PURPOSE: Low molecular weight cyclin E (LMW-E) isoforms, overexpressed in a majority (~70 %) of triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC), were found in preclinical models to mediate tumorigenesis through binding and activation of CDK2. CDK1/CDK2 inhibitors, such as dinaciclib, combined with anthracyclines, were synergistic in decreasing viability of TNBC cell lines. Based on this data, a phase 1 study was conducted to determine the maximum tolerated dose of dinaciclib in combination with epirubicin in patients with metastatic TNBC. METHODS: Cohorts of at least 2 patients were treated with escalating doses of dinaciclib given on day 1 followed by standard dose of epirubicin given on day 2 of a 21 day cycle. No intra-patient dose escalation was allowed. An adaptive accrual design based upon toxicity during cycle 1 determined entry into therapy cohorts. The target acceptable dose limiting toxicity (DLT) to advance to the next treatment level was 30 %. RESULTS: Between 9/18/2012 and 7/18/2013, 9 patients were enrolled and treated at MD Anderson Cancer Center. DLTs included febrile neutropenia (grade 3, n = 2), syncope (grade 3, n = 2) and vomiting (grade 3, n = 1). Dose escalation did not proceed past the second cohort due to toxicity. After further accrual, the first dose level was also found to be too toxic. No treatment responses were noted, median time to progression was 5.5 weeks (range 3-12 weeks). Thus, accrual was stopped rather than explore the -1 dose level. CONCLUSION: The combination of dinaciclib and epirubicin is associated with substantial toxicities and does not appear to be an effective treatment option for TNBC.
PURPOSE: Low molecular weight cyclin E (LMW-E) isoforms, overexpressed in a majority (~70 %) of triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC), were found in preclinical models to mediate tumorigenesis through binding and activation of CDK2. CDK1/CDK2 inhibitors, such as dinaciclib, combined with anthracyclines, were synergistic in decreasing viability of TNBC cell lines. Based on this data, a phase 1 study was conducted to determine the maximum tolerated dose of dinaciclib in combination with epirubicin in patients with metastatic TNBC. METHODS: Cohorts of at least 2 patients were treated with escalating doses of dinaciclib given on day 1 followed by standard dose of epirubicin given on day 2 of a 21 day cycle. No intra-patient dose escalation was allowed. An adaptive accrual design based upon toxicity during cycle 1 determined entry into therapy cohorts. The target acceptable dose limiting toxicity (DLT) to advance to the next treatment level was 30 %. RESULTS: Between 9/18/2012 and 7/18/2013, 9 patients were enrolled and treated at MD Anderson Cancer Center. DLTs included febrile neutropenia (grade 3, n = 2), syncope (grade 3, n = 2) and vomiting (grade 3, n = 1). Dose escalation did not proceed past the second cohort due to toxicity. After further accrual, the first dose level was also found to be too toxic. No treatment responses were noted, median time to progression was 5.5 weeks (range 3-12 weeks). Thus, accrual was stopped rather than explore the -1 dose level. CONCLUSION: The combination of dinaciclib and epirubicin is associated with substantial toxicities and does not appear to be an effective treatment option for TNBC.
Authors: Said Akli; Carolyn S Van Pelt; Tuyen Bui; Asha S Multani; Sandy Chang; David Johnson; Susan Tucker; Khandan Keyomarsi Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2007-08-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Kamil Paruch; Michael P Dwyer; Carmen Alvarez; Courtney Brown; Tin-Yau Chan; Ronald J Doll; Kerry Keertikar; Chad Knutson; Brian McKittrick; Jocelyn Rivera; Randall Rossman; Greg Tucker; Thierry Fischmann; Alan Hruza; Vincent Madison; Amin A Nomeir; Yaolin Wang; Paul Kirschmeier; Emma Lees; David Parry; Nicole Sgambellone; Wolfgang Seghezzi; Lesley Schultz; Frances Shanahan; Derek Wiswell; Xiaoying Xu; Quiao Zhou; Ray A James; Vidyadhar M Paradkar; Haengsoon Park; Laura R Rokosz; Tara M Stauffer; Timothy J Guzi Journal: ACS Med Chem Lett Date: 2010-05-17 Impact factor: 4.345
Authors: Khandan Keyomarsi; Susan L Tucker; Thomas A Buchholz; Matthew Callister; Ye Ding; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Isabelle Bedrosian; Christopher Knickerbocker; Wendy Toyofuku; Michael Lowe; Thaddeus W Herliczek; Sarah S Bacus Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-11-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: David Parry; Timothy Guzi; Frances Shanahan; Nicole Davis; Deepa Prabhavalkar; Derek Wiswell; Wolfgang Seghezzi; Kamil Paruch; Michael P Dwyer; Ronald Doll; Amin Nomeir; William Windsor; Thierry Fischmann; Yaolin Wang; Martin Oft; Taiying Chen; Paul Kirschmeier; Emma M Lees Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2010-07-27 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Said Akli; Ping-Ju Zheng; Asha S Multani; Hannah F Wingate; Sen Pathak; Ning Zhang; Susan L Tucker; Sandy Chang; Khandan Keyomarsi Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2004-05-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Rudolf Weide; Stefan Feiten; Vera Friesenhahn; Jochen Heymanns; Kristina Kleboth; Jörg Thomalla; Christoph van Roye; Hubert Köppler Journal: Springerplus Date: 2014-09-17
Authors: Jason P W Carey; Cansu Karakas; Tuyen Bui; Xian Chen; Smruthi Vijayaraghavan; Yang Zhao; Jing Wang; Keith Mikule; Jennifer K Litton; Kelly K Hunt; Khandan Keyomarsi Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Jacob I Contreras; Caroline M Robb; Hannah M King; Jared Baxter; Ayrianne J Crawford; Smit Kour; Smitha Kizhake; Yogesh A Sonawane; Sandeep Rana; Michael A Hollingsworth; Xu Luo; Amarnath Natarajan Journal: ACS Chem Biol Date: 2018-04-05 Impact factor: 5.100
Authors: R Costa; B A Carneiro; D A Wainwright; C A Santa-Maria; P Kumthekar; Y K Chae; W J Gradishar; M Cristofanilli; F J Giles Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 51.769
Authors: Maria Apostolidi; Ioannis A Vathiotis; Viswanathan Muthusamy; Patricia Gaule; Brandon M Gassaway; David L Rimm; Jesse Rinehart Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2021-06-21 Impact factor: 12.701