PURPOSE: To characterize exposure-response relationships of AMG 386 in a phase 2 study in advanced ovarian cancer for the facilitation of dose selection in future studies. METHODS: A population pharmacokinetic model of AMG 386 (N = 141) was developed and applied in an exposure-response analysis using data from patients (N = 160) with recurrent ovarian cancer who receivedpaclitaxel plus AMG 386 (3 or 10 mg/kg once weekly) or placebo. Reduction in the risk of progression or death with increasing exposure (steady-state area under the concentration-versus-time curve [AUC(ss)]) was assessed using Cox regression analyses. Confounding factors were tested in multivariate analysis. Alternative AMG 386 doses were explored with Monte Carlo simulations using population pharmacokinetic and parametric survival models. RESULTS: There was a trend toward increased PFS with increased AUC(ss) (hazard ratio [HR] for each one-unit increment in AUC(ss), 0.97; P = 0.097), suggesting that the maximum effect on prolonging PFS was not achieved at the highest dose tested (10 mg/kg). Among patients with AUC(ss) ≥ 9.6 mg h/mL, PFS was 8.1 months versus 5.7 months for AUC(ss) < 9.6 mg h/mL and 4.6 months for placebo. No relationship between AUC(ss) and grade ≥ 3 adverse events was observed. Simulations predicted that AMG 386 15 mg/kg once weekly would result in an AUC(ss) ≥ 9.6 mg h/mL in > 90% of patients with median PFS of 8.2 months versus 5.0 months for placebo (HR [15 mg/kg vs. placebo], 0.56). CONCLUSIONS: Increased exposure to AMG 386 was associated with improved clinical outcomes in recurrent ovarian cancer, supporting the evaluation of a higher dose in future studies.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To characterize exposure-response relationships of AMG 386 in a phase 2 study in advanced ovarian cancer for the facilitation of dose selection in future studies. METHODS: A population pharmacokinetic model of AMG 386 (N = 141) was developed and applied in an exposure-response analysis using data from patients (N = 160) with recurrent ovarian cancer who received paclitaxel plus AMG 386 (3 or 10 mg/kg once weekly) or placebo. Reduction in the risk of progression or death with increasing exposure (steady-state area under the concentration-versus-time curve [AUC(ss)]) was assessed using Cox regression analyses. Confounding factors were tested in multivariate analysis. Alternative AMG 386 doses were explored with Monte Carlo simulations using population pharmacokinetic and parametric survival models. RESULTS: There was a trend toward increased PFS with increased AUC(ss) (hazard ratio [HR] for each one-unit increment in AUC(ss), 0.97; P = 0.097), suggesting that the maximum effect on prolonging PFS was not achieved at the highest dose tested (10 mg/kg). Among patients with AUC(ss) ≥ 9.6 mg h/mL, PFS was 8.1 months versus 5.7 months for AUC(ss) < 9.6 mg h/mL and 4.6 months for placebo. No relationship between AUC(ss) and grade ≥ 3 adverse events was observed. Simulations predicted that AMG 386 15 mg/kg once weekly would result in an AUC(ss) ≥ 9.6 mg h/mL in > 90% of patients with median PFS of 8.2 months versus 5.0 months for placebo (HR [15 mg/kg vs. placebo], 0.56). CONCLUSIONS: Increased exposure to AMG 386 was associated with improved clinical outcomes in recurrent ovarian cancer, supporting the evaluation of a higher dose in future studies.
Authors: Mark J Ratain; Rachel W Humphrey; Gary B Gordon; Gwen Fyfe; Peter C Adamson; Thomas R Fleming; Walter M Stadler; Donald A Berry; Carl C Peck Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2007-11-05 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Anthe S Zandvliet; Mats O Karlsson; Jan H M Schellens; William Copalu; Jos H Beijnen; Alwin D R Huitema Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2009-02-06 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: N M G M Appels; M J Bolijn; K Chan; T C Stephens; G Hoctin-Boes; M Middleton; J H Beijnen; J S de Bono; A L Harris; J H M Schellens Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2008-05-27 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Sarah E S Leary; Julie R Park; Joel M Reid; Andrew T Ralya; Sylvain Baruchel; Bing Wu; Timothy P L Roberts; Xiaowei Liu; Charles G Minard; Elizabeth Fox; Brenda Weigel; Susan Blaney Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jennifer R Diamond; Benjamin Wu; Neeraj Agarwal; Daniel W Bowles; Elaine T Lam; Theresa L Werner; Erik Rasmussen; Erick Gamelin; Felipe Soto; Greg Friberg; Yu-Nien Sun; Sunil Sharma Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2015-04-21 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: Kelong Han; Pascal Chanu; Fredrik Jonsson; Helen Winter; René Bruno; Jin Jin; Mark Stroh Journal: AAPS J Date: 2016-12-27 Impact factor: 4.009
Authors: Brian Rini; Cezary Szczylik; Nizar M Tannir; Piotr Koralewski; Piotr Tomczak; Andrzej Deptala; Luc Y Dirix; Mayer Fishman; Rodryg Ramlau; Alain Ravaud; Wojciech Rogowski; Karolyn Kracht; Yu-Nien Sun; Michael B Bass; Markus Puhlmann; Bernard Escudier Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: David S Hong; Michael S Gordon; Wolfram E Samlowski; Razelle Kurzrock; Nizar Tannir; David Friedland; David S Mendelson; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Erik Rasmussen; Benjamin M Wu; Michael B Bass; Zhandong D Zhong; Gregory Friberg; Leonard J Appleman Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Eudocia Q Lee; Peixin Zhang; Patrick Y Wen; Elizabeth R Gerstner; David A Reardon; Kenneth D Aldape; John F deGroot; Edward Pan; Jeffrey J Raizer; Lyndon J Kim; Steven J Chmura; H Ian Robins; Jennifer M Connelly; James D Battiste; John L Villano; Naveed Wagle; Ryan T Merrell; Merideth M Wendland; Minesh P Mehta Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-03-10 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: M Peeters; A H Strickland; M Lichinitser; A V S Suresh; G Manikhas; J Shapiro; W Rogowski; X Huang; B Wu; D Warner; R Jain; N C Tebbutt Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-01-29 Impact factor: 7.640