Decreased topotecan platelet toxicity with successive topotecan treatment cycles in advanced ovarian cancer patients

Convection-enhanced delivery for targeted delivery of antiglioma agents: the translational experience

Recent improvements in the understanding of glioblastoma (GBM) have allowed for increased ability to develop specific, targeted therapies. In parallel, however, there is a need for effective methods of delivery to circumvent the therapeutic obstacles presented by the blood-brain barrier and systemic side effects. The ideal delivery system should allow for adequate targeting of the tumor while minimizing systemic exposure, applicability across a wide range of potential therapies, and have existing safe and efficacious systems that allow for widespread application. Though many alternatives to systemic delivery have been developed, this paper will focus on our experience with convection-enhanced delivery (CED) and our focus on translating this technology from pre-clinical studies to the treatment of human GBM.

Current role and future aspects of topotecan in relapsed ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer deaths in women. It is associated with a poor prognosis, as the majority of patients present with advanced disease and relapse after radical surgery, and following chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel.

OBJECTIVE

To review the role of topotecan in the treatment of advanced and relapsed ovarian cancer, and the efficacy and safety of novel dosing regimens and formulations of topotecan. It will also discuss further options of combination of topotecan with other cytotoxic agents and targeted therapies.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The authors searched for relevant references in the MEDLINE database and in congress abstracts of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

RESULTS

Topotecan is an established second-line therapy for advanced and relapsed ovarian cancer; a regimen of 1.5 mg/m(2)/day 1-5 has been approved in the USA and many other western countries. Topotecan is well tolerated; associated haematological toxicity is generally manageable, reversible and non-cumulative. A number of alternative dosing regimens and formulations have been investigated in an attempt to improve the toxicity profile of topotecan without compromising anti-tumour activity. A novel oral formulation of topotecan has shown clinical promise in patients with advanced and relapsed disease. Administration of i.v. topotecan on a weekly basis produced encouraging results in several phase II trials, with less haematological toxicity and similar response rates to the day 1-5 regimen. Also, recent early studies demonstrate that topotecan is effective in combination with several other therapeutic agents in the relapsed setting.

CONCLUSION

The peer-reviewed literature reports that topotecan is an effective, well tolerated treatment option for relapsed ovarian cancer.

Safety of topotecan in the treatment of recurrent small-cell lung cancer and ovarian cancer

The topoisomerase I inhibitor, topotecan, is approved for the treatment of recurrent small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and ovarian cancer (OC). Patients with recurrent SCLC and OC typically experience multiple relapses and receive multiple rounds of chemotherapy. In these settings, disease stabilisation is considered a treatment benefit, and quality-of-life effects and cumulative toxicities of treatments should be considered. Many patients with recurrent cancer may be predisposed to treatment-related adverse events because of advanced age, renal impairment or extensive prior therapy. The standard regimen of topotecan, 1.5 mg/m(2) on days 1-5 of a 21-day cycle, has generally mild nonhaematological toxicity and a well-defined haematological toxicity profile characterised by reversible and noncumulative neutropenia. Alternative regimens may lower the incidence of haematological toxicities and maintain antitumour efficacy. Topotecan may provide physicians with a versatile therapeutic option for the treatment of patients with relapsed SCLC or OC.

A phase I trial of oxaliplatin and topotecan in recurrent ovarian carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

Oxaliplatin and topotecan have demonstrated activity as single agents against recurrent platinum-sensitive and -resistant ovarian cancer, as well as synergy in vitro. This was a dose-finding study of combination therapy with weekly topotecan and alternating-week oxaliplatin in patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer.

