Phase I, Pharmacokinetic and Biological Correlative Study of OSI-7904L, a Novel Liposomal Thymidylate Synthase Inhibitor, and Cisplatin in Patients with Solid Tumors

Perspectives of using microRNA-loaded nanocarriers for epigenetic reprogramming of drug resistant colorectal cancers

Epigenetic regulation by microRNAs (miRs) demonstrated a promising therapeutic potential of these molecules to regulate genetic activity in different cancers, including colorectal cancers (CRCs). The RNA-based therapy does not change genetic codes in tumor cells but can silence oncogenes and/or reactivate inhibited tumor suppressor genes. In many cancers, specific miRs were shown to promote or stop tumor progression. Among confirmed and powerful epigenetic regulators of colon carcinogenesis and development of resistance are onco-miRs, which include let-7, miR-21, miR-22, miR-23a, miR-27a, miR-34, miR-92, miR-96, miR-125b, miR-135b, miR-182, miR-200c, miR-203, miR-221, miR-421, miR-451, and others. Moreover, various tumor-suppressor miRs (miR-15b-5b, miR-18a, miR-20b, miR-22, miR-96, miR-139-5p, miR-145, miR-149, miR-197, miR-199b, miR-203, miR-214, miR-218, miR-320, miR-375-3p, miR-409-3p, miR-450b-5p, miR-494, miR-577, miR-874, and others) were found silenced in drug-resistant CRCs. Re-expression of tumor suppressor miR is complicated by the chemical nature of miRs that are not long-lasting compounds and require protection from the enzymatic degradation. Several recent studies explored application of miRs using nanocarrier complexes. This study critically describes the most successfully tested nanoparticle complexes used for intracellular delivery of nuclear acids and miRs, including micelles, liposomes, inorganic and polymeric NPs, dendrimers, and aptamers. Nanocarriers shield incorporated miRs and improve the agent stability in circulation. Attachment of antibodies and/or specific peptide or ligands facilitates cell-targeted miR delivery. Addressing in vivo challenges, a broad spectrum of non-toxic materials has been tested and indicated reliable advantages of lipid-based (lipoplexes) and polymer-based liposomes. Recent cutting-edge developments indicated that lipid-based complexes with multiple cargo, including several miRs, are the most effective approach to eradicate drug-resistant tumors. Focusing on CRC-specific miRs, this review provides a guidance and insights towards the most promising direction to achieve dramatic reduction in tumor growth and metastasis using miR-nanocarrier complexes.

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.

Orally Administrable Therapeutic Nanoparticles for the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common and lethal human malignancies worldwide; however, the therapeutic outcomes in the clinic still are unsatisfactory due to the lack of effective and safe therapeutic regimens. Orally administrable and CRC-targetable drug delivery is an attractive approach for CRC therapy as it improves the efficacy by local drug delivery and reduces systemic toxicity. Currently, chemotherapy remains the mainstay modality for CRC therapy; however, most of chemo drugs have low water solubility and are unstable in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT), poor intestinal permeability, and are susceptible to P-glycoprotein (P-gp) efflux, resulting in limited therapeutic outcomes. Orally administrable nanoformulations hold the great potential for improving the bioavailability of poorly permeable and poorly soluble therapeutics, but there are still limitations associated with these regimes. This review focuses on the barriers for oral drug delivery and various oral therapeutic nanoparticles for the management of CRC.

The major facilitative folate transporters solute carrier 19A1 and solute carrier 46A1: biology and role in antifolate chemotherapy of cancer

This review summarizes the biology of the major facilitative membrane transporters, the reduced folate carrier (RFC) (Solute Carrier 19A1) and the proton-coupled folate transporter (PCFT) (Solute Carrier 46A1). Folates are essential vitamins, and folate deficiency contributes to a variety of health disorders. RFC is ubiquitously expressed and is the major folate transporter in mammalian cells and tissues. PCFT mediates the intestinal absorption of dietary folates and appears to be important for transport of folates into the central nervous system. Clinically relevant antifolates for cancer, such as methotrexate and pralatrexate, are transported by RFC, and loss of RFC transport is an important mechanism of methotrexate resistance in cancer cell lines and in patients. PCFT is expressed in human tumors, and is active at pH conditions associated with the tumor microenvironment. Pemetrexed is an excellent substrate for both RFC and PCFT. Novel tumor-targeted antifolates related to pemetrexed with selective membrane transport by PCFT over RFC are being developed. In recent years, there have been major advances in understanding the structural and functional properties and the regulation of RFC and PCFT. The molecular bases for methotrexate resistance associated with loss of RFC transport and for hereditary folate malabsorption, attributable to mutant PCFT, were determined. Future studies should continue to translate molecular insights from basic studies of RFC and PCFT biology into new therapeutic strategies for cancer and other diseases.

Resveratrol attenuates cisplatin renal cortical cytotoxicity by modifying oxidative stress

Cisplatin, a cancer chemotherapy drug, is nephrotoxic. The aim of this study was to investigate whether resveratrol (RES) reduced cisplatin cytotoxicity and oxidative stress. Rat renal cortical slices were pre-incubated 30min with 0 (VEH, ethanol) or 30μg/ml RES followed by 60, 90 or 120min co-incubation with 0, 75, or 150μg/ml cisplatin. Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) leakage was unchanged at 60 and 90min by cisplatin. Cisplatin increased (p<0.05) LDH leakage at 120min which was protected by RES. Cisplatin induced oxidative stress prior to LDH leakage as cisplatin depressed glutathione peroxidase and superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity, increased lipid peroxidation, protein carbonyls and 4-hydroxynonenal (4-HNE) adducted proteins within 60min. RES failed to reverse glutathione (GSH) depression by cisplatin. In order to eliminated an extracellular interaction between RES and cisplatin, additional studies (RINSE studies) allowed a 30min RES uptake into slices, transfer of slices to buffer lacking RES, followed by 120min cisplatin incubation. RES in the RINSE studies prevented LDH leakage by cisplatin indicating that RES protection was not via a physical interaction with cisplatin in the media. These findings indicate that RES diminished cisplatin in vitro renal toxicity and prevented the development of oxidative stress.

Benzyl isothiocyanate inhibits HNSCC cell migration and invasion, and sensitizes HNSCC cells to cisplatin

Metastasis and chemoresistance represent two detrimental events that greatly hinder the outcome for those suffering with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Herein, we investigated benzyl isothiocyanate's (BITC) ability to inhibit HNSCC migration and invasion and enhance chemotherapy. Our data suggests that treatment with BITC 1) induced significant reductions in the viability of multiple HNSCC cell lines tested (HN12, HN8, and HN30) after 24 and 48 h, 2) decreased migration and invasion of the HN12 cells in a dose dependent manner, and 3) inhibited expression and altered localization of the epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) marker, vimentin. We also observed that a pretreatment of BITC followed by cisplatin treatment 1) induced a greater decrease in HN12, HN30, and HN8 cell viability and total cell count than either treatment alone and 2) significantly increased apoptosis when compared to either treatment alone. Taken together these data suggest that BITC has the capacity to inhibit processes involved in metastasis and enhance the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Consequently, the results indicate that further investigation, including in vivo studies, are warranted.

Phase I trial of axitinib combined with platinum doublets in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and other solid tumours

Background:

This phase I dose-finding trial evaluated safety, efficacy and pharmacokinetics of axitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors, combined with platinum doublets in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and other solid tumours.

Methods:

In all, 49 patients received axitinib 5 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) with paclitaxel/carboplatin or gemcitabine/cisplatin in 3-week cycles. Following determination of the maximum tolerated dose, a squamous cell NSCLC expansion cohort was enroled and received axitinib 5 mg b.i.d. with paclitaxel/carboplatin.

Results:

Two patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities: febrile neutropenia (n=1) in the paclitaxel/carboplatin cohort and fatigue (n=1) in the gemcitabine/cisplatin cohort. Common nonhaematologic treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (36.7%), diarrhoea (34.7%) and fatigue (28.6%). No grade⩾3 haemoptysis occurred among 12 patients with squamous cell NSCLC. The objective response rate was 37.0% for patients receiving axitinib/paclitaxel/carboplatin (n=27) and 23.8% for patients receiving axitinib/gemcitabine/cisplatin (n=21). Pharmacokinetics of axitinib and chemotherapeutic agents were similar when administered alone or in combination.

Conclusion:

Axitinib 5 mg b.i.d. may be combined with standard paclitaxel/carboplatin or gemcitabine/cisplatin regimens without evidence of overt drug–drug interactions. Both combinations demonstrated clinical efficacy and were well tolerated.