectives of the trial were: to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) for daily administration, to identify the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of this schedule, to assess drug accumulation and to determine the relevant pharmacokinetic parameters. 22 patients with advanced solid tumours were treated at doses ranging from 50 to 350 mg/day for 3 weeks, followed by 1 week of rest. Toxicity consisted mainly of gastrointestinal side-effects: nausea was reported by 11 patients (52%, 10 patients Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) grades 1-2 and 1 patient CTC grade 3), vomiting by 8 (38%, all CTC grades 1-2), and diarrhoea by 9 (43%, 8 patients CTC grades 1-2 and 1 patient CTC grade 3). The severity of these side effects appeared to increase with increasing doses. Another common side-effect was fatigue, occurring in 9 patients (43%). No haematology toxicity was observed. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was not reached, but gastrointestinal complaints led to an early treatment discontinuation in an increasing number of patients at the higher dose levels. Therefore, MTD was established at 200 mg/day. The pharmacokinetic studies suggested dose proportionality.

Phase I Clinical and Pharmacologic Study of Chronic Oral Administration of the Farnesyl Protein Transferase Inhibitor R115777 in Advanced Cancer

PURPOSE To determine the maximum-tolerated dose, toxicities, and pharmacokinetics of R115777, a farnesyl transferase inhibitor, when administered continuously via the oral route. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with advanced solid malignancies were treated with R115777 using an interpatient dose escalation scheme starting at 50 mg bid. Pharmacokinetics were assessed on days 1, 28, and 56. RESULTS Twenty-eight patients were entered onto the study and the median duration of treatment was 55 days. The dose-limiting toxicities were myelosuppression and neurotoxicity. At a dose of 400 mg bid, grade 4 leukocytopenia and neutropenia were seen in two of four patients. Neurotoxicity grade 3 developed in one of five patients at 500 mg bid and in one of 13 at 300 mg bid after 8 weeks of treatment. Common nonhematologic toxicities were nausea, vomiting, and fatigue. The recommended dose for phase II/III testing in this scheme is 300 mg bid. The pharmacokinetic studies indicated dose proportionality. Little accumulation occurred and steady-state levels were reached within 2 to 3 days. Analyses of historic tumor material showed that five of 15 of patients had a K-ras mutation in codon 12. Three patients with pancreatic, colon, and cervix carcinomas had stable disease and one patient with a colon carcinoma had a minor response accompanied by a more than 50% decrease in carcinoembryonic antigen tumor marker. A fifth patient, with platinum-refractory non-small-cell lung cancer, showed a partial response that lasted for 5 months. CONCLUSION Continuous dosing of R115777 is feasible with an acceptable toxicity profile at a dose of 300 mg bid.

Relationship Between Cisplatin Administration and the Development of Ototoxicity

PURPOSE To determine the auditory toxicity associated with dose- and schedule- intensive cisplatin/gemcitabine chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung carcinoma patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were treated with gemcitabine followed by cisplatin according to an interpatient dose-escalation scheme. Patients were randomly assigned to receive treatment once a week for 6 weeks or once every 2 weeks for 4 weeks. The following cohorts of patients were treated with a reversed schedule once every 2 weeks, in which cisplatin was followed by gemcitabine. The dose-intensity of cisplatin was equal in both schedules. Audiometric evaluations were obtained for each ear at several frequencies. Mean hearing loss after cisplatin treatment was computed for each dose level at each tested frequency in each ear at baseline and subsequent follow-up audiometry. Pure tone averages (PTAs) were also calculated. The pharmacokinetics of cisplatin was determined to study the correlation among the maximum drug concentration, the area under the curve of unbound platinum, and the development of ototoxicity. RESULTS A total of 328 audiograms were analyzed. At the higher frequencies, a more severe hearing impairment was recorded. Most patients showed a decrease in hearing thresholds at dosages above 60 mg/m2 cisplatin at the higher frequencies. PTAs at 1, 2, and 4 kHz show a mean hearing loss of 19 dB after cisplatin administration at dosages above 90 mg/m2. Threshold shifts at 8 and 12.5 kHz after cisplatin administration were experienced at dosages above 60 mg/m2. CONCLUSION Hearing loss after cisplatin therapy occurs mainly at high frequencies and at cisplatin dosages more than 60 mg/m2. It is more pronounced when cisplatin is given once every 2 weeks.

DNA repair mechanisms involved in gemcitabine cytotoxicity and in the interaction between gemcitabine and cisplatin

The influence of DNA repair mechanisms on the interaction between gemcitabine and cisplatin was studied using a panel of Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cell lines deficient in one of the following repair pathways: base excision repair (BER), nucleotide excision repair (NER), homologous recombination (HR) and non-homologous end joining (NHEJ). NER and HR are known to be involved in platinum-DNA adduct repair. Single agent experiments demonstrated that each of the repair deficient cell lines had a similar sensitivity towards gemcitabine as the parental cell lines, whereas the NER- and HR-deficient lines showed increased sensitivity towards cisplatin. Furthermore, in the parental cell lines, the administration sequence cisplatin followed by gemcitabine was synergistic, whereas the reversed schedule showed additivity and simultaneous administration revealed antagonistic cytotoxicity. In the repair deficient cell lines, using this synergistic schedule of cisplatin followed by gemcitabine, loss of synergy was observed in the NER- and HR-deficient cell lines. However, the magnitude of the effect in the NER-deficient cells was small. The sensitivity to the combination of cisplatin and gemcitabine shown by the BER- and NHEJ-deficient cell lines did not differ significantly from that of the parental cell line. Cellular accumulation of platinum as well as the formation of GG- and AG-intrastrand adducts in the parental line and in the HR-deficient line were not affected by gemcitabine. In conclusion, our results indicate that BER, NER, HR, and NHEJ are most likely incapable of modulating the cytotoxicity of gemcitabine, and that HR is involved in the synergistic interaction between cisplatin and gemcitabine in our cell system.

Ras biochemistry and farnesyl transferase inhibitors: a literature survey.

ver the last decades, knowledge on the genetic defects involved in tumor formation and growth has increased rapidly. This has launched the development of novel anticancer agents, interfering with the proteins encoded by the identified mutated genes. One gene of particular interest is ras, which is found mutated at high frequency in a number of malignancies. The Ras protein is involved in signal transduction: it passes on stimuli from extracellular factors to the cell nucleus, thereby changing the expression of a number of growth regulating genes. Mutated Ras proteins remain longer in their active form than normal Ras proteins, resulting in an overstimulation of the proliferative pathway. In order to function, Ras proteins must undergo a series of post-translational modifications, the most important of which is farnesylation. Inhibition of Ras can be accomplished through inhibition of farnesyl transferase, the enzyme responsible for this modification. With this aim, a number of agents, designated farnesyl transferase inhibitors (FTIs), have been developed that possess antineoplastic activity. Several of them have recently entered clinical trials. Even though clinical testing is still at an early stage, antitumor activity has been observed. At the same time, knowledge on the biochemical mechanisms through which these drugs exert their activity is expanding. Apart from Ras, they also target other cellular proteins that require farnesylation to become activated, e.g. RhoB. Inhibition of the farnesylation of RhoB results in growth blockade of the exposed tumor cells as well as an increase in the rate of apoptosis. In conclusion, FTIs present a promising class of anticancer agents, acting through biochemical modulation of the tumor cells.

DNA-based drug interactions of cisplatin

The interactions of cisplatin with other anti-cancer agents on the DNA level have been studied extensively in pre-clinical experiments. In general, combination of cisplatin with an antimetabolite, taxane, or topoisomerase inhibitor, can result in a modulation of platinum pharmacology on the DNA, for example, enhanced retention of the platinum-DNA adducts. These interactions are mostly sequence and cell type dependent. In cell line models, antimetabolites can enhance the number of platinum-DNA adducts, probably by inhibition of DNA repair pathways. However, in clinical trials, the opposite effect has been observed, with a reduction of these adducts upon combined treatment. For the taxanes it has been shown that they can inhibit the formation of platinum-DNA adducts, whereas topoisomerase I inhibitors increase the number of adducts, resulting in strong synergistic cytotoxicity. For this last interaction a mechanistic model has recently been proposed, in which the topoisomerase I enzyme directly binds to the platinum-DNA adduct. Thereafter, the topoisomerase I inhibitor binds to this complex, which yields large stabilised lesions to the DNA that are probably difficult to repair. Ongoing studies will proceed to elucidate the exact mechanism underlying the interactions between cisplatin and other anti-neoplastic agents on the DNA level. Such increased understanding might help in designing new and more effective treatment regimens for cancer. In this paper, we review the pre-clinical and clinical studies investigating the observed interactions between cisplatin, the antimetabolites, taxanes, and topoisomerase inhibitors on the DNA level.

