A dose-finding study of the weekly administration of paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors

Design and Development of New Combinations of the CMF Agents with Taxanes (Paclitaxel or Docetaxel) in Advanced Breast Cancer: A Feasibility Study

Aims and background

We previously designed and tested combinations made up of the CMF agents, two at a time by rotation, and of doxorubicin or epirubicin. The present study was aimed to similarly test new combinations made up of the CMF agents, two at a time by rotation, and paclitaxel or docetaxel.

Methods

The doses of each taxane were escalated with the objective of reaching at least a single dose level of 90 mg/m2 of paclitaxel and 45 mg/m2 of docetaxel on days 1 and 8 of each four-week cycle. Thirty-two patients with advanced breast carcinoma were randomized to receive increasing doses of paclitaxel (45, 65, 80, 90 and 100 mg/m2) or docetaxel (30, 35, 40, 45 and 50 mg/m2) together with the CMF agents at the same dose as that used in the conventional regimen. Each dose level was administered to a triplet of patients. No direct comparison of the two taxanes was made.

Results

The fourth dose level was reached for paclitaxel and docetaxel. The most important toxicities were grade 4 neutropenia and grade 1-2 nausea/vomiting and stomatitis. The objective response rate, assessed only after the third cycle at any dose level, was 31% (95% CI, 15-47%).

Conclusions

The combinations of the CMF agents (two at a time in rotation) with paclitaxel (90 mg/m2) or docetaxel (45 mg/m2) on days 1 and 8 of each four-week cycle are feasible and lead to definite signs of therapeutic activity, and the side effects are generally mild. Further studies are therefore warranted.

A dose escalation and pharmacokinetic study of the biweekly administration of paclitaxel, gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in patients with advanced solid tumors

PURPOSE

To determine the dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and the maximum tolerated doses (MTDs) of the paclitaxel, gemcitabine, oxaliplatin combination administered biweekly in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients received escalated doses of paclitaxel (starting dose: 100 mg/m(2)), gemcitabine (starting dose: 800 mg/m(2)) and oxaliplatin (starting dose: 50 mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 15 in cycles of every 4 weeks. DLTs were evaluated during the first cycle.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients (median age 65 years) with performance status 0-1 were treated on six dose escalation levels. Eleven patients (40.7%) were chemotherapy naïve, six (22.2%) had received 1 prior chemotherapy regimen and ten (37.1%) 2 or more. The DLT level was reached at the doses of paclitaxel 110 mg/m(2), gemcitabine 1,150 mg/m(2) and LOHP 70 mg/m(2). The dose-limiting events were grade 4 neutropenia and grade 3 febrile neutropenia. Neutropenia was the most common adverse event. A median of 3 cycles per patient was administered. One complete and five partial responses were observed in patients with ovarian carcinoma, NSCLC, urothelial cancer, mesothelioma and cancer of unknown primary. No pharmacokinetic drug interactions were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

The recommended doses for future phase II studies of this combination are paclitaxel 110 mg/m(2), gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) and oxaliplatin 70 mg/m(2) every 2 weeks. The regimen is generally well tolerated and merits further evaluation.

Phase I/II study of a combination of S-1 and weekly paclitaxel in patients with advanced or recurrent gastric cancer

OBJECTIVE

A phase I/II study of a combination of S-1 and weekly paclitaxel was conducted to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), recommended dose (RD), dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and objective response rate (RR) in patients with advanced or recurrent gastric cancer.

METHODS

S-1 was administered orally at a fixed dose of 80 mg/m(2) per day on days 1-14. Paclitaxel was injected intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15, starting with a dose of 50 mg/m(2). The dose was increased in a stepwise manner.

RESULTS

In phase I, level 2 (60 mg/m(2)) was considered the MTD, because 2 of 3 patients in level 2 developed DLTs (grade 3 neutropenia and anemia, and grade 4 diarrhea and stomatitis). Therefore, the RD was determined to be level 1 (50 mg/m(2)). In phase II, efficacy and safety were assessed in 18 patients treated with the RD. The RR was 64.7% and the median survival time was 13.5 months. The most severe toxicities were grade 3 leukopenia (5.5%) and grade 3 neutropenia (5.5%).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that S-1 combined with 50 mg/m(2) paclitaxel is effective and safe in patients with advanced or recurrent gastric cancer.

