| Literature DB >> 28260922 |
Sylvia Guetz1, Amanda Tufman2, Joachim von Pawel3, Achim Rittmeyer4, Astrid Borgmeier2, Pierre Ferré5, Birgit Edlich6, Rudolf Maria Huber2.
Abstract
MICRO-ABSTRACT: In a Phase I dose-finding study of metronomic daily oral vinorelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, a recommended dose was established for this therapeutic approach. In addition, this trial revealed promising efficacy data and an acceptable tolerability profile. The observed vinorelbine blood concentrations suggest continuous anti-angiogenic coverage.Entities:
Keywords: NSCLC; anti-angiogenic treatment; cytotoxic therapy; dose escalation; lung carcinoma; vinca-alkaloid; vinorelbine capsules
Year: 2017 PMID: 28260922 PMCID: PMC5328303 DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S122106
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Onco Targets Ther ISSN: 1178-6930 Impact factor: 4.147
Figure 1Consort diagram.
Abbreviations: DLT, dose-limiting toxicity; ITT, intention-to-treat population; MTD, maximum tolerated dose population; RD, recommended dose population; RESP, response population; SAF, safety population.
Demographic data and disease characteristics
| Characteristics | ITT/SAF (n=27) | RESP (n=21) | MTD (n=17) | RD (n=7) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 15 (55.6%) | 11 (52.4%) | 10 (58.8%) | 2 (28.6%) |
| Female | 12 (44.4%) | 10 (47.6%) | 7 (41.2%) | 5 (71.4%) |
| Age (years) | ||||
| Mean ± StD (median) | 65±8 (65) | 63±8 (64) | 64±8 (64) | 68±8 (69) |
| Body surface area (m2) | ||||
| Mean ± StD (median) | 1.9±0.3 (1.9) | 1.9±0.3 (1.9) | 1.8±0.2 (1.9) | 1.8±0.2 (1.7) |
| Karnofsky index | ||||
| 70% | 6 (22.2%) | 3 (14.3%) | 2 (11.8%) | 3 (42.9%) |
| 80% | 11 (40.7%) | 9 (42.9%) | 8 (47.1%) | 2 (28.6%) |
| 90% | 7 (25.9%) | 6 (28.6%) | 5 (29.4%) | 1 (14.3%) |
| 100% | 3 (11.1%) | 3 (14.3%) | 2 (11.8%) | 1 (14.3%) |
| Smoking status | ||||
| Never | 6 (22.2%) | 5 (23.8%) | 5 (29.4%) | 1 (14.3%) |
| Former | 8 (29.6%) | 6 (28.6%) | 4 (23.5%) | 2 (28.6%) |
| Current | 7 (25.9%) | 7 (33.3%) | 5 (29.4%) | 2 (28.6%) |
| Missing information | 6 (22.2%) | 3 (14.3%) | 3 (17.6%) | 2 (28.6%) |
| Histology | ||||
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 12 (44.4%) | 11 (52.4%) | 10 (58.8%) | 1 (14.3%) |
| Adeno carcinoma | 13 (48.1%) | 9 (42.9%) | 6 (35.3%) | 6 (85.7%) |
| Adeno (bronchoalveolar) | 2 (7.4%) | 1 (4.8%) | 1 (5.9%) | 0 |
| Tumor stage at study entry | ||||
| IIIB | 6 (22.2%) | 6 (28.6%) | 6 (35.3%) | 0 |
| IV | 21 (77.8%) | 15 (71.4%) | 11 (64.7%) | 7 (100%) |
| Previous surgery for primary tumor | 3 (11.1%) | 2 (9.5%) | 2 (11.8%) | 1 (14.3%) |
| Prior chemotherapy | 25 (92.6%) | 20 (95.2%) | 16 (94.1%) | 7 (100%) |
| Neoadjuvant | 1 (3.7%) | 1 (4.8%) | 1 (5.9%) | 0 |
| Adjuvant | 3 (11.1%) | 2 (9.5%) | 1 (5.9%) | 2 (28.6%) |
| Curative | 4 (14.8%) | 4 (19.0%) | 3 (17.6%) | 0 |
| Palliative | 21 (77.8%) | 17 (81.0%) | 15 (88.2%) | 5 (71.4%) |
| Prior palliative lines, median (range) | 3 (0–5) | 3 (0–5) | 3 (0–5) | 2 (1–3) |
| Prior radiation | 14 (51.9%) | 11 (52.4%) | 9 (52.9%) | 4 (57.1%) |
Notes: Data were represented as n (% of patients).
One of the patients had recurrence after local therapy.
Abbreviations: ITT, intention-to-treat population; MTD, maximum tolerated dose population; RD, recommended dose population; RESP, response population; SAF, safety population; StD, standard deviation.
