BACKGROUND: Sunitinib treatment results in a compensatory increase in plasma VEGF levels. Acute withdrawal of sunitinib results in a proliferative withdrawal flare, primarily due to elevated VEGF levels. Concurrent sunitinib plus bevacizumab is poorly tolerated with high (37 %) incidence of microangiopathic hemolytic anemia (MAHA). We evaluated a sequential design administering bevacizumab during the sunitinib treatment break to suppress the sunitinib withdrawal flare. METHODS: Patients with no prior VEGF treatment were enrolled in this study. All patients had target lesions amenable to serial FLT PET/CT imaging. Sunitinib 37.5 mg was given on days 1-28 every 6 weeks with bevacizumab 5 mg/kg on day 29. If safe and tolerable, sunitinib increased to 50 mg. FLT PET/CT scans would be obtained at baseline (D1), week 4, and week 6 to evaluate pharmacodynamics of the sequential combination. Sunitinib pharmacokinetics and total, free, and bound VEGF levels were obtained on each cycle at D1, pre-bevacizumab (D29), 4 h post-bevacizumab (D29H4), and day 42 (D42). RESULTS: Six patients enrolled in the safety cohort of sunitinib 37.5 mg plus bevacizumab (see Table). One patient experienced grade 1 MAHA, and after discussion with the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), the trial was closed to further accrual. No imaging scans were obtained due to early closure. Total and free VEGF levels during cycle 1 Cycle 1 Total VEGF (pg/mL) Mean ± SD Free VEGF (pg/mL) Mean ± SD D1 80 ± 70 51 ± 47 D29 150 ± 62 103 ± 35 D29H4 10 ± 12 2 ± 5 D42 177 ± 34 97 ± 18 CONCLUSIONS: Subclinical MAHA was seen despite using sequential sunitinib with low-dose bevacizumab, and this combination was not feasible for further development. As predicted, VEGF levels increased during sunitinib exposure followed by a rapid decline after bevacizumab. Due to the long half-life of bevacizumab, we expected VEGF ligand suppression through D42, but instead observed a complete rebound in total/free VEGF levels by D42. The increase in VEGF at D42 was unexpected based on sunitinib alone and contrary to the hypothesis that we would block VEGF flare with low-dose bevacizumab. VEGF ligand production may increase as a result of bevacizumab, implying a robust host compensatory mechanism to VEGF signaling pathway inhibition. A greater understanding of the compensatory mechanism would aid future sequencing strategies of new agents.
BACKGROUND:Sunitinib treatment results in a compensatory increase in plasma VEGF levels. Acute withdrawal of sunitinib results in a proliferative withdrawal flare, primarily due to elevated VEGF levels. Concurrent sunitinib plus bevacizumab is poorly tolerated with high (37 %) incidence of microangiopathic hemolytic anemia (MAHA). We evaluated a sequential design administering bevacizumab during the sunitinib treatment break to suppress the sunitinib withdrawal flare. METHODS:Patients with no prior VEGF treatment were enrolled in this study. All patients had target lesions amenable to serial FLT PET/CT imaging. Sunitinib 37.5 mg was given on days 1-28 every 6 weeks with bevacizumab 5 mg/kg on day 29. If safe and tolerable, sunitinib increased to 50 mg. FLT PET/CT scans would be obtained at baseline (D1), week 4, and week 6 to evaluate pharmacodynamics of the sequential combination. Sunitinib pharmacokinetics and total, free, and bound VEGF levels were obtained on each cycle at D1, pre-bevacizumab (D29), 4 h post-bevacizumab (D29H4), and day 42 (D42). RESULTS: Six patients enrolled in the safety cohort of sunitinib 37.5 mg plus bevacizumab (see Table). One patient experienced grade 1 MAHA, and after discussion with the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), the trial was closed to further accrual. No imaging scans were obtained due to early closure. Total and free VEGF levels during cycle 1 Cycle 1 Total VEGF (pg/mL) Mean ± SD Free VEGF (pg/mL) Mean ± SD D1 80 ± 70 51 ± 47 D29 150 ± 62 103 ± 35 D29H4 10 ± 12 2 ± 5 D42 177 ± 34 97 ± 18 CONCLUSIONS: Subclinical MAHA was seen despite using sequential sunitinib with low-dose bevacizumab, and this combination was not feasible for further development. As predicted, VEGF levels increased during sunitinib exposure followed by a rapid decline after bevacizumab. Due to the long half-life of bevacizumab, we expected VEGF ligand suppression through D42, but instead observed a complete rebound in total/free VEGF levels by D42. The increase in VEGF at D42 was unexpected based on sunitinib alone and contrary to the hypothesis that we would block VEGF flare with low-dose bevacizumab. VEGF ligand production may increase as a result of bevacizumab, implying a robust host compensatory mechanism to VEGF signaling pathway inhibition. A greater understanding of the compensatory mechanism would aid future sequencing strategies of new agents.
