A phase II, multicenter trial of weekly topotecan in patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive epithelial cancers of the ovary and peritoneum

The use of weekly topotecan in the treatment of heavily pretreated recurrent epithelial ovarian and primary peritoneal cancer: the Kaohsiung Chang Gung experience

OBJECTIVE

We attempted to investigate the safety and efficacy of alternative weekly topotecan dosing in a heavily pretreated Taiwanese population with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) and primary peritoneal carcinoma (PPC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with recurrent EOC and PPC who had been treated with weekly topotecan between November 2008 and May 2012. Topotecan was given at a dose of 2.75-4 mg/m(2) via a 30-minute intravenous (IV) infusion on Days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients were identified and 24 (75%) of them had received at least two previous regimens of chemotherapy; the median number of treatment courses was seven. The main toxicities (Grades 3 and 4) were anemia in seven (21.9%), neutropenia in six (18.8%), and thrombocytopenia in two patients (6.2%). No deaths were attributable to the therapy. Overall, seven patients (21.9%) showed a partial response (PR), while seven patients (21.9%) with stable disease (SD) were observed. Furthermore, we found a favorable response and toxicity profile in patients who received the lowest dose intensity (2.75 mg/m(2)). The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7-3.2] and 20 months (95% CI 11.1-28.9), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Topotecan administered as a weekly dosage (2.75-4 mg/m(2)) seems to be a tolerable regimen with modest activity in a Taiwanese population. Although the lower dose schedule showed a higher response with a better toxicity profile, further studies with more cases are needed to confirm this finding.

Dose-dense paclitaxel in advanced ovarian cancer

Carboplatin and paclitaxel, delivered on a 3-weekly basis, is the historical standard for the management of advanced epithelial ovarian cancers (EOC). Increased dose intensity, the inclusion of additional active cytotoxic agents and lengthening treatment duration have failed to improve the outcomes seen with standard doses of carboplatin and paclitaxel in the treatment of EOC. Dose-dense (i.e. weekly) delivery of paclitaxel may exploit anticancer mechanisms such as anti-angiogenesis and the induction of apoptosis. Tumour regrowth may be more effectively impaired by the dose-dense delivery of paclitaxel. Non-randomised studies of dose-dense chemotherapy in EOC have been promising, particularly in heavily pretreated and platinum-resistant disease, with reported response rates as high as 60%. Dose-dense paclitaxel also seems to be well tolerated. These observations led to a number of comparative trials of dose-dense paclitaxel chemotherapy, three have been reported and four are ongoing. This review explores the rationale behind dose-dense delivery of paclitaxel and evaluates the results of completed phase III trials.

Phase II trial of lapatinib and topotecan (LapTop) in patients with platinum-refractory/resistant ovarian and primary peritoneal carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

Resistance to chemotherapy is a major challenge in the treatment of ovarian/peritoneal cancer. One purported mechanism of topotecan resistance is the breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP) and P-glycoprotein (Pgp). We designed a phase II clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and adverse event profile of concomitant topotecan and lapatinib, a small molecule pan-erbB inhibitor that can block BCRP/Pgp efflux of topotecan.

METHODS

Patients with platinum-refractory or resistant epithelial ovarian/peritoneal cancer were treated with topotecan 3.2 mg/m² IV on Day 1, 8 and 15 and lapatinib 1250 mg PO daily, continuously in 28 day cycles. The primary endpoint was response rate. For correlative studies, archived tissue was assessed for expression of EGFR, HER2, HIF-1α, CD31, and BCRP.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients were enrolled and treated. Four experienced evidence of clinical benefit: one partial response and three with stable disease. Using a two-stage Simon design, the trial was stopped after the first stage due to insufficient activity. Grades 3+ and 4+ adverse events (AE) were experienced in 14 and 4 patients, respectively. The most common grade 3/4 AE were neutropenia (56%), thrombocytopenia (28%), and diarrhea (22%).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of lapatinib plus topotecan for the treatment of platinum refractory/resistant epithelial ovarian cancer lacks sufficient activity to warrant further investigation. In particular, hematologic adverse events were substantial. Expression of correlative study markers did not reveal patterns of predicted benefit or toxicity. Disruption of erbB signaling and BCRP/Pgp efflux with lapatinib was insufficient for overcoming topotecan resistance, suggesting alternative mechanisms of resistance are involved.

A phase II study of two topotecan regimens evaluated in recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study (GOG 146Q)

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of topotecan in patients with recurrent ovarian, primary peritoneal, and fallopian tube carcinomas.

METHODS

A randomized phase II analysis of platinum-sensitive patients with measurable disease was performed independently assessing intravenous topotecan 1.25 mg/m2 daily×5 every 21 days (regimen I) and topotecan 4.0 mg/m2/day on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle (regimen II). All patients were treated until disease progression, unmanageable toxicity, or patient refusal. Insufficient accrual related to regimen I resulted in a redesign of the study as a single arm phase II trial assessing only regimen II. More complete efficacy data is presented for regimen II as enrollment on regimen I was insufficient for some analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 81 patients were enrolled. One patient was ineligible. Fifteen patients received regimen I, while 65 patients were treated with regimen II. The response rate on regimen I (daily×5) was 27% (90% CI: 10-51%) and 12% (90% CI: 6-21%) on regimen II (weekly). The median PFS and OS were 4.8 and 27.8 months, respectively, for regimen II. Grade 3/4 neutropenia rate was 93% with daily×5 dosing and 28% for weekly treatment. Febrile neutropenia was very low in both groups.

CONCLUSION

The weekly regimen of topotecan appeared less active but resulted in less toxicity than the daily regimen in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer patients.

Topotecan Weekly Versus Conventional 5-Day Schedule in Patients With Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer: a randomized multicenter phase II trial of the North-Eastern German Society of Gynecological Oncology Ovarian Cancer Study Group

PURPOSE

Weekly administration of topotecan (Tw) is less toxic and widely considered a better treatment option than conventional 5-day therapy (Tc) in women with platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer. We conducted a randomized phase II trial (TOWER [Topotecan Weekly Versus Conventional 5-Day Schedule in Patients With Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer]) to better define the ratio between benefits and risks with either treatment approach.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to two independent two-stage protocols of Tw (4 mg/m(2)/wk administered on days 1, 8, and 15) or Tc (1.25 mg/m(2)/d on days 1 to 5). We evaluated risk ratios (RRs) for the primary end point of clinical benefit (complete response, partial response, and stable disease), the duration of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), associated hazard ratios (HRs), and RRs of toxicity with 95% CIs.

RESULTS

In total, 194 patients were randomly assigned at 54 centers to Tw (n = 97) or Tc (n = 97). Clinical benefit was observed in 36 of 76 (47%; 95% CI, 36% to 59%) Tw and 46 of 80 (58%; 95% CI, 46% to 68%) Tc patients (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.64; P = .205). Patients in the Tw group had a slightly shorter PFS (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.76) but similar OS (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.45) compared with Tc. Tw was associated with significantly lower risks of anemia (RR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.79), neutropenia (RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.65), and thrombocytopenia (RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.57).

CONCLUSION

With regard to effectiveness in terms of response and PFS, Tc remains the standard of care in patients with platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer. However, comparable OS rates and a favorable toxicity profile make Tw another viable treatment option in this setting.

Phase I trial of liposomal doxorubicin and ZD1839 in patients with refractory gynecological malignancies or metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin has activity in both breast and ovarian cancer. Preclinical data noted that ZD1839 acts synergistically with chemotherapy. Given the lack of cross-resistance between these two agents, a phase I trial was initiated examining the safety and efficacy of the combination of liposomal doxorubicin and ZD1839 in patients with recurrent gynecologic or metastatic breast cancer.

METHODS

Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined within the first two cycles of treatment. Escalating doses of liposomal doxorubicin were administered every 4 weeks with ZD1839. Pharmacokinetic analysis and correlative studies were performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients were enrolled in this study: six in each cohort. One DLT (febrile neutropenia) was observed in cohort 2. Dose level 3 was determined to be the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and an additional ten patients were accrued. Serious adverse events (SAEs) included one patient with mental status changes believed secondary to disease progression and two central nervous system (CNS) bleeds believed to be unrelated to the combination of study agents. Toxicities were generally mild except for skin and gastrointestinal toxicity. No cardiac toxicity was observed. The best response to therapy included four partial responses and 20 patients with stable disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Liposomal doxorubicin with ZD1839 is an active regimen but is associated with increased skin toxicity in patients with advanced breast and gynecologic cancer.

Management of recurrent ovarian carcinoma: current status and future directions

The majority of patients who present with epithelial ovarian cancer respond well to the initial treatment, but will ultimately experience a recurrence of their disease. Chemotherapy can palliate symptoms of disease recurrence, and there is some evidence that it also can improve survival. Recurrent ovarian carcinoma is divided into two subsets of patients: those with platinum-sensitive disease and those with platinum-resistant disease. Management for these two groups has diverged in the last few years, as evidence accrues that the response to treatment and duration of treatment-free interval after completion of front-line therapy impacts the prognosis and the treatment choice for these patients. Recent randomized trials have demonstrated a benefit for platinum combination re-treatment in patients with platinum-sensitive disease. Additionally, there are multiple single-agent trials evaluating novel agents for patients with platinum-resistant as well as platinum-sensitive disease. This review will discuss the role of chemotherapy in recurrent disease, describe the various agents used in this setting, and touch on the role of biologic agents in recurrent epithelial ovarian carcinoma.

Current role and future aspects of topotecan in relapsed ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer deaths in women. It is associated with a poor prognosis, as the majority of patients present with advanced disease and relapse after radical surgery, and following chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel.

OBJECTIVE

To review the role of topotecan in the treatment of advanced and relapsed ovarian cancer, and the efficacy and safety of novel dosing regimens and formulations of topotecan. It will also discuss further options of combination of topotecan with other cytotoxic agents and targeted therapies.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The authors searched for relevant references in the MEDLINE database and in congress abstracts of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

RESULTS

Topotecan is an established second-line therapy for advanced and relapsed ovarian cancer; a regimen of 1.5 mg/m(2)/day 1-5 has been approved in the USA and many other western countries. Topotecan is well tolerated; associated haematological toxicity is generally manageable, reversible and non-cumulative. A number of alternative dosing regimens and formulations have been investigated in an attempt to improve the toxicity profile of topotecan without compromising anti-tumour activity. A novel oral formulation of topotecan has shown clinical promise in patients with advanced and relapsed disease. Administration of i.v. topotecan on a weekly basis produced encouraging results in several phase II trials, with less haematological toxicity and similar response rates to the day 1-5 regimen. Also, recent early studies demonstrate that topotecan is effective in combination with several other therapeutic agents in the relapsed setting.

CONCLUSION

The peer-reviewed literature reports that topotecan is an effective, well tolerated treatment option for relapsed ovarian cancer.