Dose-dependent bidirectional pharmacological effects of vinorelbine-based metronomic combination chemotherapy on tumor growth and metastasis and mechanisms in melanoma mouse model

BACKGROUND

There is evidence that the empirical setting of doses and schedules of antineoplastic agents in metronomic chemotherapy (MC) might lead to undesirable outcomes, such as promoting tumor growth or metastasis at certain low doses. However, details about the dose effect of antineoplastic agents in MC have not been fully known yet.

OBJECTIVES

Vinorelbine combined with cisplatin or fluorouracil (VNR/CDDP or VNR/FU) was selected to investigate its effects on tumor growth or metastasis as well as mechanisms.

METHODS

Experimental techniques, including immunohistochemistry, western blot, immunofluorescence, and flow cytometry, were used to explore the mechanisms, along with cell proliferation, apoptosis, migration, and invasion.

RESULTS

The results showed that VNR/CDDP or VNR/FU promoted tumor growth and metastasis at low doses and inhibited them at high ones. Except that expressions of apoptotic proteins were elevated at both low and high doses, low-dose treatments enhanced angiogenesis and promoted the mobilization and recruitment of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), while high-dose treatments reversed these effects. Additionally, low concentrations of VNR/CDDP or VNR/FU stimulated tumor cell functions such as anti-apoptosis, migration, and invasion, but high concentrations only suppressed cell proliferation and increased apoptosis.

CONCLUSION

This study elucidated a bidirectional action mode regulated by multiple mechanisms at different doses in MC and also highlighted the risks of low-dose metronomic administration of antineoplastic agents in the clinic. More preclinical and clinical studies focusing on the dose-effect of metronomic regimens are urgently needed because an effective therapeutic regimen should be an optimal setting of drugs, doses, schedules, or combinations.

Efficacy of Metronomic Oral Vinorelbine, Cyclophosphamide, and Capecitabine vs Weekly Intravenous Paclitaxel in Patients With Estrogen Receptor-Positive, ERBB2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: Final Results From the Phase 2 METEORA-II Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

In spite of the effectiveness of endocrine therapy plus cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors as the first-line treatment for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, erb-b2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 (ERBB2 [formerly HER2/neu])-negative (ER+/ERBB2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC), patients eventually develop resistance, and eventually most will receive chemotherapy. The METEORA-II trial compared a metronomic all-oral treatment with intravenous (IV) chemotherapy.

Objective

To compare the efficacy of the oral vinorelbine plus cyclophosphamide plus capecitabine (VEX) regimen vs weekly IV paclitaxel among patients with ER+/ERBB2- MBC who are candidates for chemotherapy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This phase 2 randomized clinical trial including 140 women 18 years and older (randomized 1:1) with ER+/ERBB2- MBC was carried out from September 13, 2017, to January 14, 2021 at 15 centers in Italy. Eligible patients could have received 1 prior line of chemotherapy for MBC and/or 2 lines of endocrine therapy (including CDK4/6 inhibitors).

Interventions

In 4-week cycles, patients received either metronomic oral VEX or weekly IV paclitaxel.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was investigator-assessed time to treatment failure (TTF) defined as the interval between the date of randomization to the end of treatment (because of disease progression or lack of tolerability or because further trial treatment was declined). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and disease control rate (complete or partial response or stable disease lasting for at least 24 weeks).

Results

In total, 133 patients received either VEX (n = 70) or paclitaxel (n = 63) in 4-weekly cycles. The median age was 61 (range, 30-80) years. The VEX treatment significantly prolonged TTF vs paclitaxel (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.42-0.88; P = .008), median TTF was 8.3 (95% CI, 5.6-11.1) months for VEX vs 5.7 (95% CI, 4.1-6.1) months for paclitaxel, and the 12-month TTF was 34.3% for VEX vs 8.6% for paclitaxel. The median PFS was 11.1 (95% CI, 8.3-13.8) months vs 6.9 (95% CI, 5.4-10.1) months favoring VEX (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.46-0.96, P = .03). The 12-month PFS was 43.5% for VEX vs 21.9% for paclitaxel. No difference in OS was found. The TF event for 55.6% of patients was progression of disease; for 23% it was AEs. More patients assigned to VEX had at least 1 grade 3 or 4 targeted adverse event (VEX, 42.9%; 95% CI, 31.1%-55.3% vs paclitaxel, 28.6%; 95% CI, 17.9%-41.3%), but essentially no alopecia.

