PURPOSE: Pharmacodynamic studies are frequently incorporated into phase I trials, but it is uncommon that they guide dose selection. We conducted a dose selection study with daily rapamycin (sirolimus) in patients with solid tumors employing a modified continuous reassessment method (mCRM) using real-time pharmacodynamic data as primary dose-estimation parameter. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We adapted the mCRM logit function from its classic toxicity-based input data to a pharmacodynamic-based input. The pharmacodynamic end point was skin phospho-P70 change after 28 days. Pharmacodynamic effect was defined as at least 80% inhibition from baseline. The first two dose levels (2 and 3 mg) were evaluated before implementing the mCRM, and the data used to estimate the next dose level based on statistical modeling. Toxicity-based boundaries limited the escalation steps. Other correlates analyzed were positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography, pharmacokinetics, phospho-P70 in peripheral-blood mononuclear cells, and tumor biopsies in patients at the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD). RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were enrolled at doses between 2 and 9 mg. Pharmacodynamic effect occurred across dose levels, and toxicity boundaries ultimately drove dose selection. The MTD of daily oral rapamycin was 6 mg. Toxicities in at least 20% were hyperglycemia, hyperlipidemia, elevated transaminases, anemia, leucopenia, neutropenia, and mucositis. Pharmacokinetics were consistent with prior data, and exposure increased with dose. No objective responses occurred, but five previously progressing patients received at least 12 cycles. PET showed generalized stable or decreased glucose uptake unrelated to antitumor effect. CONCLUSION: mCRM-based dose escalation using real-time pharmacodynamic assessment was feasible. However, the selected pharmacodynamic end point did not correlate with dose. Toxicity ultimately drove dose selection. Rapamycin is a well-tolerated and active oral anticancer agent.
PURPOSE: Pharmacodynamic studies are frequently incorporated into phase I trials, but it is uncommon that they guide dose selection. We conducted a dose selection study with daily rapamycin (sirolimus) in patients with solid tumors employing a modified continuous reassessment method (mCRM) using real-time pharmacodynamic data as primary dose-estimation parameter. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We adapted the mCRM logit function from its classic toxicity-based input data to a pharmacodynamic-based input. The pharmacodynamic end point was skin phospho-P70 change after 28 days. Pharmacodynamic effect was defined as at least 80% inhibition from baseline. The first two dose levels (2 and 3 mg) were evaluated before implementing the mCRM, and the data used to estimate the next dose level based on statistical modeling. Toxicity-based boundaries limited the escalation steps. Other correlates analyzed were positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography, pharmacokinetics, phospho-P70 in peripheral-blood mononuclear cells, and tumor biopsies in patients at the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD). RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were enrolled at doses between 2 and 9 mg. Pharmacodynamic effect occurred across dose levels, and toxicity boundaries ultimately drove dose selection. The MTD of daily oral rapamycin was 6 mg. Toxicities in at least 20% were hyperglycemia, hyperlipidemia, elevated transaminases, anemia, leucopenia, neutropenia, and mucositis. Pharmacokinetics were consistent with prior data, and exposure increased with dose. No objective responses occurred, but five previously progressing patients received at least 12 cycles. PET showed generalized stable or decreased glucose uptake unrelated to antitumor effect. CONCLUSION: mCRM-based dose escalation using real-time pharmacodynamic assessment was feasible. However, the selected pharmacodynamic end point did not correlate with dose. Toxicity ultimately drove dose selection. Rapamycin is a well-tolerated and active oral anticancer agent.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: L Dudkin; M B Dilling; P J Cheshire; F C Harwood; M Hollingshead; S G Arbuck; R Travis; E A Sausville; P J Houghton Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Josep Maria Peralba; Linda DeGraffenried; William Friedrichs; Letitia Fulcher; Viktor Grünwald; Geoffrey Weiss; Manuel Hidalgo Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2003-08-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Alfredo A Molinolo; Christina Marsh; Mohamed El Dinali; Nitin Gangane; Kaitlin Jennison; Stephen Hewitt; Vyomesh Patel; Tanguy Y Seiwert; J Silvio Gutkind Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-03-12 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Andrew J Armstrong; George J Netto; Michelle A Rudek; Susan Halabi; David P Wood; Patricia A Creel; Kelly Mundy; S Lindsay Davis; Ting Wang; Roula Albadine; Luciana Schultz; Alan W Partin; Antonio Jimeno; Helen Fedor; Phillip G Febbo; Daniel J George; Robin Gurganus; Angelo M De Marzo; Michael A Carducci Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-05-25 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Suman Mukhopadhyay; Maria A Frias; Amrita Chatterjee; Paige Yellen; David A Foster Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2016-02-25 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Ezra E W Cohen; Kehua Wu; Christine Hartford; Masha Kocherginsky; Kimberly Napoli Eaton; Yuanyuan Zha; Anitha Nallari; Michael L Maitland; Kammi Fox-Kay; Kristin Moshier; Larry House; Jacqueline Ramirez; Samir D Undevia; Gini F Fleming; Thomas F Gajewski; Mark J Ratain Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-08-07 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jian-Feng Lu; Erik Rasmussen; Beth Y Karlan; Ignace B Vergote; Lynn Navale; Mita Kuchimanchi; Rebeca Melara; Daniel E Stepan; David M Weinreich; Yu-Nien Sun Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2012-01-01 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Melissa C Paoloni; Christina Mazcko; Elizabeth Fox; Timothy Fan; Susan Lana; William Kisseberth; David M Vail; Kaylee Nuckolls; Tanasa Osborne; Samuel Yalkowsy; Daniel Gustafson; Yunkai Yu; Liang Cao; Chand Khanna Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-06-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Wen Wee Ma; Heather Jacene; Dongweon Song; Felip Vilardell; Wells A Messersmith; Dan Laheru; Richard Wahl; Chris Endres; Antonio Jimeno; Martin G Pomper; Manuel Hidalgo Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-04-20 Impact factor: 44.544