BACKGROUND: Integrins are involved in prostate cancer metastasis by regulating cell adhesion, migration, invasion, motility, angiogenesis and bone metabolism. We evaluated the efficacy of two dose levels of cilengitide in patients (pts) with castrate resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). METHODS:Chemotherapy-naïve, asymptomatic metastatic CRPC pts were randomized to cilengitide 500 mg or 2,000 mg IV twice weekly using parallel 2-stage design. The primary endpoint was rate of objective clinical progression at 6-months. Secondary endpoints included clinical and PSA response rates, safety and effects of cilengitide treatment on circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and bone remodeling markers. RESULTS:Forty-four pts were accrued to first stage (22/arm). Median number of cycles was three in both arms (500 mg arm: 1-8; 2,000 mg arm: 1-15). At 6 months, two pts (9%) on the 500 mg arm and five pts (23%) on the 2,000 mg arm had not progressed. Best objective response was stable disease (SD) in seven pts for 9.9[8.1,20.9] months. There were three grade 3 and no grade 4 toxicities. At 12 weeks, analysis of bone markers did not reveal significant trends. At progression, bone specific alkaline phosphatase and N-telopeptide increased in all pts, less so in pts on the 2,000 mg arm and in pts on both arms who obtained SD at 6 months. CTCs increased over time in both arms. CONCLUSION:Cilengitide was well tolerated with modest clinical effect in favor of the higher dose. The unique trial design including a shift from response rate to objective progression as the endpoint, and not acting on PSA increases was feasible.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Integrins are involved in prostate cancer metastasis by regulating cell adhesion, migration, invasion, motility, angiogenesis and bone metabolism. We evaluated the efficacy of two dose levels of cilengitide in patients (pts) with castrate resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve, asymptomatic metastatic CRPC pts were randomized to cilengitide 500 mg or 2,000 mg IV twice weekly using parallel 2-stage design. The primary endpoint was rate of objective clinical progression at 6-months. Secondary endpoints included clinical and PSA response rates, safety and effects of cilengitide treatment on circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and bone remodeling markers. RESULTS: Forty-four pts were accrued to first stage (22/arm). Median number of cycles was three in both arms (500 mg arm: 1-8; 2,000 mg arm: 1-15). At 6 months, two pts (9%) on the 500 mg arm and five pts (23%) on the 2,000 mg arm had not progressed. Best objective response was stable disease (SD) in seven pts for 9.9[8.1,20.9] months. There were three grade 3 and no grade 4 toxicities. At 12 weeks, analysis of bone markers did not reveal significant trends. At progression, bone specific alkaline phosphatase and N-telopeptide increased in all pts, less so in pts on the 2,000 mg arm and in pts on both arms who obtained SD at 6 months. CTCs increased over time in both arms. CONCLUSION: Cilengitide was well tolerated with modest clinical effect in favor of the higher dose. The unique trial design including a shift from response rate to objective progression as the endpoint, and not acting on PSA increases was feasible.
Authors: Jose G Moreno; M Craig Miller; Steve Gross; W Jeffrey Allard; Leonard G Gomella; Leon W M M Terstappen Journal: Urology Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Allan Lipton; Richard Cook; Fred Saad; Pierre Major; Patrick Garnero; Evangelos Terpos; Janet E Brown; Robert E Coleman Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Primo N Lara; Walter M Stadler; Jeff Longmate; David I Quinn; Jason Wexler; Marta Van Loan; Przemyslaw Twardowski; Paul H Gumerlock; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Everett E Vokes; Heinz Josef Lenz; James H Doroshow; David R Gandara Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-03-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: I Nakamura; M F Pilkington; P T Lakkakorpi; L Lipfert; S M Sims; S J Dixon; G A Rodan; L T Duong Journal: J Cell Sci Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 5.285
Authors: Johann S de Bono; Howard I Scher; R Bruce Montgomery; Christopher Parker; M Craig Miller; Henk Tissing; Gerald V Doyle; Leon W W M Terstappen; Kenneth J Pienta; Derek Raghavan Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-10-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Elena V Rosca; Jacob E Koskimaki; Niranjan B Pandey; Amir P Tamiz; Aleksander S Popel Journal: Chem Biol Drug Des Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 2.817
Authors: Ajjai Alva; Susan Slovin; Stephanie Daignault; Michael Carducci; Robert Dipaola; Ken Pienta; David Agus; Kathleen Cooney; Alice Chen; David C Smith; Maha Hussain Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2010-11-04 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: G Heiduschka; C Lill; S Schneider; R Seemann; G Kornek; R Schmid; U Kotowski; D Thurnher Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-02-21 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Elena V Rosca; Jacob E Koskimaki; Niranjan B Pandey; Antonio C Wolff; Aleksander S Popel Journal: Cancer Biol Ther Date: 2011-11-01 Impact factor: 4.742
Authors: Elena V Rosca; Jacob E Koskimaki; Corban G Rivera; Niranjan B Pandey; Amir P Tamiz; Aleksander S Popel Journal: Curr Pharm Biotechnol Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 2.837
Authors: Afshin Varzavand; Will Hacker; Deqin Ma; Katherine Gibson-Corley; Maria Hawayek; Omar J Tayh; James A Brown; Michael D Henry; Christopher S Stipp Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 12.701