Search

The objective of this phase II and pharmacologic study was to explore the feasibility, toxicity and activity of adaptive intrapatient dose escalation of cisplatin in a dose-intensive weekly schedule using predefined levels of exposure, with the ultimate aim to improve the antitumour activity of the therapy in patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Platinum DNA-adduct levels in peripheral white blood cells during treatment were used as the primary parameter for adaptive dosing. If DNA-adduct levels were not available, the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) of unbound platinum in plasma was used for dose adaptation. Target levels for DNA-adducts and AUC have been defined in a previously performed pharmacologic study. The feasibility of adaptive dosing was tested in 76 patients with stage IIIB and IV NSCLC, who were planned to receive 6 weekly courses of cisplatin at a starting dose of 70 mg m(-2), together with daily low oral dose of 50 mg VP16. In total, 37 patients (49%) who were given more than one course received a dose increase varying from 10 to 55%. The majority of patients reached the defined target levels by a dose increase during course two. Relevant grade 2 neurotoxicity was observed in eight (10%) patients and reversible ototoxicity grade 2 in 14 (18%) patients. The strategy of adaptive intrapatient dose adjustment of cisplatin is practically feasible in a research setting even when results for dose adaptation have to be reported within a short time-period of 1 week. The toxicity appeared to be manageable in this cohort of patients. In some patients, exposure after the standard dose was substantially lower than the defined target level and significant dose escalations of more than 50% had to be applied. The response rate (RR) was relatively high: overall 40% (29 out of 72 patients) partial remission (PR), in patients with stage IIIB the RR was 60% (15 out of 25 patients) and with stage IV 30% (14 out of 47 patients). Randomised studies are needed to determine whether the adaptive dosing strategy results in better efficacy than standard dosing.

Purpose: To investigate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of irinotecan and cisplatin administered once every 3 weeks in a dose-escalating study in patients with solid tumors., Patients and Methods: Fifty-two cancer patients were treated with irinotecan administered as a 90-minute infusion at doses ranging from 175 to 300 mg/m(2) followed by cisplatin administered as a 3-hour intravenous infusion at doses ranging from 60 to 80 mg/m(2). After reaching the maximum-tolerated dose, the sequence of drug administration was revised. For pharmacokinetic analysis, serial plasma samples were obtained on days 1 through 3 of the first cycle. Forty-five patients were assessable for irinotecan pharmacokinetics, and 46 were assessable for cisplatin pharmacokinetics., Results: Irinotecan and cisplatin demonstrated linear pharmacokinetics comparable to that observed with single-agent administration, which suggests an absence of pharmacokinetic interaction. SN-38G constituted the major plasma metabolite of irinotecan, whereas 7-ethyl-10-[4-N-(1-piperidino)1-amino]-carbonyloxycamptothecine (NPC) was only a minor metabolite in plasma, possibly indicating a rapid conversion of NPC to SN-38. The terminal elimination phases of SN-38 and SN-38G were similar and relatively delayed when compared with the elimination of irinotecan. Maximal DNA adduct formation did not significantly differ from that observed with single-agent administration. The percentage decrease in WBC was significantly related to the areas under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUCs) of the lactone form of irinotecan (P =.0245) and SN-38 (P =. 0123). The severity of diarrhea was not significantly related to the AUCs of irinotecan and SN-38, nor to the systemic glucuronidation rate of SN-38., Conclusion: There was no apparent pharmacokinetic interaction between irinotecan and cisplatin in this study. Reversion of the administration sequence of the drugs did not seem to have any influence on the pharmacokinetics. The incidence and severity of delayed-type diarrhea was not related to any of the studied parameters.

Purpose: To assess the feasibility, pharmacokinetic interaction, and possible sequence-dependent effects of the irinotecan/cisplatin combination given every 3 weeks, and to assess the influence of additional granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) on the hematologic toxicity., Patients and Methods: Patients who had received no more than one prior combination chemotherapy regimen or two single-agent regimens were entered. Treatment consisted of a 90-minute irinotecan infusion followed by a 3-hour cisplatin infusion on day 1, with cycles repeated once every 3 weeks. After the maximum-tolerated dose was determined, the sequence of administration was reversed. In a separate cohort of six patients, we assessed the effect of G-CSF on the experienced hematologic toxicity and dose-intensity. Irinotecan doses ranged from 175 to 300 mg/m(2) and cisplatin doses ranged from 60 to 80 mg/m(2)., Results: Fifty-two patients entered the study; one was not eligible, and two were not assessable for response. Twenty-five patients were pretreated, and 26 were not. Fifty-one patients received a total of 223 courses. The dose-limiting toxicity was a combination of neutropenic fever, diarrhea, and fatigue at a dose level combining irinotecan 300 mg/m(2) with cisplatin 80 mg/m(2). Neutropenia was common (grades 3 to 4, 68%). Irinotecan pharmacokinetics were linear over the dose range studied. No sequence-dependent side effects were observed. Tumor responses included three complete responses and eight partial responses., Conclusion: For phase II studies, we recommend irinotecan 260 mg/m(2) combined with cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) once every 3 weeks for chemotherapy-naive patients in good physical condition, and irinotecan 200 mg/m(2) combined with cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) for other patients.

