Samir D. Undevia

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.

Phase II Study of Sorafenib in Patients With Metastatic or Recurrent Sarcomas

PURPOSE Since activity of sorafenib was observed in sarcoma patients in a phase I study, we performed a multicenter phase II study of daily oral sorafenib in patients with recurrent or metastatic sarcoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS We employed a multiarm study design, each representing a sarcoma subtype with its own Simon optimal two-stage design. In each arm, 12 patients who received 0 to 1 prior lines of therapy were treated (0 to 3 for angiosarcoma and malignant peripheral-nerve sheath tumor). If at least one Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) was observed, 25 further patients with that sarcoma subtype were accrued. Results Between October 2005 and November 2007, 145 patients were treated; 144 were eligible for toxicity and 122 for response. Median age was 55 years; female-male ratio was 1.8:1. The median number of cycles was 3. Five of 37 patients with angiosarcoma had a partial response (response rate, 14%). This was the only arm to meet the RECIST response rate primary end point. Median progression-free survival was 3.2 months; median overall survival was 14.3 months. Adverse events (typically dermatological) necessitated dose reduction for 61% of patients. Statistical modeling in this limited patient cohort indicated sorafenib toxicity was correlated inversely to patient height. There was no correlation between phosphorylated extracellular signal regulated kinase expression and response in six patients with angiosarcoma with paired pre- and post-therapy biopsies. CONCLUSION As a single agent, sorafenib has activity against angiosarcoma and minimal activity against other sarcomas. Further evaluation of sorafenib in these and possibly other sarcoma subtypes appears warranted, presumably in combination with cytotoxic or kinase-specific agents.

Pharmacokinetic variability of anticancer agents

The translation of advances in cancer biology to drug discovery can be complicated by pharmacokinetic variation between individuals and within individuals, and this can result in unpredictable toxicity and variable antineoplastic effects. Previously unrecognized variables (such as genetic polymorphisms) are now known to have a significant impact on drug disposition. How can the pharmacokinetic variability of anticancer agents be reduced? This will require the understanding of correlations between pharmacokinetics and treatment outcomes, the identification of relevant patient parameters, mathematical modelling of individual and population pharmacokinetics, and the development of algorithms that will tailor doses to the individual patient.

Ambulatory Monitoring Detects Sorafenib-Induced Blood Pressure Elevations on the First Day of Treatment

Purpose: Hypertension is a mechanism-based toxicity of sorafenib and other cancer therapeutics that inhibit the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling pathway. This prospective, single-center, cohort study characterized ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as an early pharmacodynamic biomarker of VEGF signaling pathway inhibition by sorafenib. Experimental Design: Fifty-four normotensive advanced cancer patients underwent 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring before and between days 6 and 10 of sorafenib therapy. After blood pressure changes were detected among the first cohort within 10 days, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was done during the first 24 hours of treatment for the second cohort. Results: For the entire patient population, the blood pressure increase [mean systolic, +10.8 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 8.6-13.0; range, −5.2 to +28.7 mm Hg; mean diastolic, +8.0 mm Hg; 95% CI, 6.3-9.7; range, −4.4 to +27.1 mm Hg] was detected between days 6 and 10 (P < 0.0001 for both) and plateaued thereafter. Variability in blood pressure change did not associate with: age, body size, sex, self-reported race, baseline blood pressure, or steady-state sorafenib plasma concentrations. In the second cohort, the blood pressure elevation was detected during the first 24 hours (mean systolic, +8.2 mm Hg; 95% CI, 5.0-11.3; mean diastolic, +6.5 mm Hg; 95% CI, 4.7-8.3; P < 0.0001 for both). Conclusions: Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring detects the blood pressure response to VEGF signaling pathway inhibition by sorafenib during the first 24 hours of treatment. The magnitude of blood pressure elevation is highly variable and unpredictable but could be important in optimizing the therapeutic index of VEGF signaling pathway inhibitor therapy. (Clin Cancer Res 2009;15(19):6250–7)

