A Phase I study of the safety, pharmacokinetics and efficacy of navitoclax plus docetaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors

Aim: This Phase I study investigated safety of navitoclax and docetaxel in patients (n = 41) with advanced solid tumors. Patients & methods: Two navitoclax plus docetaxel dosing schedules (21 and 28 days) were evaluated. Maximum tolerated dose, dose-limiting toxicities and preliminary antitumor activity were assessed. Results: Ten (24%) patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities; dose-escalation cohorts: n = 7 (21-day schedule: n = 5; 28-day schedule: n = 2) and 21-day expanded safety cohort: n = 3. Navitoclax 150-mg days 1-5 every 21 days with docetaxel 75 mg/m2 day 1 was the maximum tolerated dose and optimal schedule. Adverse events included thrombocytopenia (63%), fatigue (61%), nausea (59%) and neutropenia (51%). Four confirmed partial responses occurred. Conclusion: Navitoclax 150-mg orally once/day was safely administered with docetaxel. Myelosuppression limited dose escalation; antitumor activity was observed. Clinical trial registration: NCT00888108 (ClinicalTrials.gov)

An Adaptive Study to Determine the Optimal Dose of the Tablet Formulation of the PARP Inhibitor Olaparib

BACKGROUND: Olaparib is poorly soluble, requiring advanced drug delivery technologies for adequate bioavailability. Sixteen capsules/day are required for the approved 400 mg twice-daily dose; a tablet formulation was developed to reduce pill burden. This clinical trial evaluated the optimal dose and administration schedule of the tablet formulation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two stages of sequentially enrolled cohorts: stage 1, pharmacokinetic properties of tablet and capsule formulations were compared in patients with advanced solid tumours; stage 2, tablet dose escalation with expansion cohorts at doses/schedules of interest in patients with solid tumours and BRCAm breast/ovarian cancers. RESULTS: Olaparib 200 mg tablets displayed similar Cmax,ss, but lower AUCss and Cmin,ss than 400 mg capsules. Following multiple dosing, steady-state exposure with tablets ≥300 mg matched or exceeded that of 400 mg capsules. After dose escalation, while 400 mg twice daily was the tablet maximum tolerated dose based on haematological toxicity, 65 % of patients in the randomized expansion phase eventually required dose reduction to 300 mg. Intermittent tablet administration did not significantly improve tolerability. Tumour shrinkage was similar for 300 and 400 mg tablet and 400 mg capsule cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended monotherapy dose of olaparib tablet for Phase III trials was 300 mg twice daily, simplifying drug administration from 16 capsules to four tablets per day. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT00777582 (ClinicalTrials.gov

A phase I trial of ispinesib, a kinesin spindle protein inhibitor, with docetaxel in patients with advanced solid tumours

The aim of this study is to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics (PKs) and efficacy of ispinesib (SB-715992) in combination with docetaxel. Patients with advanced solid tumours were treated with ispinesib (6–12 mg m−2) and docetaxel (50–75 mg m−2). Docetaxel was administered over 1 h followed by a 1-h infusion of ispinesib on day 1 of a 21-day schedule. At least three patients were treated at each dose level. Blood samples were collected during cycle 1 for PK analysis. Clinical response assessments were performed every two cycles using RECIST guidelines. Twenty-four patients were treated at four dose levels. Prolonged neutropaenia and febrile neutropaenia were dose limiting in six and two patients, respectively. The MTD was ispinesib 10 mg m−2 with docetaxel 60 mg m−2. Pharmacokinetic assessment demonstrated concentrations of ispinesib and docetaxel, consistent with published data from single agent studies of the drugs. Seven patients (six hormone refractory prostate cancer (HRPC), one renal cancer) had a best response of stable disease (⩾18 weeks). One patient with HRPC had a confirmed >50% prostatic-specific antigen decrease. The MTD for ispinesib and docetaxel was defined and the combination demonstrated an acceptable toxicity profile. Preliminary PK data suggest no interaction between ispinesib and docetaxel

Phase 1 dose-finding and pharmacokinetic study of eribulin-liposomal formulation in patients with solid tumours

Background: This phase 1 study examined the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and preliminary efficacy of eribulin-liposomal formulation (eribulin-LF) in patients with advanced solid tumours. Methods:\ud Eligible patients with ECOG PS 0–1 were treated with eribulin-LF either on day 1 every 21 days (Schedule 1), or on days 1 and 15 every 28 days (Schedule 2). Doses ranged from 1.0 to 3.5 mg/m2, with dose escalation in a 3 + 3 design. The dose-expansion phase evaluated eribulin-LF in select tumour types. Primary objectives: maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the recommended dose/schedule of eribulin-LF. Results: Totally, 58 patients were enroled (median age = 62 years). The MTD was 1.4 mg/m2 (Schedule 1) or 1.5 mg/m2 (Schedule 2), the latter dose selected for the dose-expansion phase. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLTs) in Schedule 1: hypophosphatemia and increased transaminase levels. DLTs in Schedule 2: stomatitis, increased alanine aminotransferase, neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. The pharmacokinetic profile of eribulin-LF showed a similar half-life to that of eribulin (~30 h), but with a 5-fold greater maximum serum concentration and a 40-fold greater area-under-the-curve. Eribulin-LF demonstrated clinical activity with approximately 10% of patients in both schedules achieving partial responses. Conclusions: Eribulin-LF was well tolerated with a favourable pharmacokinetic profile. Preliminary evidence of clinical activity in solid tumours was observed

Improving the outcome of patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer through rational drug development

Castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is now the second most common cause of male cancer-related mortality. Although docetaxel has recently been shown to extend the survival of patients with CRPC in two large randomised phase III studies, subsequent treatment options remain limited for these patients. A greater understanding of the molecular causes of castration resistance is allowing a more rational approach to the development of new drugs and many new agents are now in clinical development. Therapeutic targets include the adrenal steroid synthesis pathway, androgen receptor signalling, the epidermal growth factor receptor family, insulin growth factor-1 receptor, histone deacetylase, heat shock protein 90 and the tumour vasculature. Drugs against these targets are giving an insight into the molecular pathogenesis of this disease and promise to improve patient quality of life and survival. Finally, the recent discovery of chromosomal translocations resulting in the upregulation of one of at least 3 ETS genes (ERG, ETV1, ETV4) may lead to novel agents for the treatment of this disease

The HDAC Inhibitor FK228 Enhances Adenoviral Transgene Expression by a Transduction-Independent Mechanism but Does Not Increase Adenovirus Replication

The histone deacetylase inhibitor FK228 has previously been shown to enhance adenoviral transgene expression when cells are pre-incubated with the drug. Upregulation of the coxsackie adenovirus receptor (CAR), leading to increased viral transduction, has been proposed as the main mechanism. In the present study, we found that the highest increase in transgene expression was achieved when non-toxic concentrations of FK228 were added immediately after transduction, demonstrating that the main effect by which FK228 enhances transgene expression is transduction-independent. FK228 had positive effects both on Ad5 and Ad5/f35 vectors with a variety of transgenes and promoters, indicating that FK228 works mainly by increasing transgene expression at the transcriptional level. In some cases, the effects were dramatic, as demonstrated by an increase in CD40L expression by FK228 from 0.3% to 62% when the murine prostate cancer cell line TRAMP-C2 was transduced with Ad[CD40L]. One unexpected finding was that FK228 decreased the transgene expression of an adenoviral vector with the prostate cell-specific PPT promoter in the human prostate adenocarcinoma cell lines LNCaP and PC-346C. This is probably a consequence of alteration of the adenocarcinoma cell lines towards a neuroendocrine differentiation after FK228 treatment. The observations in this study indicate that FK228 enhances adenoviral therapy by a transduction-independent mechanism. Furthermore, since histone deacetylase inhibitors may affect the differentiation of cells, it is important to keep in mind that the activity and specificity of tissue- and tumor-specific promoters may also be affected

Epigenetic regulation of prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is a commonly diagnosed cancer in men and a leading cause of cancer deaths. Whilst the underlying mechanisms leading to prostate cancer are still to be determined, it is evident that both genetic and epigenetic changes contribute to the development and progression of this disease. Epigenetic changes involving DNA hypo- and hypermethylation, altered histone modifications and more recently changes in microRNA expression have been detected at a range of genes associated with prostate cancer. Furthermore, there is evidence that particular epigenetic changes are associated with different stages of the disease. Whilst early detection can lead to effective treatment, and androgen deprivation therapy has a high response rate, many tumours develop towards hormone-refractory prostate cancer, for which there is no successful treatment. Reliable markers for early detection and more effective treatment strategies are, therefore, needed. Consequently, there is a considerable interest in the potential of epigenetic changes as markers or targets for therapy in prostate cancer. Epigenetic modifiers that demethylate DNA and inhibit histone deacetylases have recently been explored to reactivate silenced gene expression in cancer. However, further understanding of the mechanisms and the effects of chromatin modulation in prostate cancer are required. In this review, we examine the current literature on epigenetic changes associated with prostate cancer and discuss the potential use of epigenetic modifiers for treatment of this disease