PURPOSE: This study was conducted to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), recommended phase two dose (RPTD), and toxicities of gemcitabine + dasatinib (GD) and gemcitabine + dasatinib + cetuximab (GDC) in advanced solid tumor patients. METHODS: This study was a standard phase I 3 + 3 dose escalation study evaluating two combination regimens, GD and GDC. Patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled in cohorts of 3-6 to either GD or GDC. Gemcitabine was dosed at 1000 mg/m2 weekly for 3 of 4 weeks, dasatinib was dosed in mg PO BID, and cetuximab was dosed at 250 mg/m2 weekly after a loading dose of cetuximab of 400 mg/m2. There were two dose levels for dasatinib: (1) gemcitabine + dasatinib 50 mg ± cetuximab, and (2) gemcitabine + dasatinib 70 mg ± cetuximab. Cycle length was 28 days. Standard cycle 1 dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) definitions were used. Eligible patients had advanced solid tumors, adequate organ and marrow function, and no co-morbidities that would increase the risk of toxicity. Serum, plasma, and skin biopsy biomarkers were obtained pre- and on-treatment. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were enrolled, including 21 with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Three patients received prior gemcitabine. Twenty-one patients were evaluable for toxicity and 16 for response. Four DLTs were observed: Grade (Gr) 3 neutropenia (GDC1, n = 1), Gr 3 ALT (GD2, n = 2), and Gr 5 pneumonitis (GDC2, n = 1). Possible treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in later cycles included: Gr 3-4 neutropenia (n = 7), Gr 4 colitis (n = 1), Gr 3 bilirubin (n = 2), Gr 3 anemia (n = 2), Gr 3 thrombocytopenia (n = 2), Gr 3 edema/fluid retention (n = 1), and Gr 3 vomiting (n = 3). Six of 16 patients (3 of whom were gemcitabine-refractory) had stable disease (SD) as best response, median duration = 5 months (range 1-7). One gemcitabine-refractory patient had a partial response (PR). Median PFS was 2.9 months (95% CI 2.1, 5.8). Median OS was 5.8 months (95% CI 4.1, 11.8). Dermal wound biopsies demonstrated that dasatinib resulted in a decrease of total and phospho-Src levels, and cetuximab resulted in a decrease of EGFR and ERBB2 levels. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD/RPTD of GD is gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 weekly for 3 of 4 weeks and dasatinib 50 mg PO BID. The clinical activity of GD seen in this study was modest, and does not support its further investigation in pancreatic cancer.
PURPOSE: This study was conducted to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), recommended phase two dose (RPTD), and toxicities of gemcitabine + dasatinib (GD) and gemcitabine + dasatinib + cetuximab (GDC) in advanced solid tumorpatients. METHODS: This study was a standard phase I 3 + 3 dose escalation study evaluating two combination regimens, GD and GDC. Patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled in cohorts of 3-6 to either GD or GDC. Gemcitabine was dosed at 1000 mg/m2 weekly for 3 of 4 weeks, dasatinib was dosed in mg PO BID, and cetuximab was dosed at 250 mg/m2 weekly after a loading dose of cetuximab of 400 mg/m2. There were two dose levels for dasatinib: (1) gemcitabine + dasatinib 50 mg ± cetuximab, and (2) gemcitabine + dasatinib 70 mg ± cetuximab. Cycle length was 28 days. Standard cycle 1 dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) definitions were used. Eligible patients had advanced solid tumors, adequate organ and marrow function, and no co-morbidities that would increase the risk of toxicity. Serum, plasma, and skin biopsy biomarkers were obtained pre- and on-treatment. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were enrolled, including 21 with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Three patients received prior gemcitabine. Twenty-one patients were evaluable for toxicity and 16 for response. Four DLTs were observed: Grade (Gr) 3 neutropenia (GDC1, n = 1), Gr 3 ALT (GD2, n = 2), and Gr 5 pneumonitis (GDC2, n = 1). Possible treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in later cycles included: Gr 3-4 neutropenia (n = 7), Gr 4 colitis (n = 1), Gr 3 bilirubin (n = 2), Gr 3 anemia (n = 2), Gr 3 thrombocytopenia (n = 2), Gr 3 edema/fluid retention (n = 1), and Gr 3 vomiting (n = 3). Six of 16 patients (3 of whom were gemcitabine-refractory) had stable disease (SD) as best response, median duration = 5 months (range 1-7). One gemcitabine-refractory patient had a partial response (PR). Median PFS was 2.9 months (95% CI 2.1, 5.8). Median OS was 5.8 months (95% CI 4.1, 11.8). Dermal wound biopsies demonstrated that dasatinib resulted in a decrease of total and phospho-Src levels, and cetuximab resulted in a decrease of EGFR and ERBB2 levels. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD/RPTD of GD is gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 weekly for 3 of 4 weeks and dasatinib 50 mg PO BID. The clinical activity of GD seen in this study was modest, and does not support its further investigation in pancreatic cancer.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cetuximab; Dasatinib; Gemcitabine; Pancreatic cancer; Phase I
Authors: A Craig Lockhart; Rod D Braun; Daohai Yu; Joel R Ross; Mark W Dewhirst; Jeffrey S Humphrey; Seth Thompson; Kathleen M Williams; Bruce Klitzman; Fan Yuan; James M Grichnik; Alan D Proia; Delina A Conway; Herbert I Hurwitz Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Angeles Alvarez Secord; Deanna Teoh; Jingquan Jia; Andrew B Nixon; Lisa Grace; David J Adams; Susan K Murphy Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: M P Lutz; I B Esser; B B Flossmann-Kast; R Vogelmann; H Lührs; H Friess; M W Büchler; G Adler Journal: Biochem Biophys Res Commun Date: 1998-02-13 Impact factor: 3.575
Authors: Jose G Trevino; Justin M Summy; Donald P Lesslie; Nila U Parikh; David S Hong; Francis Y Lee; Nicholas J Donato; James L Abbruzzese; Cheryl H Baker; Gary E Gallick Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: T R J Evans; E Van Cutsem; M J Moore; I S Bazin; A Rosemurgy; G Bodoky; G Deplanque; M Harrison; B Melichar; D Pezet; A Elekes; E Rock; C Lin; L Strauss; P J O'Dwyer Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Maksim V Yezhelyev; Gudrun Koehl; Markus Guba; Thomas Brabletz; Karl-Walter Jauch; Anderson Ryan; Alan Barge; Tim Green; Michael Fennell; Christiane J Bruns Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2004-12-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Youli Pan; Mingwu Zheng; Lei Zhong; Jiao Yang; Shu Zhou; Ya Qin; Rong Xiang; Yuzong Chen; Sheng-Yong Yang Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Sonia Alcalá; Víctor Mayoral-Varo; Laura Ruiz-Cañas; Juan Carlos López-Gil; Christopher Heeschen; Jorge Martín-Pérez; Bruno Sainz Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2020-10-09 Impact factor: 5.923