Sorafenib dose escalation is not uniformly associated with blood pressure elevations in normotensive patients with advanced malignancies.

Hypertension after treatment with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor inhibitors is associated with superior treatment outcomes for advanced cancer patients. To determine whether increased sorafenib doses cause incremental increases in blood pressure (BP), we measured 12-h ambulatory BP in 41 normotensive advanced solid tumor patients in a randomized dose-escalation study. After 7 days' treatment (400 mg b.i.d.), mean diastolic BP (DBP) increased in both study groups. After dose escalation, group A (400 mg t.i.d.) had marginally significant further increase in 12-h mean DBP (P = 0.053), but group B (600 mg b.i.d.) did not achieve statistically significant increases (P = 0.25). Within groups, individuals varied in BP response to sorafenib dose escalation, but these differences did not correlate with changes in steady-state plasma sorafenib concentrations. These findings in normotensive patients suggest BP is a complex pharmacodynamic biomarker of VEGF inhibition. Patients have intrinsic differences in sensitivity to sorafenib's BP-elevating effects

Sorafenib in advanced melanoma: a Phase II randomised discontinuation trial analysis

The effects of sorafenib – an oral multikinase inhibitor targeting the tumour and tumour vasculature – were evaluated in patients with advanced melanoma enrolled in a large multidisease Phase II randomised discontinuation trial (RDT). Enrolled patients received a 12-week run-in of sorafenib 400 mg twice daily (b.i.d.). Patients with changes in bi-dimensional tumour measurements <25% from baseline were then randomised to sorafenib or placebo for a further 12 weeks (ie to week 24). Patients with ⩾25% tumour shrinkage after the run-in continued on open-label sorafenib, whereas those with ⩾25% tumour growth discontinued treatment. This analysis focussed on secondary RDT end points: changes in bi-dimensional tumour measurements from baseline after 12 weeks and overall tumour responses (WHO criteria) at week 24, progression-free survival (PFS), safety and biomarkers (BRAF, KRAS and NRAS mutational status). Of 37 melanoma patients treated during the run-in phase, 34 were evaluable for response: one had ⩾25% tumour shrinkage and remained on open-label sorafenib; six (16%) had <25% tumour growth and were randomised (placebo, n=3; sorafenib, n=3); and 27 had ⩾25% tumour growth and discontinued. All three randomised sorafenib patients progressed by week 24; one remained on sorafenib for symptomatic relief. All three placebo patients progressed by week-24 and were re-started on sorafenib; one experienced disease re-stabilisation. Overall, the confirmed best responses for each of the 37 melanoma patients who received sorafenib were 19% stable disease (SD) (ie n=1 open-label; n=6 randomised), 62% (n=23) progressive disease (PD) and 19% (n=7) unevaluable. The overall median PFS was 11 weeks. The six randomised patients with SD had overall PFS values ranging from 16 to 34 weeks. The most common drug-related adverse events were dermatological (eg rash/desquamation, 51%; hand-foot skin reaction, 35%). There was no relationship between V600E BRAF status and disease stability. DNA was extracted from the biopsies of 17/22 patients. Six had V600E-positive tumours (n=4 had PD; n=1 had SD; n=1 unevaluable for response), and 11 had tumours containing wild-type BRAF (n=9 PD; n=1 SD; n=1 unevaluable for response). In conclusion, sorafenib is well tolerated but has little or no antitumour activity in advanced melanoma patients as a single agent at the dose evaluated (400 mg b.i.d.). Ongoing trials in advanced melanoma are evaluating sorafenib combination therapies

Targeting targeted agents: open issues for clinical trial design

Molecularly targeted agents for the treatment of solid tumors had entered the market in the last 5 years, with a great impact upon both the scientific community and the society. Many randomized phase III trials conducted in recent years with new targeted agents, despite previous data coming from preclinical research and from phase II trials were often promising, have produced disappointingly negative results. Some other trials have actually met their primary endpoint, demonstrating a statistically significant result favouring the experimental treatment. Unfortunately, with a few relevant exceptions, this advantage is often small, if not negligible, in absolute terms. The difference between statistical significance and clinical relevance should always be considered when translating clinical trials' results in the practice. The reason why this 'revolution' did not significantly impact on cancer treatment to displace chemotherapy from the patient' bedside is in part due to complicated, and in many cases, unknown, mechanisms of action of such drugs; indeed, the traditional way the clinical investigators were used to test the efficacy of 'older' chemotherapeutics, has become 'out of date' from the methodological perspective. As these drugs should be theoretically tailored upon featured bio-markers expressed by the patients, the clinical trial design should follow new rules based upon stronger hypotheses than those developed so far. Indeed, the early phases of basic and clinical drug development are crucial in the correct process which is able to correctly identify the target (when present). Targeted trial designs can result in easier studies, with less, better selected, and supported by stronger proofs of response evidences, patients, in order to not waste time and resources

Comparative analysis of xanafide cytotoxicity in breast cancer cell lines

Xanafide, a DNA-intercalating agent and topoisomerase II inhibitor, has previously demonstrated comparable cytotoxicity to the parent drug amonafide (NSC 308847). The current study was conducted to investigate further the anti-proliferative effects of xanafide in human breast cancer cell lines, in vitro and in vivo. The in vitro activity of xanafide against MCF-7, MDA-MB-231, SKBR-3 and T47D cell lines was compared to that of paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine, vinorelbine and doxorubicin. In MCF-7, xanafide demonstrated comparable total growth inhibition (TGI) concentrations to the taxanes and lower TGI values than gemcitabine, vinorelbine and doxorubicin. MCF-7 (oestrogen receptor (ER)+/p53 wild-type) was the most sensitive cell line to xanafide. MDA-MB-231 and SKBR-3 exhibited similar sensitivity to xanafide. T47 D (ER+/p53 mutated), showed no response to this agent. The in vivo activity of xanafide was further compared to that of docetaxel in MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 cell lines using the hollow fibre assay. Xanafide was slightly more potent than docetaxel, at its highest dose in MCF-7 cell line, whereas docetaxel was more effective than xanafide in MDA-MB-231 cell line. Our results show that there is no relationship between sensitivity of these cell lines to xanafide and cellular levels of both isoforms of topoisomerase II and suggest that ER and p53 status and their crosstalk may predict the responsiveness or resistance of breast cancer patients to xanafide

How to calculate the dose of chemotherapy

Body surface area-dosing does not account for the complex processes of cytotoxic drug elimination. This leads to an unpredictable variation in effect. Overdosing is easily recognised but it is possible that unrecognised underdosing is more common and may occur in 30% or more of patients receiving standard regimen. Those patients who are inadvertently underdosed are at risk of a significantly reduced anticancer effect. Using published data, it can be calculated that there is an almost 20% relative reduction in survival for women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer as a result of unrecognised underdosing. Similarly, the cure rate of cisplatin-based chemotherapy for advanced testicular cancer may be reduced by as much as 10%. The inaccuracy of body surface area-dosing is more than an inconvenience and it is important that methods for more accurate dose calculation are determined, based on the known drug elimination processes for cytotoxic chemotherapy. Twelve rules for dose calculation of chemotherapy are given that can be used as a guideline until better dose-calculation methods become available. Consideration should be given to using fixed dose guidelines independent of body surface area and based on drug elimination capability, both as a starting dose and for dose adjustment, which may have accuracy, safety and financial advantages

Exposure–response relationship of AMG 386 in combination with weekly paclitaxel in recurrent ovarian cancer and its implication for dose selection

To characterize exposure-response relationships of AMG 386 in a phase 2 study in advanced ovarian cancer for the facilitation of dose selection in future studies.A population pharmacokinetic model of AMG 386 (N = 141) was developed and applied in an exposure-response analysis using data from patients (N = 160) with recurrent ovarian cancer who received paclitaxel plus AMG 386 (3 or 10 mg/kg once weekly) or placebo. Reduction in the risk of progression or death with increasing exposure (steady-state area under the concentration-versus-time curve [AUC(ss)]) was assessed using Cox regression analyses. Confounding factors were tested in multivariate analysis. Alternative AMG 386 doses were explored with Monte Carlo simulations using population pharmacokinetic and parametric survival models.There was a trend toward increased PFS with increased AUC(ss) (hazard ratio [HR] for each one-unit increment in AUC(ss), 0.97; P = 0.097), suggesting that the maximum effect on prolonging PFS was not achieved at the highest dose tested (10 mg/kg). Among patients with AUC(ss) ≥ 9.6 mg h/mL, PFS was 8.1 months versus 5.7 months for AUC(ss) &lt; 9.6 mg h/mL and 4.6 months for placebo. No relationship between AUC(ss) and grade ≥ 3 adverse events was observed. Simulations predicted that AMG 386 15 mg/kg once weekly would result in an AUC(ss) ≥ 9.6 mg h/mL in &gt; 90% of patients with median PFS of 8.2 months versus 5.0 months for placebo (HR [15 mg/kg vs. placebo], 0.56).Increased exposure to AMG 386 was associated with improved clinical outcomes in recurrent ovarian cancer, supporting the evaluation of a higher dose in future studies