R. Goel

Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) as second-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III noninferiority study

BACKGROUND To demonstrate the noninferiority of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer after prior irinotecan-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 627 patients were randomly assigned to receive XELOX (n = 313) or FOLFOX-4 (n = 314) following disease progression/recurrence or intolerance to irinotecan-based chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS PFS for XELOX was noninferior to FOLFOX-4 [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-1.14] in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Median PFS was 4.7 months with XELOX versus 4.8 months with FOLFOX-4. The robustness of the primary analysis was supported by multivariate and subgroup analyses. Median overall survival in the ITT population was 11.9 months with XELOX versus 12.5 months with FOLFOX-4 (HR = 1.02; 95% CI 0.86-1.21). Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 50% of XELOX- and 65% of FOLFOX-4-treated patients. Whereas grade 3/4 neutropenia (35% versus 5% with XELOX) and febrile neutropenia (4% versus < 1%) were more common with FOLFOX-4, grade 3/4 diarrhea (19% versus 5% with FOLFOX-4) and grade 3 hand-foot syndrome (4% versus < 1%) were more common with XELOX. CONCLUSION XELOX is noninferior to FOLFOX-4 when administered as second-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Phase 1 and Pharmacokinetic Study of Intravenous Irinotecan in Refractory Solid Tumor Patients with Hepatic Dysfunction

Purpose: To determine the recommended starting doses and pharmacokinetics of irinotecan in cancer patients with impaired liver function treated on a weekly schedule. Experimental Design: Patients with solid tumors who had impaired liver function were enrolled into four groups based on baseline serum total bilirubin and aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/alanine aminotransferase (ALT): Group 1 (n = 19): total bilirubin 1.5 to 3.0 × institutional upper limit of normal (IULN) and ALT/AST ≤5.0 × IULN; Group 2 (n = 7): total bilirubin 3.1 to 5.0 × IULN and ALT/AST ≤5.0 × IULN; Group 3 (n = 6): total bilirubin ≤1.5 × IULN and ALT/AST 5.1 to 20.0 × IULN; Group 4 (n = 10): total bilirubin 1.5 to 3.0 × IULN and ALT/AST 5.1 to 20.0 × IULN. Irinotecan was given as a 90-minute i.v. infusion weekly for the first 4 weeks in each 6-week cycle at starting doses which escalated from 40 to as much as 75 mg/m2. After the first treatment, doses were adjusted based on individual patient toxicities. Starting doses for patients with hepatic dysfunction were derived from the maximum tolerated doses noted in the four hepatic dysfunction groups. Results: Forty-two patients were treated. Among the most frequent adverse events were neutropenia (41%, grades 3/4), diarrhea (15%, grades 3/4), nausea (10%, grade 3), and vomiting (5%, grades 3/4). Two patients died from drug-induced neutropenic sepsis. Two patients had objective tumor responses (complete response, liver metastases from unknown primary; partial response, colon cancer). Hepatic dysfunction reduced irinotecan clearance while increasing relative exposure to the active metabolite, 7-ethyl-10-hydroxycamptothecin (SN-38). SN-38 exposures in patients receiving doses of 40 to 75 mg/m2 were comparable to exposures in patients with normal liver function treated with a starting dose of 125 mg/m2. Conclusions: Irinotecan starting doses that seem to be safe for hepatically impaired patients treated with the weekly schedule are 60, 50, 60, and 40 mg/m2 for groups 1 to 4, respectively. At these starting doses, exposure to SN-38 and the adverse event profile are similar to that observed in patients with normal liver function and antitumor activity can be observed.

