Advertisement

Investigational New Drugs

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 159–167 | Cite as

Phase I clinical evaluation of ZD6126, a novel vascular-targeting agent, in patients with solid tumors

  • Patricia M. LoRussoEmail author
  • Shirish M. Gadgeel
  • Antoinette Wozniak
  • Alan J. Barge
  • Helen K. Jones
  • Zachary S. DelProposto
  • Pamela A. DeLuca
  • Jeffrey L. Evelhoch
  • Scott A. Boerner
  • Catherine Wheeler
PHASE I STUDIES

Summary

Background ZD6126 is a novel vascular-targeting agent that disrupts the endothelial tubulin cytoskeleton causing selective occlusion of tumor vasculature and extensive tumor necrosis. This Phase I clinical study was conducted to evaluate the dose and administration schedule of ZD6126. Methods Adult patients with solid tumors refractory to existing treatments received a 10-min, single-dose intravenous infusion of ZD6126 every 14 or 21 days. Subsequent dose escalation was performed, based on the incidence of adverse events (AEs) within the first cycle of drug administration. Blood samples were obtained for pharmacokinetic analysis, and the effects of ZD6126 on tumor vasculature were visualized using DCE-MRI technology. Results Forty-four patients received ZD6126 (5−112 mg/m2 in the 21-day schedule, n = 35; 40−80 mg/m2 in the 14-day schedule, n = 9). Common AEs were similar in both groups and included abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting, which appeared to be dose related. The incidence of abdominal pain at 112 mg/m2 in the 21-day study prevented further dose escalation. Pharmacokinetic studies confirmed that ZD6126 is rapidly hydrolyzed to ZD6126 phenol. There was no difference in the pharmacokinetics of ZD6126 phenol upon repeat administration or between the two dosing regimens. DCE-MRI evaluation has demonstrated the antivascular effects of ZD6126. Conclusions This study identified that ZD6126 administered every 2 or 3 weeks at 80 mg/m2 was well tolerated, with mild but manageable gastrointestinal AEs. In approximately 11% (5 out of 44) of patients, ZD6126 was associated with cardiac events categorized as dose limiting toxicities (one patient with asymptomatic decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), two with increased troponin concentrations, one with myocardial ischemia, and one with ECG signs of myocardial ischemia).

Keywords

Tolerability Maximum tolerated dose Pharmacokinetics Vascular-targeting agent Tubulin cytoskeleton ZD6126 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by AstraZeneca, Inc.

