PURPOSE: 2ME2 (Panzem®) is a non-estrogenic derivative of estradiol with antiproliferative and antiangiogenic activity. Preclinical data support antitumor activity in prostate cancer. This trial evaluated the efficacy of 2ME2 NCD in patients with taxane-refractory, metastatic CRPC. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with metastatic CRPC who had progressed on only one prior taxane-based regimen were eligible. All patients received 2ME2 NCD at 1,500 mg orally four times daily, repeated in 28 day cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival at month 6, with a secondary endpoint of PSA response. An exploratory endpoint was metabolic response on FDG-PET imaging. RESULTS: A total of 50 pts was planned. The study was terminated after 21 pts when a futility analysis showed the primary endpoint was unlikely to be reached. The median number of cycles on study was 2 (range <1 to 12). Adverse events (AE) of grade ≥3 related to the study drug occurred in 7 unique patients (33%): elevations in liver function tests, fatigue or weakness, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, and hyponatremia. Paired FDG-PET scans were obtained for 11 pts. No metabolic responses were observed. CONCLUSIONS: 2ME2 NCD did not appear to have clinically significant activity in this study. 2ME2 NCD was well-tolerated and showed some evidence of biologic activity. Given the aggressive biology in this taxane-refractory population, the potential benefit from a cytostatic agent like 2ME2 might better be realized in the pre-chemotherapy (or rising PSA only) stage of CRPC.
PURPOSE:2ME2 (Panzem®) is a non-estrogenic derivative of estradiol with antiproliferative and antiangiogenic activity. Preclinical data support antitumor activity in prostate cancer. This trial evaluated the efficacy of 2ME2 NCD in patients with taxane-refractory, metastatic CRPC. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:Patients with metastatic CRPC who had progressed on only one prior taxane-based regimen were eligible. All patients received 2ME2 NCD at 1,500 mg orally four times daily, repeated in 28 day cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival at month 6, with a secondary endpoint of PSA response. An exploratory endpoint was metabolic response on FDG-PET imaging. RESULTS: A total of 50 pts was planned. The study was terminated after 21 pts when a futility analysis showed the primary endpoint was unlikely to be reached. The median number of cycles on study was 2 (range <1 to 12). Adverse events (AE) of grade ≥3 related to the study drug occurred in 7 unique patients (33%): elevations in liver function tests, fatigue or weakness, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, and hyponatremia. Paired FDG-PET scans were obtained for 11 pts. No metabolic responses were observed. CONCLUSIONS:2ME2 NCD did not appear to have clinically significant activity in this study. 2ME2 NCD was well-tolerated and showed some evidence of biologic activity. Given the aggressive biology in this taxane-refractory population, the potential benefit from a cytostatic agent like 2ME2 might better be realized in the pre-chemotherapy (or rising PSA only) stage of CRPC.
Authors: L R Qadan; C M Perez-Stable; C Anderson; G D'Ippolito; A Herron; G A Howard; B A Roos Journal: Biochem Biophys Res Commun Date: 2001-08-03 Impact factor: 3.575
Authors: Michael J Morris; Timothy Akhurst; Iman Osman; Rodolfo Nunez; Homer Macapinlac; Karen Siedlecki; David Verbel; Lawrence Schwartz; Steven M Larson; Howard I Scher Journal: Urology Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: E D Crawford; M A Eisenberger; D G McLeod; J T Spaulding; R Benson; F A Dorr; B A Blumenstein; M A Davis; P J Goodman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1989-08-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Karen A Kurdziel; William D Figg; Jorge A Carrasquillo; Susan Huebsch; Millie Whatley; David Sellers; Steven K Libutti; James M Pluda; William Dahut; Edward Reed; Stephen L Bacharach Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2003 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Nicola J Mabjeesh; Daniel Escuin; Theresa M LaVallee; Victor S Pribluda; Glenn M Swartz; Michelle S Johnson; Margaret T Willard; Hua Zhong; Jonathan W Simons; Paraskevi Giannakakou Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Ian F Tannock; Ronald de Wit; William R Berry; Jozsef Horti; Anna Pluzanska; Kim N Chi; Stephane Oudard; Christine Théodore; Nicholas D James; Ingela Turesson; Mark A Rosenthal; Mario A Eisenberger Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-10-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Theresa M LaVallee; Xiaoguo H Zhan; Michelle S Johnson; Chris J Herbstritt; Glenn Swartz; Mark S Williams; Wendy A Hembrough; Shawn J Green; Victor S Pribluda Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2003-01-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Ravi Kumar Vyas Devambatla; Wei Li; Nilesh Zaware; Shruti Choudhary; Ernest Hamel; Susan L Mooberry; Aleem Gangjee Journal: Bioorg Med Chem Lett Date: 2017-05-27 Impact factor: 2.823
Authors: Ayumu Taguchi; Oliver Delgado; Müge Celiktaş; Hiroyuki Katayama; Hong Wang; Adi F Gazdar; Samir M Hanash Journal: Proteomics Date: 2014-11-20 Impact factor: 3.984
Authors: Stavros N Moysidis; Karen Alvarez-Delfin; Veronica J Peschansky; Enrique Salero; Alejandra D Weisman; Alena Bartakova; Gabriella A Raffa; Richard M Merkhofer; Karl E Kador; Noelia J Kunzevitzky; Jeffrey L Goldberg Journal: Nanomedicine Date: 2015-01-14 Impact factor: 5.307
Authors: Stephen Jun Fei Chong; Kartini Iskandar; Jolin Xiao Hui Lai; Jianhua Qu; Deepika Raman; Rebecca Valentin; Charles Herbaux; Mary Collins; Ivan Cherh Chiet Low; Thomas Loh; Matthew Davids; Shazib Pervaiz Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2020-12-16 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Erwin G Van Meir; Binghe Wang; Sarah K Burroughs; Stefan Kaluz; Danzhu Wang; Ke Wang Journal: Future Med Chem Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 3.808