Abstract 2947: Pharmacodynamic (PD) and pharmacokinetic (PK) results of the second-generation hypomethylating agent, SGI-110, in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after progression on sorafenib

Background: HCC is the sixth most common cancer and the third most common cause of cancer death worldwide. Sorafenib treatment improves survival in advanced disease, but no therapy has demonstrated significant activity after progression on sorafenib. Increased methylation of genes implicated in tumorigenesis has been described in HCC and has been associated with outcome and etiology. We evaluated the therapeutic and biologic effects of SGI-110, a hypomethylating agent in patients with HCC. SGI-110, a dinucleotide of decitabine and deoxyguanosine, increases decitabine exposure by protecting it from deamination due to slow release on subcutaneous (SC) injection. PK and PD results of an open-label, phase 2 study in patients with HCC are presented here. Methods: Adults with histologically confirmed, advanced-stage HCC who had received sorafenib, had evidence of disease progression, and ECOG PS 0-1 were enrolled. SGI-110 (SC) was given on D1-5 of a 28-day cycle. Blood samples were taken for PK/PD analysis and, when possible, paired tumor biopsies were taken for analysis of global DNA (LINE-1) and gene-specific methylation and gene expression. Patients were imaged every 8 weeks and allowed to continue treatment after radiologic but not clinical progression. End points include disease control rate (DCR) at 16 weeks, overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Results: 50 HCC patients (43M/7F; median age 60 years [range 32-82]; ECOG PS 0/1: 21/29) were enrolled. The initial dose of SGI-110 was 60 mg/m2 (4 patients treated), but due to grade 4 neutropenia, the dose was decreased to 45 mg/m2 for subsequent patients. SGI 110 was well tolerated at 45 mg/m2; myelosuppression was the major adverse event. Full PK was available from 16 patients (3F/13M). The PK profile for SGI-110 after 45 mg/m2 showed protracted conversion to deliver active metabolite decitabine with exposure window lasting beyond 8-hr and mean(SD) decitabine AUC exposures of 94(22) ng*hr/mL that were comparable to those achieved in AML/MDS after 60 mg/m2. Potent LINE-1 demethylation was observed in blood (-35.6%, n = 27) and in tumor (-12.9%, n = 10) DNA; significant demethylation (-27.4%, n = 6) was also observed on promoter of tumor suppressor gene MZB1 which is frequently hypermethylated and silenced in HCC. Conclusions: SGI-110 was well tolerated at a dose of 45 mg/m2 administered SC on D1-5 of a 28-day cycle. PK was consistent with that seen in another solid tumor study and provided more persistent decitabine exposures compared with PK in hematologic malignancies. The PD changes in blood and tumor LINE-1 and MZB-1 methylation are promising and consistent with the desired biologic effect of SGI-110. Analysis for clinical efficacy is ongoing. Citation Format: Anthony El-Khoueiry, Mary F. Mulcahy, Tanios Bekaii-Saab, Richard Kim, Crystal Denlinger, Rakesh Goel, Shweta Gupta, Simone Jueliger, Aram Oganesian, Harold Keer, John Nemunaitis. Pharmacodynamic (PD) and pharmacokinetic (PK) results of the second-generation hypomethylating agent, SGI-110, in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after progression on sorafenib. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 106th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2015 Apr 18-22; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(15 Suppl):Abstract nr 2947. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2015-2947

470PA PHASE I STUDY OF ERIBULIN AND GEMCITABINE IN PATIENTS WITH AVANCED SOLID TUMOURS. A STUDY OF THE PRINCESS MARGARET PHASE II CONSORTIUM

ABSTRACT Aim: Gemcitabine, a nucleoside analogue, and eribulin (E7389), an investigational tubulin-based anti-mitotic drug exhibited synergistic cytotoxic effects pre-clinically and were combined in a Phase I dose finding clinical trial. Methods: A phase I clinical dose-escalation study of these 2 drugs in combination was initiated in patients with advanced solid tumours who had received up to two prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (CP cohort). Dose escalation was performed in a 3 + 3 design to identify the recommended phase II dose (RPTD). Two additional expansion cohorts consisting of women with gynecologic cancers at the recommended phase II dose (G cohort), and further dose-escalation of chemotherapy-naive patients (CN cohort), were evaluated. Results: Forty five patients were treated in 3 cohorts - 21 (CP), 10 (G), and 14 (CN). The initial combination of eribulin and gemcitabine was administered on days 1, 8, 15 of a 28 day cycle (CP) but due to 2/6 DLTs, a less dose-intense schedule with the 2 drugs given days 1 and 8 on a q21day cycle was assessed. Dose Dose Level N Schedule E7389 (mg/m2) Gemcitbaine (mg/m2) DLT Toxicity 1 (q28) 6 D1,8,15 q28d 0.7 800 2 Thrombocytopenia 1 (q21) 3 D1,8 q21d 0.7 800 2 3 D1,8 q21d 0.7 1000 3-CP 6 D1,8 q21d 1.0 1000 1 Neutropenia 3-G 10 D1,8 q21d 1.0 1000 4-CP 3 D1.8 q21d 1.4 1000 2 Diarrhea; fatigue 4-CN 7 D1,8 q21d 1.4 1000 1 Elevated transaminases 5-CN 5 D1,8 21d 1.6 1000 6-CN 2 D1,8q21d 1.8 1000 1 Neutropenia The RPTD was at dose level 3. No other significant hematologic or non-hematologic toxicities were observed with the CP patients. For the CN cohort, additional escalation at dose levels 4, 5, and 6 was attempted, but due to dose limiting neutropenia seen after Cycle 1, DL3 remained RPTD. Objective responses were seen in all three cohorts – 2/21 (CP), 1/10 (G) and 2/14 (CN). Conclusions: The combination of eribulin and gemcitabine was well tolerated with preliminary evidence of activity being seen. Phase II investigation of this regimen should be considered at a dose of 1.0mg/m2 eribulin and 1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine day 1 and 8 q3 weeks. Support by contract HHSN261201100032C/NO1-CM-2011-00032. Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Montelukast prophylaxis of oxaliplatin hypersensitivity reactions.

e14046 Background: Oxaliplatin acute hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) are typically a Type I reaction, occurring in patients (pts) with second or subsequent exposure, with an incidence of 10–20% and predominantly grade 1–2. Our institution tracks and documents all acute adverse drug HSRs using an NCI CTC 2.0 derived grading form including cardiac, dermatologic, constitutional, and pulmonary domains. A retrospective review of oxaliplatin HSRs was undertaken to access severity and outcomes depending treatment of the HSR “traditional” (corticosteroids and antihistamines) versus the LTD4 inhibitor, montelukast. Methods: All oxaliplatin related HSRs reported, since form implementation in 2002, were reviewed to determine cycle number and outcome (stopped oxaliplatin for HSR vs completed therapy to alternate endpoint). Results: 75 pts had 101 oxaliplatin HSRs. Pts were treated for metastatic disease (40 pts) or adjuvantly (35 pts). HSRs were grade 1 (42%), gr 2 (28%), gr 3 (27%) and gr 4 (3%). Dyspnea and hypox...

An in-vitro model of the effects of pH on cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity

2077 Background: There is evidence that acidic conditions potentiate the cytotoxicity of Cisplatin (Cp) (F. Tanaka et al, Hearing Research: 177, 2003, 21–31). However, little is known about the effects of pH on Cp nephrotoxicity in humans. It was indicated that the proximal renal tubules in humans are more affected by Cp cytotoxicity than the distal renal tubules (G. Daugaard et al, Clin Pharmacol Ther.: 44(2), 1988,164–172). We hypothesize that pH variations in renal tubules are important modulators of Cp nephrotoxicity. Methods: LLC-PK1 (porcine proximal) and MDCK (canine distal) renal tubular epithelium cells were used as in-vitro models to investigate the effect of pH variations on Cp-induced nephrotoxicity. The IC50 of Cp at different pHs after one-hour exposure was determined for these two cell lines using the MTT assay. For LLC-PK1 cells, C-14 thymidine assay was used to examine the effect of Cp on DNA synthesis, and Platinum (Pt) uptake was measured by atomic absorption spectroscopy. Similar exper...