Huanwen Chen1, John Kuhn2, Kathleen R Lamborn3, Lauren E Abrey4, Lisa M DeAngelis4, Frank Lieberman5, H Ian Robins6, Susan M Chang3, W K Alfred Yung7, Jan Drappatz5, Minesh P Mehta8, Victor A Levin7, Kenneth Aldape9, Janet E Dancey10, John J Wright11, Michael D Prados3, Timothy F Cloughesy12, Patrick Y Wen13, Mark R Gilbert1. 1. Neuro-Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 2. Division of Pharmacology, University of Texas, San Antonio, Texas, USA. 3. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA. 4. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA. 5. Department of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. 6. Departments of Medicine, Human Oncology, and Neurology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 7. Department of Neuro-Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, Florida, USA. 9. Laboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 10. Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. 11. Investigational Drug Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 12. Department of Neurology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA. 13. Center for Neuro-Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Receptor tyrosine kinases such as epidermal growth factor receptors (EGFRs) and their downstream signaling pathways such as the Ras-Raf-mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway play important roles in glioblastoma (GBM). This study investigated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of sorafenib (Ras/Raf/MAPK inhibitor) in combination with erlotinib (EGFR inhibitor) for treatment of recurrent GBMs. METHODS: Patients with recurrent GBM were eligible. A novel sequential accrual trial design was used, where patients were sequentially accrued into separate treatment arms in phase I and phase II investigations to optimize recruitment efficiency. In phase I, a standard 3 + 3 format was used to identify dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and investigate pharmacokinetics. Phase II followed a 2-stage design with the primary endpoint being 6-month progression-free survival (PFS6). RESULTS: Sixteen patients were recruited for phase I, and the MTD was determined to be sorafenib 200 mg twice daily and erlotinib 100 mg once daily. DLTs include Grade 3 hypertension, Grade 3 elevated liver transaminases, and Grade 4 elevated lipase. While erlotinib did not affect sorafenib levels, sorafenib reduced erlotinib levels. In phase II, 3 of 19 stage 1 participants were progression free at 6 months. This did not meet the predetermined efficacy endpoint, and the trial was terminated. CONCLUSION: This study identified the MTD and DLTs for sorafenib and erlotinib combination therapy for recurrent GBMs; however, efficacy data did not meet the primary endpoint. This study also demonstrates the feasibility of a novel sequential accrual clinical trial design that optimizes patient recruitment for multiarm studies, which is particularly effective for multicenter clinical trials. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology 2020.
BACKGROUND: Receptor tyrosine kinases such as epidermal growth factor receptors (EGFRs) and their downstream signaling pathways such as the Ras-Raf-mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway play important roles in glioblastoma (GBM). This study investigated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of sorafenib (Ras/Raf/MAPK inhibitor) in combination with erlotinib (EGFR inhibitor) for treatment of recurrent GBMs. METHODS: Patients with recurrent GBM were eligible. A novel sequential accrual trial design was used, where patients were sequentially accrued into separate treatment arms in phase I and phase II investigations to optimize recruitment efficiency. In phase I, a standard 3 + 3 format was used to identify dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and investigate pharmacokinetics. Phase II followed a 2-stage design with the primary endpoint being 6-month progression-free survival (PFS6). RESULTS: Sixteen patients were recruited for phase I, and the MTD was determined to be sorafenib 200 mg twice daily and erlotinib 100 mg once daily. DLTs include Grade 3 hypertension, Grade 3 elevated liver transaminases, and Grade 4 elevated lipase. While erlotinib did not affect sorafenib levels, sorafenib reduced erlotinib levels. In phase II, 3 of 19 stage 1 participants were progression free at 6 months. This did not meet the predetermined efficacy endpoint, and the trial was terminated. CONCLUSION: This study identified the MTD and DLTs for sorafenib and erlotinib combination therapy for recurrent GBMs; however, efficacy data did not meet the primary endpoint. This study also demonstrates the feasibility of a novel sequential accrual clinical trial design that optimizes patient recruitment for multiarm studies, which is particularly effective for multicenter clinical trials. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology 2020.
Authors: E A Maher; F B Furnari; R M Bachoo; D H Rowitch; D N Louis; W K Cavenee; R A DePinho Journal: Genes Dev Date: 2001-06-01 Impact factor: 11.361
Authors: Andrew B Lassman; Michael R Rossi; Jeffrey J Raizer; Jeffrey R Razier; Lauren E Abrey; Frank S Lieberman; Chelsea N Grefe; Kathleen Lamborn; William Pao; Alan H Shih; John G Kuhn; Richard Wilson; Norma J Nowak; John K Cowell; Lisa M DeAngelis; Patrick Wen; Mark R Gilbert; Susan Chang; W A Yung; Michael Prados; Eric C Holland Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2005-11-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: C Gridelli; F Morgillo; A Favaretto; F de Marinis; A Chella; G Cerea; R Mattioli; G Tortora; A Rossi; M Fasano; G Pasello; S Ricciardi; P Maione; M Di Maio; F Ciardiello Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2011-01-06 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Miguel Quintela-Fandino; Christophe Le Tourneau; Ignacio Duran; Eric X Chen; Lisa Wang; Ming Tsao; Bizhan Bandarchi-Chamkhaleh; Nhu-Ann Pham; Trevor Do; Martha MacLean; Rakesh Nayyar; Michael W Tusche; Ur Metser; John J Wright; Tak W Mak; Lillian L Siu Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2010-03-02 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Michael A Davies; Patricia S Fox; Nicholas E Papadopoulos; Agop Y Bedikian; Wen-Jen Hwu; Alexander J Lazar; Victor G Prieto; Kirk S Culotta; Timothy L Madden; Quanyun Xu; Sha Huang; Wanleng Deng; Chaan S Ng; Sanjay Gupta; Wenbin Liu; Janet E Dancey; John J Wright; Roland L Bassett; Patrick Hwu; Kevin B Kim Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-01-05 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Alex A Adjei; Julian R Molina; Sumithra J Mandrekar; Randolph Marks; Joel R Reid; Gary Croghan; Lorelei J Hanson; James R Jett; Chenghua Xia; Chetan Lathia; Ronit Simantov Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-05-01 Impact factor: 12.531