METHODS

Eligible patients had a diagnosis of recurrent ovarian or primary peritoneal carcinoma, a performance status of 0-2, and normal bone marrow, renal, and hepatic function. On days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle, patients received a fixed dose of oxaliplatin (85 mg/m2) via intravenous infusion. On days 1, 8, and 15, patients received an escalating dose of intravenous topotecan (2.0-4.0 mg/m2). Five dose levels were planned with a minimum cohort of 3 patients at each level.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients were enrolled and received a total of 50 cycles of chemotherapy. The maximum tolerated dose was 85 mg/m2 of oxaliplatin and 3.0 mg/m2 of topotecan, and grade 3 neutropenia was the dose-limiting toxicity. Four of nine (44%) evaluable patients had stable disease or a partial response to the drug combination as assessed by cancer antigen-125 levels.

CONCLUSIONS

A 28-day schedule of oxaliplatin and topotecan is safe and well tolerated. Because of the in vitro synergy observed between topoisomerase I inhibitors and platinum derivatives and the tolerability reported in the current study, this regimen warrants further investigation.

Hematologic Safety and Tolerability of Topotecan in Recurrent Ovarian Cancer and Small Cell Lung Cancer: An Integrated Analysis

The purpose was to conduct an integrated analysis of the cumulative hematologic toxicity of topotecan in patients with relapsed ovarian cancer and small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Data were pooled from eight phase II and phase III clinical studies performed in patients with relapsed stage III/IV ovarian cancer or extensive SCLC treated with topotecan at a dose of 1.5 mg/m(2) per day on days 1-5 of a 21-day course. Quantitative hematologic toxicities were assessed using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria. A total of 4,124 courses of therapy was administered to the 879 patients in the pooled population. Grade 4 neutropenia was experienced by 78% of patients. The lowest nadirs for neutrophils and platelets generally occurred after the first course of therapy, followed by improvement or stabilization in subsequent courses. Neutropenia was noncumulative. During the first course, significant risk factors were identified: renal impairment and advanced age (grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia and grade 4 neutropenia) and prior radiotherapy; performance status score > or =2; SCLC; and exposure to both cisplatin (Platinol; Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, http://www.bms.com) and carboplatin (Paraplatin; Bristol-Myers Squibb) (grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia only). The most frequent interventions for hematologic toxicities were RBC transfusions, treatment delays, G-CSF support, and dose reductions. Analysis of neutrophil and platelet nadirs and dosing for each course of therapy showed no apparent evidence of cumulative neutropenia or thrombocytopenia. The risk of grade 3 or 4 anemia was higher during the first four courses of therapy and may need to be more aggressively managed with erythropoietin therapy.

Topotecan Dosing Guidelines in Ovarian Cancer: Reduction and Management of Hematologic Toxicity

Topotecan dosing considerations and alternative dosing schedules to reduce and manage myelosuppression during the treatment of relapsed ovarian cancer were reviewed. The myelosuppression patterns from phase I, II, and III clinical trials were analyzed to evaluate the degree of hematologic toxicity and to determine risk factors predictive of myelosuppression. Additionally, recent publications of alternative topotecan doses and schedules were examined. Extent of prior therapy, prior platinum therapy (particularly carboplatin), advanced age, impaired renal function, and prior radiation therapy were identified as potential risk factors for greater hematologic toxicity after topotecan therapy. Reducing the starting topotecan dose to 1.0 or 1.25 mg/m2/day is recommended to reduce the incidence of severe myelosuppression in high-risk individuals receiving topotecan for 5 consecutive days. Hematopoietic growth factors, transfusion therapy, and schedule adjustments may also help manage myelosuppression. Alternative schedules of 3-day or weekly dosing appear to have less myelotoxicity and are currently under evaluation. The clinical aspects of topotecan-related myelosuppression and results from clinical trials indicate that the dose, and possibly the dosing schedule, of topotecan can be modified to reduce hematologic toxicity and improve tolerance without compromising efficacy. Prospective individualization of topotecan dosing may prevent or minimize dose-limiting myelosuppression and allow patients to achieve the maximum topotecan benefit by improving their ability to complete therapy with fewer treatment delays. Ongoing clinical trials evaluating alternative dosing schedules with superior hematologic tolerability may facilitate the inclusion of topotecan in combination regimens for patients with ovarian cancer. Proposed topotecan dosing guidelines to reduce and manage myelosuppression are outlined.

