Search

The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility and toxicity of intrapatient dose adjustment using predefined levels of exposure to cisplatin, with the ultimate goal to further improve the antitumor activity of the treatment. The primary parameter for adaptive dosing was the level of platinum DNA adducts in peripheral white blood cells (WBC) and the secondary parameter the area under the curve (AUC) of unbound platinum in plasma, which were determined during the applied courses. Target levels had been defined in a previously performed pharmacologic study. The concept of adaptive dosing was tested in 16 patients with locally advanced head and neck (H/N) cancer who would receive six weekly courses of cisplatin at a starting dose level of 80 mg/m(2), which was previously investigated in a phase II study. Forty-seven percent of patients received a dose increase varying from 10 to 40%. Only two patients had exposure levels significantly below the defined target levels for DNA adducts and AUC. The majority of patients reached the defined target levels by modest dose increases of 10-20% during course 2. Relevant but reversible ototoxicity (temporary grade 3 in two patients) and renal toxicity (temporary grade 2 in two other patients) were observed. The pattern and severity of the toxicity was comparable to that encountered in the previous phase II study in H/N cancer patients. We conclude that the strategy of intrapatient dose adjustment for cisplatin is practically feasible in a research setting even when a short turn around time of 1 week is the limit for reporting results. Although in some patients the dose increase that had to be applied to reach target levels was substantial (up to 40%), this approach in H/N cancer patients is not expected to improve the response rate significantly, because these significantly underdosed patients represented only a small percentage of the investigated population. The great majority of patients needed only limited (10-20%) dose increases which very likely will not improve the response rate to a clinically significant extent. The outlined concept is currently being explored in other tumor types and schedules of cisplatin.

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.

In this study, 11 patients with solid tumors were randomized to receive irinotecan (CPT-11; 200 mg/m2) as a 90-min i.v. infusion, immediately followed by cisplatin (CDDP; 80 mg/m2) as a 3-h i.v. infusion in the first course and the reversed sequence in the second course or vice versa. No significant differences in any toxicity were observed between the treatment schedules (decrease in absolute neutrophil count, 74.7 +/- 18.3 versus 80.3 +/- 18.0%; P = 0.41). CPT-11 lactone clearance was similar to single agent data and not significantly different between study courses (60.4 +/- 17.1 versus 65.5 +/- 16.3 liter/h/m2; P = 0.66). The kinetic profiles of the major CPT-11 metabolites SN-38, SN-38 glucuronide, 7-ethyl-10-[4-N-(5-aminopentanoic acid)-1-piperidinolcarbonyloxycamptothecine (APC), and 7-ethyl-10-[4-N-(1-piperidino)-1-amino]carbonyloxycamptothecine (NPC) were also sequence independent (P > or = 0.20). In addition, CPT-11 had no influence on the clearance of nonprotein-bound CDDP (40.8 +/- 16.7 versus 50.3 +/- 18.6 liter/h/m2; P = 0.08) and the platinum DNA-adduct formation in peripheral leukocytes in either sequence (1.94 +/- 2.20 versus 2.42 +/- 1.62 pg Pt/microg DNA; P = 0.41). These data indicate that the toxicity of the combination CPT-11 and CDDP is schedule independent and that there is no mutual pharmacokinetic interaction.

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.

As a dose-response relationship has been suggested for cisplatin, it appeared attractive to explore high-dose-intensity regimens in non-small-cell lung cancer. In a phase I study of weekly administration of cisplatin combined with oral etoposide we achieved a cisplatin dose intensity of 52.5-60 mg/m2 per week in most patients. We subsequently explored this regimen in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients were treated with cisplatin infused at 70 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15 and 29, 36, 43 in combination with oral etoposide given at 50 mg on days 1-15 and 29-43. Patients showing stable disease or a better response were continued on treatment with oral etoposide given at 50 mg/m2 per day on days 1-21 every 28 days for a maximum of four cycles. In all, 22 patients with stage III disease and 31 patients with stage IV disease entered the study. The median number of cisplatin administration was 6 per patient; 17 patients reached the planned cisplatin dose intensity of 60 mg/m2 per week, 11 patients achieved 52.5 mg/m2 per week, and 7 patients reached 47 mg/m2 per week. Overall, 11 of 21 stage III patients had a partial response [response rate 51%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 36-81%], as did 9 of 28 patients with stage IV disease (32%; 95% CI 15-49%). Toxicity was mainly hematologic, with leukocytopenia being the most frequent cause of treatment delay. Nephrotoxicity of grade 1 was observed in seven patients. Two patients developed clinical hearing loss. With this schedule a high median cisplatin dose intensity of 52.5-60 mg/m2 per week was reached. The 51% response rate achieved in stage III disease makes this schedule attractive for further exploration; however, it is not recommended for routine use in stage IV disease.

