Advertisement

Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology

, Volume 82, Issue 4, pp 723–732 | Cite as

A phase I trial of topotecan plus tivantinib in patients with advanced solid tumors

  • Stephen V. LiuEmail author
  • Susan G. Groshen
  • Karen Kelly
  • Karen L. Reckamp
  • Chandra Belani
  • Timothy W. Synold
  • Amir Goldkorn
  • Barbara J. Gitlitz
  • Mihaela C. Cristea
  • I-Yeh Gong
  • Thomas J. Semrad
  • Yucheng Xu
  • Tong Xu
  • Marianna Koczywas
  • David R. Gandara
  • Edward M. Newman
Clinical Trial Report

Abstract

Purpose

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) that target MET signaling have shown promise in various types of cancer, including lung cancer. Combination strategies have been proposed and developed to increase their therapeutic index. Based on preclinical synergy between inhibition of MET and topoisomerase I, a phase I study was designed to explore the combination of topotecan with the MET TKI tivantinib.

Methods

Eligible patients with advanced solid malignancies for which there was no known effective treatment received topotecan at doses of 1.0–1.5 mg/m2/day for five consecutive days in 21-day cycles with continuous, oral tivantinib given at escalating doses of 120–360 mg orally twice daily. Pharmacokinetic analyses of tivantinib were included. Circulating tumor cells (CTC) were collected serially to identify peripheral changes in MET phosphorylation.

Results

The trial included 18 patients, 17 of whom received treatment. At the planned doses, the combination of topotecan and tivantinib was not tolerable due to thrombocytopenia and neutropenia. The addition of G-CSF to attenuate neutropenia did not improve tolerability. Greater tivantinib exposure, assessed through pharmacokinetic analysis, was associated with greater toxicity. No responses were seen. MET phosphorylation was feasible in CTC, but no changes were seen with therapy.

Conclusions

The combination of topotecan and oral tivantinib was not tolerable in this patient population.

Keywords

Tivantinib ARQ-197 Topotecan MET phosphorylation Circulating tumor cells 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under awards UM1 CA186717, P30CA033572 (including work performed in the Biostatistics Core and the Analytical Pharmacology Core), and P30CA014089 [including work performed in the Circulating Tumor Cell (CTC) Research Core and the Biostatistics Core]. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Research reported in this publication was also supported by an institutional research Grant from the American Cancer Society to the University of Southern California under award number ACS-IRG 53-5114-0188. The authors would also like to acknowledge the contributions of the additional co-investigators who contributed to the study: Dr. Anthony El-Khoueiry and Dr. Agustin Garcia.

Funding

This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under awards UM1 CA186717, P30CA033572 (including work performed in the Biostatistics Core and the Analytical Pharmacology Core), and P30CA014089 (including work performed in the Circulating Tumor Cell (CTC) Research Core and the Biostatistics Core). Research reported in this publication was also supported by an institutional research Grant from the American Cancer Society to the University of Southern California under award number ACS-IRG 53-5114-0188.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