Dose escalation – DLTs observed during the dose escalation phase of the trial including toxicities observed at the MTD
| Dose level | Number of patients enrolled | Number of patients with DLT | Cycle with DLT | DLT fever | DLT neutropenia | DLT thrombocytopenia | DLT non-hematological |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level I (20 mg/d) | 3 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Level II (30 mg/d) | 3 | 0 | – | – | – | – | |
| Level III (40 mg/d) | 3 | 1 | 2 (n=1) | – | 1 | – | – |
| Level IV (50 mg/d) = MTD | 6 | 3 | 1 (n=2), 2 (n=1) | 3 | 1 | – | 1 |
| Draft RD (40 mg/d) | 2 | 1 | 1 (n=1) | 1 | – | – | – |
Notes: Based on these results, the extension phase was initiated with a recommended dose of 30 mg vinorelbine/d and the option to increase to 40 mg/d in individual patients.
At that time, only cycle 1 was taken into account for DLT assessment; the study design was amended from level IV taking now into account cycles 1 and 2.
After recruitment of two further patients at this draft RD level, one patient experienced a DLT during cycle 1. Earlier, on the same dose (see level III) another patient had experienced a DLT during cycle 2. As a total of two of five patients had experienced DLTs at 40 mg/d, it was concluded that the final recommended dose level should range between 30 and 40 mg, rather than to follow a strict 40 mg dose.
Abbreviations: d, days; DLT, dose-limiting toxicity; MTD, maximum tolerated dose; RD, recommended dose.
Figure 2Vinorelbine blood concentrations on day 1 and day 21 (cycle 1) after daily dosing of oral vinorelbine.
Abbreviations: d, day; h, hours.
AEs potentially related to vinorelbine occurring in at least 10% of the SAF and/or RD population
| AE, n (% patients) | SAF (n=27)
| RD (n=7)
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Any grade | ≥Grade 3 | Any grade | ≥Grade 3 | |
| Any event | 20 (74.1%) | 11 (40.7%) | 3 (42.9%) | 2 (28.6%) |
| Hematological events | ||||
| Leukopenia | 9 (33.3%) | 8 (29.6%) | 1 (14.3%) | 1 (14.3%) |
| Lymphopenia | 6 (22.2%) | 5 (18.5%) | 1 (14.3%) | 1 (14.3%) |
| Neutropenia | 5 (18.5%) | 5 (18.5%) | 1 (14.3%) | 1 (14.3%) |
| Febrile neutropenia | 4 (14.8%) | 4 (14.8%) | 1 (14.3%) | 1 (14.3%) |
| Non-hematological events | ||||
| Decreased appetite | 9 (33.3%) | 0 | 3 (42.9%) | 0 |
| Diarrhea | 9 (33.3%) | 0 | 1 (14.3%) | 0 |
| Nausea | 8 (29.6%) | 1 (3.7%) | 1 (14.3%) | 0 |
| Vomiting | 7 (25.9%) | 0 | 2 (28.6%) | 0 |
| Fatigue | 5 (18.5%) | 1 (3.7%) | 1 (14.3%) | 0 |
| Dizziness | 4 (14.8%) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Asthenia | 3 (11.1%) | 0 | 1 (14.3%) | 0 |
| Constipation | 3 (11.1%) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Weight decreased | 3 (11.1%) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Colitis | 1 (3.7%) | 1 (3.7%) | 1 (14.3%) | 1 (14.3%) |
| Pneumonia | 1 (3.7%) | 1 (3.7%) | 1 (14.3%) | 1 (14.3%) |
| Sepsis | 1 (3.7%) | 1 (3.7%) | 1 (14.3%) | 1 (14.3%) |
Abbreviations: AE, adverse event; RD, recommended dose population; SAF, safety population.
Efficacy parameters
| n (% patients) | ITT/SAF | RESP | RD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tumor response (RECIST) | |||
| CR | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| PR | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| SD | 4 (14.8%) | 4 (19.0%) | 1 (14.3%) |
| PD | 17 (63.0%) | 17 (81.0%) | 3 (42.9%) |
| Not evaluable | 6 (22.2%) | 0 | 3 (42.9%) |
| ORR (CR + PR) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DCR (CR + PR + SD) | 4 (14.8%) | 4 (19.0%) | 1 (14.3%) |
| TTP | |||
| Patients with events | 20 (74.1%) | 20 (95.2%) | 3 (42.9%) |
| TTP (median months) | 1.7 (1.4–2.1) | 1.7 (1.4–2.1) | 1.3 (0.7–NR) |
| OS | |||
| Patients with events | 26 (96.3%) | 7 (100%) | |
| OS (median months) | 5.7 (3.5–9.6) | NA | 3.9 (1.8–9.6) |
Note:
Kaplan–Meier analysis.
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; CR, complete response; DCR, disease control rate; ITT, intention-to-treat population; NA, not analyzed; NR, not reached; ORR, overall response rate; OS, overall survival; PD, progressive disease; PR, partial response; RD, recommended dose population; RECIST, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors; RESP, response population; SAF, safety population; SD, stable disease; TTP, time to progression.