PURPOSE: To assess the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), safety, and tolerability of MN-209, a novel vascular disrupting agent, in patients with advanced solid tumors. STUDY DESIGN: MN-029 was administered weekly for three consecutive weeks out of four; two cycles were planned. Dose escalation proceeded by 100% per toxicity criteria. Intra-patient dose escalation was permitted. RESULTS: Twenty patients received a total of 151 infusions of MN-029. No DLTs or grade 4 toxicities occurred. The most common adverse events were nausea, vomiting, arthralgias, and headache. One patient developed acute substernal chest pain 4 days after his first dose of MN-029 and was removed from the study. An MTD was not determined. The recommended phase II dose was identified as 180 mg/m(2)/week. One patient with advanced pancreatic cancer attained a partial response lasting 10 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: MN-029 was well tolerated in this schedule. Further development of this class of agents is warranted, especially in combination with other anti-cancer treatments.
PURPOSE: To assess the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), safety, and tolerability of MN-209, a novel vascular disrupting agent, in patients with advanced solid tumors. STUDY DESIGN:MN-029 was administered weekly for three consecutive weeks out of four; two cycles were planned. Dose escalation proceeded by 100% per toxicity criteria. Intra-patient dose escalation was permitted. RESULTS: Twenty patients received a total of 151 infusions of MN-029. No DLTs or grade 4 toxicities occurred. The most common adverse events were nausea, vomiting, arthralgias, and headache. One patient developed acute substernal chest pain 4 days after his first dose of MN-029 and was removed from the study. An MTD was not determined. The recommended phase II dose was identified as 180 mg/m(2)/week. One patient with advanced pancreatic cancer attained a partial response lasting 10 weeks. CONCLUSIONS:MN-029 was well tolerated in this schedule. Further development of this class of agents is warranted, especially in combination with other anti-cancer treatments.
Authors: Sarah Gould; F Russell Westwood; Jon O Curwen; Susan E Ashton; David W Roberts; Susan C Lovick; Anderson J Ryan Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-11-13 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: James P B O'Connor; Alan Jackson; Marie-Claude Asselin; David L Buckley; Geoff J M Parker; Gordon C Jayson Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Patricia M LoRusso; Shirish M Gadgeel; Antoinette Wozniak; Alan J Barge; Helen K Jones; Zachary S DelProposto; Pamela A DeLuca; Jeffrey L Evelhoch; Scott A Boerner; Catherine Wheeler Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2008-01-25 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: Afshin Dowlati; Kelly Robertson; Matthew Cooney; William P Petros; Michael Stratford; John Jesberger; Niusha Rafie; Beth Overmoyer; Vinit Makkar; Bruce Stambler; Anne Taylor; John Waas; Jonathan S Lewin; Keith R McCrae; Scot C Remick Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2002-06-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Gordon J S Rustin; Susan M Galbraith; Helen Anderson; Michael Stratford; Lisa K Folkes; Luiza Sena; Lindsey Gumbrell; Patricia M Price Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-06-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Matthew Burge; Alessandra B Francesconi; Dusan Kotasek; Rosa Fida; Gregg Smith; Andrew Wilks; Paul A Vasey; Jason D Lickliter Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2012-03-27 Impact factor: 3.850