The study was designed to investigate possible relationships between tumour response and exposure to cisplatin (area under the curve of unbound cisplatin in plasma, AUC) and DNA-adduct formation in leucocytes (WBC) in patients with solid tumours. Patients were treated with six weekly courses of cisplatin at a dose of 70 or 80 mg m-2. The AUC was determined during the first course and DNA-adduct levels in WBC during all courses at baseline, 1 h (A(max)) and 15 h after a 3 h infusion of cisplatin. The area under the DNA-adduct-time curve (AUA) was calculated. The tumour response was determined after six courses. Forty-five evaluable patients received 237 courses of cisplatin. Sixteen patients with head and neck cancer received a dose of 80 mg m-2 and 29 with various other tumour types received 70 mg m-2 plus daily 50 mg oral etoposide. There were 20 responders (partial and complete) and 25 non-responders (stable and progressive disease). The AUC was highly variable (mean +/- s.d. = 2.48 +/- 0.51 micrograms h-1 ml-1; range 1.10-3.82) and was closely correlated with the AUA (r = 0.78, P < 0.0001) and A(max) (r = 0.73, P < 0.0001). The AUC, AUA and A(max) were significantly higher in responders than in non-responders in the total population (P < 0.0001) and in the two subgroups treated at 70 or 80 mg m-2. In logistic regression analysis AUC, AUA and A(max) were important predictors of response. The magnitude of exposure to cisplatin is, through DNA-adduct formation, the major determinant of the response rate in this population. Hence, individualised dosing of cisplatin using AUC or DNA-adducts should lead to increased response rates.

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.

The purpose of this study was to determine the mechanism of the pharmacodynamic interaction between docetaxel/paclitaxel and cisplatin. Cisplatin-induced DNA-adducts and cisplatin accumulation were quantitated in peripheral blood leukocytes (WBC). The WBC were obtained from patients treated with docetaxel or paclitaxel in phase I/II studies and were incubated in vitro with cisplatin. In addition, blank whole-blood samples were obtained from patients and healthy subjects and incubated in intro with cisplatin or docetaxel/paclitaxel and cisplatin. The cisplatin-induced DNA-adduct levels measured in WBC after treatment with docetaxel or paclitaxel were significantly lower than those determined in non-pretreated WBC. Docetaxel and paclitaxel reduced the intracellular accumulation of cisplatin in WBC by 46-47%. If the pharmacodynamic interaction between docetaxel/paclitaxel and cisplatin also occurs in other normal tissues such as bone marrow, it may well contribute to the sequence dependent toxicity that has been observed in clinical studies.

DNA adduct levels were measured with atomic spectroscopy in white blood cells (WBCs) from patients with solid tumours who were treated with six weekly courses of cisplatin. In 21 patients (I) the WBCs were collected after thawing frozen whole-blood samples according to a previously described method. In 32 other patients (II) WBCs were collected immediately after blood sample collection. The two methods for WBC collection were also compared in vitro. The maximal DNA adduct levels in vivo after the first course were in I 2.48 +/- 1.14 and in II 1.28 +/- 0.40 pg of platinum per microgram of DNA (P < 0.0001). The DNA 'repair' in the first course (DNA adduct level at the end of the infusion minus the level 15 h post infusion) was in I 40% +/- 29% and in II 18% +/- 29% (P = 0.009). These differences were consistent in all measured courses. In vitro, the DNA adduct levels in the freshly prepared WBCs were significantly lower at 0, 1 and 4, but not 24 h, after start of the incubation with cisplatin than in the WBCs collected after freezing and thawing the blood sample. The same experiment with carboplatin in vitro also resulted in significantly lower adducts in freshly isolated WBCs. The higher DNA adduct levels and DNA 'repair' in I are caused by remaining unbound cisplatin in the sample tubes, which can form DNA adducts ex vivo. The same results in vivo can be anticipated when carboplatin is used.

Background: Cisplatin at conventional doses has marginal activity in mesothelioma. A dose-response relation for cisplatin has been suggested in other tumor types. In a phase I study on weekly cisplatin administration, 3 of 5 patients with mesothelioma responded. Therefore, a phase II study with weekly cisplatin was started with the recommended dose of 80 mg/m2/week for six weeks., Patients and Methods: Fourteen patients with mesothelioma stage II, with measurable lesions, were treated with cisplatin at a dose of 80 mg/m2 weekly for six weeks. Cisplatin was administered in 3% NaCl and combined with ondansetron as antiemetic., Results: Five patients had partial responses (response rate 36%; 95% confidence interval 12%-65%) lasting 2-8 months. Seven patients had stable disease. Ototoxicity, grade 2 in 3 patients and grade 3 in 2, was the most troublesome side effect., Conclusions: Cisplatin given at a higher dose intensity than in conventional schedules is active in mesothelioma. The response duration is short, however, possibly due to lack of effective maintenance therapy.

Twenty-five patients with advanced solid tumours were entered in a phase I/II study of six, weekly cycles of cisplatin. Nineteen patients were chemonaive and six were previously treated. The starting dose was 50 mg m-2 week-1. This dose could be escalated without major toxicity to 70 mg m-2 week-1. At a dose of 80 mg m-2 myelosuppression grade 3 occurred as well as grade 1 nephro- and neurotoxicity. The maximum tolerated dose was 85 mg m-2 with dose limiting thrombocytopenia. Hypertonic saline was effective in preventing nephrotoxicity. Ondansetron was a very effective antiemetic in the first weeks of treatment but its efficacy waned later on. Responses were observed in head and neck cancer, melanoma and mesothelioma. At the dose level of 80 mg m-2 the optimal dose intensity was reached. This schedule will be tested further in phase II studies.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]