A phase II study of topotecan with vincristine and doxorubicin in children with recurrent/refractory neuroblastoma

BACKGROUND

A Phase II trial in children with advanced neuroblastoma was carried out in five Italian institutions to evaluate the antitumor activity and tolerability of topotecan followed by vincristine and doxorubicin.

METHODS

Children older than age 1 year with Stage III or Stage IV neuroblastoma, all of whom had been treated previously with chemotherapy and were diagnosed with either refractory or recurrent disease, were treated with topotecan at an intravenous dose of 1.5 mg/m(2) (the dose was 0.75 mg/m(2) for patients who were treated within 1 year of previous megatherapy) per day for 5 days followed by 48-hour intravenous infusions of 2 mg/m(2) vincristine and 45 mg/m(2) doxorubicin. Cycles of therapy were repeated every 3 weeks.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients (2 with Stage III disease and 23 with Stage IV disease; 19 with refractory disease and 6 with recurrent disease) were treated with a total of 115 cycles. Four patients had complete responses, 12 patients had partial responses, 4 patients had minor responses or stable disease, and 5 patients had tumor progression. The overall response rate (including complete and partial responses) was 64% (95% confidence interval, 43-82%). Fifteen patients were alive at the time of the current report and were progression free at 4-16 months (median, 9 months) after the first course of this treatment. Toxicity generally was limited to the hematopoietic system. Dose-limiting toxicity was observed in only 1 patient (Grade 4 liver toxicity). There were no deaths due to infectious or toxic causes.

CONCLUSIONS

The topotecan-vincristine-doxorubicin combination was active and well tolerated in previously treated patients with advanced neuroblastoma.

Toxicity patterns of cytotoxic drugs

Toxicity is a major concern for anticancer drugs. These compounds present a narrow therapeutic index, with a small difference between the dose required for an antitumor effect and that responsible for unacceptable toxicity. Their recommended doses are determined according to the toxicity endpoint. Moreover, toxicity is observed earlier than the therapeutic effect, so, toxic effects represent a major endpoint for pharmacodynamic studies of cytotoxic drugs. Knowledge of toxicity patterns and main factors of toxicity of anticancer drugs is required before modeling data of these studies. Hematological toxicities represent the main toxicity of the cytotoxic. However, non-hematological toxicities have become more important than hematological toxicities as pharmacodynamic endpoints in some circumstances such as high-dose chemotherapy associated with bone marrow transplantation. This paper will describe the main toxicity of the cytotoxic drugs, and its factors of both inter- and intra-patient variability. The toxicity pattern of topotecan will be examined as an example. Knowledge of the toxicity pattern of a drug constitutes a prerequirement before modeling its pharmacodynamics.

Evaluation of the nutritional and inflammatory status in cancer patients for the risk assessment of severe haematological toxicity following chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

The toxicity outcome of cancer patients receiving chemotherapy is difficult to predict. In this study the influence of malnutrition and inflammation on acute haematological toxicity was investigated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 1999 and January 2000, 48 consecutive cancer patients experienced severe haematological toxicity (SHT), either neutropenic fever or severe thrombocytopenia, following various chemotherapy regimens. Their baseline characteristics were compared with those of 59 control patients. Previous chemotherapy regimens, type of chemotherapy, performance status (PS), calculated creatinine clearance, bilirubin, C-reactive protein (1), alpha-1 acid glycoprotein (2), albumin (3), pre-albumin (4) and the nutritional and inflammatory status (NIS) ratio [NIS = (1 x 2)/(3 x 4)] were studied. Statistical analysis was carried out using either a t-test or a chi-square test. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve determined the cut-off value for NIS.