Conclusion and Relevance

This randomized clinical trial found significantly prolonged TTF and PFS for oral VEX but no improvement in OS compared with intravenous paclitaxel, despite increased but still manageable toxic effects. The VEX regimen may provide more prolonged disease control than weekly paclitaxel for ER+/ERBB2- MBC.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02954055.

Anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine in patients with relapsed, mesothelin-positive malignant pleural mesothelioma (ARCS-M): a randomised, open-label phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Few treatment options exist for second-line treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. We aimed to assess the antibody-drug conjugate anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic disease overexpressing mesothelin who had progressed on first-line platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab.

METHODS

In this phase 2, randomised, open-label study, done at 76 hospitals in 14 countries, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic malignant pleural mesothelioma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and who had progressed on first-line platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. Participants were prospectively screened for mesothelin overexpression (defined as 2+ or 3+ mesothelin membrane staining intensity on at least 30% of viable tumour cells by immunohistochemistry) and were randomly assigned (2:1), using an interactive voice and web response system provided by the sponsor, to receive intravenous anetumab ravtansine (6·5 mg/kg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle) or intravenous vinorelbine (30 mg/m2 once every week) until progression, toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival according to blinded central radiology review, assessed in the intention-to-treat population, with safety assessed in all participants who received any study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02610140, and is now completed.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 3, 2015, and May 31, 2017, 589 patients were enrolled and 248 mesothelin-overexpressing patients were randomly allocated to the two treatment groups (166 patients were randomly assigned to receive anetumab ravtansine and 82 patients were randomly assigned to receive vinorelbine). 105 (63%) of 166 patients treated with anetumab ravtansine (median follow-up 4·0 months [IQR 1·4-5·5]) versus 43 (52%) of 82 patients treated with vinorelbine (3·9 months [1·4-5·4]) had disease progression or died (median progression-free survival 4·3 months [95% CI 4·1-5·2] vs 4·5 months [4·1-5·8]; hazard ratio 1·22 [0·85-1·74]; log-rank p=0·86). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (one [1%] of 163 patients for anetumab ravtansine vs 28 [39%] of 72 patients for vinorelbine), pneumonia (seven [4%] vs five [7%]), neutrophil count decrease (two [1%] vs 12 [17%]), and dyspnoea (nine [6%] vs three [4%]). Serious drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 12 (7%) patients treated with anetumab ravtansine and 11 (15%) patients treated with vinorelbine. Ten (6%) treatment-emergent deaths occurred with anetumab ravtansine: pneumonia (three [2%]), dyspnoea (two [1%]), sepsis (two [1%]), atrial fibrillation (one [1%]), physical deterioration (one [1%]), hepatic failure (one [1%]), mesothelioma (one [1%]), and renal failure (one [1%]; one patient had 3 events). One (1%) treatment-emergent death occurred in the vinorelbine group (pneumonia).

INTERPRETATION

Anetumab ravtansine showed a manageable safety profile and was not superior to vinorelbine. Further studies are needed to define active treatments in relapsed mesothelin-expressing malignant pleural mesothelioma.

FUNDING

Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals.

Metronomic therapy in advanced breast cancer and NSCLC: vinorelbine as a paradigm of recent progress

INTRODUCTION

Metronomic chemotherapy (MCT) is based on frequent dosing of the drug. . This leads to pharmacologically active but low plasma concentrations that reduce toxicity. MCT seems to work primarily via indirect effects on tumor cells and their microenvironment, rather than direct antitumor effects. Oral vinorelbine is one of the most widely studied MCT approaches in both advanced breast cancer and non-small cell lung cancer.

EXPERT OPINION

MCT with vinorelbine has proven efficacy, tolerability and quality of life benefits both as monotherapy and in combination with other MCTs or targeted agents, in first-line therapy and in previously treated patients. Key populations are emerging who may be particularly well suited to metronomic vinorelbine, including those with indolent disease, older individuals, and those with multiple comorbidities and/or bone metastases. Ongoing trials should help to further delineate these target groups. Additional work is needed to better understand the optimal vinorelbine regimen, particularly when used in combination or in non-Caucasian patients. Markers are also required to help identify individuals who are most likely to respond. Nonetheless, the efficacy and tolerability of MCT, allied to improved patient convenience, reduced need for medical engagement and lower cost, make it an appealing option - particular in resource-constrained healthcare environments.

