Pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel and carboplatin in a dose-escalating and dose-sequencing study in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. The European Cancer Centre

Phase II and pharmacologic study of weekly oral paclitaxel plus cyclosporine in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

A phase II study was performed to assess the efficacy and toxicity of oral cyclosporine (CsA) plus paclitaxel in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Chemotherapy-naive or previously treated patients (one regimen) with measurable disease and World Health Organization performance status <or= 2 were eligible. Oral paclitaxel was given weekly in a dose of 90 mg/m(2) bid. CsA (10 mg/kg) was given 30 minutes before each dose of oral paclitaxel.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients with a median age of 54 years (range, 32 to 77 years) were entered onto this study. Eighteen patients (69%) had received one prior chemotherapy regimen. The most frequently recorded toxicities were as follows: National Cancer Institute common toxicity criteria grade 3 neutropenia, eight patients (31%); grade 4, six patients (23%); grade 4 febrile neutropenia, three patients (12%); grade 2/3 neurotoxicity, three patients (12%); and grade 2 nail changes, four patients (15%). The overall response rate (ORR) of the 23 assessable patients was 26% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10% to 48%). In the intention-to-treat population, the ORR was 23% (95% CI, 9% to 44%). The median time to progression was 3.5 months (95% CI, 1.2 to 3.9 months), and median overall survival was 6.0 months (95% CI, 2.3 months to not available). Pharmacokinetics revealed that the mean area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) of oral paclitaxel was 5.0 +/- 2.3 micro mol/L/h in week 1 and 4.6 +/- 2.0 micro mol/L/h in week 2, with interpatient variabilities (coefficient of variation [%CV]) of 45% and 42%, respectively. The intrapatient variability (%CV) of the AUC was 14.5%.

CONCLUSION

Oral paclitaxel plus CsA is active and safe in advanced NSCLC, including in patients previously treated with chemotherapy.

Paclitaxel plus carboplatin, compared with paclitaxel plus gemcitabine, shows similar efficacy while more cost-effective: a randomized phase II study of combination chemotherapy against inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer previously untreated

BACKGROUND

Paclitaxel (Taxol) plus carboplatin (PC) has shown activity in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Non-platinum-containing combination chemotherapy, such as paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (PG), has also demonstrated reasonable efficacy. Our aim here was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of PC versus PG in chemo-naive. advanced NSCLC patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Ninety (68 male, 22 female) patients were enrolled from August 1999 to August 2000. The performance status was one in 29 patients and two in 16 patients of the PC group, and one in 24 patients and two in 21 patients of the PG group. Seventeen patients had stage IIIb disease and 28 patients stage IV disease in the PC group: 18 patients had stage IIIb disease and 27 patients stage IV disease in the PG group (New International Staging System). Treatment consisted of P 175 mg/m2 and C at AUC = 7 (predicted using measured clearances and the Calvert formula) intravenous infusion (i.v.) on day 1, or P 175 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1 and G 1000 mg/m2 i.v. on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks.

RESULTS

In all, 175 cycles of PC and 184 cycles of PG were given in the PC and PG groups, respectively. The median treatment cycle was four cycles in both groups. All the patients were assessable for toxicity and response measurement. There were three complete responses and 15 partial responses (overall 40%) in the PC group, and no complete response, but 18 partial responses (overall 40%) in the PG group. WHO grades 3/4 leukopenia, anemia and thrombocytopenia occurred in six (13.3%), seven (15.5%) and five patients (11.1%) in the PC group; and in four (8.9%), six (13.3%) and 0 patients in the PG group, respectively. Two patients in each group suffered from grade 3 peripheral neuropathy. Other non-hematological toxicities were mild and few. Median survival time was 14.1 months in the PC group and 12.6 months in the PG group. One-year survival was 50.7% in the PC group and 53.3% in the PG group. The PG group had a higher total expense and expended more days undergoing treatment than the PC group (P = 0.034 and 0.069, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Both PC and PG combination chemotherapy produce a similar efficacy in the treatment of NSCLC. However, PC is more cost-effective than PG.

Cremophor EL: the drawbacks and advantages of vehicle selection for drug formulation

Cremophor EL (CrEL) is a formulation vehicle used for various poorly-water soluble drugs, including the anticancer agent paclitaxel (Taxol). In contrast to earlier reports, CrEL is not an inert vehicle, but exerts a range of biological effects, some of which have important clinical implications. Its use has been associated with severe anaphylactoid hypersensitivity reactions, hyperlipidaemia, abnormal lipoprotein patterns, aggregation of erythrocytes and peripheral neuropathy. The pharmacokinetic behaviour of CrEL is dose-independent, although its clearance is highly influenced by duration of the infusion. This is particularly important since CrEL can affect the disposition of various drugs by changing the unbound drug concentration through micellar encapsulation. In addition, it has been shown that CrEL, as an integral component of paclitaxel chemotherapy, modifies the toxicity profile of certain anticancer agents given concomitantly, by mechanisms other than kinetic interference. A clear understanding of the biological and pharmacological role of CrEL is essential to help oncologists avoid side-effects associated with the use of paclitaxel or other agents using this vehicle. With the present development of various new anticancer agents, it is recommended that alternative formulation approaches should be pursued to allow a better control of the toxicity of the treatment and the pharmacological interactions related to the use of CrEL.

Development of a lyophilized parenteral pharmaceutical formulation of the investigational polypeptide marine anticancer agent kahalalide F

Kahalalide F is a novel antitumor agent isolated from the marine mollusk Elysia rufescens; it has shown highly selective in vitro activity against androgen-independent prostate tumors. The purpose of this study was to develop a stable parenteral formulation of kahalalide F to be used in early clinical trials. Solubility and stability of kahalalide F were studied as a function of polysorbate 80 (0.1%-0.5% w/v) and citric acid monohydrate (15-15 mM) concentrations using an experimental design approach. Stabilities of kahalalide F lyophilized products containing crystalline (mannitol) or amorphous (sucrose) bulking agents were studied at +5 degrees C and +30 degrees C +/- 60% relative humidity (RH) in the dark. Lyophilized products were characterized by infrared (IR) spectroscopy and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). Recovery studies after reconstitution of kahalalide F lyophilized product and further dilution in infusion fluid were carried out to select an optimal reconstitution vehicle. It was found that a combination of polysorbate 80 and citric acid monohydrate is necessary to solubilize kahalalide F. Lyophilized products were considerably less stable with increasing polysorbate 80 and citric acid monohydrate concentrations, with polysorbate 80 being the major effector. A combination of 0.1% w/v polysorbate 80 and 5 mM citric acid monohydrate was selected for further investigation. Lyophilized products containing sucrose as a hulking agent were more stable compared to the products containing mannitol. The glass transition temperature of the sucrose-based product was determined to be + 46 degrees C. The amorphous state of the product was confirmed by IR analysis. A solution composed of Cremophor EL, ethanol, and water for injection (5%/5%/90% v/v/v CEW, kept kahalalide F in solution after reconstitution andfurther dilution with 0.9% w/v sodium chloride (normal saline) to 1.5 microg/m. A stable lyophilized formulation was presented containing 100 microg of kahalalide F, 100 mg sucrose, 2.1 mg citric acid monohydrate, and 2mg polysorbate 80 to be reconstituted with a vehicle composed of 5%/5%/90% v/v/v CEW and to be diluted further using normal saline.

Drug interactions with the taxanes: clinical implications

BACKGROUND

The taxanes paclitaxel and docetaxel are among the most active antitumor agents. Clinically important pharmacodynamic interactions have been reported to occur with these agents that are sequence or schedule dependent. Because the taxanes undergo hepatic oxidation via the cytochrome P450 system, pharmacokinetic interactions due to enzyme induction or inhibition can also occur.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using Medline to identify clinically important drug-interactions with the taxanes.

RESULTS

Clinically significant taxane interactions were identified for carboplatin, cisplatin, doxorubicin, docetaxel, epirubicin and anticonvulsants. Doxorubicin and epirubicin should be administered 24 h before paclitaxel, and the cumulative anthracycline dose limited to 360 mg/m(2). This will prevent the enhanced toxicities due to sequence and schedule dependent interactions between anthracyclines and paclitaxel. Conversely, paclitaxel should be administered at least 24 h before cisplatin to avoid a decrease in clearance and increase in myelosuppression. With concurrent anticonvulsant therapy, cytochrome p450 enzyme induction results in decreased paclitaxel plasma steady state concentrations, possibly requiring an increased dose of paclitaxel. A number of other drug interactions have been reported in preliminary studies for which clinical significance has yet to be established.

CONCLUSION

Clinically significant drug interactions have been reported to occur when paclitaxel is administered with doxorubicin, cisplatin, or anticonvulsants (phenytoin, carbamazepine, and phenobarbital).

Oral delivery of taxanes

Oral treatment with cytotoxic agents is to be preferred as this administration route is convenient to patients, reduces administration costs and facilitates the use of more chronic treatment regimens. For the taxanes paclitaxel and docetaxel, however, low oral bioavailability has limited development of treatment by the oral route. Preclinical studies with mdr1a P-glycoprotein knock-out mice, which lack functional P-glycoprotein activity in the gut, have shown significant bioavailability of orally administered paclitaxel. Additional studies in wild-type mice revealed good bioavailability after oral administration when paclitaxel was combined with P-glycoprotein blockers such as cyclosporin A or the structurally related compound SDZ PSC 833. Based on the extensive preclinical research, the feasibility of oral administration of paclitaxel and docetaxel in cancer patients was recently demonstrated in our Institute. Co-administration of cyclosporin A strongly enhanced the oral bioavailability of both paclitaxel and docetaxel. For docetaxel in combination with cyclosporin A an oral bioavailability of 90% was achieved with an interpatient variability similar to that after intravenous drug administration; for paclitaxel the oral bioavailability is estimated at approximately 50%. The safety of the oral route for both taxanes is good. A phase II study of weekly oral docetaxel in combination with cyclosporin A is currently ongoing.

Drug interactions of paclitaxel and docetaxel and their relevance for the design of combination therapy

The taxanes' interaction with other anticancer drugs have been extensively investigated in in vitro and in animal models as well as in humans due to the outstanding antitumor activity in a broad range of malignancies. Paclitaxel and docetaxel are endowed of a rich and complex pharmacology whereby different pharmacodynamic effects are observed depending on the sequence of their administration in respect with the companion drug, and the type of drug that is combined. Pharmacokinetic interference is often but not always a basis of the pharmacodynamic effect. In addition, the vehicle of clinical formulation, especially Cremophor EL for paclitaxel, influence the pharmacological effect. Finally, new interaction based on as yet unknown mechanisms drive the two taxanes to multiple additive/synergistic relationships with new signal transduction drugs, such as modulators of the epidermal-growth-factor family of receptors and farnesyl-transferase inhibitors. The ongoing effort to better understanding such a rich pharmacology is worth continuing in view of designing new and better combinations of the taxanes.

Taxanes in lung cancer: a review with focus on the European experience

The introduction of new agents in the treatment of lung cancer raised in the past few years new interest in clinical research on this topic. The use of taxanes as paclitaxel and docetaxel may represent a significant progress in the treatment of lung cancer. Taxanes used as single agents show a substantial activity in lung cancer and, because of their unique mechanism of action, it is possible to combine these drugs with other non-cross-resistant agents. Taxanes share a radiosensitizing effect and their use with concurrent radiotherapy appears to become a new standard. This review will focus on the European clinical experience in the treatment of lung cancer with the two compounds.

Role of formulation vehicles in taxane pharmacology

The non-ionic surfactants Cremophor EL (CrEL) and Tween 80, both used as formulation vehicles of many (anticancer) agents including paclitaxel and docetaxel, are not physiological inert compounds. We describe their biological properties, especially the toxic side effects, and their pharmacological properties, such as modulation of P-glycoprotein activity. In detail, we discuss their influence on the disposition of the solubilized drugs, with focus on CrEL and paclitaxel, and of concomitantly administered drugs. The ability of the surfactants to form micelles in aqueous solution as well as biological fluids (e.g. plasma) appears to be of great importance with respect to the pharmacokinetic behavior of the formulated drugs. Due to drug entrapment in the micelles, plasma concentrations and clearance of free drug change significant leading to alteration in pharmacodynamic characteristics. We conclude with some perspectives related to further investigation and development of alternative methods of administration.