Cixutumumab and temsirolimus for patients with bone and soft-tissue sarcoma: a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND Preclinical studies have shown synergistic antitumour activity by inhibition of insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor (IGF-1R) and mTOR. The expression of IGF-1R seems to be crucial for this effect. We investigated the safety and efficacy of the combination of the IGF-1R antibody cixutumumab and the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus in patients with chemotherapy-refractory bone and soft-tissue sarcomas according to IGF-1R expression by immunohistochemistry. METHODS We undertook a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study in 19 cancer centres in the USA. Patients aged at least 16 years with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of bone or soft-tissue sarcoma were allocated on the basis of IGF-1R expression by immunohistochemistry to one of three treatment groups: IGF-1R-positive soft-tissue sarcoma (group A), IGF-1R-positive bone sarcomas (group B), or IGF-1R-negative bone and soft-tissue sarcoma (group C). Patients received weekly treatment with cixutumumab (6 mg/kg, intravenous) and temsirolimus (25 mg, intravenous flat dose) in 6-week cycles. A Simon optimal two-stage design was used for every arm. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 weeks by intention-to-treat analysis in the first 54 patients assigned to every treatment arm. Although patients still remain on treatment, this trial has completed enrolment and this represents the final analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01016015. FINDINGS Between Nov 18, 2009, and April 11, 2012, 388 patients were screened for IGF-1R expression and 54 were assigned to each arm. 17 of 54 patients in the IGF-1R-positive soft-tissue sarcoma group (31%; one-sided 95% CI lower bound 21%; two-sided 90% CI 21-43), 19 of 54 in IGF-1R-positive bone sarcoma group (35%; one-sided 95% CI lower bound 24%; two-sided 90% CI 24-47), and 21 of 54 in the IGF-1R-negative group (39%, one-sided 95% CI lower bound 28%; two-sided 90% CI 28-51) were progression free at 12 weeks. On April 6, 2011, the protocol was amended to include three additional patients in the IGF-1R-positive soft-tissue sarcoma group (total of 57 patients) and nine more in the IGF-1R-negative group (total of 63 patients). There were 2546 adverse events reported during the study, 214 (8%) of which were grade 3-4. The most common grade 3-4 toxicities in the 174 treated patients were anaemia in 16 (9%) patients, hyperglycaemia in 18 (10%), hypophosphataemia in 16 (9%), lymphopenia in 25 (14%), oral mucositis in 19 (11%), and thrombocytopenia in 19 (11%). INTERPRETATION The combination of cixutumumab and temsirolimus shows clinical activity in patients with sarcoma and forms a basis for future trials. However, IGF-1R expression by immunohistochemistry is not predictive of clinical outcome after treatment with this combination. FUNDING National Cancer Institute and CycleforSurvival Fund, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.

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.

PRIMARY TUMOR NECROSIS PREDICTS DISTANT CONTROL IN LOCALLY ADVANCED SOFT-TISSUE SARCOMAS AFTER PREOPERATIVE CONCURRENT CHEMORADIOTHERAPY

PURPOSE Various neoadjuvant approaches have been evaluated for the treatment of locally advanced soft-tissue sarcomas. This retrospective study describes a uniquely modified version of the Eilber regimen developed at the University of Chicago. METHODS AND MATERIALS We treated 34 patients (28 Stage III and 6 Stage IV) with locally advanced soft-tissue sarcomas of an extremity between 1995 and 2008. All patients received preoperative therapy including ifosfamide (2.5 g/m2 per day for 5 days) with concurrent radiation (28 Gy in 3.5-Gy daily fractions), sandwiched between various chemotherapy regimens. Postoperatively, 47% received further adjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS Most tumors (94%) were Grade 3, and all were T2b, with a median size of 10.3 cm. Wide excision was performed in 29 patients (85%), and 5 required amputation. Of the resected tumor specimens, 50% exhibited high (> or =90%) treatment-induced necrosis and 11.8% had a complete pathologic response. Surgical margins were negative in all patients. The 5-year survival rate was 42.3% for all patients and 45.2% for Stage III patients. For limb-preservation patients, the 5-year local control rate was 89.0% and reoperation was required for wound complications in 17.2%. The 5-year freedom-from-distant metastasis rate was 53.4% (Stage IV patients excluded), and freedom from distant metastasis was superior if treatment-induced tumor necrosis was 90% or greater (84.6% vs. 19.9%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS This well-tolerated concurrent chemoradiotherapy approach yields excellent rates of limb preservation and local control. The resulting treatment-induced necrosis rates are predictive of subsequent metastatic risk, and this information may provide an opportunity to guide postoperative systemic therapies.