Authors: Brian I Rini; Jorge A Garcia; Matthew M Cooney; Paul Elson; Allison Tyler; Kristi Beatty; Joseph Bokar; Percy Ivy; Helen X Chen; Afshin Dowlati; Robert Dreicer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-05-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Robert J Motzer; Thomas E Hutson; Piotr Tomczak; M Dror Michaelson; Ronald M Bukowski; Olivier Rixe; Stéphane Oudard; Sylvie Negrier; Cezary Szczylik; Sindy T Kim; Isan Chen; Paul W Bycott; Charles M Baum; Robert A Figlin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Brian I Rini; Jorge A Garcia; Matthew M Cooney; Paul Elson; Allison Tyler; Kristi Beatty; Joseph Bokar; Tarek Mekhail; R M Bukowski; G Thomas Budd; Pierre Triozzi; Ernest Borden; Percy Ivy; Helen X Chen; Afshin Dolwati; Robert Dreicer Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-09-22 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Darren R Feldman; Michael S Baum; Michelle S Ginsberg; Hani Hassoun; Carlos D Flombaum; Susanne Velasco; Patricia Fischer; Ellen Ronnen; Nicole Ishill; Sujata Patil; Robert J Motzer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-02-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: John M L Ebos; Christina R Lee; James G Christensen; Anthony J Mutsaers; Robert S Kerbel Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2007-10-17 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Christopher G Willett; Yves Boucher; Emmanuelle di Tomaso; Dan G Duda; Lance L Munn; Ricky T Tong; Daniel C Chung; Dushyant V Sahani; Sanjeeva P Kalva; Sergey V Kozin; Mari Mino; Kenneth S Cohen; David T Scadden; Alan C Hartford; Alan J Fischman; Jeffrey W Clark; David P Ryan; Andrew X Zhu; Lawrence S Blaszkowsky; Helen X Chen; Paul C Shellito; Gregory Y Lauwers; Rakesh K Jain Journal: Nat Med Date: 2004-01-25 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Cora N Sternberg; Ian D Davis; Jozef Mardiak; Cezary Szczylik; Eunsik Lee; John Wagstaff; Carlos H Barrios; Pamela Salman; Oleg A Gladkov; Alexander Kavina; Juan J Zarbá; Mei Chen; Lauren McCann; Lini Pandite; Debasish F Roychowdhury; Robert E Hawkins Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-01-25 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Samuel E Deprimo; Carlo L Bello; John Smeraglia; Charles M Baum; Dominic Spinella; Brian I Rini; M Dror Michaelson; Robert J Motzer Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2007-07-02 Impact factor: 5.531
Authors: Benjamin Carlisle; Nadine Demko; Georgina Freeman; Amanda Hakala; Nathalie MacKinnon; Tim Ramsay; Spencer Hey; Alex John London; Jonathan Kimmelman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-11-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: David W Chapman; Hans-Sonke Jans; Ivy Ma; John R Mercer; Leonard I Wiebe; Melinda Wuest; Ronald B Moore Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2014-09-10 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Sylvie Négrier; David Pérol; Rastislav Bahleda; Antoine Hollebecque; Etienne Chatelut; Helen Boyle; Philippe Cassier; Séverine Metzger; Ellen Blanc; Jean-Charles Soria; Bernard Escudier Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2017-08-15 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Michele Lamuraglia; Guillaume Barrois; Delphine Le Guillou-Buffello; Mathieu Santin; Anne Kerbol; Eva Comperat; Alain Coron; Olivier Lucidarme; S Lori Bridal Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020 Jan-Dec