The effect of different doses of cyclosporin A on the systemic exposure of orally administered paclitaxel

The objective of this study was to define the minimally effective dose of cyclosporin A (CsA) that would result in a maximal increase of the systemic exposure to oral paclitaxel. Six evaluable patients participated in this randomized cross-over study in which they received at two occasions two doses of 90 mg/m(2) oral paclitaxel 7 h apart in combination with 10 or 5 mg/kg CsA. Dose reduction of CsA from 10 to 5 mg/kg resulted in a statistically significant decrease in the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and time above the threshold concentrations of 0.1 microM (T>0.1 microM) of oral paclitaxel. The mean (+/-SD) AUC and T>0.1 microM values of oral paclitaxel with CsA 10 mg/kg were 4.29+/-0.88 microM x h and 12.0+/-2.1 h, respectively. With CsA 5 mg/kg these values were 2.75+/-0.63 microM x h and 7.0+/-2.1 h, respectively (p=0.028 for both parameters). In conclusion, dose reduction of CsA from 10 to 5 mg/kg resulted in a significant decrease in the AUC and T>0.1 microM values of oral paclitaxel. Because CsA 10 mg/kg resulted in similar paclitaxel AUC and T>0.1 microM values compared to CsA 15 mg/kg (data which we have published previously), the minimally effective dose of CsA is determined at 10 mg/kg.

Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of PNU166945, a novel water-soluble polymer-conjugated prodrug of paclitaxel

Intravenous administration of paclitaxel is hindered by poor water solubility of the drug. Currently, paclitaxel is dissolved in a mixture of ethanol and Cremophor EL; however, this formulation (Taxol) is associated with significant side effects, which are considered to be related to the pharmaceutical vehicle. A new polymer-conjugated derivative of paclitaxel, PNU166945, was investigated in a dose-finding phase I study to document toxicity and pharmacokinetics. A clinical phase I study was initiated in patients with refractory solid tumors. PNU16645 was administered as a 1-h infusion every 3 weeks at a starting dose of 80 mg/m(2), as paclitaxel equivalents. Pharmacokinetics of polymer-bound and released paclitaxel were determined during the first course. Twelve patients in total were enrolled in the study. The highest dose level was 196 mg/m(2), at which we did not observe any dose-limiting toxicities. Hematologic toxicity of PNU166945 was mild and dose independent. One patient developed a grade 3 neurotoxicity. A partial response was observed in one patient with advanced breast cancer. PNU166945 displayed a linear pharmacokinetic behavior for the bound fraction as well as for released paclitaxel. The study was discontinued prematurely due to severe neurotoxicity observed in additional rat studies. The presented phase I study with PNU166945, a water-soluble polymeric drug conjugate of paclitaxel, shows an alteration in pharmacokinetic behavior when paclitaxel is administered as a polymer-bound drug. Consequently, the safety profile may differ significantly from standard paclitaxel.

Phase I study of paclitaxel given by seven-week continuous infusion concurrent with radiation therapy for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck

PURPOSE

Paclitaxel is one of the most active agents for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) and an in vitro radiosensitizer. The dose-response relationship for paclitaxel may depend more on exposure duration than on peak concentration. This National Cancer Institute-sponsored phase I trial was designed to determine the feasibility of combining continuous-infusion (CI) paclitaxel with concurrent radiation therapy (RT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with previously untreated stage IVA/B SCCHN were eligible. Primary end points were determination of the maximum-tolerated dose, dose-limiting toxicity, and pharmacokinetics for paclitaxel given by CI (24 hours a day, 7 days a week for 7 weeks) during RT (70 Gy/7 weeks).

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients were enrolled and assessable for toxicity. Nineteen of the patients who completed > or = 70 Gy were assessable for response. Grade 3 skin and mucosal acute reactions occurred at 10.5 mg/m(2)/d, but uninterrupted treatment was possible in five of six patients. At 17 mg/m(2)/d, skin toxicity required a 2-week treatment break for all three patients. The mean paclitaxel serum concentration at dose levels > or = 6.5 mg/m(2)/d exceeded that reported to achieve in vitro radiosensitization. Initial locoregional control was achieved in 14 (58%) of 24 of patients treated to 70 Gy, and control persisted in nine (38%).

CONCLUSION

CI paclitaxel with concurrent RT is a feasible and tolerable regimen for patients with advanced SCCHN and good performance status. Preliminary response and survival data are encouraging and suggest that further study is indicated. The recommended phase II dose of paclitaxel by CI is 10.5 mg/m(2)/d with RT for SCCHN.

Phase I study of infusional paclitaxel in combination with the P-glycoprotein antagonist PSC 833

PURPOSE

PSC 833 (valspodar) is a second-generation P-glycoprotein (Pgp) antagonist developed to reverse multidrug resistance. We conducted a phase I study of a 7-day oral administration of PSC 833 in combination with paclitaxel, administered as a 96-hour continuous infusion.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifty patients with advanced cancer were enrolled onto the trial. PSC 833 was administered orally for 7 days, beginning 72 hours before the start of the paclitaxel infusion. Paclitaxel dose reductions were planned because of the pharmacokinetic interactions known to occur with PSC 833.

RESULTS

In combination with PSC 833, maximum-tolerated doses were defined as paclitaxel 13.1 mg/m(2)/d continuous intravenous infusion (CIVI) for 4 days without filgrastim, and paclitaxel 17.5 mg/m(2)/d CIVI for 4 days with filgrastim support. Dose-limiting toxicity for the combination was neutropenia. Statistical analysis of cohorts revealed similar mean steady-state concentrations (C(pss)) and areas under the concentration-versus-time curve (AUCs) when patients received paclitaxel doses of 13.1 or 17.5 mg/m(2)/d for 4 days with PSC 833, as when they received a paclitaxel dose of 35 mg/m(2)/d for 4 days without PSC 833. However, the effect of PSC 833 on paclitaxel pharmacokinetics varied greatly among individual patients, although a surrogate assay using CD56+ cells suggested inhibition of Pgp was complete or nearly complete at low concentrations of PSC 833. Responses occurred in three of four patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, and clinical benefit occurred in five of 10 patients with ovarian carcinoma.

CONCLUSION

PSC 833 in combination with paclitaxel can be administered safely to patients provided the paclitaxel dose is reduced to compensate for the pharmacokinetic interaction. Surrogate studies with CD56+ cells indicate that the maximum-tolerated dose for PSC 833 gives serum levels much higher than those required to block Pgp. The variability in paclitaxel pharmacokinetics, despite complete inhibition of Pgp in the surrogate assay, suggests that other mechanisms, most likely related to P450, contribute to the pharmacokinetic interaction. Future development of combinations such as this should include strategies to predict pharmacokinetics of the chemotherapeutic agent. This in turn will facilitate dosing to achieve comparable CPss and AUCs.

Co-administration of GF120918 significantly increases the systemic exposure to oral paclitaxel in cancer patients

Oral bioavailability of paclitaxel is very low, which is due to efficient transport of the drug by the intestinal drug efflux pump P-glycoprotein (P-gp). We have recently demonstrated that the oral bioavailability of paclitaxel can be increased at least 7-fold by co-administration of the P-gp blocker cyclosporin A (CsA). Now we tested the potent alternative orally applicable non-immunosuppressive P-gp blocker GF120918. Six patients received one course of oral paclitaxel of 120 mg/m(2)in combination with 1000 mg oral GF120918 (GG918, GW0918). Patients received intravenous (i.v.) paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2)as a 3-hour infusion during subsequent courses. The mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of paclitaxel after oral drug administration in combination with GF120918 was 3.27 +/- 1.67 microM x h. In our previously performed study of 120 mg/m(2)oral paclitaxel in combination with CsA the mean AUC of paclitaxel was 2.55 +/- 2.29 microM x h. After i.v. administration of paclitaxel the mean AUC was 15.92( )+/- 2.46 microM x h. The oral combination of paclitaxel with GF120918 was well tolerated. The increase in systemic exposure to paclitaxel in combination with GF120918 is of the same magnitude as in combination with CsA. GF120918 is a good and safe alternative for CsA and may enable chronic oral therapy with paclitaxel.

The relevance of drug sequence in combination chemotherapy

The concept of combining chemotherapeutic agents to increase the cytotoxic efficacy has evolved greatly over the past several years. In the past, the rationale for combination chemotherapy centered on attacking different biochemical targets, overcoming drug resistance in heterogenous tumors, and increasing the dose-density of combination chemotherapy to take advantage of tumor growth kinetics. The overall goal was to improve clinical efficacy with acceptable clinical toxicity. It is now apparent that the sequence of drug administration can significantly enhance the therapeutic effect of chemotherapy. These sequence-dependent effects can be explained by chemotherapy-induced cell cycle perturbations, or by pharmacodynamic interactions between the agents in combination. In this review, we focus on drug combinations with taxanes and camptothecins, which we believe best illustrate the importance of the cell cycle and pharmacologic interactions in the sequential administration of chemotherapy. As our understanding of the cell cycle grows, our ability to appropriately sequence chemotherapy can have a great impact on the treatment of human cancers. Copyright 2000 Harcourt Publishers Ltd.

Modulation of oral bioavailability of anticancer drugs: from mouse to man

Oral bioavailability of many anticancer drugs is poor and highly variable. This is a major impediment to the development of new generation drugs in oncology, particularly those requiring a chronic treatment schedule, a.o. the farnesyltransferase inhibitors. Limited bioavailability is mainly due to: (1) cytochrome P450 (CYP) activity in gut wall and liver, and (2) drug transporters, such as P-gp in gut wall and liver. Shared substrate drugs are affected by the combined activity of these systems. Available preclinical in vitro and in vivo models are in many cases only poorly predictive for oral drug uptake in patients because of a.o. interspecies differences in CYP drug metabolism and intestinal drug-transporting systems. Clearly, novel systems that allow reliable translation of preclinical results to the clinic are strongly needed. Our previous work, also using P-gp knockout (KO) mice, already showed that P-gp has a major effect on the oral bioavailability of several drugs and that blockers of P-gp can drastically improve oral bioavailability of paclitaxel and other drugs in mice and humans (Schinkel et al., Cell 77 (1994) 491; Sparreboom et al., Proc. Natl. Acad, Sci. USA 94 (1997) 2031; Meerum Terwogt et al. Lancet 352 (1998) 285). This work revealed, however, that apart from P-gp other drug-transporting systems and CYP effects also determine overall oral drug uptake. The taxanes paclitaxel and docetaxel are considered excellent substrate drugs to test the concept that by inhibition of P-gp in the gut wall and CYP activity in gut wall and/or liver low oral bioavailability can be increased substantially. In current studies we focus on the development of chronic oral treatment schedules with these drugs and on other drug transport systems that may play a significant role in regulation of oral bioavailability of other classes of (anti-cancer) drugs. The current review paper describes the background and summarizes our recent results of modulation of oral bioavailability of poorly available drugs, focused on drug transport systems and CYP in gut wall and liver.

Pharmacokinetically guided administration of chemotherapeutic agents

The current practice for the dose calculation of most anticancer agents is based on body surface area in m2, although lower interpatient variation in pharmacokinetic parameters has been reported with pharmacokinetically guided administration. As chemotherapeutic agents have a narrow therapeutic window, pharmacokinetically guided administration may lead to less toxicity and higher efficacy than administration on the basis of body surface area. Pharmacokinetically guided administration, using parameters such as area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC), steady-state plasma drug concentration and drug exposure time above a certain plasma concentration, has been studied for many antineoplastic agents. Assessment of pharmacokinetic profiles allows the characterisation of relationships between pharmacokinetic parameters and efficacy and toxicity. AUC appears to be more closely correlated with pharmacodynamics than does the dose per unit of body surface area. In particular, the AUC-guided administration of carboplatin has been extensively studied, based on the close relationship between the renal clearance of the drug and glomerular filtration rate. Several formulae and limited sampling models have been derived to predict the AUC of carboplatin. The relationship between AUC and pharmacodynamics has also been studied for other anticancer agents, for example fluorouracil, topotecan, etoposide, cisplatin and busulfan, but all less extensively than for carboplatin. The pharmacokinetically guided administration of these agents needs to be investigated further before the use of alternative administration formulae can become standard clinical practice. Prospective studies of pharmacokinetically guided versus surface area-based administration should be performed to validate pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships and to facilitate optimal dosage of anticancer agents in the clinic.

Phase I dose-finding and pharmacokinetic study of paclitaxel and carboplatin with oral valspodar in patients with advanced solid tumors

PURPOSE

To evaluate the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), and pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of paclitaxel and carboplatin when administered every 3 weeks with the oral semisynthetic cyclosporine analog valspodar (PSC 833), an inhibitor of P-glycoprotein function.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifty-eight patients were treated with escalating doses of paclitaxel ranging from 54 to 94.5 mg/m(2) and carboplatin area under the plasma concentration versus time curve (AUC) ranging from 6 to 9 mg.min/mL, every 21 days. The dose of valspodar was fixed at 5 mg/kg every 6 hours for a total of 12 doses from day 0 to day 3. The MTD was determined for the following two groups: (1) previously treated patients, where paclitaxel and carboplatin doses were escalated; and (2) chemotherapy-naïve patients, where paclitaxel dose was escalated and carboplatin AUC was fixed at 6 mg.min/mL. PK studies of paclitaxel and carboplatin were performed on day 1 of course 1.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients were treated with 186 courses of paclitaxel, carboplatin, and valspodar. Neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and hepatic transaminase elevations were DLTs. In previously treated patients, no DLTs occurred at the first dose level (paclitaxel 54 mg/m(2) and carboplatin AUC 6 mg.min/mL). However, one of 12, two of six, two of four, four of 11, and two of five patients experienced DLTs at doses of paclitaxel (mg/m(2))/carboplatin AUC (mg.min/mL) of 67.5/6, 81/6, 94.5/6, 67. 5/7.5, and 67.5/9, respectively. In chemotherapy-naïve patients, one of 17 developed DLT at paclitaxel 81 mg/m(2) and carboplatin AUC 6 mg/mL.min. There was prolongation of the terminal phase of paclitaxel elimination as evidenced by an increased time that plasma paclitaxel concentration was >/= 0.05 micromol/L, ranging from 16.6 +/- 6.7 hours to 41.5 +/- 9.8 hours for paclitaxel doses of 54.5 mg/m(2) to 94.5 mg/m(2), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The recommended phase II dose in chemotherapy-naïve patients is paclitaxel 81 mg/m(2), carboplatin AUC 6 mg.min/mL, and valspodar 5 mg/kg every 6 hours. In previously treated patients, the recommended phase II dose is paclitaxel 67.5 mg/m(2), carboplatin AUC 6 mg.min/mL, and valspodar 5 mg/kg every 6 hours. The acceptable toxicity profile supports the rationale for performing disease-directed evaluations of paclitaxel, carboplatin and valspodar on the schedule evaluated in this study.

Cremophor EL pharmacokinetics in a phase I study of paclitaxel (Taxol) and carboplatin in non-small cell lung cancer patients

The purpose of our study was to investigate the pharmacokinetics of Cremophor EL following administration of escalating doses of Taxol (paclitaxel dissolved in Cremophor EL/ethanol) to non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Patients with NSCLC stage IIIb or IV without prior chemotherapy treatment were eligible for treatment with paclitaxel and carboplatin in a dose-finding phase I study. The starting dose of paclitaxel was 100 mg/m2 and doses were escalated with steps of 25 mg/m2, which is equal to a starting dose of Cremophor EL of 8.3 ml/m2 with dose increments of 2.1 ml/m2. Carboplatin dosages were 300, 350 or 400 mg/m2. Pharmacokinetic sampling was performed during the first and the second course, and the samples were analyzed using a validated high-performance liquid chromatographic assay. A total of 39 patients were included in this pharmacokinetic part of the study. The doses of paclitaxel were escalated up to 250 mg/m2 (20.8 ml/m2 Cremophor EL). Pharmacokinetic analyses revealed a low elimination-rate of Cremophor EL (CI=37.8-134 ml/h/m2; t 1/2=34.4-61.5 h) and a volume of distribution similar to the volume of the central blood compartment (Vss=4.96-7.85 l). In addition, a dose-independent clearance of Cremophor EL was found indicating linear kinetics. Dose adjustment using the body surface area, however, resulted in a non-linear increase in systemic exposure. The use of body surface area in calculations of Cremophor EL should therefore be re-evaluated.

Phase III comparative study of high-dose cisplatin versus a combination of paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

New effective chemotherapy is needed to improve the outcome of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Paclitaxel administered as a single agent or in combination with cisplatin has been shown to be a potentially new useful agent for the treatment of NSCLC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 1995 and April 1996, 414 patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomized to received either a control arm of high-dose cisplatin (100 mg/m(2)) or a combination of paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2), 3-hour infusion) and cisplatin (80 mg/m(2)) every 21 days.

RESULTS

Compared with the cisplatin-only arm, there was a 9% improvement (95% confidence interval, 0% to 19%) in overall response rate for the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm (17% v 26%, respectively; P=.028). Median time to progression was 2.7 and 4.1 months in the control and paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, respectively (P=.026). The study, however, failed to show a significant improvement in median survival for the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm (8.6 months in the control arm v 8.1 months in the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, P=.862). There was more hematotoxicity, peripheral neuropathy, and arthralgia/myalgia on the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, whereas the high-dose cisplatin arm produced more ototoxicity, nausea, vomiting, and nephrotoxicity. Quality of life (QOL) was similar overall between the two arms.

CONCLUSION

This large randomized phase III trial failed to show a significant improvement in survival for the paclitaxel/cisplatin combination compared with high-dose cisplatin in patients with advanced NSCLC. However, the paclitaxel/cisplatin combination did produce a better clinical response, resulting in an increased time to progression while providing a similar QOL.

Paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) plus carboplatin (6 AUC) versus paclitaxel (225 mg/m2) plus carboplatin (6 AUC) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a multicenter randomized trial. Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group (HeCOG)

PURPOSE

The combination of paclitaxel and carboplatin has become a widely used regimen in NSCLC due to phase II reports of moderate toxicity, reasonable activity and easy outpatient administration. Purpose of our present prospective study was to evaluate the dose response relationship of paclitaxel.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Since July 1996, 198 patients with non-operable NSCLC and measurable disease without previous chemotherapy entered the trial. Ninety nine patients (group A) were randomized to receive paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 in three-hour infusion plus carboplatin dosed to an area under the concentration-time curve of 6 every 3 weeks and 99 (group B) to receive the same regimen with paclitaxel increased to 225 mg/m2. Eligibility criteria included WHO performance status 0-2, documented inoperable stage IIIA and IIIB, IV, no brain metastasis, no prior chemotherapy and adequate renal and hepatic function. Patients in both groups were well-matched with baseline disease characteristics.

RESULTS

In group A with 90 evaluable patients, the response rate was 25.6% (6 CR, 17 PR) whereas in group B with 88 evaluable patients, the response rate was 31.8% (3 CR, 25 PR), P = 0.733. Median time to progression favored the high-dose paclitaxel (4.3 vs. 6.4 months, P = 0.044). The median survival was 9.5 months for group A versus 11.4 months for group B (P = 0.16). The one-year survival was 37% for group A and 44% for group B (P = 0.35). The best prognostic factor for one-year survival was the response rate (P < 0.0001). With a relative dose intensity of paclitaxel 0.94 in both groups, neurotoxicity (P = 0.025) and leucopenia (P = 0.038) were more pronounced in group B patients. No toxic death was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher dose paclitaxel prolongs the median time to progression but causes more neurotoxicity and leucopenia. The better response rate, the longer overall and better one-year survival seen with the higher dose of paclitaxel are not statistically significant.

Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of oral paclitaxel

PURPOSE

To investigate dose escalation of oral paclitaxel in combination with dose increment and scheduling of cyclosporine (CsA) to improve the systemic exposure to paclitaxel and to explore the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 53 patients received, on one occasion, oral paclitaxel in combination with CsA, coadministered to enhance the absorption of paclitaxel, and, on another occasion, intravenous paclitaxel at a dose of 175 mg/m(2) as a 3-hour infusion.

RESULTS

The main toxicities observed after oral intake of paclitaxel were acute nausea and vomiting, which reached DLT at the dose level of 360 mg/m(2). Dose escalation of oral paclitaxel from 60 to 300 mg/m(2) resulted in significant but less than proportional increases in the plasma area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) of paclitaxel. The mean AUC values +/- SD after 60, 180, and 300 mg/m(2) of oral paclitaxel were 1.65 +/- 0.93, 3.33 +/- 2.39, and 3.46 +/- 1.37 micromol/L.h, respectively. Dose increment and scheduling of CsA did not result in a further increase in the AUC of paclitaxel. The AUC of intravenous paclitaxel was 15.39 +/- 3.26 micromol/L.h.

CONCLUSION

The MTD of oral paclitaxel was 300 mg/m(2). However, because the pharmacokinetic data of oral paclitaxel, in particular at the highest doses applied, revealed nonlinear pharmacokinetics with only a moderate further increase of the AUC with doses up to 300 mg/m(2), the oral paclitaxel dose of 180 mg/m(2) in combination with 15 mg/kg oral CsA is considered most appropriate for further investigation. The safety of the oral combination at this dose level was good.

Comparison of survival and quality of life in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with two dose levels of paclitaxel combined with cisplatin versus etoposide with cisplatin: results of an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trial

PURPOSE

Treatment with cisplatin-based chemotherapy provides a modest survival advantage over supportive care alone in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To determine whether a new agent, paclitaxel, would further improve survival in NSCLC, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group conducted a randomized trial comparing paclitaxel plus cisplatin to a standard chemotherapy regimen consisting of cisplatin and etoposide.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study was carried out by a multi-institutional cooperative group in chemotherapy-naive stage IIIB to IV NSCLC patients randomized to receive paclitaxel plus cisplatin or etoposide plus cisplatin. Paclitaxel was administered at two different dose levels (135 mg/m(2) and 250 mg/m(2)), and etoposide was given at a dose of 100 mg/m(2) daily on days 1 to 3. Each regimen was repeated every 21 days and each included cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)).

RESULTS

The characteristics of the 599 patients were well-balanced across the three treatment groups. Superior survival was observed with the combined paclitaxel regimens (median survival time, 9.9 months; 1-year survival rate, 38.9%) compared with etoposide plus cisplatin (median survival time, 7.6 months; 1-year survival rate, 31.8%; P =. 048). Comparing survival for the two dose levels of paclitaxel revealed no significant difference. The median survival duration for the stage IIIB subgroup was 7.9 months for etoposide plus cisplatin patients versus 13.1 months for all paclitaxel patients (P =.152). For the stage IV subgroup, the median survival time for etoposide plus cisplatin was 7.6 months compared with 8.9 months for paclitaxel (P =.246). With the exceptions of increased granulocytopenia on the low-dose paclitaxel regimen and increased myalgias, neurotoxicity, and, possibly, increased treatment-related cardiac events with high-dose paclitaxel, toxicity was similar across all three arms. Quality of life (QOL) declined significantly over the 6 months. However, QOL scores were not significantly different among the regimens.

CONCLUSION

As a result of these observations, paclitaxel (135 mg/m(2)) combined with cisplatin has replaced etoposide plus cisplatin as the reference regimen in our recently completed phase III trial.

Cremophor EL causes (pseudo-) non-linear pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel in patients

The non-linear plasma pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel in patients has been well established, however, the exact underlying mechanism remains to be elucidated. We have previously shown that the non-linear plasma pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel in mice results from Cremophor EL. To investigate whether Cremophor EL also plays a role in the non-linear pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel in patients, we have established its pharmacokinetics in patients receiving paclitaxel by 3-, 24- or 96-h intravenous infusion. The pharmacokinetics of Cremophor EL itself was non-linear as the clearance (Cl) in the 3-h schedules was significantly lower than when using the longer 24- or 96-h infusions (Cl175-3 h = 42.8+/-24.9 ml h(-1) m(-2); CI175-24 h = 79.7+/-24.3; P = 0.035 and Cl135-3 h = 44.1+/-21.8 ml h(-1) m(-1); Cl140-96 h = 211.8+/-32.0; P < 0.001). Consequently, the maximum plasma levels were much higher (0.62%) in the 3-h infusions than when using longer infusion durations. By using an in vitro equilibrium assay and determination in plasma ultrafiltrate we have established that the fraction of unbound paclitaxel in plasma is inversely related with the Cremophor EL level. Despite its relatively low molecular weight, no Cremophor EL was found in the ultrafiltrate fraction. Our results strongly suggest that entrapment of paclitaxel in plasma by Cremophor EL, probably by inclusion in micelles, is the cause of the apparent nonlinear plasma pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel. This mechanism of a (pseudo-)non-linearity contrasts previous postulations about saturable distribution and elimination kinetics and means that we must re-evaluate previous assumptions on pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics relationships.

Gemcitabine and paclitaxel: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

To assess possible pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between gemcitabine and paclitaxel in a phase I/II study in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eighteen patients with advanced NSCLC received the following in a 3-week schedule: gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) (30 minutes, days 1 and 8) and paclitaxel 150 (n = 9) or 200 mg/m(2) (n = 9) before gemcitabine (3 hours, day 1). Plasma pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in mononuclear cells were studied.

RESULTS

Gemcitabine did not influence paclitaxel pharmacokinetics at 150 and 200 mg/m(2) (area under the concentration-time curve [AUC], 7.7 and 8.8 micromol/ L. h, respectively; maximum plasma concentration [C(max)], 3.2 and 4.0 micromol/L, respectively), and paclitaxel did not influence that of gemcitabine (C(max), 30 +/- 3 micromol/L) and 2',2'-difluorodeoxyuridine. Paclitaxel, however, dose-dependently increased the C(max) of gemcitabine triphosphate (dFdCTP), the active metabolite of gemcitabine, from 55 +/- 10 to 106 +/- 16 pmol/10(6) cells.( )No significant difference in the AUC of dFdCTP was observed. Moreover, the gemcitabine-paclitaxel combination significantly increased ribonucleotide levels, most pronounced for adenosine triphosphate (six- to seven-fold). Postinfusion paclitaxel AUC was related to pretreatment hepatic function (bilirubin: r = 0. 79; P <.001) and to the percentage decrease in platelets (r = 0.61; P =.009). The latter was also related to the duration of paclitaxel concentration above 0.1 micromol/L (r = 0.62; P =.007). Gemcitabine C(max )was related to the percentage decrease in platelets (r = 0. 58; P =.01), pretreatment hepatic function (bilirubin: r = 0.77; P <. 001), and to plasma creatinine (r = 0.5; P =.03). The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics were not related to response or survival.

CONCLUSION

Gemcitabine and paclitaxel pharmacokinetics were related to the percentage decrease in platelets. Paclitaxel did not affect the pharmacokinetics of gemcitabine, nor did gemcitabine affect the pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel, but paclitaxel increased dFdCTP accumulation. This might enhance the antitumor activity of gemcitabine.

Phase I and pharmacologic study of the combination of paclitaxel, cisplatin, and topotecan administered intravenously every 21 days as first-line therapy in patients with advanced ovarian cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate the feasibility of administering topotecan in combination with paclitaxel and cisplatin without and with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support as first-line chemotherapy in women with incompletely resected stage III and stage IV ovarian carcinoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Starting doses were paclitaxel 110 mg/m2 administered over 24 hours (day 1), followed by cisplatin 50 mg/m2 over 3 hours (day 2) and topotecan 0.3 mg/m2/d over 30 minutes for 5 consecutive days (days 2 to 6). Treatment was repeated every 3 weeks. After encountering dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) without G-CSF support, the maximum-tolerated dose was defined as 5 microg/kg of G-CSF subcutaneously starting on day 6.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients received a total of 116 courses at four different dose levels. The DLT was neutropenia. At the first dose level, all six patients experienced grade 4 myelosuppression. G-CSF support permitted further dose escalation of cisplatin and topotecan. Nonhematologic toxicities, primarily fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and neurosensory neuropathy, were observed but were generally mild. Of 15 patients assessable for response, nine had a complete response, four achieved a partial response, and two had stable disease.

CONCLUSION

Neutropenia was the DLT of this combination of paclitaxel, cisplatin, and topotecan. The recommended phase II dose is paclitaxel 110 mg/m2 (day 1), followed by cisplatin 75 mg/m2 (day 2) and topotecan 0.3 mg/m2/d (days 2 to 6) with G-CSF support repeated every 3 weeks.

Phase I trial, including pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic correlations, of combination paclitaxel and carboplatin in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

To determine the maximum-tolerated dose of paclitaxel with carboplatin with and without filgrastim support in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and to investigate the pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel and carboplatin and correlate these with the pharmacodynamic effects.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty-six chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic NSCLC were entered into this phase I dose-escalation and pharmacokinetic study. Paclitaxel was initially administered as a 24-hour infusion at a fixed dose of 135 mg/m2, and the carboplatin dose was escalated in cohorts of three patients, using Calvert's formula [dose(mg) = area under the concentration time curve (glomerular filtration rate + 25)], to target areas under the concentration time curve (AUCs) of 5, 7, 9, and 11 mg/mL x minute. A measured 24-hour urinary creatinine clearance was substituted for the glomerular filtration rate. Once the maximum-tolerated AUC (MTAUC) of carboplatin was reached, the paclitaxel dose was escalated to 175, 200, and 225 mg/m2. When the paclitaxel dose escalation began, the AUC of carboplatin was reduced to one level below the MTAUC.

RESULTS

Myelosuppression was the major dose-limiting toxicity. Thrombocytopenia was observed at a carboplatin AUC of 11 mg/mL x minute after course 2 and thereafter. End-of-infusion plasma paclitaxel concentrations and median duration of time above 0.05 microM were similar in course 1 versus course 2 at the 135 and 175 mg/m2 dose levels. The neutropenia experienced by patients was consistent with that observed in patients who had received paclitaxel alone. Measured carboplatin AUCs were approximately 12% (20% v 3% with course 1 v course 2, respectively) below the desired target, with a standard deviation of 34% at all dose levels. A sigmoid-maximum effect model describing the relationship between relative thrombocytopenia and measured free platinum exposure indicated that patients who received the combination of carboplatin with paclitaxel experienced less severe thrombocytopenia than would be expected from carboplatin alone. Of the 36 patients entered onto the study, one experienced a complete response and 17 had partial responses, for an overall response rate of 50%. The recommended doses of paclitaxel (24-hour infusion) and carboplatin for future phase II studies of this combination are (1) paclitaxel 135 mg/m2 with a carboplatin dose targeted to achieve an AUC of 7 mg/mL x minute without filgrastim support; (2) paclitaxel 135 mg/m2 with a carboplatin dose targeted to achieve an AUC of 9 mg/mL x minute with filgrastim support; and (3) paclitaxel 225 mg/m2 with a carboplatin dose targeted to achieve an AUC of 7 mg/mL x minute with filgrastim support.

CONCLUSION

The regimen of paclitaxel and carboplatin is well-tolerated and has promising activity in the treatment of NSCLC. There is no pharmacokinetic interaction between paclitaxel and carboplatin, but there is a pharmacodynamic, platelet-sparing effect on this dose-limiting toxicity of carboplatin.

Induction of cytochrome P4503A by taxol in primary cultures of human hepatocytes

In primary cultures of human hepatocytes, paclitaxel (Taxol), at pharmacological concentrations, was demonstrated to induce immunoreactive cytochrome P4503A (CYP3A). The magnitude of the inductive response of the hepatocytes to Taxol varied in five separate cultures. In general, exposure to increasing concentrations of Taxol (0.2 to 10 microM) resulted in increases in immunoreactive CYP3A. In four of the cultures, treatment of hepatocytes with the lowest concentration of Taxol tested (0.2 microM) resulted in approximately two-fold increases in CYP3A. In the other culture, however, a six-fold increase in CYP3A was observed at 0.2 microM. Taxol was almost as effective as rifampicin in inducing CYP3A in two of the cultures, but less effective than rifampicin in two other cultures. CYP3A4 mRNA was increased by Taxol. Increases in CYP3A4 mRNA correlated with increases in the levels of immunoreactive CYP3A. These results demonstrate that Taxol is a potent inducer of CYP3A in human hepatocytes. The clinical significance of these findings is discussed.

Influence of Cremophor EL on the quantification of paclitaxel in plasma using high-performance liquid chromatography with solid-phase extraction as sample pretreatment

For the quantitative determination of paclitaxel in human plasma reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatographic (HPLC) methods with solid-phase extraction (SPE) as sample pretreatment procedure are frequently used. Recovery problems arose during the quantification of paclitaxel in plasma samples of patients. The major problems were a large batch-to-batch difference in performance of the SPE columns and the effects of the pharmaceutical vehicle Cremophor EL on the performance of the SPE. Cremophor EL concentrations exceeding 1.0% (v/v) had a great impact on the absolute recovery of paclitaxel from human plasma with the SPE procedure. The recoveries decreased approximately 10 to 40% depending on the quality of the batch SPE columns. The problems are avoided by using 2'-methylpaclitaxel as the internal standard. This study points out the importance of including the effects of a pharmaceutical vehicle, like Cremophor EL, in the validation programme of a bioanalytical assay and the use of an internal standard in HPLC paclitaxel assays preceded by SPE as sample pretreatment procedure.

Differential modulation of cisplatin accumulation in leukocytes and tumor cell lines by the paclitaxel vehicle Cremophor EL

BACKGROUND

Several clinical studies have shown that polychemotherapy with the taxanes paclitaxel or docetaxel preceded or followed by cisplatin is associated with important schedule-dependent differences in toxicities, such as leukocytopenia. In general, the pharmacokinetics of both drugs during the combined treatment are unaltered, suggesting that a pharmacodynamic interaction might have occurred.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In order to gain insight into this pharmacologic interaction, we performed in vitro drug accumulation studies using peripheral blood leukocytes and a panel of tumor and non-malignant cell lines with paclitaxel and docetaxel, as well as with their respective formulation vehicles Cremophor EL and Tween 80.

RESULTS

Our results show a significant reduction in the intracellular cisplatin concentration in leukocytes of up to 42% in the presence of Cremophor EL and Tween 80 as compared to the control. This pharmacodynamic interaction of these surfactants with cisplatin seems to be specific for haematopoietic cells, and does not occur in solid tumor cells.

CONCLUSION

The present data suggest that the pharmaceutical vehicles Cremophor EL and Tween 80 might contribute to the reduced cisplatin-associated myelotoxicity observed in the clinical combination chemotherapy studies with paclitaxel and docetaxel.

Phase I study of paclitaxel on a 3-hour schedule followed by carboplatin in untreated patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer

This study sought to determine the principal toxicities and feasibility of administering paclitaxel as a 3-hour infusion followed by carboplatin without and with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IV non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), and to recommend doses for subsequent clinical trials. Twenty-three patients were treated with paclitaxel at doses ranging from 175 to 225 mg/m2 followed by carboplatin targeting area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) 7 or 9 mg/mL.min every 3 weeks. AUCs were targeted using the Calvert formula with estimated creatinine clearance as a surrogate for the glomerular filtration rate. A high rate of intolerable, mutually exclusive toxicities, consisting primarily of thrombocytopenia, as well as neutropenia, nausea and vomiting, and mucositis, precluded escalation of carboplatin above a targeted AUC of 7 mg/mL.min with paclitaxel 225 mg/m2, which approaches the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of paclitaxel given as a single agent on a 3-hour schedule. Moderate to severe peripheral neurotoxicity occurred in several patients after multiple courses. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the principal toxicities and the ability to administer clinically-relevant doses of both agents in combination without G-CSF, further dose escalation using G-CSF was not performed. Nine of 23 (39%) total patients and 43% of 21 assessable patients had partial responses (PR). The recommended doses for subsequent clinical trials are paclitaxel 225 mg/m2 as a 3-hour infusion followed by carboplatin at a targeted AUC of 7 mg/mL.min. The ability to administer clinically-relevant single agent doses of paclitaxel and carboplatin in combination, as well as the significant antitumor activity noted in this phase I trial, indicate that further evaluations of this regimen in both advanced and early stage NSCLC are warranted.