Sylvie Bartholomeus

Phase I safety and pharmacokinetics of BAY 43-9006 administered for 21 days on/7 days off in patients with advanced, refractory solid tumours

BAY 43-9006 is a novel dual-action Raf kinase and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) inhibitor that targets tumour cell proliferation and tumour angiogenesis. This Phase I study was undertaken to determine the safety profile, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), pharmacokinetics, and tumour response profile of oral BAY 43-9006 in patients with advanced, refractory solid tumours. BAY 43-9006 was administered daily for repeated cycles of 21 days on/7 days off. A total of 44 patients were enrolled at doses from 50 to 800 mg b.i.d. Pharmacokinetic profiles of BAY 43-9006 in plasma were determined during the first treatment cycle. The most frequently reported adverse events over multiple cycles were gastrointestinal (75%), dermatologic (71%), constitutional (68%), pain (64%), or hepatic (61%) related. A MTD of 400 mg b.i.d. BAY 43-9006 was defined. BAY 43-9006 was absorbed rapidly; steady-state conditions were reached within 7 days. BAY 43-9006 exposure increased nonproportionally with increasing dose. In all, 32 patients were evaluated for tumour response: 15 patients showed tumour progression, 16 patients experienced stable disease (>6 months in eight patients), and one patient with renal cell carcinoma achieved a partial response. BAY 43-9006 given for 21 days with 7 days off treatment was safe, well tolerated, and showed antitumour activity.

Phase III Trial Comparing Two Dose Levels of Epirubicin Combined With Cyclophosphamide With Cyclophosphamide, Methotrexate, and Fluorouracil in Node-Positive Breast Cancer

PURPOSE To compare a full-dose epirubicin-cyclophosphamide (HEC) regimen with classical cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) therapy and with a moderate-dose epirubicin-cyclophosphamide regimen (EC) in the adjuvant therapy of node-positive breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Node-positive breast cancer patients who were aged 70 years or younger were randomly allocated to one of the following treatments: CMF for six cycles (oral cyclophosphamide); EC for eight cycles (epirubicin 60 mg/m(2), cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m(2); day 1 every 3 weeks); and HEC for eight cycles (epirubicin 100 mg/m(2), cyclophosphamide 830 mg/m(2); day 1 every 3 weeks). RESULTS Two hundred fifty-five, 267, and 255 eligible patients were treated with CMF, EC, and HEC, respectively. Patient characteristics were well balanced among the three arms. One and three cases of congestive heart failure were reported in the EC and HEC arms, respectively. Three cases of acute myeloid leukemia were reported in the HEC arm. After 4 years of median follow-up, no statistically significant differences were observed between HEC and CMF (event-free survival [EFS]: hazards ratio [HR] = 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.31, P =.80; distant-EFS: HR = 0.97, 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.34, P =.87; overall survival [OS]: HR = 0.97, 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.44, P =.87). HEC is more effective than EC (EFS: HR = 0.73, 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.99, P =.04; distant-EFS: HR = 0.75, 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.02, P =.06; OS HR = 0.69, 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.00, P =.05). CONCLUSION This three-arm study does not show an advantage in favor of an adequately dosed epirubicin-based regimen over classical CMF in the adjuvant therapy of node-positive pre- and postmenopausal women with breast cancer. Moreover, this study confirms that there is a dose-response curve for epirubicin in breast cancer adjuvant therapy.

Phase I trial to investigate the safety, pharmacokinetics and efficacy of sorafenib combined with docetaxel in patients with advanced refractory solid tumours

AIM The safety, pharmacokinetics and efficacy of sorafenib plus docetaxel in patients with advanced refractory cancer were investigated in a phase I, dose-escalation trial. METHODS Twenty-seven patients in four cohorts received docetaxel on day 1 (cohorts 1 and 4: 75 mg/m2; cohorts 2 and 3: 100 mg/m2) plus sorafenib on days 2-19 (cohorts 1 and 2: 200 mg twice-daily (bid); cohorts 3 and 4: 400 mg bid) in 21-day cycles. RESULTS Most common adverse events (AEs) (grade 3-5) included neutropenia (89%), leucopaenia (81%), hand-foot skin reaction (30%) and fatigue (30%). The most common drug-related AEs leading to dose reduction/interruption or permanent discontinuation were dermatologic (41%), gastrointestinal (26%) and constitutional (22%). Coadministration of sorafenib altered the pharmacokinetics of docetaxel. On average, docetaxel area under the concentration-time curve (AUC)(0-24) increased by 5% (cohort 1), 54% (cohort 2), 36% (Cohort 3) and 80% (cohort 4) with docetaxel plus sorafenib, while C(max) increased by 16-32%, independent of sorafenib/docetaxel doses. Three of 25 evaluable patients (11%) had partial responses; 14 (52%) had stable disease. CONCLUSION Dose-limiting dermatologic AEs were more common than expected for either therapy alone. A starting dose of docetaxel 75 mg/m2 plus sorafenib 400mg bid (with dose reductions for dermatological toxicities) is proposed for phase II.