SVL reports personal fees from Takeda, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Taiho, and Celgene; grants from Bayer, Clovis, Corvus, Esanex, Lycera, Merck, Oncomed, Threshold, and Medimmune; and grants and personal fees from Genentech, Ignyta, and Pfizer, all outside the submitted work. BJG reports personal fees from Genentech. MK reports personal fees from AstraZeneca. DRG reports personal fees from Celgene, Guardant health, Lilly, Liquid Genomics/NANT and grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca/Medimmune and Genentech. Other authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. 1.
    Haddad R, Lipson KE, Webb CP (2001) Hepatocyte growth factor expression in human cancer and therapy with specific inhibitors. Anticancer Res 21(6B):4243–4252PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maulik G et al (2002) Role of the hepatocyte growth factor receptor, c-Met, in oncogenesis and potential for therapeutic inhibition. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 13(1):41–59CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sipeki S et al (1999) Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase contributes to Erk1/Erk2 MAP kinase activation associated with hepatocyte growth factor-induced cell scattering. Cell Signal 11(12):885–890CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Salgia R (2017) MET in lung cancer: biomarker selection based on scientific rationale. Mol Cancer Ther 16(4):555–565CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Paik PK et al (2015) Response to MET inhibitors in patients with stage IV lung adenocarcinomas harboring MET mutations causing exon 14 skipping. Cancer Discov 5(8):842–849CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rolle CE et al (2014) Combined MET inhibition and topoisomerase I inhibition block cell growth of small cell lung cancer. Mol Cancer Ther 13(3):576–584CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Storer BE (1989) Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 45(3):925–937CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Birchmeier C et al (2003) Met, metastasis, motility and more. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 4(12):915–925CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosen LS et al (2011) A phase I dose-escalation study of tivantinib (ARQ 197) in adult patients with metastatic solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res 17(24):7754–7764CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Feldman DR et al (2013) A phase 2 multicenter study of tivantinib (ARQ 197) monotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory germ cell tumors. Investig New Drugs 31(4):1016–1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kang YK et al (2014) A phase II trial of a selective c-Met inhibitor tivantinib (ARQ 197) monotherapy as a second- or third-line therapy in the patients with metastatic gastric cancer. Investig New Drugs 32(2):355–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Okusaka T et al (2015) Phase I study of tivantinib in Japanese patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: distinctive pharmacokinetic profiles from other solid tumors. Cancer Sci 106(5):611–617CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Santoro A et al (2013) A phase-1b study of tivantinib (ARQ 197) in adult patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and cirrhosis. Br J Cancer 108(1):21–24CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tolaney SM et al (2015) Phase II study of tivantinib (ARQ 197) in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Investig New Drugs 33(5):1108–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pant S et al (2014) A phase I dose escalation study of oral c-MET inhibitor tivantinib (ARQ 197) in combination with gemcitabine in patients with solid tumors. Ann Oncol 25(7):1416–1421CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eng C et al (2016) A randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 1/2 study of tivantinib (ARQ 197) in combination with irinotecan and cetuximab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with wild-type KRAS who have received first-line systemic therapy. Int J Cancer 139(1):177–186CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sequist LV et al (2011) Randomized phase II study of erlotinib plus tivantinib versus erlotinib plus placebo in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 29(24):3307–3315CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Puzanov I et al (2015) Phase 1 trial of tivantinib in combination with sorafenib in adult patients with advanced solid tumors. Investig New Drugs 33(1):159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kyriakopoulos CE et al (2017) A phase I study of tivantinib in combination with temsirolimus in patients with advanced solid tumors. Investig New Drugs 35(3):290–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Armstrong D, O’Reilly S (1998) Clinical guidelines for managing topotecan-related hematologic toxicity. Oncologist 3(1):4–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    O’Reilly S et al (1996) Phase I and pharmacologic study of topotecan in patients with impaired renal function. J Clin Oncol 14(12):3062–3073CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Alexandre J et al (2003) Evaluation of the nutritional and inflammatory status in cancer patients for the risk assessment of severe haematological toxicity following chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 14(1):36–41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yap TA et al (2011) Phase I trial of a selective c-MET inhibitor ARQ 197 incorporating proof of mechanism pharmacodynamic studies. J Clin Oncol 29(10):1271–1279CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tachibana M et al (2018) Evaluation of the pharmacokinetic drug interaction potential of tivantinib (ARQ 197) using cocktail probes in patients with advanced solid tumours. Br J Clin Pharmacol 84(1):112–121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Calles A et al (2015) Tivantinib (ARQ 197) efficacy is independent of MET inhibition in non-small-cell lung cancer cell lines. Mol Oncol 9(1):260–269CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen V. Liu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Susan G. Groshen
    • 2
  • Karen Kelly
    • 3
  • Karen L. Reckamp
    • 4
  • Chandra Belani
    • 5
  • Timothy W. Synold
    • 4
  • Amir Goldkorn
    • 2
  • Barbara J. Gitlitz
    • 2
    • 6
  • Mihaela C. Cristea
    • 4
  • I-Yeh Gong
    • 3
  • Thomas J. Semrad
    • 3
  • Yucheng Xu
    • 2
  • Tong Xu
    • 2
  • Marianna Koczywas
    • 4
  • David R. Gandara
    • 3
  • Edward M. Newman
    • 4
  1. 1.Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown UniversityWashington, DCUSA
  2. 2.University of Southern California, Keck School of MedicineLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer CenterSacramentoUSA
  4. 4.City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer CenterDuarteUSA
  5. 5.Penn State Cancer InstituteHersheyUSA
  6. 6.Genentech Inc.San FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations