Pharmacokinetic analysis of irinotecan plus bevacizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors

Dutch pharmacogenetics working group (DPWG) guideline for the gene-drug interaction between UGT1A1 and irinotecan

The Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) aims to facilitate PGx implementation by developing evidence-based pharmacogenetics guidelines to optimize pharmacotherapy. This guideline describes the starting dose optimization of the anti-cancer drug irinotecan to decrease the risk of severe toxicity, such as (febrile) neutropenia or diarrhoea. Uridine diphosphate glucuronosyl transferase 1A1 (UGT1A1 encoded by the UGT1A1 gene) enzyme deficiency increases risk of irinotecan-induced toxicity. Gene variants leading to UGT1A1 enzyme deficiency (e.g. UGT1A1*6, *28 and *37) can be used to optimize an individual's starting dose thereby preventing carriers from toxicity. Homozygous or compound heterozygous carriers of these allele variants are defined as UGT1A1 poor metabolisers (PM). DPWG recommends a 70% starting dose in PM patients and no dose reduction in IM patients who start treatment with irinotecan. Based on the DPWG clinical implication score, UGT1A1 genotyping is considered "essential", indicating that UGT1A1 testing must be performed prior to initiating irinotecan treatment.

Pharmacogenomics Testing in Phase I Oncology Clinical Trials: Constructive Criticism Is Warranted

Simple Summary

Phase I clinical trials are a cornerstone of pharmaceutical development in oncology. Many studies have now attempted to incorporate pharmacogenomics into phase I studies; however, many of these studies have fundamental flaws that that preclude interpretation and application of their findings. Study populations are often small and heterogeneous with multiple disease states, multiple dose levels, and prior therapies. Genetic testing typically includes few variants in candidate genes that do no encapsulate the full range of phenotypic variability in protein function. Moreover, a plurality of these studies do not present scientifically robust clinical or preclinical justification for undertaking pharmacogenomics studies. A significant amount of progress in understanding pharmacogenomic variability has occurred since pharmacogenomics approaches first began appearing in the literature. This progress can be immediately leveraged for the vast majority of Phase I studies. The purpose of this review is to summarize the current literature pertaining to Phase I incorporation of pharmacogenomics studies, analyze potential flaws in study design, and suggest approaches that can improve design of future scientific efforts.

Abstract

While over ten-thousand phase I studies are published in oncology, fewer than 1% of these studies stratify patients based on genetic variants that influence pharmacology. Pharmacogenetics-based patient stratification can improve the success of clinical trials by identifying responsive patients who have less potential to develop toxicity; however, the scientific limits imposed by phase I study designs reduce the potential for these studies to make conclusions. We compiled all phase I studies in oncology with pharmacogenetics endpoints (n = 84), evaluating toxicity (n = 42), response or PFS (n = 32), and pharmacokinetics (n = 40). Most of these studies focus on a limited number of agent classes: Topoisomerase inhibitors, antimetabolites, and anti-angiogenesis agents. Eight genotype-directed phase I studies were identified. Phase I studies consist of homogeneous populations with a variety of comorbidities, prior therapies, racial backgrounds, and other factors that confound statistical analysis of pharmacogenetics. Taken together, phase I studies analyzed herein treated small numbers of patients (median, 95% CI = 28, 24–31), evaluated few variants that are known to change phenotype, and provided little justification of pharmacogenetics hypotheses. Future studies should account for these factors during study design to optimize the success of phase I studies and to answer important scientific questions.

UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing of irinotecan: A prospective safety and cost analysis in poor metaboliser patients

AIM

To determine the safety, feasibility, pharmacokinetics, and cost of UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing of irinotecan.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this prospective, multicentre, non-randomised study, patients intended for treatment with irinotecan were pre-therapeutically genotyped for UGT1A1∗28 and UGT1A1∗93. Homozygous variant carriers (UGT1A1 poor metabolisers; PMs) received an initial 30% dose reduction. The primary endpoint was incidence of febrile neutropenia in the first two cycles of treatment. Toxicity in UGT1A1 PMs was compared to a historical cohort of UGT1A1 PMs treated with full dose therapy, and to UGT1A1 non-PMs treated with full dose therapy in the current study. Secondary endpoints were pharmacokinetics, feasibility, and costs.

RESULTS

Of the 350 evaluable patients, 31 (8.9%) patients were UGT1A1 PM and received a median 30% dose reduction. The incidence of febrile neutropenia in this group was 6.5% compared to 24% in historical UGT1A1 PMs (P = 0.04) and was comparable to the incidence in UGT1A1 non-PMs treated with full dose therapy. Systemic exposure of SN-38 of reduced dosing in UGT1A1 PMs was still slightly higher compared to a standard-dosed irinotecan patient cohort (difference: +32%). Cost analysis showed that genotype-guided dosing was cost-saving with a cost reduction of €183 per patient.

CONCLUSION

UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing significantly reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia in UGT1A1 PM patients treated with irinotecan, results in a therapeutically effective systemic drug exposure, and is cost-saving. Therefore, UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing of irinotecan should be considered standard of care in order to improve individual patient safety.

Pharmacogenomics and functional imaging to predict irinotecan pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: the predict IR study

PURPOSE

Irinotecan (IR) displays significant PK/PD variability. This study evaluated functional hepatic imaging (HNI) and extensive pharmacogenomics (PGs) to explore associations with IR PK and PD (toxicity and response).

METHODS

Eligible patients (pts) suitable for Irinotecan-based therapy. At baseline: (i) PGs: blood analyzed by the Affymetrix-DMET™-Plus-Array (1936 variants: 1931 single nucleotide polymorphisms [SNPs] and 5 copy number variants in 225 genes, including 47 phase I, 80 phase II enzymes, and membrane transporters) and Sanger sequencing (variants in HNF1A, Topo-1, XRCC1, PARP1, TDP, CDC45L, NKFB1, and MTHFR), (ii) HNI: pts given IV 250 MBq-^99mTc-IDA, data derived for hepatic extraction/excretion parameters (CL_HNI, T_1/2-HNI, 1hRET, HEF, T_d1/2). In cycle 1, blood was taken for IR analysis and PK parameters were derived by non-compartmental methods. Associations were evaluated between HNI and PGs, with IR PK, toxicity, objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

N = 31 pts. The two most significant associations between PK and PD with gene variants or HNI parameters (P < 0.05) included: (1) PK: SN38-Metabolic Ratio with CL_HNI, 1hRET, (2) Grade 3+ diarrhea with SLC22A2 (rs 316019), GSTM5 (rs 1296954), (3) Grade 3+ neutropenia with CL_HNI, 1hRET, SLC22A2 (rs 316019), CYP4F2 (rs2074900) (4) ORR with ALDH2 (rs 886205), MTHFR (rs 1801133). (5) PFS with T_1/2-HNI, XDH (rs 207440), and ABCB11 (rs 4148777).

CONCLUSIONS

Exploratory associations were observed between Irinotecan PK/PD with hepatic functional imaging and extensive pharmacogenomics. Further work is required to confirm and validate these findings in a larger cohort of patients.

AUSTRALIAN NEW ZEALAND CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY (ANZCTR) NUMBER

ACTRN12610000897066, Date registered: 21/10/2010.

Pre-therapeutic UGT1A1 genotyping to reduce the risk of irinotecan-induced severe toxicity: Ready for prime time

BACKGROUND

Pre-therapeutic UGT1A1 genotyping is not yet routinely performed in most hospitals in patients starting irinotecan chemotherapy. The aim of this position paper was to evaluate the available evidence and to assess the potential value of genotyping of UGT1A1∗28 and UGT1A1*6 in patients before starting treatment with irinotecan to reduce the risk of severe toxicity.

METHODS

The literature was selected and assessed based on five pre-specified criteria: 1) the level of evidence for associations between UGT1A1 polymorphisms and irinotecan-induced severe toxicity, 2) clinical validity and utility of pre-therapeutic genotyping of UGT1A1, 3) safety and tolerability of irinotecan in carriers of UGT1A1 polymorphisms, 4) availability of specific dose recommendations for irinotecan in carriers of UGT1A1 polymorphisms, 5) evidence of cost benefits of pre-therapeutic genotyping of UGT1A1.

RESULTS

On all five criteria, study results were favourable for pre-therapeutic genotyping of UGT1A1. A high level of evidence (level I) was found for a higher incidence of irinotecan-induced severe toxicity in homozygous carriers of UGT1A1*28 or UGT1A1*6. The clinical validity and utility of this genetic test proved to be acceptable. Dose-finding studies showed a lower maximum tolerated dose in homozygous variant allele carriers, and most of the drug labels and guidelines recommend a dose reduction of 25-30% in these patients. In addition, pre-therapeutic genotyping of UGT1A1 is likely to save costs.

CONCLUSION

Pre-therapeutic genotyping of UGT1A1 in patients initiating treatment with irinotecan improves patient safety, is likely to be cost-saving, and should, therefore, become standard of care.

Human variability in isoform-specific UDP-glucuronosyltransferases: markers of acute and chronic exposure, polymorphisms and uncertainty factors

UDP-glucuronosyltransferases (UGTs) are involved in phase II conjugation reactions of xenobiotics and differences in their isoform activities result in interindividual kinetic differences of UGT probe substrates. Here, extensive literature searches were performed to identify probe substrates (14) for various UGT isoforms (UGT1A1, UGT1A3, UGT1A4, UGT1A6, UGT1A9, UGT2B7 and UGT2B15) and frequencies of human polymorphisms. Chemical-specific pharmacokinetic data were collected in a database to quantify interindividual differences in markers of acute (Cmax) and chronic (area under the curve, clearance) exposure. Using this database, UGT-related uncertainty factors were derived and compared to the default factor (i.e. 3.16) allowing for interindividual differences in kinetics. Overall, results show that pharmacokinetic data are predominantly available for Caucasian populations and scarce for other populations of different geographical ancestry. Furthermore, the relationships between UGT polymorphisms and pharmacokinetic parameters are rarely addressed in the included studies. The data show that UGT-related uncertainty factors were mostly below the default toxicokinetic uncertainty factor of 3.16, with the exception of five probe substrates (1-OH-midazolam, ezetimibe, raltegravir, SN38 and trifluoperazine), with three of these substrates being metabolised by the polymorphic isoform 1A1. Data gaps and future work to integrate UGT-related variability distributions with in vitro data to develop quantitative in vitro-in vivo extrapolations in chemical risk assessment are discussed.

Individualization of Irinotecan Treatment: A Review of Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Pharmacogenetics

Since its clinical introduction in 1998, the topoisomerase I inhibitor irinotecan has been widely used in the treatment of solid tumors, including colorectal, pancreatic, and lung cancer. Irinotecan therapy is characterized by several dose-limiting toxicities and large interindividual pharmacokinetic variability. Irinotecan has a highly complex metabolism, including hydrolyzation by carboxylesterases to its active metabolite SN-38, which is 100- to 1000-fold more active compared with irinotecan itself. Several phase I and II enzymes, including cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 and uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase (UGT) 1A, are involved in the formation of inactive metabolites, making its metabolism prone to environmental and genetic influences. Genetic variants in the DNA of these enzymes and transporters could predict a part of the drug-related toxicity and efficacy of treatment, which has been shown in retrospective and prospective trials and meta-analyses. Patient characteristics, lifestyle and comedication also influence irinotecan pharmacokinetics. Other factors, including dietary restriction, are currently being studied. Meanwhile, a more tailored approach to prevent excessive toxicity and optimize efficacy is warranted. This review provides an updated overview on today’s literature on irinotecan pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacogenetics.

Irinotecan Alters the Disposition of Morphine Via Inhibition of Organic Cation Transporter 1 (OCT1) and 2 (OCT2)

PURPOSE

The organic cation transporters (OCTs) and multidrug and toxin extrusions (MATEs) together are regarded as an organic cation transport system critical to the disposition and response of many organic cationic drugs. Patient response to the analgesic morphine, a characterized substrate for human OCT1, is highly variable. This study was aimed to examine whether there is any organic cation transporter-mediated drug and drug interaction (DDI) between morphine and commonly co-administrated drugs.

METHODS

The uptake of morphine and its inhibition by six drugs which are commonly co-administered with morphine in the clinic were assessed in human embryonic kidney 293 (HEK293) cells stably expressing OCT1, OCT2 and MATE1. The in vivo interaction between morphine and the select irinotecan was determined by comparing the disposition of morphine in the absence versus presence of irinotecan treatment in mice.

RESULTS

The uptake of morphine in the stable HEK293 cells expressing human OCT1 and OCT2 was significantly increased by 3.56 and 3.04 fold, respectively, than that in the control cells, with no significant uptake increase in the cells expressing human MATE1. All of the six drugs examined, including amitriptyline, fluoxetine, imipramine, irinotecan, ondansetron, and verapamil, were inhibitors of OCT1/2-mediated morphine uptake. The select irinotecan significantly increased the plasma concentrations and decreased hepatic and renal accumulation of morphine in mice.

CONCLUSIONS

Morphine is a substrate of OCT1 and OCT2. Clinician should be aware that the disposition of and thus the response to morphine may be altered by co-administration of an OCT1/2 inhibitor, such as irinotecan.

Lack of pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction between ramucirumab and irinotecan in patients with advanced solid tumors

PURPOSE

The objective of this phase II study was to evaluate the potential of pharmacokinetic (PK) drug-drug interactions between ramucirumab and irinotecan or its metabolite, SN-38, when administered with folinic acid and 5-fluorouracil (FOLFIRI).

METHODS

Patients received intravenous infusions of FOLFIRI and ramucirumab 8 mg/kg on Day 1 of a 2-week cycle. FOLFIRI was administered alone in Cycle 1; ramucirumab followed by FOLFIRI was administered in all subsequent cycles. Blood was collected at regular intervals after infusions in Cycles 1 and 2 to determine irinotecan, SN-38, and ramucirumab concentrations. PK parameters were derived by noncompartmental analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients received treatment. The dose-normalized area under the concentration versus time curve from zero to infinity [AUC(0-∞)] and the maximum observed concentration (C max) of irinotecan and SN-38 were comparable between Cycle 1 (FOLFIRI alone) and Cycle 2 (ramucirumab + FOLFIRI). The ratios of geometric least squares (LS) means for irinotecan were 0.93 (90 % CI 0.83-1.05) for AUC(0-∞) and 1.04 (90 % CI 0.97-1.12) for C max. The ratios of geometric LS means for SN-38 were 0.95 (90 % CI 0.88-1.04) for AUC(0-∞) and 0.97 (90 % CI 0.85-1.12) for C max. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events, regardless of grade, were fatigue (19 patients, 65.5 %), diarrhea, (16 patients, 55.2 %), and neutropenia (15 patients, 51.7 %). Grade ≥3 neutropenia was reported in 7 (24.1 %) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no PK drug-drug interaction between ramucirumab and irinotecan or its metabolite, SN-38. Ramucirumab with FOLFIRI was well tolerated in this study, with no new safety concerns.

Genotype-Guided Dosing Study of FOLFIRI plus Bevacizumab in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Purpose:UGT1A1*28 confers a higher risk of toxicity in patients treated with irinotecan. Patients with *1/*1 and *1/*28 genotypes might tolerate higher than standard doses of irinotecan. We aimed to identify the MTD of irinotecan in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with *1/*1 and *1/*28 genotypes treated with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab, and to determine whether bevacizumab alters irinotecan pharmacokinetics.Experimental Design: Previously untreated patients with mCRC (25 *1/*1; 23 *1/*28) were given FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab every 2 weeks. The irinotecan dose was escalated using a 3 + 3 design in each genotype group as follows: 260, 310, and 370 mg/m² The MTD was the highest dose at which <4/10 patients had a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Pharmacokinetics of irinotecan and SN-38 were measured on days 1 to 3 (without bevacizumab) and 15 to 17 (with bevacizumab).Results: For *1/*1 patients, 2 DLTs were observed among 10 patients at 310 mg/m², while 370 mg/m² was not tolerated (2 DLTs in 4 patients). For *1/*28 patients, 2 DLTs were observed among 10 patients at 260 mg/m², while 310 mg/m² was not tolerated (4 DLTs in 10 patients). Neutropenia and diarrhea were the most common DLTs. Changes in the AUCs of irinotecan and SN-38 associated with bevacizumab treatment were marginal.Conclusions: The MTD of irinotecan in FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab is 310 mg/m² for UGT1A1 *1/*1 patients and 260 mg/m² for *1/*28 patients. Bevacizumab does not alter the pharmacokinetics of irinotecan. The antitumor efficacy of these genotype-guided doses should be tested in future studies of patients with mCRC treated with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. Clin Cancer Res; 23(4); 918-24. ©2016 AACR.

Polymorphisms of uridine glucuronosyltransferase gene and irinotecan toxicity: low dose does not protect from toxicity

Uridine glucuronosyltransferase (UGT) gene polymorphisms have been linked to irinotecan toxicity. Our purpose was to study the association between UGT1A1*28, UGT1A7*2, and UGT1A7*3 polymorphisms and irinotecan toxicity in Greek patients receiving low-dose weekly irinotecan. Blood samples were collected for 46 patients. DNA was extracted and UGT1A1 promoter and UGT1A7 exon 1 genotyping was carried out. Laboratory tests and physical examination were performed on regular basis for the assessment of toxicity. UGT1A1*28 was significantly correlated with both haematologic and non-haematologic toxicity. Moreover, patients carrying UGT1A7 polymorphisms had significant incidence of toxicity. To conclude, UGT polymorphisms play a role in the toxicity of irinotecan, even if the drug is administered in low doses. The genotyping test may be a useful tool for the management of patients who are going to receive irinotecan.

Relevance of UDP-glucuronosyltransferase polymorphisms for drug dosing: A quantitative systematic review

UDP-glucuronosyltransferases (UGT) catalyze the biotransformation of many endobiotics and xenobiotics, and are coded by polymorphic genes. However, knowledge about the effects of these polymorphisms is rarely used for the individualization of drug therapy. Here, we present a quantitative systematic review of clinical studies on the impact of UGT variants on drug metabolism to clarify the potential for genotype-adjusted therapy recommendations. Data on UGT polymorphisms and dose-related pharmacokinetic parameters in man were retrieved by a systematic search in public databases. Mean estimates of pharmacokinetic parameters were extracted for each group of carriers of UGT variants to assess their effect size. Pooled estimates and relative confidence bounds were computed with a random-effects meta-analytic approach whenever multiple studies on the same variant, ethnic group, and substrate were available. Information was retrieved on 30 polymorphic metabolic pathways involving 10 UGT enzymes. For irinotecan and mycophenolic acid a wealth of data was available for assessing the impact of genetic polymorphisms on pharmacokinetics under different dosages, between ethnicities, under comedication, and under toxicity. Evidence for effects of potential clinical relevance exists for 19 drugs, but the data are not sufficient to assess effect size with the precision required to issue dose recommendations. In conclusion, compared to other drug metabolizing enzymes much less systematic research has been conducted on the polymorphisms of UGT enzymes. However, there is evidence of the existence of large monogenetic functional polymorphisms affecting pharmacokinetics and suggesting a potential use of UGT polymorphisms for the individualization of drug therapy.

Pharmacokinetics of Irinotecan With and Without Panitumumab Coadministration in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

This study examined the effects of panitumumab, a human monoclonal antibody against epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), on irinotecan pharmacokinetics. This phase I, open-label, multicenter, single-arm study enrolled patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) without prior exposure to an EGFR inhibitor. In cycle 1, patients received irinotecan (180 mg/m(2) intravenously [IV]) on day 1 and panitumumab (6 mg/kg IV) on Day 4. In cycle 2 (2 weeks after cycle 1 panitumumab administration) and subsequent every-2-week cycles, patients received panitumumab followed immediately by irinotecan until disease progression or intolerability. Primary and secondary endpoints included Cmax and AUC of irinotecan after irinotecan infusion in cycles 1 and 2, and adverse events, respectively. Nineteen of 27 treated patients were eligible for pharmacokinetic analysis. Pharmacokinetic profiles of irinotecan with or without panitumumab coadministration were nearly identical. The 90% confidence intervals for ratios of geometric means for irinotecan Cmax and AUC with or without panitumumab were within the 80-125% interval, indicating that panitumumab had no apparent effects on irinotecan pharmacokinetics. Adverse events were as expected for irinotecan plus panitumumab combination therapy.

Association of UGT1A1*28 polymorphisms with irinotecan-induced toxicities in colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis in Caucasians

A meta-analysis in Caucasians was conducted to investigate the possible association of uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase (UGT) 1A1 gene polymorphisms with irinotecan (IRI)-induced neutropenia and diarrhoea in colorectal cancer (CRC). We searched PubMed and Embase until May 2012 to identify eligible studies, extracted data, assessed methodological quality, and performed statistical analysis using REVMAN 5.1 and R software. Subgroups meta-analyses were performed in groups representing different IRI combination regimens and IRI doses. Sixteen trials were included. UGT1A1*28/*28 genotype was associated with more than fourfold (odds ratio (OR)=4.79, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 3.28-7.01; P<0.00001) and threefold (OR=3.44, 95% CI: 2.45-4.82; P<0.00001) increases in the risk of neutropenia when compared with wild type and with at least one UGT1A1*1 allele, respectively. UGT1A1*1/*28 genotype had an OR of 1.90 (95% CI: 1.44-2.51; P<0.00001) for an increased risk of neutropenia. A twofold increase in risk of diarrhoea was associated with UGT1A1*28/*28 genotype (OR=1.84, 95% CI: 1.24-2.72; P=0.002). In subgroup meta-analysis, the higher incidence of diarrhoea in UGT1A1*28/*28 patients was limited to studies where when IRI was given at higher doses (OR=2.37, 95% CI: 1.39-4.04; P=0.002) or combined with 5-fluorouracil (FU or analogue) (OR=1.78, 95% CI: 1.16-2.75; P=0.009). Genotyping of UGT1A1*28 polymorphism before treatment for CRC can tailor IRI therapy and reduce the IRI-related toxicities. IRI-combined 5-FU (or analogue) and a high-dose IRI therapy enhance IRI-induced diarrhoea among patients bearing the UGT1A1*28 allele. Although the toxicity relationships were much stronger with the UGT1A1*28 homozygous variant, associations were also found with the UGT1A1*28 heterozygous variant.

Phase I trial of cixutumumab combined with temsirolimus in patients with advanced cancer

PURPOSE

Mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors mediate AKT activation through a type 1 insulin-like growth factor receptor (IGF-1R)-dependent mechanism. Combining the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus with cixutumumab, a fully human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody directed against IGF-1R, was expected to enhance mTOR-targeted anticancer activity by modulating resistance to mTOR inhibition. The objectives of this phase I study were to evaluate the tolerability and activity of temsirolimus and cixutumumab.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Patients in sequential cohorts ("3 + 3" design) received escalating doses of temsirolimus with cixutumumab weekly for 28 days. At the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), 21 patients were randomized into three separate drug sequence treatment groups for serial blood draws and 2[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography combined with X-ray computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) scans for pharmacodynamic analyses (PD).

RESULTS

Forty-two patients with advanced cancer (19 male/23 female, median age = 53, median number of prior therapies = 4) were enrolled. MTD was reached at cixutumumab, 6 mg/kg IV and temsirolimus, 25 mg IV. Dose-limiting toxicities included grade 3 mucositis, febrile neutropenia, and grade 4 thrombocytopenia. The most frequent toxicities were hypercholesterolemia, hypertriglyceridemia, hyperglycemia, thrombocytopenia, and mucositis. Tumor reduction was observed in 2 of 3 patients with Ewing's sarcoma and in 4 of 10 patients with adrenocortical carcinoma. PD data suggest that cixutumumab alone or combined with temsirolimus increased plasma IGF-1 and IGF binding protein 3. FDG-PET/CT showed the odds of achieving stable disease decreased by 58% (P = 0.1213) with a one-unit increase in absolute change of standard uptake value from baseline to day 3.

CONCLUSIONS

Temsirolimus combined with cixutumumab was well tolerated. We are currently enrolling expansion cohorts at the MTD for Ewing's sarcoma and adrenocortical carcinoma.

AAPS workshop report: strategies to address therapeutic protein-drug interactions during clinical development

Therapeutic proteins (TPs) are increasingly combined with small molecules and/or with other TPs. However preclinical tools and in vitro test systems for assessing drug interaction potential of TPs such as monoclonal antibodies, cytokines and cytokine modulators are limited. Published data suggests that clinically relevant TP-drug interactions (TP-DI) are likely from overlap in mechanisms of action, alteration in target and/or drug-disease interaction. Clinical drug interaction studies are not routinely conducted for TPs because of the logistical constraints in study design to address pharmacokinetic (PK)- and pharmacodynamic (PD)-based interactions. Different pharmaceutical companies have developed their respective question- and/or risk-based approaches for TP-DI based on the TP mechanism of action as well as patient population. During the workshop both company strategies and regulatory perspectives were discussed in depth using case studies; knowledge gaps and best practices were subsequently identified and discussed. Understanding the functional role of target, target expression and their downstream consequences were identified as important for assessing the potential for a TP-DI. Therefore, a question-and/or risk-based approach based upon the mechanism of action and patient population was proposed as a reasonable TP-DI strategy. This field continues to evolve as companies generate additional preclinical and clinical data to improve their understanding of possible mechanisms for drug interactions. Regulatory agencies are in the process of updating their recommendations to sponsors regarding the conduct of in vitro and in vivo interaction studies for new drug applications (NDAs) and biologics license applications (BLAs).

Dose-finding study and pharmacogenomic analysis of fixed-rate infusion of gemcitabine, irinotecan and bevacizumab in pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer patients

BACKGROUND

To determine the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), maximum tolerated dose, recommended dose (RD) and preliminary evidence of activity of escalating doses of irinotecan (CPT-11) fixed-dose-rate infusional gemcitabine (FDR-GMB) and bevacizumab in pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. Pharmacogenomic analysis was performed to investigate the association between VEGF single-nucleotide polymorphisms and clinical outcome.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 89 mCRC patients were recruited in a two-step study design; 28 were included in the dose-finding study and 59 in the pharmacogenomic analysis. The FDR-GMB of 1000 mg m⁻², bevacizumab 5 mg kg⁻¹ and CPT-11 doses ranging from 100 to 160 mg m⁻² were explored. The VEGF protein serum levels were quantified by EIA. Allelic discrimination was performed to genotype polymorphisms in the VEGF gene.

RESULTS

CPT-11 RD was 150 mg m⁻². Diarrhoea and neutropenia were the DLT. After a median follow-up of 42 months, the median time to progression (TTP) and overall survival were 5.2 and 19.9 months, respectively. VEGF levels were significantly correlated with VEGF-2578AA and VEGF-460CC genotypes, and a trend was observed with VEGF+405GG genotype. The presence of any of these genotypes correlated with a longer median TTP (8.8 vs 4.5 months, P=0.04).

CONCLUSION

The triplet combination tested in this study is effective and well tolerated. A possible predictive role for VEGF gene polymorphisms and baseline VEGF circulating levels is suggested.

Bevacizumab: in previously treated glioblastoma

Bevacizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal IgG(1) antibody that binds to human vascular endothelial growth factor and inhibits angiogenesis and hence tumour growth. It is available in the US and other countries for the treatment of several types of cancer, including glioblastoma that has recurred after previous treatment. Two prospective phase II trials have evaluated bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks for the treatment of previously treated glioblastoma. In the randomized, noncomparative, multicentre AVF3708g trial in patients with glioblastoma in first or second relapse, the rate of progression-free survival at 6 months was 42.6% and the objective response rate was 28.2% in recipients of bevacizumab alone (n = 85). In the bevacizumab plus irinotecan treatment arm (n = 82), the 6-month progression-free survival rate was 50.3% and the objective response rate was 37.8%. These rates were all significantly higher than historical control data. In the supporting, single-arm, single-centre, phase II NCI 06-C-0064E trial of bevacizumab in patients with glioblastoma that had recurred after radiotherapy and temozolomide chemotherapy (n = 48), the rate of progression-free survival at 6 months was 29% and the overall response rate based on Macdonald criteria was 35%. Given the nature of the disease, bevacizumab was generally well tolerated in these two phase II trials. In the AVF3708g trial, grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 46.4% of bevacizumab and 65.8% of bevacizumab plus irinotecan recipients.