RESULTS

Patients experiencing SHT had a higher PS (P <0.001), inflammatory serum protein levels (P <0.001) and NIS ratio (P <0.0001), but lower haemoglobin (P <0.05) and serum-albumin levels (P <0.0001). Using a cut-off of 0 or 1 for PS and 1 for NIS, sensitivity was 98%, 43% and 89%; specificity was 38%, 90% and 66%, respectively. In 37 patients treated with topotecan as single agent, the determinants for SHT were PS (P <0.0001) and NIS (P <0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Altered nutritional and inflammatory status correlates with increased risk of severe haematological toxicity following anticancer chemotherapy.

Management of treatment-related toxicity in advanced ovarian cancer

Recognition of recurrent ovarian cancer as a disease with significant secondary responses and remissions has led to an increase in the need for oncologists to plan for the long-term therapy of patients. However, many of the currently available front-line and salvage agents used in advanced ovarian cancer are associated with cumulative and/or irreversible toxicities that pose challenges in long-term planning. The irreversible effects associated with some of these therapies may render patients less tolerant to subsequent treatments and lead to a cycle of diminishing treatment options with each remission and disease relapse. Additionally, the potential for patients to experience cumulative toxicity must be carefully weighed against the goals of prolonging the disease-free interval and improving patient quality of life. A number of agents are available in the treatment armamentarium (platinum, paclitaxel, gemcitabine, etoposide, liposomal doxorubicin, and topotecan), many, but not all of which are associated with cumulative toxicity. For instance, cumulative neurotoxicity associated with cisplatin as first-line therapy may diminish the option for retreatment with platinum at first relapse. In contrast, the main toxicity associated with topotecan is noncumulative, manageable myelosuppression. In this review, the major toxicities associated with the predominant chemotherapy agents used in advanced ovarian cancer are discussed along with selected management approaches in the context of long-term treatment planning and sequencing.

Relapsed ovarian cancer: challenges and management strategies for a chronic disease

Advances in the treatment and early detection of ovarian cancer have led to gains in 5-year survival rates, with 52% of women diagnosed between 1992 and 1997 surviving 5 years or longer, compared with 41% of women diagnosed between 1983 and 1985. Although approximately 10%-15% of patients achieve and maintain complete responses to therapy, the remaining patients have persistent disease or eventually relapse. These patients will generally undergo a series of treatments, each associated with progressively shorter treatment-free intervals. Nevertheless, median survival of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer ranges from 12-24 months, demonstrating the chronic natural history of the disease. Advances in the treatment of ovarian cancer over the past decade have led to these improvements and have prompted oncologists to now view the management of patients with ovarian cancer as an ongoing, long-term challenge. This shift in approach has raised important new questions regarding patient management, including the need to define trigger points for initiating or changing treatment (e.g., sequential increases in serum cancer antigen 125 levels, appearance of symptoms, or cumulative toxicities), anticipation of impending treatment decision points, recognition that the overtreatment of patients early in the disease process may adversely affect future treatment opportunities, and a renewed emphasis on patient education and participation in decision-making. This review will discuss these important patient management issues and will conclude with case studies illustrating two distinct treatment strategies (planning and sequencing) for the long-term management of patients with ovarian cancer.

A phase II study of topotecan plus gemcitabine in the treatment of patients with relapsed ovarian cancer after failure of first-line chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Second-line chemotherapy for patients with ovarian cancer who failed platinum and paclitaxel treatment remains a therapeutic challenge. We investigated the toxicity profile and therapeutic efficacy of a novel combination regimen, topotecan plus gemcitabine, in a clinical phase II study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Women with relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer after platinum and paclitaxel treatment were eligible to participate in this trial. Topotecan was given at an initial dose of 0.5 mg/m(2) daily (days 1-5), combined with gemcitabine 800 mg/m(2) and 600 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8, respectively. Precluding good tolerability, this protocol facilitated subsequent dose increases of topotecan up to 1.0 mg/m(2). The primary objective was to determine the dose-limiting toxicity, whereas secondary objectives comprised measurable and CA-125 response rates, disease-free and overall survival.

RESULTS

The twenty-one patients (median age 57 years, range 37-70 years) who were allocated to this trial received a total of 94 courses of chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 20.5 months. Topotecan dosage could be escalated to 0.75 mg/m(2) in nine patients and 1 mg/m(2) in another two patients. Dose reduction was not necessary in any case. There were no episodes of neutropenic fever, sepsis or chemotherapy-related fatalities. Only one patient developed CTC grade 4 leukopenia after the first treatment cycle, whereas three patients showed grade 3/4 anaemia. Five patients experienced thrombocytopenia grade 4 without clinical sequelae. Non-hematological toxicities were mild and rare. Eleven patients could be evaluated for clinical tumour response, with three complete, and four partial remissions. Two patients each had stable and progressive diseases. The median progression-free survival rate was 8.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 6.3-13.4 months]. The median overall survival rate was 21.1 months (95% CI 14.8-22.1 months).

CONCLUSIONS

Topotecan combined with gemcitabine has a favourable toxicity profile and encouraging efficacy in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.

Topotecan preceded by oxaliplatin using a 3 week schedule: a phase I study in advanced cancer patients

Combinations of topoisomerase I (topo I) poisons and platinum derivatives have synergistic antitumoral effects. However, their clinical development is limited by supra-additive haematological toxicity. The aim of this study was to determine whether sustained doses of topotecan and oxaliplatin could be achieved using a synergistic sequence. 34 advanced cancer patients and 186 cycles were evaluable for toxicity over five dosing levels. Oxaliplatin at 85-110 mg/m(2) was given on day 1, followed by topotecan 0.5-1.25 mg/m(2)/day x 5 from day 1 to 5, every 3 weeks. Plasma pharmacokinetics (PK) of total and ultrafiltrable platinum, total and lactone forms of topotecan were determined in the first cycle. The dose-limiting toxicity (DT) was identified as grade 4 thrombocytopenia. The occurrence of grade 4 thrombocytopenia did not correlate with topotecan PK, but it did with the patient's characteristics. Severe thrombocytopenia was seen in 1/8 of patients without clinical or biological evidence of malnutrition, with a creatinine clearance higher than 1 ml/s, and no more than two previous chemotherapy regimens, while it was seen in 8/10 patients with one of these characteristics (P<0.004). In conclusion, the recommended doses of oxaliplatin 110 mg/m(2) and topotecan 1 mg/m(2)/day, every 3 weeks can be administered to patients with a favourable general status and pretreatment characteristics and a phase II study is worthwhile in ovarian cancer patients.

Dose escalation of CPT-11 in combination with oxaliplatin using an every two weeks schedule: a phase I study in advanced gastrointestinal cancer patients

BACKGROUND

To determine the dose-limiting toxicity of CPT-11 in combination with oxaliplatin, and the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) and the recommended dose (RD) of CPT-11 using an every two weeks schedule.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study was designed to evaluate escalated doses of CPT-11 starting at 100 mg/m2 with a fixed clinically-relevant dose of 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin given every two weeks.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients and 186 cycles were evaluable for toxicity (median per patient: 7, range: 1-13). Grade 3 oxaliplatin-induced neurotoxicity was cumulative and limiting in 39% (9 of 23) of patients. The MTD of CPT-11 was 200 mg/m2, with incomplete neutrophil recovery at day 15 as limiting toxicity. At the RD (175 mg/m2 of CPT-11): no grade 4 neutropenia was seen in the two first cycles; 30% of patients experienced grade 3-4 diarrhea. Febrile neutropenia (3.2% of all cycles) was 3-fold more frequent in performance status (PS) 2 than in PS0-1 patients. Among eleven colorectal cancer (CRC) patients, three complete and four partial responses were documented, including in three 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) refractory patients.

CONCLUSION

To combine CPT-11 175 mg/m2 and oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 every two weeks is feasible in an outpatient setting, and very active in 5-FU resistant CRC patients. A dose of 150 mg/m2 CPT-11 is recommended in PS2 patients.