Clinical and Pharmacologic Study of the Farnesyltransferase Inhibitor Tipifarnib in Cancer Patients With Normal or Mildly or Moderately Impaired Hepatic Function

PURPOSE This study explored the feasibility of treating patients with impaired hepatic function with tipifarnib. The safety profile, pharmacokinetics, and relationship between the pharmacokinetics and toxicities were evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with mildly or moderately impaired hepatic function (Child-Pugh classification) were treated with tipifarnib bid on days 1 to 5 of cycle 1. Further dosing was based on the individual day 5 pharmacokinetic data and absolute neutrophil count. For patients with normal hepatic function, tipifarnib was dosed on days 1 to 14, followed by 1 week of rest. For all patients, in subsequent cycles, tipifarnib was administered for 21 consecutive days out of every 28 days. RESULTS Twenty-eight patients were included in the normal (n = 16), mild (n = 9), and moderate (n = 3) impairment groups. The most important grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicity was leukocytopenia/neutropenia, which was mostly observed in patients with moderate impairment. Common nonhematologic toxicities were fatigue, nausea, and vomiting. The pharmacokinetic data showed higher plasma concentrations of tipifarnib in patients with liver impairment compared with patients with normal hepatic function. CONCLUSION In patients with mildly impaired hepatic function, tipifarnib can be administered safely at a starting dose of 200 mg bid, but it is not safe to treat patients with moderate hepatic impairment.

Phase I and pharmacological study of the farnesyltransferase inhibitor tipifarnib (Zarnestra®, R115777) in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with advanced solid tumours

This phase I trial was designed to determine the safety and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of tipifarnib in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with advanced solid tumours. Furthermore, the pharmacokinetics of each of these agents was evaluated. Patients were treated with tipifarnib b.i.d. on days 1–7 of each 21-day cycle. In addition, gemcitabine was given as a 30-min i.v. infusion on days 1 and 8 and cisplatin as a 3-h i.v. infusion on day 1. An interpatient dose-escalation scheme was used. Pharmacokinetics was determined in plasma and white blood cells. In total, 31 patients were included at five dose levels. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) consisted of thrombocytopenia grade 4, neutropenia grade 4, febrile neutropenia grade 4, electrolyte imbalance grade 3, fatigue grade 3 and decreased hearing grade 2. The MTD was tipifarnib 200 mg b.i.d., gemcitabine 1000 mg m−2 and cisplatin 75 mg m−2. Eight patients had a confirmed partial response and 12 patients stable disease. No clinically relevant pharmacokinetic interactions were observed. Tipifarnib can be administered safely at 200 mg b.i.d. in combination with gemcitabine 1000 mg m−2 and cisplatin 75 mg m−2. This combination showed evidence of antitumour activity and warrants further evaluation in a phase II setting.

Evaluation of the bioequivalence of tablets and capsules containing the novel anticancer agent R115777 (Zarnestra) in patients with advanced solid tumors

SummaryR 115777 (Zarnestra) is a novel anticancer agent, currently undergoing phase III clinical testing. An open, cross-over trial was performed in 24 patients with solid tumors to compare the bioavailability of a new tablet formulation with the standard capsule formulation. Both dosage forms were administered once daily in doses of 300 or 400 mg. Patients received R 115777 as a capsule on day 1 and as a tablet on day 2, or vice versa. Blood samples were drawn up to 24 hours after drug intake and R 115777 levels were measured using a validated high performance liquid chromatography, (HPLC) method. The following pharmacokinetic parameters were determined and compared for the two formulations: time to maximal plasma concentration (Tmax), half-life (t1/2), maximal plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the curve at twenty-four hours (AUC24h). For the latter two parameters, 90% classical confidence intervals of the ratio tablet/capsule were calculated after a log-transformation, using an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). For t1/2 and Tmax, no statistically significant differences were found between tablet and capsule. The point estimates of the ratio’s of the log-normalized Cmax and AUC24h were 0.94 and 0.92, respectively, and the 90% confidence intervals were 0.81–1.09 and 0.83–1.03, which is within the critical range for bioequivalence of 0.80–1.25. In conclusion, the established pharmacokinetic parameters demonstrate that the capsule and tablet formulations, of R 115777 are interchangeable.