| Literature DB >> 17285128 |
C Dittrich1, A S Zandvliet, M Gneist, A D R Huitema, A A J King, J Wanders.
Abstract
Indisulam (E7070) is an anticancer agent that is currently being evaluated in phase II clinical studies. A significant reduction in glutathione synthetase and glutathione reductase transcripts by indisulam provided a molecular basis for its combination with platinum agents. Indisulam demonstrated high anti-tumour activity in various preclinical cancer models. The objectives of this study were (1) to determine the recommended dose of indisulam in combination with carboplatin in patients with solid tumours and (2) to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of the combination. Patients with solid tumours were treated with indisulam in combination with carboplatin. Indisulam (350, 500, or 600 mg m(-2)) was given as a 1-hour intravenous infusion on day 1 and carboplatin (5 or 6 mg min ml(-1)) as an intravenous infusion over 30 min on day 2 of a three-weekly cycle. Sixteen patients received study treatment and were eligible. Thrombocytopenia was the major dose limiting toxicity followed by neutropenia. Both drugs contributed to the myelosuppressive effect of the combination. Indisulam 500 mg m(-2) in combination with carboplatin 6 mg min ml(-1) was identified not to cause dose limiting toxicity, but a delay of re-treatment by 1 week was required regularly to allow recovery from myelosuppression. The recommended dose and schedule for an envisaged phase II study in patients with non-small cell lung cancer is indisulam 500 mg m(-2) in combination with carboplatin 6 mg min ml(-1) repeated four-weekly. Patients who do not experience severe thrombocytopenia at cycle 1 will be permitted to receive an escalated dose of indisulam of 600 mg m(-2) from cycle 2 onwards.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2007 PMID: 17285128 PMCID: PMC2360043 DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603606
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Cancer ISSN: 0007-0920 Impact factor: 7.640
Summary of planned dose escalation scheme
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| One | 350 | 6 |
| Two | 500 | 6 |
| Three | 600 | 6 |
| Four | 700 | 6 |
|
| Maximum tolerated dose | 5 |
| Maximum tolerated dose + one | 5 |
Patient characteristics
|
| |
| Male | 5 (31%) |
| Female | 11 (69%) |
|
| |
| Median | 63 |
| Range | 19–81 |
|
| |
| Median | 164 |
| Range | 153–185 |
|
| |
| Caucasian | 16 (100%) |
|
| |
| Median | 30 |
| Range | 2–335 |
|
| |
| Sarcoma | 3 |
| Renal cell | 2 |
| Lung | 2 |
| Colorectal | 2 |
| Ovarian | 2 |
| Pancreas | 2 |
| Adenocarcinoma | 1 |
| Melanoma | 1 |
| Gastric | 1 |
|
| |
| Surgery | 16 (100%) |
| Radiotherapy | 5 (31%) |
| Chemotherapy, 1 course | 5 (31%) |
| Chemotherapy, 2 courses | 4 (25%) |
| Chemotherapy, 3 courses | 1 (6%) |
| Chemotherapy, 4 courses | 2 (13%) |
| Experimental therapy | 4 (25%) |
Number of patients, DLTs, dose reductions per dose level
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 350 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| 500 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| 600 | 6 | 4 | 3 (75%) | 2 |
| 600 | 5 | 5 | 2 (50%) | 0 |
DLTs, dose limiting toxicities.
One patient was not assessable for DLT, because he died due to progressive disease during cycle 1.
One patient was not assessable for DLT, because she died due to progressive disease during cycle 1
Two DLTs out of four assessable patients.
Treatment-related adverse events observed during the study by worst grade according to the NCI-common toxicity criteria (CTC)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
| Thrombocytopenia | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 1 (6%) | 11 (69%) |
| Neutropenia | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 2 (12.5%) | 10 (62.5%) |
| Anaemia | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 (25%) | 7 (44%) |
|
| ||||||||||
| Fatigue | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 13 (81%) | 0 (0%) |
| Nausea | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 8 (50%) | 0 (0%) |
| Vomiting | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 6 (37.5%) | 0 (0%) |
| Constipation | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 (37.5%) | 0 (0%) |
| Dysgeusia | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 4 (25%) | 0 (0%) |
| Anorexia | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 (25%) | 0 (0%) |
| Abdominal pain | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 (25%) | 0 (0%) |
| Dry mouth | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 (19%) | 0 (0%) |
| Flatulence | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 (19%) | 0 (0%) |
| Diarrhoea | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 (12.5%) | 0 (0%) |
| Headache | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 (12.5%) | 0 (0%) |
| Dyspepsia | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 (12.5%) | 0 (0%) |
| Peripheral oedema | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 (12.5%) | 0 (0%) |
| Dry skin | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 (12.5%) | 0 (0%) |
Indisulam (mg m−2)/carboplatin (mg min ml−1).
Number of patients with any treatment-related haematological toxicity grade 3 or 4 according to the NCI-common toxicity criteria (CTC) at cycle 1 and post cycle 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
| Platelets | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 5 (31%) | 3 (19%) |
| Neutrophils | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 (6%) | 2 (13%) |
| Leucocytes | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 (13%) | 1 (6%) |
| Lymphocytes | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 (6%) | 0 (0%) |
| Haemoglobin | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 (13%) | 1 (6%) |
|
| ||||||||||
| Platelets | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 10 (63%) | 4 (25%) |
| Neutrophils | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 9 (56%) | 7 (44%) |
| Leucocytes | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 8 (50%) | 2 (13%) |
| Lymphocytes | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 4 (25%) | 0 (0%) |
| Haemoglobin | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 7 (44%) | 0 (0%) |
Indisulam (mg m−2)/carboplatin (mg min ml−1).
Figure 1Observed vs model predicted plasma concentrations of indisulam. The scatter plot is symmetrically positioned around the line of identity, which indicates that the currently observed profiles are well described by the previously developed population pharmacokinetic model.
Population pharmacokinetic parameter estimates of carboplatin ultrafiltrate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clearance CL (l h−1) | 6.06–8.33 | 4.87 | (6) | 12.4 | (29) |
| Central volume of distribution V1 (l) | 14.4–16.3 | 15.5 | (20) | 66.2 | (147) |
| Intercompartmental clearance Q (l h−1) | 0.792–1.70 | 3.46 | (18) | 28.3 | (39) |
| Peripheral volume of distribution V2 (l) | 7.07–10.4 | 9.94 | (11) | 19.8 | (41) |
| Correlation coefficientρ CL∼V1 | 0.67 | ||||
| Proportional residual error (%) | 9.50 | (11) |
SE, standard error; IIV, interindividual variability.
Huitema ; Shen ; Ekhart .
Figure 2Observed carboplatin clearance (CL) vs predicted carboplatin clearance based on Cockcroft and Gault (1976) and Calvert .
Figure 3The relative nadir platelet count vs exposure to indisulam (A) and exposure to carboplatin (B). The solid lines represent the model predicted nadir counts after median exposure to carboplatin (6.7 mg min ml−1) and varying exposure to indisulam (A) or after median exposure to indisulam (94 mg min ml−1) and varying exposure to carboplatin (B). A plot of model predicted values vs the corresponding observed values (C) is symmetrically distributed around the line of unity, which demonstrates that the modified Hill equation resulted in unbiased predictions of the nadir platelet count. AUC, area under the plasma concentration vs time curve.