2 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Randomized trial of oral cyclophosphamide versus oral cyclophosphamide with celecoxib for recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer
BackgroundOral metronomic chemotherapy, which has low toxicity, has demonstrated promising anti-tumor and anti-angiogenic properties that may lead to prolonged progression-free survival and improved response rates in patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). These effects may be enhanced by the co-administration of anti-angiogenic agents.MethodsWe conducted a randomized phase II clinical trial to evaluate the therapeutic benefit of oral metronomic cyclophosphamide (CTX) alone and with the anti-angiogenic drug celecoxib in patients with gynecological malignancies. 52 patients were randomly assigned to two treatments arms: 50 mg oral CTX daily alone (Arm A) or with 400 mg celecoxib twice daily (Arm B). The primary endpoint was response rate. Secondary endpoints included toxicity, time to treatment failure, and overall survival.ResultsIn Arm A (n = 26), 3 patients (12%) had stable disease >6 months and 1 (4%) had a partial response. In Arm B, 5 (19%) had stable disease >6 months and 1 patient (4%) had a partial response. There were no significant between-group differences in overall survival (9.69 months [95% CI 3.84-13.18] vs. 12.55 months [6.67-17.61]) or in median time to treatment failure (1.84 months [1.68-2.76] vs. 1.92 months [1.64-5.22]). The most common adverse events were nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain.ConclusionsOral metronomic CTX has activity with no major toxicities in heavily pretreated recurrent gynecological cancers and may be considered in patients with indolent disease. We did not observe any additional benefit of celecoxib treatment, though this may be due to small sample sizes
Phase I study of nelfinavir in liposarcoma
PURPOSE: HIV protease inhibitors are associated with HIV protease inhibitor–related lipodystrophy syndrome. We hypothesized that liposarcomas would be similarly susceptible to the apoptotic effects of an HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir. METHODS: We conducted a phase I trial of nelfinavir for liposarcomas. There was no limit to prior chemotherapy. The starting dose was 1,250 mg twice daily (Level 1). Doses were escalated in cohorts of three to a maximally evaluated dose of 4,250 mg (Level 5). One cycle was 28 days. Steady-state pharmacokinetics (PKs) for nelfinavir and its primary active metabolite, M8, were determined at Levels 4 (3,000 mg) and 5. RESULTS: Twenty subjects (13 males) were enrolled. Median (range) age was 64 years (37–81). One subject at Level 1 experienced reversible, grade 3 pancreatitis after 1 week and was replaced. No other dose-limiting toxicities were observed. Median (range) number of cycles was 3 (0.6–13.5). Overall best responses observed were 1 partial response, 1 minor response, 4 stable disease, and 13 progressive disease. Mean peak plasma levels and AUCs for nelfinavir were higher at Level 4 (7.3 mg/L; 60.9 mg/L × h) than 5 (6.3 mg/L; 37.7 mg/L × h). The mean ratio of M8:nelfinavir AUCs for both levels was ~1:3. CONCLUSIONS: PKs demonstrate auto-induction of nelfinavir clearance at the doses studied, although the mechanism remains unclear. Peak plasma concentrations were within range where anticancer activity was demonstrated in vitro. M8 metabolite is present at ~1/3 the level of nelfinavir and may also contribute to the anticancer activity observed