Phase I study of the farnesyltransferase inhibitor lonafarnib with weekly paclitaxel in patients with solid tumors

PURPOSE

To establish the maximum tolerated dose of the farnesyltransferase inhibitor lonafarnib (Sarasar, Schering-Plough Corp., Kenilworth, NJ) in combination with weekly paclitaxel in patients with solid tumors. Tolerability, pharmacokinetics, safety, and dose-limiting toxicity were characterized.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Patients were enrolled from January 2000 to May 2001. Lonafarnib was administered continuously orally twice daily at doses of 100, 125, and 150 mg in combination with paclitaxel at doses of 40, 60, or 80 mg/m(2) i.v. over 1 h weekly in 28-day cycles in a phase I design. Plasma samples for determinations of lonafarnib and paclitaxel concentrations were collected at selected time points.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients were enrolled. The maximum tolerated dose (the dose level below where dose-limiting toxicity occurred and the recommended phase II dose) was lonafarnib 125 mg/m(2) twice daily and paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2) weekly. Dose-limiting toxicity was neutropenia with or without fever, which occurred in two of three patients treated at the lonafarnib 150 mg twice daily dose level. Diarrhea was a common side effect of lonafarnib but usually was mild to moderate in severity and could be controlled with standard medication without lonafarnib dose adjustment. Other reported adverse events included nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and taste changes. These adverse events were neither more frequent nor more severe than would be expected with paclitaxel alone. There were no apparent pharmacokinetic interactions between weekly paclitaxel and continuous twice-daily lonafarnib.

CONCLUSIONS

The recommended dose of lonafarnib for phase II trials is 125 mg orally twice daily when combined with weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2). The dose-limiting toxicity was neutropenia.

Phase I study of a combination of s-1 and weekly paclitaxel in patients with advanced or recurrent gastric cancer

OBJECTIVE

A phase I study of weekly intravenous paclitaxel combined with a fixed dose of S-1, a dihydropyrimidine-dehydrogenase-inhibitory oral fluoropyrimidine, was conducted for patients with advanced or recurrent gastric cancer (ARGC). Endpoints of this study were to examine the toxicity profile OF this regimen and to determine the recommended dose (rd) of paclitaxel.

METHODS

S-1 was fixed at a dose of 80 mg/m(2) per day and was administered for 2 weeks (days 1--14) followed by a 2-week rest. Two dose levels of paclitaxel (level 1: 60 mg/m(2), level 0: 50 mg/m(2)) were studied. Paclitaxel was infused over 1 h on days 1, 8, and 15. Plasma sampling was performed to characterize the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of paclitaxel in some patients. Fifteen patients were enrolled (6 patients in level 1, and 9 patients in level 0). Dose-limiting toxicities were defined as grade 4 hematological (including grade 3 febrile neutropenia) and grade 3 non-hematological (except anorexia, nausea, vomiting and depilation) toxicities.

RESULTS

Three of 6 patients in level 1 developed grade 4 neutropenia or grade 3 febrile neutropenia, and 1 of them also showed grade 3 diarrhea, which settled the maximum-tolerated dose at this level. At level 0, 2 of 9 patients developed grade 4 neutropenia or grade 3 febrile neutropenia, and the RD of paclitaxel for this protocol was set at this level. Pharmacologic studies demonstrated the persistence of significant serum paclitaxel levels over 24 h after drug administration at both levels. Objective responses according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors were observed in 3 of 6 patients who had measurable disease.

CONCLUSION

A combination of S-1 and weekly paclitaxel was feasible and well tolerated, and is suggested to produce a worthwhile response in ARGC. These results warrant further investigation, and a phase II study has already been started.

The role of the liposomal anthracyclines and other systemic therapies in the management of advanced breast cancer

For patients whose breast cancers are not responsive to endocrine therapy, there are a large number of cytotoxic drugs that will induce a response. In spite of the introduction of new, very active drugs such as the taxanes, vinorelbine, capecitabine, gemcitabine, and trastuzumab, the anthracyclines are still as active as any--and more active than most--drugs used to treat breast cancer. Their inclusion in combinations to treat early and advanced disease prolongs survival. However, they cause nausea, vomiting, alopecia, myelosuppression, mucositis, and cardiomyopathies. There is no evidence that increasing the dose of conventional anthracyclines or any other of the cytotoxics beyond standard doses will improve outcomes. Schedule may be more important than dose in determining the benefit of cytotoxics used to treat breast cancer. Weekly schedules and continuous infusions of 5-fluorouracil and doxorubicin may have some advantages over more intermittent schedules. Liposomal formations of doxorubicin reduce toxicity, including cardiotoxicity; theoretically they should also be more effective because of better targeting of tumor over normal tissues. Both pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil/Caelyx [PLD]) and liposomal doxorubicin (Myocet [NPLD]) appeared to be as effective as conventional doxorubicin and much less toxic in multiple phase II and phase III studies. PLD has been evaluated in combinations with cyclophosphamide, the taxanes, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, and trastuzumab, and NPLD has been evaluated in combination with cyclophosphamide and trastuzumab. Both liposomal anthracyclines are less cardiotoxic than conventional doxorubicin. The optimal dose of PLD is lower than that of conventional doxorubicin or NPLD. Patients treated with PLD have almost no alopecia, nausea, or vomiting, but its use is associated with stomatitis and hand-foot syndrome, which can be avoided or minimized with the use of proper dose-schedules. In contrast, the optimal dose-schedule of NPLD is nearly identical to that of conventional doxorubicin. The toxicity profile of NPLD is similar to that of conventional doxorubicin, but toxicities are less severe and NPLD is better tolerated than conventional doxorubicin at higher doses.

How breast cancer outpatients perceive mutual participation in patient-physician interactions

This study examines correlations between observable communicative behaviors and patient perceptions of patient-physician interaction in 86 breast cancer outpatient consultations from three patient-centered perspectives: patient participation, physician collaboration, and communicative success. Analysis relied on audio tape recordings and questionnaires, and incorporated non-behavioral factors particular to each physician, patient, and consultation. Results revealed that patient perceptions of self-participation depended on the length of consultation. Physician collaboration depended on the degree to which patients were given the opportunity to speak, while communicative success reflected a patient's level of anxiety at the time of the consultation. Yet patient perceptions of mutual participation reflected observable communicative behaviors only partially. This gap suggests that perceptual and behavioral measures reveal different aspects of participation and that the study of patient-physician interaction benefits from the inclusion of both kinds of measure.

Altered clearance of unbound paclitaxel in elderly patients with metastatic breast cancer

The pharmacokinetic behaviour of anticancer drugs may be altered with aging due to (for example) differences in body composition and decreased hepatic and renal function. To address this issue for paclitaxel, we studied the pharmacokinetics of the drug in eight elderly women (>or=70 years) with metastatic breast cancer (median age (range), 77 years (70-84 years)) and a control group of 15 patients aged <70 years (median age (range), 54 years (22-69 years)). Paclitaxel was administered as a 1-h intravenous (i.v.) infusion at a dose of 80 (elderly) or 100 mg/m(2) (<70 years), and serial blood samples were obtained at baseline, and up to 24 h after the end of infusion. Paclitaxel concentration-time profiles were fitted to a linear three-compartment model without any demonstration of saturable behaviour. The clearance of unbound paclitaxel was 124+/-35.0 (elderly) versus 247+/-55.4 l/h/m(2) (<70 years) (P=0.002), and was inversely related to the patient's age (R(2)=0.857; P<0.00001). Total plasma clearance of the formulation vehicle Cremophor EL (CrEL) was 150+/-60.7 (elderly) versus 115+/-39.2 ml/h/m(2) (<70 years) (P=0.04). These data indicate an approximately 50% change in total body clearance of unbound paclitaxel and a concomitant significant increase in systemic exposure with age, most likely as a result of altered CrEL disposition. The clinical relevance of these observations with respect to toxicity profiles and antitumour efficacy requires further evaluation.