Dose-Ranging Study of the Safety and Pharmacokinetics of Atrasentan in Patients with Refractory Malignancies

Purpose: Atrasentan is an orally bioavailable selective antagonist of the endothelin receptor ETA. Due to the potential activity of this agent against prostate cancer, the majority of subjects enrolled in prior studies had been male. This Phase I study sought to determine the toxicity and pharmacokinetics of daily atrasentan in a population of both female and male subjects with advanced malignancies. Experimental Design: Patients with refractory malignancies received atrasentan once daily at doses ranging from 5 mg to 75 mg. At least 3 subjects were treated at each dose level before enrollment began at the next higher dose level. Enrollment for specific dose levels was expanded if any subject experienced serious drug-related toxicity. Plasma concentration profiles for atrasentan were determined after dosing on days 1 and 28. Results: Thirty-five patients received atrasentan at doses from 5 mg to 75 mg. The most frequent drug-related adverse events were headache (60%), rhinitis (49%), and peripheral edema (31%). These toxicities were mild to moderate in severity and reversible on cessation of treatment. Dose escalation was stopped at the 75-mg dose level due to the occurrence of three severe adverse events (2 hyponatremia and 1 hypotension). Atrasentan was rapidly absorbed after oral administration; mean time to maximum observed concentration ranged from 0.3 to 1.7 h. Terminal elimination half-life averaged 26 h. No significant difference between sexes was found in any atrasentan pharmacokinetic parameter tested, including maximum observed plasma concentration, time to maximum observed concentration, minimum observed plasma concentration, area under the plasma concentration-time curve, and elimination rate constant. Conclusions: Atrasentan is well tolerated in both female and male cancer patients at doses of up to 60 mg/day with dose-limiting toxicity observed at 75 mg/day. The most frequently observed toxicities were headache, rhinitis, and edema. There was no statistically significant difference in atrasentan pharmacokinetics between sexes.

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.

A phase I trial of pharmacologic modulation of irinotecan with cyclosporine and phenobarbital

The anticancer agent irinotecan has been demonstrated to improve the survival rate in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Its usage has been limited by severe toxicity. To modulate irinotecan pharmacokinetics and reduce the prevalence of severe toxicity, patients were treated with cyclosporine (INN, ciclosporin) and the irinotecan dose was increased from 25 to 72 mg/m2 weekly. Phenobarbital was then added, allowing dose escalation to 144 mg/m2. Dose‐limiting toxicities were neutropenia and diarrhea. Irinotecan was well tolerated at the recommended phase II dose of 120 mg/m2, with a 6% prevalence of grade 4 neutropenia and an 18% prevalence of grade 3 diarrhea. Cyclosporine increased 7‐ethyl‐10‐hydroxycamptothecin (SN‐38) area under the concentration‐time curve (AUC) by 23% to 630% and reduced irinotecan clearance by 39% to 64% when compared with historical controls. Phenobarbital increased irinotecan clearance by 27% (P ≤ .001) and reduced SN‐38 AUC by 75% (P ≤ .001) when compared with patients treated with cyclosporine alone. Five partial responses were observed. Pharmacokinetic modulation of irinotecan with cyclosporine and phenobarbital has been demonstrated; further studies are necessary to evaluate whether this strategy improves the therapeutic index.