UNLABELLED: Combining different targeted anticancer agents may improve clinical outcomes. This Phase I study investigated cediranib, an oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor signalling in combination with saracatinib, an oral Src inhibitor. The primary endpoint was safety/tolerability. Secondary assessments included pharmacokinetics and preliminary efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumours received cediranib 20, 30 or 45 mg/day for 7 days followed by daily treatment with cediranib at the same dose plus saracatinib 175 mg/day. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients received cediranib (20 mg, n = 6; 30 mg, n = 6; 45 mg, n = 27 [n = 20 in cohort expansion]) plus saracatinib. In the cediranib 45 mg cohort, 59% of patients required dose reduction/pause compared with 33% in each of the other two cohorts. There was one dose-limiting toxicity (hypertension; 45 mg cohort). The most common adverse events were hypertension (67%), diarrhoea (62%), dysphonia (46%) and fatigue (39%). There was no evidence of a clinically significant effect of saracatinib on cediranib pharmacokinetics and vice versa. 22/35 evaluable patients had a best response of stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: All cediranib doses were tolerated; however, in patients with advanced solid tumours, for combination with saracatinib 175 mg/day, cediranib 20 or 30 mg/day was more sustainable than 45 mg/day.
UNLABELLED: Combining different targeted anticancer agents may improve clinical outcomes. This Phase I study investigated cediranib, an oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor signalling in combination with saracatinib, an oral Src inhibitor. The primary endpoint was safety/tolerability. Secondary assessments included pharmacokinetics and preliminary efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumours received cediranib 20, 30 or 45 mg/day for 7 days followed by daily treatment with cediranib at the same dose plus saracatinib 175 mg/day. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients received cediranib (20 mg, n = 6; 30 mg, n = 6; 45 mg, n = 27 [n = 20 in cohort expansion]) plus saracatinib. In the cediranib 45 mg cohort, 59% of patients required dose reduction/pause compared with 33% in each of the other two cohorts. There was one dose-limiting toxicity (hypertension; 45 mg cohort). The most common adverse events were hypertension (67%), diarrhoea (62%), dysphonia (46%) and fatigue (39%). There was no evidence of a clinically significant effect of saracatinib on cediranib pharmacokinetics and vice versa. 22/35 evaluable patients had a best response of stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: All cediranib doses were tolerated; however, in patients with advanced solid tumours, for combination with saracatinib 175 mg/day, cediranib 20 or 30 mg/day was more sustainable than 45 mg/day.
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: Laurent F Hennequin; Jack Allen; Jason Breed; Jon Curwen; Michael Fennell; Tim P Green; Christine Lambert-van der Brempt; Rémy Morgentin; Richard A Norman; Annie Olivier; Ludovic Otterbein; Patrick A Plé; Nicolas Warin; Gerard Costello Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2006-11-02 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: José Baselga; Andres Cervantes; Erika Martinelli; Isabel Chirivella; Klaas Hoekman; Herbert I Hurwitz; Duncan I Jodrell; Paul Hamberg; Esther Casado; Paul Elvin; Alan Swaisland; Renee Iacona; Josep Tabernero Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-08-30 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Ursula A Matulonis; Suzanne Berlin; Percy Ivy; Karin Tyburski; Carolyn Krasner; Corrine Zarwan; Anna Berkenblit; Susana Campos; Neil Horowitz; Stephen A Cannistra; Hang Lee; Julie Lee; Maria Roche; Margaret Hill; Christin Whalen; Laura Sullivan; Chau Tran; Benjamin D Humphreys; Richard T Penson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-10-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Joachim Drevs; Patrizia Siegert; Michael Medinger; Klaus Mross; Ralph Strecker; Ute Zirrgiebel; Jan Harder; Hubert Blum; Jane Robertson; Juliane M Jürgensmeier; Thomas A Puchalski; Helen Young; Owain Saunders; Clemens Unger Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-07-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrea H Bild; Joel S Parker; Adam M Gustafson; Chaitanya R Acharya; Katherine A Hoadley; Carey Anders; P Kelly Marcom; Lisa A Carey; Anil Potti; Joseph R Nevins; Charles M Perou Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Ilary Ruscito; Maria Luisa Gasparri; Claudia Marchetti; Caterina De Medici; Carlotta Bracchi; Innocenza Palaia; Sara Imboden; Michael D Mueller; Andrea Papadia; Ludovico Muzii; Pierluigi Benedetti Panici Journal: Tumour Biol Date: 2016-01-11
Authors: Anna Spreafico; Kim N Chi; Srikala S Sridhar; David C Smith; Michael A Carducci; Peter Kavsak; Tracy S Wong; Lisa Wang; S Percy Ivy; Som Dave Mukherjee; Christian K Kollmannsberger; Mahadeo A Sukhai; Naoko Takebe; Suzanne Kamel-Reid; Lillian L Siu; Sebastien J Hotte Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2014-05-03 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: Joleen M Hubbard; Jun Yin; Erin L Schenk; Rui Qin; Joel M Reid; Carrie Strand; Jack Fiskum; Michael Menefee; Grace Lin; L Austin Doyle; Percy Ivy; Charles Erlichman; Alex Adjei; Paul Haluska; Brian A Costello Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2021-09-13 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: S Sahebjam; P L Bedard; V Castonguay; Z Chen; M Reedijk; G Liu; B Cohen; W-J Zhang; B Clarke; T Zhang; S Kamel-Reid; H Chen; S P Ivy; A R A Razak; A M Oza; E X Chen; H W Hirte; A McGarrity; L Wang; L L Siu; S J Hotte Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-07-18 Impact factor: 7.640