Jacob S Thomas1, Anthony B El-Khoueiry2, Barry J Maurer3, Susan Groshen2, Jacek K Pinski2, Everardo Cobos2,4, David R Gandara5, Heinz J Lenz2, Min H Kang3, C Patrick Reynolds3, Edward M Newman6. 1. University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. jacob.thomas@med.usc.edu. 2. University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Cancer Center, School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX, USA. 4. Kern Medical Center, Bakersfield, CA, USA. 5. Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Sacramento, CA, USA. 6. City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fenretinide is a synthetic retinoid that can induce cytotoxicity by several mechanisms. Achieving effective systemic exposure with oral formulations has been challenging. An intravenous lipid emulsion fenretinide formulation was developed to overcome this barrier. We conducted a study to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), preliminary efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of intravenous lipid emulsion fenretinide in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Twenty-three patients with advanced solid tumors refractory to standard treatments received fenretinide as a continuous infusion for five consecutive days in 21-day cycles. Five different dose cohorts were evaluated between doses of 905 mg/m2 and 1414 mg/m2 per day using a 3 + 3 dose escalation design. A priming dose of 600 mg/m2 on day 1 was introduced in an attempt to address the asymptomatic serum triglyceride elevations related to the lipid emulsion. RESULTS: The treatment-related adverse events occurring in ≥ 20% of patients were anemia, hypertriglyceridemia, fatigue, aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/alanine aminotransferase (ALT) increase, thrombocytopenia, bilirubin increase, and dry skin. Five evaluable patients had stable disease as best response, and no patients had objective responses. Plasma steady-state concentrations of the active metabolite were significantly higher than with previous capsule formulations. CONCLUSION: Fenretinide emulsion intravenous infusion had a manageable safety profile and achieved higher plasma steady-state concentrations of the active metabolite compared to previous capsule formulations. Single-agent activity was minimal but combinatorial approaches are under evaluation.
BACKGROUND: Fenretinide is a synthetic retinoid that can induce cytotoxicity by several mechanisms. Achieving effective systemic exposure with oral formulations has been challenging. An intravenous lipid emulsion fenretinide formulation was developed to overcome this barrier. We conducted a study to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), preliminary efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of intravenous lipid emulsion fenretinide in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Twenty-three patients with advanced solid tumors refractory to standard treatments received fenretinide as a continuous infusion for five consecutive days in 21-day cycles. Five different dose cohorts were evaluated between doses of 905 mg/m2 and 1414 mg/m2 per day using a 3 + 3 dose escalation design. A priming dose of 600 mg/m2 on day 1 was introduced in an attempt to address the asymptomatic serum triglyceride elevations related to the lipid emulsion. RESULTS: The treatment-related adverse events occurring in ≥ 20% of patients were anemia, hypertriglyceridemia, fatigue, aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/alanine aminotransferase (ALT) increase, thrombocytopenia, bilirubin increase, and dry skin. Five evaluable patients had stable disease as best response, and no patients had objective responses. Plasma steady-state concentrations of the active metabolite were significantly higher than with previous capsule formulations. CONCLUSION: Fenretinide emulsion intravenous infusion had a manageable safety profile and achieved higher plasma steady-state concentrations of the active metabolite compared to previous capsule formulations. Single-agent activity was minimal but combinatorial approaches are under evaluation.
Authors: Ann M Mohrbacher; Allen S Yang; Susan Groshen; Shivaani Kummar; Martin E Gutierrez; Min H Kang; Denice Tsao-Wei; C Patrick Reynolds; Edward M Newman; Barry J Maurer Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-04-18 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Judith G Villablanca; Wendy B London; Arlene Naranjo; Patrick McGrady; Matthew M Ames; Joel M Reid; Renee M McGovern; Sarah A Buhrow; Hollie Jackson; Enno Stranzinger; Brenda J Kitchen; Paul M Sondel; Marguerite T Parisi; Barry Shulkin; Gregory A Yanik; Susan L Cohn; C Patrick Reynolds Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-09-09 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: M Ponzoni; P Bocca; V Chiesa; A Decensi; V Pistoia; L Raffaghello; C Rozzo; P G Montaldo Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1995-02-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Barry J Maurer; Min H Kang; Judith G Villablanca; Jitka Janeba; Susan Groshen; Katherine K Matthay; Paul M Sondel; John M Maris; Hollie A Jackson; Fariba Goodarzian; Hiroyuki Shimada; Scarlett Czarnecki; Beth Hasenauer; C Patrick Reynolds; Araz Marachelian Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2013-06-29 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: A Costa; W Malone; M Perloff; F Buranelli; T Campa; G Dossena; A Magni; M Pizzichetta; C Andreoli; M Del Vecchio Journal: Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol Date: 1989-05
Authors: Barry J Maurer; Ondrej Kalous; David W Yesair; Xiaqin Wu; Jitka Janeba; Vanessa Maldonado; Vazgen Khankaldyyan; Tomas Frgala; Bee-Chun Sun; R Travis McKee; Stephen W Burgess; Walter A Shaw; C Patrick Reynolds Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-05-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Lourdes Sainero-Alcolado; Judit Liaño-Pons; María Victoria Ruiz-Pérez; Marie Arsenian-Henriksson Journal: Cell Death Differ Date: 2022-07-13 Impact factor: 12.067