An open-label, dose-escalation, safety, and pharmacokinetics phase I study of ombrabulin, a vascular disrupting agent, administered as a 30-min intravenous infusion every 3 weeks in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors

H Murakami, T Kurata, Y Onozawa, J Watanabe, A Ono, T Takahashi, N Yamamoto, Y Fujisaka, H Kiyota, H Hayashi, K Tanaka, K Nakagawa, S Kuroda, H Murakami, T Kurata, Y Onozawa, J Watanabe, A Ono, T Takahashi, N Yamamoto, Y Fujisaka, H Kiyota, H Hayashi, K Tanaka, K Nakagawa, S Kuroda

Abstract

Purpose: To determine ombrabulin's maximum tolerated dose and dose recommended for Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors and to assess its antitumor activity and overall safety and pharmacokinetic profiles.

Methods: This was a multi-center, open-label, sequential-cohort, dose-escalation phase I study of ombrabulin, a vascular disrupting agent, administered once every 3 weeks. Patients were treated with 15.5, 25, 35, or 50 mg/m(2) ombrabulin over a 30-min intravenous infusion. The recommended dose was the highest dose at which <33 % of all evaluable patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) during the first treatment cycle or 50 mg/m(2) (recommended in Caucasian patients) if the previous definition was not met.

Results: Fifteen patients were treated. No DLT occurred with 15.5, 25, or 35 mg/m(2) ombrabulin. In the 50 mg/m(2) group, one patient had Grade 3 lymphopenia, and another experienced Grade 2 hypertension and Grade 3 diarrhea judged as DLTs. The most frequent related adverse events in this group were diarrhea, nausea, and hypertension. Two patients had Grade 3 anemia, one at the 15.5 mg/m(2) and the other at the 50 mg/m(2). No AEs necessitating dose reduction or Grade 4 AEs were observed. Overall, five patients had stable disease. Pharmacokinetic parameters were comparable to those in non-Japanese patients.

Conclusions: Ombrabulin treatment once every 3 weeks was well tolerated in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors. The dose recommended is 50 mg/m(2), as in Caucasian patients. The safety and pharmacokinetic profiles were comparable between Japanese and Caucasian patients (funded by Sanofi; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00968916).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Chemical structure of ombrabulin (AVE8062)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Mean plasma concentration–time profiles of ombrabulin and its major metabolite (RPR258063) in Cycle 1. a Ombrabulin, b RPR258063

References

    1. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. The hallmarks of cancer. Cell. 2000;100:57–70. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81683-9.
    1. Denekamp J. The tumour microcirculation as a target in cancer therapy: a clearer perspective. Eur J Clin Invest. 1999;29:733–736. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2362.1999.00558.x.
    1. Delmonte A, Sessa S. AVE8062: a new combretastatin derivative vascular disrupting agent. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2009;18:1541–1548. doi: 10.1517/13543780903213697.
    1. Kanthou C, Tozer GM. The tumor vascular targeting agent combretastatin A-4-phosphate induces reorganization of the actin cytoskeleton and early membrane blebbing in human endothelial cells. Blood. 2002;99:2060–2069. doi: 10.1182/blood.V99.6.2060.
    1. Hori K, Saito S. Microvascular mechanisms by which the combretastatin A-4 derivative AC7700 (AVE8062) induces tumour blood flow stasis. Br J Cancer. 2003;89:1334–1344. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601261.
    1. Seed L, Slaughter DP, Limarzi LR. Effect of colchicine on human carcinoma. Surgery. 1940;7:696–709.
    1. Hill SA, Lonergan SJ, Denekamp J, Chaplin DJ. Vinca alkaloids: anti-vascular effects in a murine tumor. Eur J Cancer. 1993;29A:1320–1324. doi: 10.1016/0959-8049(93)90082-Q.
    1. Chaplin DJ, Pettit GR, Parkins CS, Hill SA. Antivascular approaches to solid tumor therapy: evaluation of tubulin binding agents. Br J Cancer. 1996;74(Suppl. 27):S86–S88.
    1. Marshall JL, Hawkins MJ. The clinical experience with antiangiogenic agents. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1995;36:253–261. doi: 10.1007/BF00666045.
    1. Pettit GR, Singh SB, Hamel E, Lin CM, Alberts DS, Garia-Kendall D. Isolation and structure of the strong cell growth and tubulin inhibitor combretastatin A4. Experientia. 1989;45:205–211. doi: 10.1007/BF01954881.
    1. Woods JA, Hadfield JA, Pettit GR, Fox BW, McGown AT (1995) The interaction with tubulin of a series of stilbenes based on combretastatin A-4. Br J Cancer 71(4):705–711
    1. Dark GD, Hill SA, Prise VE, Tozer GM, Pettit GR, Chaplin DJ. Combretastatin A-4, an agent that displays potent and selective toxicity toward tumor vasculature. Cancer Res. 1997;57:1829–1834.
    1. Chaplin DJ, Pettit GR, Hill SA. Anti-vascular approaches to solid tumor therapy: evaluation of combretastatin A4 phosphate. Anticancer Res. 1999;19:189–195.
    1. Nihei Y, Suzuki M, Okano A, et al. Evaluation of antivascular and antimitotic effects of tubulin binding agents in solid tumor therapy. Jpn J Cancer Res. 1999;90:1387–1395. doi: 10.1111/j.1349-7006.1999.tb00724.x.
    1. Nihei Y, Suga Y, Morinaga Y, et al. A novel combretastatin A-4 derivative, AC-7700, shows marked antitumor activity against advanced solid tumors and orthotopically transplanted tumors. Jpn J Cancer Res. 1999;90:1016–1025. doi: 10.1111/j.1349-7006.1999.tb00850.x.
    1. Lavisse S, Lejeune P, Rouffiac V, et al. Early quantitative evaluation of a tumor vasculature disruptive agent AVE8062 using dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. Invest Radiol. 2008;43:100–111. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181577cfc.
    1. Tozer GM, Prise VE, Wilson J, et al. Combretastatin A-4 phosphate as a tumor vascular-targeting agent: early effects in tumors and normal tissues. Cancer Res. 1999;59:1626–1634.
    1. Hori K, Saito S, Nihei Y, Suzuki M, Sato Y. Antitumor effects due to irreversible stoppage of tumor tissue blood flow: evaluation of a novel combretastatin A-4 derivative, AC7700. Jpn J Cancer Res. 1999;90:1026–1038. doi: 10.1111/j.1349-7006.1999.tb00851.x.
    1. Sessa C Lorusso P, Tolcher AW et al (2013) A phase I safety, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of AVE8062, a novel vascular disrupting agent, in patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin Camcer Res 19:4832–4842
    1. Jouannot E, Carrez C, Lassau N et al (2007) Demonstration in animal and human of AVE8062-induced tumor blood flow shutdown using dynamic contrast enhanced-ultrasonography (DCE-US). 98th AACR annual meeting, 2007, April 14–18, Abstract No LB-328
    1. Tresca P, Tosi D, van Doorn L, et al. Phase I and pharmacologic study of the vascular disrupting agent ombrabulin (Ob) combined with docetaxel (D) in patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(15s):3023.
    1. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205–216. doi: 10.1093/jnci/92.3.205.
    1. Sessa C, Lorusso P, Tolcher AW et al (2005) A pharmacokinetic and DCE-MRI-dynamic Phase I study of the antivascular combretastatin analogue AVE8062A administered every 3 weeks [Abstract]. Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 46, Abstract No 5827
    1. Subbiah IM, Lenihan DJ, Tsimberidou AM. Cardiovascular toxicity profiles of vascular-disrupting agents. Oncol. 2011;16:1120–1130. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2010-0432.
    1. Bertolini F, Shaked Y, Mancuso P, Kerbel RS. The multifaceted circulating endothelial cell in cancer: towards marker and target identification. Nat Rev Cancer. 2006;6:835–845. doi: 10.1038/nrc1971.
    1. Massard C, Borget I, Le Deley MC, et al. Prognostic value of circulating VEGFR2 + bone marrow-derived progenitor cells in patients with advanced cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:1354–1362. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.01.021.
    1. Taylor M, Billiot F, Marty V, et al. Reversing resistance to vascular-disrupting agents by blocking late mobilization of circulating endothelial progenitor cells. Cancer Discov. 2012;2:434–449. doi: 10.1158/-11-0171.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다