Investigational New Drugs

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 1039–1045

Phase I study of continuous MKC-1 in patients with advanced or metastatic solid malignancies using the modified Time-to-Event Continual Reassessment Method (TITE-CRM) dose escalation design

  • Amye Tevaarwerk
  • George Wilding
  • Jens Eickhoff
  • Rick Chappell
  • Carolyn Sidor
  • Jamie Arnott
  • Howard Bailey
  • William Schelman
  • Glenn Liu
PHASE I STUDIES

Summary

Background MKC-1 is an oral cell-cycle inhibitor with broad antitumor activity in preclinical models. Clinical studies demonstrated modest antitumor activity using intermittent dosing schedule, however additional preclinical data suggested continuous dosing could be efficacious with additional effects against the mTor/AKT pathway. The primary objectives were to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and response of continuous MKC-1. Secondary objectives included characterizing the dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) and pharmacokinetics (PK). Methods Patients with solid malignancies were eligible, if they had measurable disease, ECOG PS ≤1, and adequate organ function. Exclusions included brain metastases and inability to receive oral drug. MKC-1 was dosed twice daily, continuously in 28-day cycles. Other medications were eliminated if there were possible drug interactions. Doses were assigned using a TITE-CRM algorithm following enrollment of the first 3 pts. Disease response was assessed every 8 weeks. Results Between 5/08–9/09, 24 patients enrolled (15 M/9 F, median 58 years, range 44–77). Patients 1–3 received 120 mg/d of MKC-1; patients 4–24 were dosed per the TITE-CRM algorithm: 150 mg [n = 1], 180 [2], 200 [1], 230 [1], 260 [5], 290 [6], 320 [5]. The median time on drug was 8 weeks (range 4–28). The only DLT occurred at 320 mg (grade 3 fatigue). Stable disease occurred at 150 mg/d (28 weeks; RCC) and 320 mg/d (16 weeks; breast, parotid). Escalation halted at 320 mg/d. Day 28 pharmacokinetics indicated absorption and active metabolites. Conclusion Continuous MKC-1 was well-tolerated; there were no RECIST responses, although clinical benefit occurred in 3/24 pts. Dose escalation stopped at 320 mg/d, and this is the MTD as defined by the CRM dose escalation algorithm; this cumulative dose/cycle exceeds that determined from intermittent dosing studies. A TITE-CRM allowed for rapid dose escalation and was able to account for late toxicities with continuous dosing via a modified algorithm.

Keywords

MKC-1 TITE-CRM Solid malignancy Novel dose escalation designs 

References

  1. 1.
    Hanna N, Estes D, Arnott J et al (2009) Phase I/II study of MKC-1 and pemetrexed (PEM) as second-line therapy in patients (pts) with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J Clin Oncol 27(suppl):e19005Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Salazar R, Bissett D, Twelves C et al (2004) A phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of Ro 31-7453 given as a 7- or 14-day oral twice daily schedule every 4 weeks in patients with solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res 10:4374–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dupont J, Bienvenu B, Aghajanian C et al (2004) Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of the novel oral cell-cycle inhibitor Ro 31-7453 in patients with advanced solid tumors. J Clin Oncol 22:3366–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Elser C, Hirte H, Kaizer L et al (2009) Phase II study of MKC-1 in patients with metastatic or resistant epithelial ovarian cancer or advanced endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol 27(suppl):5577Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schneider B, Karwal M, Laufman L, et al. (2008) A phase II study of oral MKC-1 for metastatic breast cancer (MBC). J Clin Oncol 26 abstr 1046Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    O’Quigley J, Shen LZ (1996) Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach. Biometrics 52:673–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Normolle D, Lawrence T (2006) Designing dose-escalation trials with late-onset toxicities using the time-to-event continual reassessment method. J Clin Oncol 24:4426–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cheung YK, Chappell R (2000) Sequential designs for phase I clinical trials with late-onset toxicities. Biometrics 56:1177–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    He W, Liu J, Binkowitz B et al (2006) A model-based approach in the estimation of the maximum tolerated dose in phase I cancer clinical trials. Stat Med 25:2027–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA et al (2000) New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:205–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Team: RDC: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria., R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2007Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Terwogt JM, Schellens JH, Huinink WW et al (1999) Clinical pharmacology of anticancer agents in relation to formulations and administration routes. Cancer Treat Rev 25:83–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goodman SN, Zahurak ML, Piantadosi S (1995) Some practical improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. Stat Med 14:1149–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amye Tevaarwerk
    • 1
  • George Wilding
    • 1
  • Jens Eickhoff
    • 2
  • Rick Chappell
    • 2
  • Carolyn Sidor
    • 3
  • Jamie Arnott
    • 3
  • Howard Bailey
    • 4
  • William Schelman
    • 4
  • Glenn Liu
    • 4
  1. 1.University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer CenterMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biostatistics & Medical InformaticsUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  3. 3.EntreMed, Inc.RockvilleUSA
  4. 4.University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer CenterUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations