Paul J Wood1,2,3, Robyn Strong4, Grant A McArthur5,6, Michael Michael7, Elizabeth Algar8,9, Andrea Muscat10, Lin Rigby11, Melissa Ferguson10, David M Ashley12. 1. Department of Paediatrics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. paul.wood@monashhealth.org. 2. Children's Cancer Centre, Monash Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. paul.wood@monashhealth.org. 3. Molecular Oncology and Translational Research Laboratory, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. paul.wood@monashhealth.org. 4. Australian & New Zealand Children's Haematology/Oncology Group (ANZCHOG), Melbourne, Australia. 5. Molecular Oncology and Translational Research Laboratory, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. 6. Department of Medicine, St. Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. 7. Division of Cancer Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. 8. Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 9. Hudson Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia. 10. Deakin University, School of Medicine, Geelong, Australia. 11. Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia. 12. The Preston Robert Tisch Brain Tumor Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This was an open label, phase I (3 + 3 design), multi-centre study evaluating panobinostat in pediatric patients with refractory solid tumors. METHODS: Primary endpoints were to establish MTD, define and describe associated toxicities, including dose limiting toxicities (DLT) and to characterize its pharmacokinetics (PK). Secondary endpoints included assessing the anti-tumour activity of panobinostat, and its biologic activity, by measuring acetylation of histones in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. RESULTS: Nine patients were enrolled and treated with intravenous panobinostat at a dosing level of 15 mg/m2 which was tolerated. Six were evaluable for adverse events. Two (33%) patients experienced Grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia, 1 (17%) experienced Grade 3 anemia, and 2 (33%) experienced Grade 3 neutropenia. Grade 4 drug related pain occurred in 2 (33%) of the patients studied. Two (33%) patients experienced a Grade 2 QTcF change (0.478 ± 0.006 ms). One cardiac DLT (T wave changes) was reported. PK values for 15 mg/m2 (n = 9) dosing were: Tmax 0.8 h, Cmax 235.2 ng/mL, AUC0-t 346.8 h ng/mL and t1/2 7.3 h. Panobinostat significantly induced acetylation of histone H3 and H4 at all time points measured when compared to pre-treatment samples (p < 0.05). Pooled quantitative Western blot data confirmed that panobinostat significantly induced acetylation of histone H4 at 6 h (p < 0.01), 24 h (p < 0.01) and 28-70 h (p < 0.01) post dose. CONCLUSION: A significant biological effect of panobinostat, measured by acetylation status of histone H3 and H4, was achieved at a dose of 15 mg/m2. PK data and drug tolerability at 15 mg/m2 was similar to that previously published.
PURPOSE: This was an open label, phase I (3 + 3 design), multi-centre study evaluating panobinostat in pediatric patients with refractory solid tumors. METHODS: Primary endpoints were to establish MTD, define and describe associated toxicities, including dose limiting toxicities (DLT) and to characterize its pharmacokinetics (PK). Secondary endpoints included assessing the anti-tumour activity of panobinostat, and its biologic activity, by measuring acetylation of histones in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. RESULTS: Nine patients were enrolled and treated with intravenous panobinostat at a dosing level of 15 mg/m2 which was tolerated. Six were evaluable for adverse events. Two (33%) patients experienced Grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia, 1 (17%) experienced Grade 3 anemia, and 2 (33%) experienced Grade 3 neutropenia. Grade 4 drug related pain occurred in 2 (33%) of the patients studied. Two (33%) patients experienced a Grade 2 QTcF change (0.478 ± 0.006 ms). One cardiac DLT (T wave changes) was reported. PK values for 15 mg/m2 (n = 9) dosing were: Tmax 0.8 h, Cmax 235.2 ng/mL, AUC0-t 346.8 h ng/mL and t1/2 7.3 h. Panobinostat significantly induced acetylation of histone H3 and H4 at all time points measured when compared to pre-treatment samples (p < 0.05). Pooled quantitative Western blot data confirmed that panobinostat significantly induced acetylation of histone H4 at 6 h (p < 0.01), 24 h (p < 0.01) and 28-70 h (p < 0.01) post dose. CONCLUSION: A significant biological effect of panobinostat, measured by acetylation status of histone H3 and H4, was achieved at a dose of 15 mg/m2. PK data and drug tolerability at 15 mg/m2 was similar to that previously published.
Authors: Nicholas A Vitanza; Matt C Biery; Carrie Myers; Eric Ferguson; Ye Zheng; Emily J Girard; Justyna M Przystal; Giulia Park; Alyssa Noll; Fiona Pakiam; Conrad A Winter; Shelli M Morris; Jay Sarthy; Bonnie L Cole; Sarah E S Leary; Courtney Crane; Nicole A P Lieberman; Sabine Mueller; Javad Nazarian; Raphael Gottardo; Mi-Youn Brusniak; Andrew J Mhyre; James M Olson Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Bernard L Marini; Lydia L Benitez; Andrew H Zureick; Ralph Salloum; Angela C Gauthier; Julia Brown; Yi-Mi Wu; Dan R Robinson; Chandan Kumar; Robert Lonigro; Pankaj Vats; Xuhong Cao; Katayoon Kasaian; Bailey Anderson; Brendan Mullan; Benjamin Chandler; Joseph R Linzey; Sandra I Camelo-Piragua; Sriram Venneti; Paul E McKeever; Kathryn A McFadden; Andrew P Lieberman; Noah Brown; Lina Shao; Marcia A S Leonard; Larry Junck; Erin McKean; Cormac O Maher; Hugh J L Garton; Karin M Muraszko; Shawn Hervey-Jumper; Jean M Mulcahy-Levy; Adam Green; Lindsey M Hoffman; Katie Dorris; Nicholas A Vitanza; Joanne Wang; Jonathan Schwartz; Rishi Lulla; Natasha Pillay Smiley; Miriam Bornhorst; Daphne A Haas-Kogan; Patricia L Robertson; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Rajen Mody; Carl Koschmann Journal: Transl Res Date: 2017-08-10 Impact factor: 7.012
Authors: Lin Xiao; Klaartje Somers; Murray D Norris; Michelle Haber; Jayne Murray; Ruby Pandher; Mawar Karsa; Emma Ronca; Angelika Bongers; Rachael Terry; Anahid Ehteda; Laura D Gamble; Natalia Issaeva; Katerina I Leonova; Aisling O'Connor; Chelsea Mayoh; Pooja Venkat; Hazel Quek; Jennifer Brand; Frances K Kusuma; Jessica A Pettitt; Erin Mosmann; Adam Kearns; Georgina Eden; Stephanie Alfred; Sophie Allan; Lei Zhai; Alvin Kamili; Andrew J Gifford; Daniel R Carter; Michelle J Henderson; Jamie I Fletcher; Glenn Marshall; Ricky W Johnstone; Anthony J Cesare; David S Ziegler; Andrei V Gudkov; Katerina V Gurova Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2021-05-16 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Holly L Pacenta; Wendy Allen-Rhoades; David Langenau; Peter J Houghton; Charles Keller; Christine M Heske; Michael D Deel; Corinne M Linardic; Jack F Shern; Elizabeth Stewart; Brian Turpin; Douglas J Harrison; Javed Khan; Leo Mascarenhas; Stephen X Skapek; William H Meyer; Douglas S Hawkins; Eleanor Y Chen; James F Amatruda; Pooja Hingorani; Theodore W Laetsch Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Morgan J Homan; Andrea Franson; Karthik Ravi; Holly Roberts; Manjunath P Pai; Cai Liu; Miao He; Aleksas Matvekas; Carl Koschmann; Bernard L Marini Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2021-06-11 Impact factor: 3.333