References

  1. 1.
    Folkman J (1992) The role of angiogenesis in tumor growth. Semin Cancer Biol 3:65–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hurwitz H, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny W, Cartwright T, Hainsworth J, Heim W, Berlin J, Baron A, Griffing S, Holmgren E, Ferrara N, Fyfe G, Rogers B, Ross R, Kabbinavar F (2004) Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 350:2335–2342PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Denekamp J (1993) Review article: angiogenesis, neovascular proliferation and vascular pathophysiology as targets for cancer therapy. Br J Radiol 66:181–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Denekamp J (1990) Vascular attack as a therapeutic strategy for cancer. Cancer Metastasis Rev 9:267–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gotlieb AI (1990) The endothelial cytoskeleton: organization in normal and regenerating endothelium. Toxicol Pathol 18:603–617PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blakey DC, Ashton SE, Westwood FR, Walker M, Ryan AJ (2002) ZD6126: a novel small molecule vascular targeting agent. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 54:1497–1502PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davis PD, Dougherty GJ, Blakey DC, Galbraith SM, Tozer GM, Holder AL, Naylor MA, Nolan J, Stratford MR, Chaplin DJ, Hill SA (2002) ZD6126: a novel vascular-targeting agent that causes selective destruction of tumor vasculature. Cancer Res 62:7247–7253PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Robinson SP, McIntyre DJ, Checkley D, Tessier JJ, Howe FA, Griffiths JR, Ashton SE, Ryan AJ, Blakey DC, Waterton JC (2003) Tumour dose response to the antivascular agent ZD6126 assessed by magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Cancer 88:1592–1597PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Micheletti G, Poli M, Borsotti P, Martinelli M, Imberti B, Taraboletti G, Giavazzi R (2003) Vascular-targeting activity of ZD6126, a novel tubulin-binding agent. Cancer Res 63:1534–1537PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Blakey DC, Westwood FR, Walker M, Hughes GD, Davis PD, Ashton SE, Ryan AJ (2002) Antitumor activity of the novel vascular targeting agent ZD6126 in a panel of tumor models. Clin Cancer Res 8:1974–1983PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McCarty MF, Takeda A, Stoeltzing O, Liu W, Fan F, Reinmuth N, Akagi M, Bucana C, Mansfield PF, Ryan A, Ellis LM (2004) ZD6126 inhibits orthotopic growth and peritoneal carcinomatosis in a mouse model of human gastric cancer. Br J Cancer 90:705–711PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Evelhoch JL, LoRusso PM, He Z, DelProposto Z, Polin L, Corbett TH, Langmuir P, Wheeler C, Stone A, Leadbetter J, Ryan AJ, Blakey DC, Waterton JC (2004) Magnetic resonance imaging measurements of the response of murine and human tumors to the vascular-targeting agent ZD6126. Clin Cancer Res 10:3650–3657PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Siemann DW, Rojiani AM (2002) Antitumor efficacy of conventional anticancer drugs is enhanced by the vascular targeting agent ZD6126. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 54:1512–1517PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hoang T, Huang S, Armstrong E, Eickhoff JC, Harari PM (2006) Augmentation of radiation response with the vascular targeting agent ZD6126. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 64:1458–1465PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    AstraZeneca Corp (2003) Investigator’s brochure. ZD6126—a vascular targeting agentGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gould S, Westwood FR, Curwen JO, Ashton SE, Roberts DW, Lovick SC, Ryan AJ (2007) Effect of pretreatment with atenolol and nifedipine on ZD6126-induced cardiac toxicity in rats. J Natl Cancer Inst 99:1724–1728PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Beerepoot LV, Radema SA, Witteveen EO, Thomas T, Wheeler C, Kempin S, Voest EE (2006) Phase I clinical evaluation of weekly administration of the novel vascular-targeting agent, ZD6126, in patients with solid tumors. J Clin Oncol 24:1491–1498PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gadgeel SM, LoRusso PM, Wozniak AJ, Wheeler C (2002) A dose-escalation study of the novel vascular-targeting agent, ZD6126, in patients with solid tumors. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 21 (abstract 438)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    DelProposto Z, LoRusso P, Latif Z, Morton P, Wheeler C, Barge A, Evelhoch J (2002) MRI evaluation of the effects of the vascular-targeting agent ZD6126 on tumor vasculature. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 21 (abstract 440)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Landis CS, Li X, Telang FW, Coderre JA, Micca PL, Rooney WD, Latour LL, Vetek G, Palyka I, Springer CS Jr (2000) Determination of the MRI contrast agent concentration time course in vivo following bolus injection: effect of equilibrium transcytolemmal water exchange. Magn Reson Med 44:563–574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Leach MO, Brindle KM, Evelhoch JL, Griffiths JR, Horsman MR, Jackson A, Jayson GC, Judson IR, Knopp MV, Maxwell RJ, McIntyre D, Padhani AR, Price P, Rathbone R, Rustin GJ, Tofts PS, Tozer GM, Vennart W, Waterton JC, Williams SR, Workman P (2005) The assessment of antiangiogenic and antivascular therapies in early-stage clinical trials using magnetic resonance imaging: issues and recommendations. Br J Cancer 92:1599–1610PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McKeage MJ, Fong P, Jeffery M, Baguley BC, Kestell P, Ravic M, Jameson MB (2006) 5,6-Dimethylxanthenone-4-acetic acid in the treatment of refractory tumors: a phase I safety study of a vascular disrupting agent. Clin Cancer Res 12:1776–1784PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jameson MB, Thompson PI, Baguley BC, Evans BD, Harvey VJ, Porter DJ, McCrystal MR, Small M, Bellenger K, Gumbrell L, Halbert GW, Kestell P (2003) Clinical aspects of a phase I trial of 5,6-dimethylxanthenone-4-acetic acid (DMXAA), a novel antivascular agent. Br J Cancer 88:1844–1850PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Oliver R, Wheeler C, Langmuir P, Melezinek I, Stone A (2004) Evaluation of the role of body-surface-area dose adjustment of ZD6126, a novel vascular-targeting agent. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 22 (abstract 3065)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Galbraith SM, Maxwell RJ, Lodge MA, Tozer GM, Wilson J, Taylor NJ, Stirling JJ, Sena L, Padhani AR, Rustin GJ (2003) Combretastatin A4 phosphate has tumor antivascular activity in rat and man as demonstrated by dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol 21:2831–2842PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Galbraith SM, Rustin GJ, Lodge MA, Taylor NJ, Stirling JJ, Jameson M, Thompson P, Hough D, Gumbrell L, Padhani AR (2002) Effects of 5,6-dimethylxanthenone-4-acetic acid on human tumor microcirculation assessed by dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol 20:3826–3840PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Murata R, Overgaard J, Horsman MR (2001) Comparative effects of combretastatin A-4 disodium phosphate and 5,6-dimethylxanthenone-4-acetic acid on blood perfusion in a murine tumour and normal tissues. Int J Radiat Biol 77:195–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia M. LoRusso
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shirish M. Gadgeel
    • 1
  • Antoinette Wozniak
    • 1
  • Alan J. Barge
    • 2
  • Helen K. Jones
    • 2
  • Zachary S. DelProposto
    • 1
  • Pamela A. DeLuca
    • 1
  • Jeffrey L. Evelhoch
    • 3
  • Scott A. Boerner
    • 1
  • Catherine Wheeler
    • 4
  1. 1.Karmanos Cancer InstituteWayne State UniversityDetroitUSA
  2. 2.AstraZenecaLondonUK
  3. 3.Amgen Inc.Thousand OaksUSA
  4. 4.AstraZenecaBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations