Investigational New Drugs

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 509–515 | Cite as

A dose escalation, safety, and tolerability study of MN-029 in patients with advanced solid tumors

  • Anne M. Traynor
  • Michael S. Gordon
  • Dona Alberti
  • David S. Mendelson
  • Mark S. Munsey
  • George Wilding
  • Richard E. Gammans
  • William L. Read
PHASE I STUDIES

Summary

Purpose: To assess the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), safety, and tolerability of MN-209, a novel vascular disrupting agent, in patients with advanced solid tumors. Study Design: MN-029 was administered weekly for three consecutive weeks out of four; two cycles were planned. Dose escalation proceeded by 100% per toxicity criteria. Intra-patient dose escalation was permitted. Results: Twenty patients received a total of 151 infusions of MN-029. No DLTs or grade 4 toxicities occurred. The most common adverse events were nausea, vomiting, arthralgias, and headache. One patient developed acute substernal chest pain 4 days after his first dose of MN-029 and was removed from the study. An MTD was not determined. The recommended phase II dose was identified as 180 mg/m2/week. One patient with advanced pancreatic cancer attained a partial response lasting 10 weeks. Conclusions: MN-029 was well tolerated in this schedule. Further development of this class of agents is warranted, especially in combination with other anti-cancer treatments.

Keywords

Phase I Vascular disrupting agent Angiogenesis Pathologic neovascularization 

References

  1. 1.
    Tozer GM, Kanthou C, Baguley BC (2005) Disrupting tumour blood vessels. Nat Rev Cancer 5:423–435. doi: 10.1038/nrc1628 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Horsman MR, Siemann DW (2006) Pathophysiologic effects of vascular-targeting agents and the implications for combination with conventional therapies. Cancer Res 66:11520–11539. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-2848 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hinnen P, Eskens FA (2007) Vascular disrupting agents in clinical development. Br J Cancer 96:1159–1165. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603694 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thorpe PE (2004) Vascular targeting agents as cancer therapeutics. Clin Cancer Res 10:415–427. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-0642-03 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tozer GM, Kanthou C, Lewis G, Prise VE, Vojnovic B, Hill SA (2008) Tumour vascular disrupting agents: combating treatment resistance. Br J Radiol 81:S12–S20. doi: 10.1259/bjr/36205483 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rustin GJ, Galbraith SM, Anderson H, Stratford M, Folkes LK, Sena L, Gumbrell L, Price PM (2003) Phase I clinical trial of weekly combretastatin A4 phosphate: clinical and pharmacokinetic results. J Clin Oncol 21:2815–2822. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.05.185 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stevenson JP, Rosen M, Sun W, Gallagher M, Haller DG, Vaughn D, Giantonio B, Zimmer R, Petros WP, Stratford M, Chaplin D, Young SL, Schnall M, O’Dwyer PJ (2003) Phase I trial of the antivascular agent combretastatin A4 phosphate on a 5-day schedule to patients with cancer: magnetic resonance imaging evidence for altered tumor blood flow. J Clin Oncol 21:4428–4438. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.12.986 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dowlati A, Robertson K, Cooney M, Petros WP, Stratford M, Jesberger J, Rafie N, Overmoyer B, Makkar V, Stambler B, Taylor A, Waas J, Lewin JS, McCrae KR, Remick SC (2002) A phase I pharmacokinetic and translational study of the novel vascular targeting agent combretastatin a-4 phosphate on a single-dose intravenous schedule in patients with advanced cancer. Cancer Res 62:3408–3416PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    LoRusso PM, Gadgeel SM, Wozniak A, Barge AJ, Jones HK, DelProposto ZS, DeLuca PA, Evelhoch JL, Boerner SA, Wheeler C (2008) Phase I clinical evaluation of ZD6126, a novel vascular-targeting agent, in patients with solid tumors. Invest New Drugs 26:159–167. doi: 10.1007/s10637-008-9112-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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 24:1491–1498. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.02.7458 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Heeckeren WJ, Bhakta S, Ortiz J, Duerk J, Cooney MM, Dowlati A, McCrae K, Remick SC (2006) Promise of new vascular-disrupting agents balanced with cardiac toxicity: is it time for oncologists to get to know their cardiologists? J Clin Oncol 24:1485–1488. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.8801 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shi W, Siemann DW (2005) Preclinical studies of the novel vascular disrupting agent MN-029. Anticancer Res 25:3899–3904PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ricart AD, Cooney M, Sarantopoulos J, Brell J, Locke KW, Gammans RE, Medina G, Zambito A, Tolcher AW, Remick SC (2006) A phase I pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) study of MN-029, a novel vascular disrupting agent (VDA), in patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors. J Clin Oncol 24:June 20 Suppl; abstr 3096Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    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 99:1724–1728. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djm202 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Veronese ML, Mosenkis A, Flaherty KT, Gallagher M, Stevenson JP, Townsend RR, O’Dwyer PJ (2006) Mechanisms of hypertension associated with BAY 43–9006. J Clin Oncol 24:1363–1369. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.02.0503 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rini BI, Schiller JH, Fruehauf JP, Cohen EE, Tarazi JC, Rosbrook B, Ricart AD, Olszanski S, Spano KJ (2008) Association of diastolic blood pressure (dBP) ≥ 90 mmHg with overall survival (OS) in patients treated with axitinib (AG- 013736). J Clin Oncol 26:May 20 suppl; abstr 3543Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    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 64:1458–1465. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp. 2005.11.017 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goto H, Yano S, Matsumori Y, Ogawa H, Blakey DC, Sone S (2004) Sensitization of tumor-associated endothelial cell apoptosis by the novel vascular-targeting agent ZD6126 in combination with cisplatin. Clin Cancer Res 10:7671–7676. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-1171 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ng QS, Goh V, Carnell D, Meer K, Padhani AR, Saunders MI, Hoskin PJ (2007) Tumor antivascular effects of radiotherapy combined with combretastatin a4 phosphate in human non-small-cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 67:1375–1380. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp. 2006.11.028 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hamstra DA, Rehemtulla A, Ross BD (2007) Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging: a biomarker for treatment response in oncology. J Clin Oncol 25:4104–4109. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.11.9610 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    O’Connor JP, Jackson A, Asselin MC, Buckley DL, Parker GJ, Jayson GC (2008) Quantitative imaging biomarkers in the clinical development of targeted therapeutics: current and future perspectives. Lancet Oncol 9:766–776. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(08) 70196-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dowlati A, Gray R, Sandler AB, Schiller JH, Johnson DH (2008) Cell adhesion molecules, vascular endothelial growth factor, and basic fibroblast growth factor in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab—an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study. Clin Cancer Res 14:1407–1412. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-1154 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne M. Traynor
    • 1
  • Michael S. Gordon
    • 2
  • Dona Alberti
    • 1
  • David S. Mendelson
    • 2
  • Mark S. Munsey
    • 3
  • George Wilding
    • 1
  • Richard E. Gammans
    • 3
  • William L. Read
    • 4
  1. 1.Paul P. Carbone Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Premiere Oncology of ArizonaScottsdaleUSA
  3. 3.MediciNova, Inc.San DiegoUSA
  4. 4.Rebecca and John Moores Cancer CenterUniversity of California at San DiegoSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations