A Phase I study of 9-nitrocamptothecin given concurrently with capecitabine in patients with refractory, metastatic solid tumors

Rubitecan: 9-NC, 9-Nitro-20(S)-camptothecin, 9-nitro-camptothecin, 9-nitrocamptothecin, RFS 2000, RFS2000

Rubitecan [Orathecin, 9-nitrocamptothecin, 9NC, RFS 2000] is a topoisomerase I inhibitor extracted from the bark and leaves of the Camptotheca acuminata tree, which is native to China. Rubitecan is an oral compound being developed for the treatment of pancreatic cancer and other solid tumours by SuperGen. One of the major benefits of rubitecan is that it can be administered in an outpatient setting, so patients can be treated in their homes. Rubitecan was isolated by the Stehlin Foundation in the US. SuperGen is currently awaiting regulatory approval in the US and the EU for rubitecan in the treatment of pancreatic cancer. At the BIO-2004 conference, SuperGen announced it is seeking a partner for rubitecan for territories outside the US. SuperGen acquired exclusive worldwide rights to rubitecan from the Stehlin Foundation in 1997 except in Mexico, Canada, Spain, Japan, the UK, France, Italy and Germany. SuperGen has also received approval from the US FDA to use its own manufactured rubitecan in clinical trials. SuperGen and the Stehlin Foundation have an 8-year research agreement that secures global rights to other camptothecins and additional anticancer compounds for the former. In December 1999, SuperGen and Abbott signed a worldwide sales and marketing agreement for rubitecan. Under the terms of the agreement, Abbott had exclusive distribution and promotion rights for rubitecan outside the US, and co-promotion rights with SuperGen within the US. In return, Abbott made an initial equity investment in SuperGen. SuperGen and Abbott Laboratories ended their collaboration agreement in February 2002 by mutual consent with SuperGen stating that the dissolution of the agreement was based on commercial motivation rather than anything to do with rubitecan's safety or efficacy. Abbott no longer has rights or obligations to purchase shares of SuperGen stock or an option to purchase up to 49% of the company. For its part, SuperGen will no longer receive milestone payments worth up to $US57 million. SuperGen has formed a clinical and business alliance with US Oncology (created by the merger between American Oncology Resources and Physician Reliance Network in the US), and will collaborate on clinical trials of rubitecan. SuperGen believes that this relationship will increase the patient population available for trials and enable it to market the drug directly to Oncologists. SuperGen and Capital Research and Management Company have completed a $US16.6 million private placement transaction that will enable future funding for the rubitecan programme as well as other oncology programmes. In July 2004, SuperGen's European subsidiary, EuroGen Pharmaceuticals, submitted a Marketing Authorisation Application for rubitecan in the treatment of pancreatic cancer. The application will be reviewed under the EMEA Centralised Procedure. In June 2003, the EMEA granted SuperGen orphan drug status for rubitecan for the treatment of pancreatic cancer. The US FDA has also granted orphan drug status for rubitecan in the treatment of pancreatic cancer and fast-track status for rubitecan for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer that is resistant or refractory to chemotherapy. SuperGen has conducted three phase III pivotal trials in patients with pancreatic cancer. A phase III randomised trial in chemotherapy-naive patients was conducted at 132 centres throughout the US. The trial enrolled approximately 994 patients who were randomised to receive rubitecan or gemcitabine. Enrollment was completed in October 2001. Another phase III trial has compared rubitecan with the most appropriate chemotherapy in chemotherapy-resistant patients. Enrollment of over 400 patients at 200 medical centres across the US was completed in June 2001. Results from the trial were presented at the 39th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO-2003) [Chicago, US; 31 May - 3 June 2003], after they had been compiled, analysed and submitted to the FDA. The results of the study showed that rubitecan could not help all chemotherapy-resistant patients, but could increase survival in those that do respond. The other phase III pivotal trial was conducted in patients with pancreatic cancer who had failed treatment with gemcitabine. This trial completed enrollment in October 2001, and had enrolled approximately 448 patients. SuperGen is conducting phase II trials of rubitecan in patients with solid tumours in the UK, Italy, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark. Each trial will enroll 100-150 patients with various tumour types, including colorectal, lung, breast, gastric, prostate, cervical and head and neck cancers. Phase I/II trials are underway to investigate rubitecan as a radiosensitiser in patients with lung cancer, and phase II trials in patients with breast cancer are also being conducted. A phase II study in ovarian cancer patients is also being conducted. Results from an ongoing phase II study in cancer patients have shown that rubitecan was effective against chordomas, a rare type of bone cancer. Phase II studies are also underway in haematological malignancies including myelodysplastic syndrome (preleukaemia) and chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia. In February 2000, SuperGen announced that its IND submission for rubitecan had been approved by the Therapeutics Products Programme of Canada. The company stated that it intended to begin clinical trials in Canada in the near future. In February 2004, SuperGen announced an offering of shares of its common stock to finance the commercialisation of rubitecan capsules. In July 2003, SuperGen was granted a US patent covering combination therapies with chemotherapeutic anthracycline agents and structural modifications that may one day lead to next-generation rubitecan compounds. In December 2002, SuperGen was granted US patent No. 6,482,830, covering its polymorphic formulations of rubitecan. The patent also covers a class of polymorphs that are similar to the one at the centre of rubitecan. In addition, SuperGen was also issued US patent No. 6,485,514 in December 2002, covering the local delivery of rubitecan via stents and/or catheters to sites of proliferating cells. Stent- or catheter-delivered rubitecan may be beneficial in certain types of cardiac procedures, such as ablation or angioplasty, as well as for direct injection into a certain number of solid tumours. SuperGen is also developing an inhaled, liposomal formulation of rubitecan. It acquired the worldwide rights to this formulation from the Clayton Foundation in December 1999. Inhaled rubitecan is in clinical trials in the US for the treatment of lung cancer and pulmonary metastatic cancer.

Phase II study of rubitecan in recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer

PURPOSE

Rubitecan is an oral camptothecin analogue that has shown activity against a broad spectrum of human tumor xenografts and has been tested in several diseases.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In the present study, 19 patients with incurable, recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer were treated with rubitecan at the initial dose of 1.5 mg/m(2) x 5 days per week. An appropriate dose modification program was set up according to the observed toxicities.

RESULTS

Thirteen out of the 19 treated patients were formally evaluable for tumor response. Ten patients had a disease progression and three patients had a stabilization of disease as their best response. The mean duration of stable disease was 141 days. Median survival was 16 weeks (range 2-22 weeks). Three patients died during the study or less than a month after their last dose of study medication. Hematologic toxicity was serious in this study since four patients discontinued their participation because of severe anemia. The drug was also associated with grade 1-4 neutropenia, and with 1-3 thrombocytopenia.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that rubitecan is not effective as a single-agent in recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer with the doses and schedule used in this study.

Rubitecan

The only approved camptothecins for use in patients to date (topotecan and irinotecan) are delivered intravenously. Thus, an oral camptothecin analogue that would provide the convenience of oral delivery with the flexibility for a variety of prolonged treatment schedules would be advantageous. Rubitecan is an orally available camptothecin analogue that also has potential for delivery transdermally or by inhalation. Like all of the camptothecins, its antitumour activity is mediated through the inhibition of DNA topoisomerase I, which is involved in relaxing supercoiled DNA, which is important for the process of DNA replication and RNA transcription. Rubitecan exists in equilibrium as 9-nitro-camptothecin (9-NC) and 9-amino-camptothecin (9-AC), a metabolite that is thought to be active although it failed in clinical trials. Both 9-NC and 9-AC contain a lactone ring that is required for optimal activity with the carboxylic acid (open ring) forms being significantly less active or inactive. A more acidic environment favours the lactone ring structure, whereas neutral or basic conditions favour the conversion to the carboxylic acid form. In addition to issues of lactone ring stability at physiological pH (true for all of the camptothecin analogues), there is pharmacokinetic variability that has had to be dealt with during the development of rubitecan. Preclinically, rubitecan has shown activity against a broad spectrum of tumour types in in vitro and in vivo human tumour xenograft models. Frustratingly, the level of activity of an agent in preclinical models has not always translated into similar activity against human tumours in clinical trials. To date, with the exception of pancreatic and possibly ovarian cancer, rubitecan has had disappointing activity against a number of other solid tumours in relatively small Phase I/II trials; however, it has shown sufficient activity against pancreatic cancer, a malignancy that remains difficult to treat, to continue to be evaluated in clinical trials for this indication. Results of clinical trials in the next few years should determine whether rubitecan can find a role in cancer therapy.

Sequential oral 9-nitrocamptothecin and etoposide: a pharmacodynamic- and pharmacokinetic-based phase I trial

PURPOSE

Resistance to topoisomerase (topo) I inhibitors has been related to down-regulation of nuclear target enzyme, whereas sensitization to topo II inhibitors may result from induction of topo II by topo I inhibitors. Here, we evaluated a sequence-specific administration of a topo I inhibitor followed by a topo II inhibitor.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Twenty-five patients with advanced or metastatic malignancies were treated with increasing doses (0.75, 1.0, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, or 2.0 mg/m(2)) of 9-nitrocamptothecin (9-NC) on days 1 to 3, followed by etoposide (100 or 150 mg/d) on days 4 and 5. At the maximally tolerated dose, 20 additional patients were enrolled. The median age was 60 years (range, 40-84 years). Endpoints included pharmacokinetic analyses of 9-NC and etoposide, and treatment-induced modulations of topo I and II expression in peripheral blood mononuclear cells.

RESULTS

Neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and fatigue were dose-limiting toxicities and occurred in six patients. Despite a median number of four prior regimens (range 1-12), 2 (4%) patients had an objective response and 13 (29%) patients had stable disease. In contrast to the expected modulation in topo I and IIalpha levels, we observed a decrease in topo IIalpha levels, whereas topo I levels were not significantly altered by 9-NC treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Sequence-specific administration of 9-NC and etoposide is tolerable and active. However, peripheral blood mononuclear cells may not be a predictive biological surrogate for drug-induced modulation of topo levels in tumor tissues and should be further explored in larger studies.

Camptothecins in clinical development

Following the realisation that DNA topoisomerase I is a useful therapeutic target to be exploited for the design of potential inhibitors, topoisomerase I inhibitors now represent an established class of effective agents. In spite of intense efforts in the field, only camptothecins have a clinical relevance. Several options in chemical manipulation of natural camptothecin have been explored to overcome the major drawbacks of the drug, which include water insolubility, lactone instability, reversibility of the drug-target interaction and drug resistance. Several analogues are currently in clinical development, including water soluble camptothecins, lipophilic camptothecins and polymer-bound camptothecins. The therapeutic advantages of novel camptothecins over the two analogues (topotecan and irinotecan) approved for clinical use remain to be defined. This article is an overview of the relevant features of the analogues that are undergoing clinical development.

Nitro and amino substitution within the A-ring of 5H-8,9-dimethoxy-5-(2-N,N-dimethylaminoethyl)dibenzo[c,h][1,6]naphthyridin-6-ones: influence on topoisomerase I-targeting activity and cytotoxicity

Recently, 5H-8,9-dimethoxy-5-(2-N,N-dimethylaminoethyl)-2,3-methylenedioxydibenzo[c,h][1,6]naphthyridin-6-one, 1, was identified as a TOP1-targeting agent with pronounced antitumor activity. In the present study, the effect on activity of substituting a single nitro or amino group in the A-ring in lieu of the methylenedioxy moiety of 1 was evaluated. The presence of either a nitro or amino substituent at the 4-position had a pronounced adverse affect on both TOP1-targeting activity and cytotoxicity. To a lesser extent, derivatives with a nitro or amino substituent at the 1-position were also less active than 1. Replacement of the methylenedioxy moiety of 1 with either a nitro or amino substituent at either the 2- and 3-position did result in analogues with potent TOP1-targeting activity and cytotoxicity.