A phase I/II study of epertinib plus trastuzumab with or without chemotherapy in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Epertinib (S-222611) is a potent reversible inhibitor of HER2, EGFR and HER4. This trial evaluated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and antitumour activity of daily oral epertinib combined with trastuzumab (arm A), with trastuzumab plus vinorelbine (arm B) or with trastuzumab plus capecitabine (arm C), in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

METHODS

Eligible patients, with or without brain metastases, had received prior HER2-directed therapy. A dose-escalation phase determined the tolerability of each combination and established a dose for further study. Further, patients were recruited to expansion cohorts in each of the 3 arms to further explore efficacy and safety.

RESULTS

The recommended doses of epertinib were 600 mg, 200 mg and 400 mg in arms A, B and C, respectively. The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse event (AE) was diarrhoea in all arms, which was manageable with medical intervention and dose modification. The objective response rate (complete response [CR] plus partial response [PR]) in heavily pre-treated HER2-positive MBC patients at the recommended doses of epertinib combined with trastuzumab was 67% (N = 9), with trastuzumab plus vinorelbine was 0% (N = 5) and with trastuzumab plus capecitabine was 56% (N = 9). Notably, 4 of 6 patients previously treated with T-DM1 responded in the arm A expansion cohort (epertinib plus trastuzumab). In the arm C expansion cohort (epertinib plus trastuzumab plus capecitabine), 4 of 7 patients responded despite previous exposure to capecitabine. Measurable regression of brain metastases was observed in patients with CNS target lesions treated in both arms A and C.

CONCLUSION

We observed safety, tolerability and encouraging antitumour activity of epertinib combined with trastuzumab, or with trastuzumab plus capecitabine. This supports further evaluation of these combinations in patients with pre-treated HER2-positive MBC, with or without brain metastases.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT Number: 2013-003894-87; registered 09-September-2013.

Vinorelbine and continuous low-dose cyclophosphamide as maintenance chemotherapy in patients with high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS 2005): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

For more than three decades, standard treatment for rhabdomyosarcoma in Europe has included 6 months of chemotherapy. The European paediatric Soft tissue sarcoma Study Group (EpSSG) aimed to investigate whether prolonging treatment with maintenance chemotherapy would improve survival in patients with high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma.

METHODS

RMS 2005 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial done at 102 hospitals in 14 countries. We included patients aged 6 months to 21 years with rhabdomyosarcoma who were considered to be at high risk of relapse: those with non-metastatic incompletely resected embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma occurring at unfavourable sites with unfavourable age (≥10 years) or tumour size (>5 cm), or both; those with any non-metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma with nodal involvement; and those with non-metastatic alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma but without nodal involvement. Patients in remission after standard treatment (nine cycles of ifosfamide, vincristine, dactinomycin with or without doxorubicin, and surgery or radiotherapy, or both) were randomly assigned (1:1) to stop treatment or continue maintenance chemotherapy (six cycles of intravenous vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15, and daily oral cyclophosphamide 25 mg/m2, on days 1-28). Randomisation was done by use of a web-based system and was stratified (block size of four) by enrolling country and risk subgroup. Neither investigators nor patients were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes were overall survival and toxicity. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2005-000217-35, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00339118, and follow-up is ongoing.

FINDINGS

Between April 20, 2006, and Dec 21, 2016, 371 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two groups: 186 to stop treatment and 185 to receive maintenance chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 60·3 months (IQR 32·4-89·4). In the intention-to-treat population, 5-year disease-free survival was 77·6% (95% CI 70·6-83·2) with maintenance chemotherapy versus 69·8% (62·2-76·2) without maintenance chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·45-1·02]; p=0·061), and 5-year overall survival was 86·5% (95% CI 80·2-90·9) with maintenance chemotherapy versus 73·7% (65·8-80·1) without (HR 0·52 [95% CI 0·32-0·86]; p=0·0097). Toxicity was manageable in patients who received maintenance chemotherapy: 136 (75%) of 181 patients had grade 3-4 leucopenia, 148 (82%) had grade 3-4 neutropenia, 19 (10%) had anaemia, two (1%) had thrombocytopenia, and 56 (31%) had an infection. One (1%) patient had a grade 4 non-haematological toxicity (neurotoxicity). Two treatment-related serious adverse events occurred: one case of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion and one of a severe steppage gait with limb pain, both of which resolved.

INTERPRETATION

Adding maintenance chemotherapy seems to improve survival for patients with high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma. This approach will be the new standard of care for patients with high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma in future EpSSG trials.

FUNDING

Fondazione Città della Speranza, Association Léon Berard Enfant Cancéreux, Clinical Research Hospital Program (French Ministry of Health), and Cancer Research UK.

Is there still a place for vinorelbine in advanced metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer?

The aim of this paper was to evaluate the activity and tolerability of oral vinorelbine in patients with advanced castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) who progressed after a minimum of three lines including: abiraterone acetate, docetaxel, cabazitaxel, and enzalutamide.Treatment consisted of weekly oral vinorelbine 60 mg/m. Chemotherapy was administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.Twenty-six patients received vinorelbine: their median age was 74 years (range 58-84 years). Twenty-four (92.3%) patients had bone metastases. A decrease in PSA levels ≥50% was observed in 2 patients (7.7%). Among the subjects who were symptomatic at baseline, pain was reduced in 3 patients (13.6%) with a significant decrease in analgesic use. Median progression-free survival was 9 weeks (95% CI: 7 to 11) and median overall survival was 17 weeks (95% CI: 12 to 22). Treatment was well tolerated, and no grade 4 toxicities were observed.Our findings do not suggest the use of oral vinorelbine on a weekly schedule, in CRPC heavily pre-treated.

A Pilot Study of Vinorelbine Safety and Pharmacokinetics in Patients with Varying Degrees of Liver Dysfunction

Vinorelbine tartrate is a semi‐synthetic vinca alkaloid and an inhibitor of microtubule polymerization with demonstrated antitumor properties across a spectrum of cancers. The pharmacokinetics of vinorelbine may be altered in individuals with liver dysfunction, considering that hepatic metabolism serves as the predominant route of drug elimination. This article reports the pharmacokinetics and safety of vinorelbine in patients with varying degrees of hepatic impairment, including dosing recommendations in this population.

Background.

Vinorelbine has demonstrated anticancer activity and is primarily metabolized in the liver. This single‐institution, phase I pilot study describes the safety and pharmacokinetics of vinorelbine in patients with varying degrees of hepatic impairment.

Materials and Methods.

Patients with treatment‐refractory solid tumors were enrolled into treatment arms based on vinorelbine dose (weekly infusions of 7.5–30 mg/m²) and liver function (normal liver function, mild, moderate, or severe liver dysfunction). Vinorelbine pharmacokinetics were evaluated to describe its relationship with liver function. Indocyanine green (ICG) clearance was assessed for correlation with pharmacokinetics.

Results.

Forty‐seven patients were enrolled, and a total of 108 grade 3–4 treatment‐related adverse events (AEs) occurred. Of these, grade 3–4 myelosuppression was the most common (34.3%). Thirty‐three (30.6%), 22 (20.4%), and 9 (8.3%) grade 3–4 AEs were observed in the vinorelbine 20 mg/m²/severe, 15 mg/m²/moderate, and 7.5 mg/m²/severe liver dysfunction groups, respectively, with the majority being nonhematologic toxicities. ICG clearance decreased as liver function worsened. Vinorelbine pharmacokinetics were not correlated with ICG elimination or the degree of liver dysfunction.

Conclusion.

For patients with severe liver dysfunction (bilirubin >3.0 mg/dL), vinorelbine doses ≥7.5 mg/m² are poorly tolerated. The high incidence of grade 3–4 AEs with 15 mg/m² vinorelbine in moderate liver dysfunction (bilirubin 1.5–3.0 mg/dL) raises concerns for its safety in this population. Vinorelbine pharmacokinetics are not affected by liver dysfunction; however, levels of the active metabolite 4‐O‐deacetylvinorelbine were not measured and may be higher in patients with liver dysfunction if its elimination is impacted by liver impairment to a greater degree than the parent drug.

Implications for Practice.

Vinorelbine remains widely prescribed in advanced malignancies and is under development in immunotherapy combinations. Given vinorelbine is primarily hepatically metabolized, understanding its safety and pharmacokinetics in liver dysfunction remains paramount. In this phase I pilot study, weekly vinorelbine at doses ≥7.5 mg/m² is poorly tolerated in those with severe liver dysfunction. Furthermore, a high incidence of grade 3–4 toxicities was observed with vinorelbine at 15 mg/m² in those with moderate liver dysfunction. Vinorelbine pharmacokinetics do not appear affected by degree of liver dysfunction. Further evaluation of levels of the free drug and active metabolites in relationship to liver function are warranted.