Oral verapamil with chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a randomised study

Verapamil increases the survival of patients with anthracycline-resistant metastatic breast carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Verapamil (VER), a potent calcium channel blocker, has been found to overcome P-gp-mediated multi-drug resistance (MDR) and to increase sensitivity to cytotoxic anticancer drugs in refractory myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The value of VER for treating solid tumors is still a matter for debate.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a prospective study in 99 patients with anthracycline-resistant metastatic breast carcinoma (MBC), to assess the clinical effect of oral VER given in association with chemotherapy. Instead of retreating patients with anthracycline, we used a partially noncross-resistant regimen (VF), combining vindesine (VDS) and 5-fluorouracil given as a continuous infusion (5-FU CI). Patients were randomly assigned to two cohorts. One cohort (47 patients) was treated in 28-day cycles, each involving the administration of VDS (3 mg/m2 i.v. bolus on days 1 and 10) and 5-FU CI, (400 mg/m2/day i.v. from day 1 to day 10). The other cohort (52 patients) received the same VDS and 5-FU treatment and an additional oral VER treatment (240 mg/day divided in 2 doses), from day 1 to day 28 of each cycle. Patients were treated until progression.

RESULTS

The treatment was well tolerated and no side effects that could be attributed to VER were detected. Patients treated with VER had longer overall survival (OS) (median OS: 323 vs. 209 days, P = 0.036) and a higher response rate (27% vs. 11%, P = 0.04) than those not given VER. Progression-free survival (PFS) was also longer but the difference was not statistically significant (median PFS: 4.6 and 2.7 months for the VER and non-VER groups respectively, P = 0.6).

CONCLUSIONS

This clinical trial demonstrates that a chemosensitizer, such as VER, can increase the survival of MBC patients with acquired anthracycline resistance.

Multidrug resistance in non-small-cell lung cancer

Resistance to cytotoxic drugs is an important cause of treatment failure. The causes are complex and may be determined by a combination of the tumour characteristics, such as the proportion of resting cells, adequacy of blood supply, and specific cellular mechanisms, as in the multidrug resistance phenotype. In lung cancer four types of multidrug resistance have been defined on the basis of the cellular drug targets involved, i.e., classical multidrug resistance (MDR), non-P-glycoprotein MDR (also called MRP), atypical MDR (mediated through altered expression of topoisomerases II) and lung resistance-related protein. In lung cancer the role of the different forms of multidrug resistance is complex and only partially understood.

Chemotherapy for brain metastases of lung cancer: a review

In lung cancer patients brain metastases develop with a high frequency. For years radiotherapy has been the standard treatment for these patients. Here we review the experience with chemotherapy for brain metastases in lung cancer patients. The concept of the brain as pharmacological sanctuary site when brain metastases are present is challenged and it is argued that chemotherapy does play a role in this situation. Recent clinical trials indicate that the combination of chemotherapy and radiotherapy may become the standard treatment for lung cancer patients with brain metastases. It is unclear whether for micrometastatic disease to the brain, blood brain barrier function is of importance for the outcome of chemotherapy in lung cancer patients with respect to the development of overt brain metastases. Areas of improvement of delivery of cytotoxic agents to the brain when brain metastases have not yet developed are discussed.

Multidrug resistance in oncology: diagnostic and therapeutic approaches

Resistance to anticancer drugs is often mediated by the overexpression of a membrane pump able to extrude many xenobiotics out of the tumour cells. The most frequently expressed of these pumps is called P-glycoprotein and is encoded by a gene called MDR1 (for multidrug resistance). There could be great clinical interest for investigating the expression of this gene or of its product in patients' tumours, as well as in developing ways of circumventing this mechanism of resistance. Multidrug resistance can be diagnosed in tumours by molecular biology techniques (gene expression at the mRNA level), by immunological techniques (quantification of P-glycoprotein itself) or by functional approaches (measuring dye exclusion). Numerous studies have tried to use the MDR status of tumours as a predictor of response to treatment, but they have not yet reached definitive conclusions to allow the use of this approach in routine determinations. This is because no consensus has emerged concerning the optimal technique and the best conditions for MDR determination. Continuous efforts are still required for defining appropriate standardization of the techniques. The development of MDR modulators for the treatment of resistant tumours is a promising approach requiring rigorous clinical trials with successive phase I, phase II and phase III studies. Phase I can be omitted when the reverter is already being used in therapeutics; phase II should be performed using a sequential design, in order to prove the inefficacy of the anticancer therapy before combining it to a modulator; and phase III must only be undertaken after the demonstration that responders can be recruited by the combination. However, the effect of some reverters on anticancer drug pharmacokinetics may hamper rapid evaluation. Several drugs are good candidates for MDR modulation, but definitive results are still lacking for the introduction of such combinations in standard therapeutic protocols.

Influence of cell concentration in limiting the therapeutic benefit of P-glycoprotein reversal agents

Pharmacological reversal of multidrug resistance (MDR) has been demonstrated frequently in tissue culture, but there has been minimal evidence of therapeutic effectiveness for solid tumours of animals, or in clinical trials. The concentration of cells in solid tumours is approx. 10(9) cells/ml but typically 10(5)-10(6) cells/ml in tissue culture. We investigated, therefore, the influence of cell concentration in culture on the ability of verapamil and cyclosporin A to increase the sensitivity of MDR-expressing cells to doxorubicin. Our data indicate that: 1. the uptake of the MDR substrates, doxorubicin and 99mTc-SestaMIBI, and the toxicity of doxorubicin decrease at higher cell concentration; 2. the effect of reversal agents on uptake and cytotoxicity of MDR substrates decreases markedly at higher cell concentration; 3. cell concentration effects are not overcome by continuous replenishment of drug to maintain a stable extracellular concentration. Our results suggest one mechanism which may contribute to the failure to observe reversal of MDR in animals, or in patients bearing established solid tumours.

Phase II trial of dexverapamil and epirubicin in patients with non-responsive metastatic breast cancer

Agents capable of reversing P-glycoprotein-associated multidrug resistance have usually failed to enhance chemotherapy activity in patients with solid tumours. Based on its toxicity profile and experimental potency, dexverapamil, the R-enantiomer of verapamil, is considered to be promising for clinical use as a chemosensitizer. The purpose of this early phase II trial was to evaluate the effects of dexverapamil on epirubicin toxicity, activity and pharmacokinetics in patients with metastatic breast cancer. A two-stage design was applied. Patients first received epirubicin alone at 120 mg m(-2) i.v. over 15 min, repeated every 21 days. Patients with refractory disease continued to receive epirubicin at the same dose and schedule but supplemented with oral dexverapamil 300 mg every 6 h x 13 doses. The Gehan design was applied to the dexverapamil/epirubicin cohort of patients. Thirty-nine patients were entered on study, 25 proceeded to receive epirubicin plus dexverapamil. Dexverapamil did not increase epirubicin toxicity. The dose intensity of epirubicin was similar when used alone or with dexverapamil. In nine intrapatient comparisons, the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of epirubicin was significantly reduced by dexverapamil (mean 2968 vs 1901 microg ml[-1] h[-1], P= 0.02). The mean trough plasma levels of dexverapamil and its major metabolite nor-dexverapamil were 1.2 and 1.5 microM respectively. The addition of dexverapamil to epirubicin induced partial responses in 4 of 23 patients evaluable for tumour response (17%, CI 5-39%, s.e.P 0.079). The remissions lasted 3, 8, 11 and 11+ months. These data suggest that the concept of enhancing chemotherapy activity by adding chemosensitizers may function not only in haematological malignancies but also in selected solid tumours. An increase in the AUC and toxicity of cytotoxic agents does not seem to be a prerequisite for chemosensitizers to enhance anti-tumour activity.

A survey of the ethical considerations in randomised trials for lung cancer

BACKGROUND

In order to promote a more productive debate on the ethics of randomised clinical trials (RCTs), we present a survey on the ethical aspects of published RCTs for lung cancer.

METHODS

Data from 92 published reports of RCTs for lung cancer, as identified from the Cancerlit 1993-1995 database were supplemented by a questionnaire mailed to the authors of those publications. The analysis focused on respect of autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice as the ethical principles applicable to society, patients in trials, patients not included in RCTs and physicians. ETHICAL ANALYSIS: The benefits to society include an objective evaluation of new treatments. The principle of autonomy was often violated for patients who were inadequately informed about the disease or about RCT. In some trials with prolonged recruitment, the principle of non-maleficence was not fully respected since patients continued to be randomised in spite of an obvious advantage of one of the treatments. When compared to those not included in a trial, patients in RCTs were reported to benefit from more precise standards, superior quality assurance of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, more attention from the physician, easier appointments and easier access to hospitalisation. However, these benefits diminish patients' autonomy and lead to injustice towards patients not included in the trials. While benefits to physicians were usually modest and in proportion to their contribution, an influence upon their autonomy cannot be excluded.

CONCLUSION

More attention to the aforementioned ethical caveats of RCTs should alleviate the ethical costs and might also bring more patients into future trials.

Results of a phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of megestrol acetate modulation of P-glycoprotein-mediated drug resistance in the first-line management of small-cell lung carcinoma

The objective of this study was to determine if the addition of megestrol acetate (MA), a modulator of P-glycoprotein-mediated drug resistance, to first-line cytotoxic therapy in patients with limited and advanced stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) would improve median time to disease progression and median overall survival. Secondary outcomes evaluated were response rates and patient symptom profile. Between 1992 and 1995, 130 eligible patients were randomized in a double-blind fashion to receive standard first-line therapy consisting of alternating courses of cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/vincristine and etoposide/cisplatin (and thoracic radiotherapy for limited stage patients), along with either placebo or MA 160 mg t.i.d. for 8 days commencing 3 days before initiation of each cycle of chemotherapy. Treatment was continued for a maximum of six cycles. A total of 130 eligible patients were randomized, 65 to each arm. Fifty-two per cent of patients had limited disease and 48% had advanced disease. The median time to disease progression in limited stage disease was 46 weeks in the placebo arm and 43 weeks in the MA arm (P = 0.71) and in advanced stage disease was 28 weeks in the placebo arm and 27 weeks in the MA arm (P = 0.92). The median overall survival in limited stage disease was 75 weeks in the placebo arm and 75 weeks in the MA arm (P = 0.56) and in advanced stage disease was 41 weeks in the placebo arm and 39 weeks in the MA arm (P = 0.96). There was no consistent statistical difference in response rates or patient symptom profiles between the two treatment arms. The addition of MA, in the dose and schedule used, to standard first-line cytotoxic therapy in SCLC did not result in a significant improvement in response rates, symptom profile, median time to disease progression or overall survival.

Randomised trial of vindesine and etoposide +/- dexverapamil in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: first results

To determine whether the chemotherapy resistance of non-small cell lung cancer could be modified by oral dexverapamil, the D-isomer of verapamil, 54 patients were entered into a randomised phase II study of oral dexverapamil plus chemotherapy (vindesine/etoposide) (arm B) versus chemotherapy (arm A) alone in January 1994. Chemotherapy consisted of intravenous vindesine 3 mg/m2 bolus on days one and five and etoposide 140 mg/m2 on days two and four. Dexverapamil was given for six days, 1500 mg a day divided into six doses of 250 mg every four hours starting 24 h prior to chemotherapy. According to the individual tolerability, the single dose could be increased up to a maximum of 400 mg. Cycles were repeated 3 weekly up to four courses. At this stage of the analysis, 34 patients (18 in arm A and 16 in arm B) are evaluable for toxicity and response. Cardiovascular side effects were more marked in the patient group with dexverapamil. On average, the dose of dexverapamil was 1800 mg a day. There were 5 partial remissions (31.3%) and 9 no changes (56.3%) in the group with dexverapamil as opposed to 2 partial remissions (11.1%) and 6 no changes (33.3%) in the group without dexverapamil. As far as the preliminary results show, the addition of dexverapamil to vindesine/etoposide chemotherapy in this study seems to be associated with improved outcome.

Human cell lines as models for multidrug resistance in solid tumours

In spite of our expanding knowledge on the molecular biology of cancer, relatively little progress has been made in improving therapy for the solid tumours which are major killers, e.g., lung, colon, breast. Significant advances over the past 10-15 years in chemotherapy of some tumours such as testicular cancer and some leukaemias indicates that, in spite of the undesirable side-effects, chemotherapy has the potential to effect cure in the majority of patients with certain types of cancer. Multidrug resistance, inherent or acquired, is one important limiting factor in extending this success to most solid tumours. In vitro studies described in this review are now uncovering a diversity of possible mechanisms of cross-resistance to different types of drug. Sensitive methods such as immunocytochemistry, RT-PCR or in situ RNA hybridisation may be necessary to identify corresponding changes in clinical material. Only by classifying individual tumours according to their specific resistance mechanisms will it be possible to define the multidrug resistance problem properly. Such rigorous definition is a prerequisite to design (and choice on an individual basis) of specific therapies suited to individual patients. Since a much larger proportion of cancer biopsies should be susceptible to accurate analysis by the immunochemical and molecular biological techniques described above than to direct assessment of drug response, it seems reasonable to hope that this approach will succeed in improving results for cancer chemotherapy of solid tumours where other approaches such as individualised in vitro chemosensitivity testing have essentially failed. Results from clinical trials using cyclosporin A or verapamil are encouraging, but these agents are far from ideal, and reverse resistance in only a subset of resistant tumours. Proper definition of the other mechanisms of MDR, and how to antagonize them, is an urgent research priority.