This phase I study was performed to assess the feasibility of combining cisplatin/etoposide (VP-16) with the arotinoid Ro 40-8757 and to determine the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of Ro 40-8757 in this combination. Patients with non-small cell lung cancer were eligible. Treatment consisted of Ro 40-8757 p.o. day 1-21, cisplatin 100 mg/m2 i.v. on day 2 and VP-16 100 mg/m2 i.v. on day 2-4, repeated every 3 weeks. Eighteen patients were evaluable for toxicity and response. The doses of Ro 40-8757 ranged from 84 mg/m2 once daily to 42 mg/m2 thrice daily (tid). DLT consisting of delayed nausea/vomiting was reached at 42 mg/m2 tid. Consequently, the maximum tolerated dose was set at one dose level below the DLT, i.e. 28 mg/m2 tid. Skin toxicity occurred but was well manageable. Pharmacological analyses showed a small increase in the volume of distribution of cisplatin and VP-16 between the first and third course. However, no relationship with side effects was found. A response was achieved in 50% of patients. The combination of cisplatin/VP-16 with Ro 40-8757 appears to be feasible at a dose schedule of 28 mg/m2 tid. The response rate was at the upper rate of what can be expected with cisplatin and VP-16.

Purpose: This phase I study was performed to assess the feasibility of the combination of docetaxel and cisplatin and to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and the side effects with an emphasis on sequence-dependent side effects., Materials and Methods: Patients who were not pretreated with taxanes or cisplatin derivatives and who had received no more than one prior combination chemotherapy regimen or two single-agent regimens were entered. Treatment consisted of docetaxel given as a 1-hour infusion followed by cisplatin as a 3-hour infusion (schedule A), or cisplatin followed by docetaxel (schedule B). Docetaxel doses ranged from 55 to 100 mg/m2 and cisplatin doses from 50 to 100 mg/m2., Results: Leukocytopenia and granulocytopenia were common (overall, 90%; grade 3 or 4, 87%), short-lasting, and docetaxel dose-dependent. Infections and neutropenic fever occurred in 10% and 4.5% of courses, respectively. Nonhematologic toxicities were mild to moderate and included alopecia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, mucositis, neurotoxicity, fluid retention, and skin and nail toxicity. There were no significant differences in pharmacokinetic parameters between schedules A and B. Tumor responses included one complete response (CR) and nine partial responses (PRs)., Conclusion: The dose levels docetaxel 100 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 and docetaxel 85 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m2 appeared to be manageable. At these dose levels, the median relative dose-intensity was high and 81% and 88% of all cycles, respectively, could be given at full dose. Schedule A is advocated for further treatment.

The results of cytostatic therapy in metastatic melanoma are very disappointing. In phase II studies with high-dose cisplatin regimens, a remarkably high response rate was observed. In a phase I study with a short course of weekly cisplatin, combined with oral etoposide, we were able to reach, in most patients, a cisplatin dose intensity of 60 mg/m2/week. We performed a phase II study with this schedule in metastatic malignant melanoma. 15 consecutive patients were entered in the study. Treatment consisted of cisplatin 70 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15 and days 29, 36, 43 combined with oral etoposide 50 mg daily, days 1-15 and days 29-43. Patients with a response or stable disease continued treatment with oral etoposide 50 mg/m2 daily, days 1-21 every 4 weeks. All patients were evaluable for response and toxicity. The majority of the patients received six cycles of cisplatin with the planned cisplatin dose intensity of 60 mg/m2/week. A partial response was observed in 2 patients (13%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2-44%) of, respectively, 22 and 12 weeks; stable disease was observed in 6 patients. Toxicity consisted mainly of alopecia and bone marrow suppression. 4 patients had tinnitus, one patient had neurotoxicity grade 1. The regimen studied has only limited activity in metastatic melanoma in spite of the high-dose intensity of cisplatin reached with this schedule.

We investigated the pharmacokinetic profile and the efficacy of ondansetron (day 1) given as 16 mg suppository once a day, as compared with ondansetron 8 mg tablets twice daily, in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The study was primarily aimed at investigating the pharmacokinetics and was part of a large multinational, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy efficacy trial. Pharmacokinetic data were obtained in a total of 20 patients, 11 of whom had received a suppository containing ondansetron, and nine patients had received the oral formulation. The median area under the plasma concentration curve (AUC) obtained with the oral formulation was 226 ng ml-1h-1 (range 91-750), and the median maximum plasma level (Cmax) was 50.5 ng ml-1 (range 24.7-199.6) after a dose of 8 mg. For the ondansetron suppository the median AUC was 140 ng ml-1h-1 range (77-405) and the median Cmax was 17.1 ng ml-1 (range 13-48.3) after a dose of 16 mg. The systemic exposure after correction for the dose difference after the suppository was on average 70% lower than after the tablet. The median time to reach the maximum level (Tmax) was 60 min (range 28-120) with the oral formulation and 209 min (range 90-420) with the suppository. For both the tablet and suppository, there was no apparent relationship between either Cmax or AUC, and efficacy. Although the patient numbers were too small for a formal exposure-response relationship to be derived, the slightly poorer pharmacokinetic performance of the suppository did not appear to be associated with a lessening of control of emesis following chemotherapy. The study demonstrates that the pharmacokinetic analysis of a once-daily 16 mg ondansetron suppository results in appropriate plasma concentrations and AUC, and that this rectal formulation is effective in the protection against nausea and vomiting associated with cyclophosphamide chemotherapy. This formulation will provide a useful alternative to the currently available oral formulation.

In a phase I study of weekly administered cisplatin combined with oral etoposide, we observed a partial response in 4 out of 11 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Subsequently, we performed a phase II study to investigate the activity of this combination as first-line treatment in this disease. Fourteen patients with metastatic colorectal cancer were enrolled in this study. Treatment consisted of cisplatin, administered in 3% sodium chloride, at a dose of 70 mg m-2 on days 1, 8 and 15 and days 29, 36 and 43 combined with oral etoposide 50 mg absolute dose daily on days 1-15 of both courses. Patients with stable disease or better continued treatment with etoposide 50 mg m-2 orally on days 1-21 every 28 days. A partial response was observed in two patients with liver metastases (14%; 95% confidence limits 2-42%) for 30 and 32 weeks. Five patients had stable disease. Toxicity consisted mainly of anaemia, leucocytopenia, nausea and vomiting. Tinnitus was reported by six patients. The activity of the combination cisplatin-oral etoposide in the schedule is only minimal in metastatic colorectal cancer.

Background: In a previous phase II study with a dose-intensive weekly cisplatin schedule for six cycles, we observed a partial response in 5 of 14 patients with pleural mesothelioma. However, response duration was short (median 6 months). Since oral etoposide may theoretically be synergistic to cisplatin, we performed a phase II study with the combination of both drugs., Patients and Methods: Twenty-five chemo-naive patients with pleural mesothelioma were treated with cisplatin 70 mg/m2 days 1-8-15 and days 29-36-43 in combination with oral etoposide 50 mg days 1-15 and days 29-43. Patients with stable disease, or better, continued treatment with oral etoposide 50 mg/m2/day days 1-21 every 28 days RESULTS All patients were evaluable for response and toxicity. Complete response was observed in one patient and partial responses in 5 patients (RR% 24%; 95% Cl: 10%-45%) for a median duration of 30 weeks. Twelve patients had stable disease. The response status never improved during maintenance treatment with oral etoposide. Most patients tolerated the regimen very well. Toxicity was manly haematologic with leukocytopenia causing treatment delays in 8 patients. Ototoxicity grade 1 or 2 was observed in 8 patients, neurotoxicity grade 1 in 9 patients and nephrotoxicity grade 1 in 1 patient., Conclusion: Frequently administered cisplatin in combination with oral etoposide has a moderate but definite activity in pleural mesothelioma.

Background: In a previous phase I study we showed that single-agent cisplatin can be given weekly for six weeks at a dose of 80 mg/m2/wk. It has been suggested that etoposide has synergistic activity with cisplatin and the drug can be given orally continuously. We therefore performed a phase I study with weekly cisplatin combined with oral etoposide., Patients and Methods: Nineteen patients with metastases of a solid tumor were entered in the study. Cisplatin was administered in hypertonic saline (NaCl 3%). Etoposide was administered as 50-mg capsules., Results: The starting dose was cisplatin weekly at a dose of 70 mg/m2 for six weeks combined with daily oral etoposide at a dose of 50 mg. At the maximum tolerable dose of cisplatin 75 mg/m2/wk and etoposide 50 mg/m2 daily, leukocytopenia and thrombocytopenia were dose-limiting toxic effects which resulted in frequent treatment delays. Other toxicities were mild. Finally, a dose of cisplatin 70 mg/m2/wk weeks 1-2-3 and weeks 5-6-7 in combination with etoposide 50 mg orally days 1-15 and days 29-43 combined a high median cisplatin dose intensity of 52.5 mg/m2/wk with a good patient tolerance., Conclusion: It is feasible to administer frequently dosed cisplatin in combination with oral etoposide. Leukocytopenia and thrombocytopenia are dose-limiting toxicities. The schedule will be explored further in phase II studies.