Advertisement

Investigational New Drugs

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 148–158 | Cite as

An innovative, multi-arm, complete phase 1b study of the novel anti-cancer agent tasisulam in patients with advanced solid tumors

  • Robert M. JotteEmail author
  • Daniel D. Von Hoff
  • Fadi Braiteh
  • Carlos R. Becerra
  • Donald A. Richards
  • David A. Smith
  • Lawrence Garbo
  • Joe Stephenson
  • Paul R. Conkling
  • Francisco Robert-Vizcarrondo
  • Jian Chen
  • P. Kellie Turner
  • Kay Hoong Chow
  • D. Fritz Tai
  • Robert IlariaJr
PHASE I STUDIES

Summary

Background This phase Ib study used a parallel, multi-arm design to examine tasisulam-sodium (hereafter tasisulam), a drug with complex pharmacology, combined with standard chemotherapies in patients with advanced solid tumors, with the ultimate goal of accelerating drug development. Methods Patients received escalating doses of tasisulam (3 + 3 schema; target Cmax 300–400 μg/mL) every 28 days plus 1,000 mg/m2 gemcitabine HCl (days 1 and 15), 60 mg/m2 docetaxel, 200 mg/m2/day temozolomide, 75 mg/m2 cisplatin, or 150 mg/day erlotinib. Following dose-escalation, patients were enrolled into specific tumor subtype arms, chosen based on the established activity of the standard agent. Because tasisulam is highly albumin-bound, patients in the tumor-specific confirmation arms were dosed targeting specific albumin-corrected exposure ranges (AUCalb) identified during dose-escalation (3,500 h*μg/mL [75th percentile] for docetaxel, temozolomide, and cisplatin; 4,000 h*μg/mL for gemcitabine and erlotinib). Results A total of 234 patients were enrolled. The safety profile of tasisulam with standard chemotherapies was sufficient to allow enrollment into the dose-confirmation phase in all arms. The primary dose-limiting toxicities were hematologic (thrombocytopenia and neutropenia). The most common grade ≥3 drug-related treatment-emergent adverse event was neutropenia, with the highest incidence in the docetaxel arm. Conclusions The multi-arm design allowed the efficient determination of the maximum tolerated dose of tasisulam across multiple combinations, and a preliminary characterization of pharmacokinetics, safety, and potential efficacy. Although enrollment into all planned groups was not completed due to termination of compound development, these data support the feasibility of this approach for accelerated cancer drug development, even for drugs with complex pharmacology.

Keywords

Tasisulam LY573636 Phase Ib Dose-escalation Gemcitabine HCl Docetaxel Temozolomide Cisplatin Erlotinib 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the Study JZAK investigators for their participation in the study: Drs Stephen Anthony, Thaddeus Beck, Thomas Boyd, Gabriela Chiorean, Maria Flores, Beth Hellerstedt, Pam Kaiser, Robert Raju, Rachel Sanborn, and Hillary Wu. We also thank Cindy C. Taylor of ClinGenuity LLC for assistance with the preparation of the manuscript, Dinesh P. De Alwis formerly of Eli Lilly and Company for assistance with the pharmacokinetics analyses, and Baha Alkuzweny of Inventiv for statistical analyses. We are grateful to the patients who participated in this trial.

This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company.

Drs Chen, Turner, Chow, Tai, and Ilaria Jr. are employees and minor stockholders of Eli Lilly and Company. Drs Smith and Jotte were on the speaker’s bureau for Eli Lilly and Company when the current study was conducted. Dr Von Hoff has received institutional funding for ongoing clinical trials on hedgehog pathway inhibitor Eli Lilly and Company. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

References

  1. 1.
    Von Hoff DD, Nieves JA, Vocila LK, Weitman SD, Cvitkovic E (2007) The complete phase Ib clinical trial: a method to accelerate new agent development. J Clin Oncol 25(18S):2562Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    LoRusso PM, Boerner SA, Seymour L (2010) An overview of the optimal planning, design, and conduct of phase I studies of new therapeutics. Clin Cancer Res 16(6):1710–1718. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-1993 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    George S, Desai J, Paul Eder J, Manola J, Ryan DP, Appleman LJ, Demetri GD (2006) Selective kinase inhibition with daily imatinib intensifies toxicity of chemotherapy in patients with solid tumours. Eur J Cancer 42(7):864–870. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2005.12.010 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fujiwara Y, Ando Y, Mukohara T, Kiyota N, Chayahara N, Mitsuma A, Inada-Inoue M, Sawaki M, Ilaria R Jr, Kellie Turner P, Funai J, Maeda K, Minami H (2013) A phase I study of tasisulam sodium using an albumin-tailored dose in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. doi: 10.1007/s00280-013-2092-2 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gordon MS, Ilaria R Jr, de Alwis DP, Mendelson DS, McKane S, Wagner MM, Look KY, Lorusso PM (2013) A phase I study of tasisulam sodium (LY573636 sodium), a novel anticancer compound, administered as a 24-h continuous infusion in patients with advanced solid tumors. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 71(1):21–27. doi: 10.1007/s00280-012-1917-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kirkwood JM, Gonzalez R, Reintgen D, Clingan PR, McWilliams RR, de Alwis DP, Zimmermann A, Brown MP, Ilaria RL Jr, Millward MJ (2011) A phase 2 study of tasisulam sodium (LY573636 sodium) as second-line treatment for patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Cancer 117:4732–4739. doi: 10.1002/cncr.26068 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ryan CW, Matias C, Agulnik M, Lopez-Pousa A, Williams C, de Alwis DP, Kaiser C, Miller MA, Ermisch S, Ilaria R Jr, Keohan ML (2013) A phase II study of tasisulam sodium (LY573636 sodium) as second-line or third-line treatment for patients with unresectable or metastatic soft tissue sarcoma. Investig New Drugs 31(1):145–151. doi: 10.1007/s10637-012-9819-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Scagliotti GV, Ilaria R Jr, Novello S, von Pawel J, Fischer JR, Ermisch S, de Alwis DP, Andrews J, Reck M, Crino L, Eschbach C, Manegold C (2012) Tasisulam sodium (LY573636 sodium) as third-line treatment in patients with unresectable, metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase-II study. J Thorac Oncol 7(6):1053–1057. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3182519d79 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Simon GR, Ilaria RL Jr, Sovak MA, Williams CC, Haura EB, Cleverly AL, Sykes AK, Wagner MM, de Alwis DP, Slapak CA, Miller MA, Spriggs DR (2011) A phase I study of tasisulam sodium (LY573636 sodium), a novel anticancer compound in patients with refractory solid tumors. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 68(5):1233–1241. doi: 10.1007/s00280-011-1593-0 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meier T, Uhlik M, Chintharlapalli S, Dowless M, Van Horn R, Stewart J, Blosser W, Cook J, Young D, Ye X, Evans G, Credille K, Ballard D, Huber L, Capen A, Chedid M, Ilaria R Jr, Smith MC, Stancato L (2011) Tasisulam sodium, an antitumor agent that inhibits mitotic progression and induces vascular normalization. Mol Cancer Ther 10(11):2168–2178. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-11-0323 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Paull KD, Shoemaker RH, Hodes L, Monks A, Scudiero DA, Rubinstein L, Plowman J, Boyd MR (1989) Display and analysis of patterns of differential activity of drugs against human tumor cell lines: development of mean graph and COMPARE algorithm. J Natl Cancer Inst 81:1088–1092PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Burris HA 3rd, Moore MJ, Andersen J, Green MR, Rothenberg ML, Modiano MR, Cripps MC, Portenoy RK, Storniolo AM, Tarassoff P, Nelson R, Dorr FA, Stephens CD, Von Hoff DD (1997) Improvements in survival and clinical benefit with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for patients with advanced pancreas cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 15(6):2403–2413PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hartmann JT, Oechsle K, Huober J, Jakob A, Azemar M, Horger M, Kanz L, Bokemeyer C (2006) An open label, non-comparative phase II study of gemcitabine as salvage treatment for patients with pretreated adult type soft tissue sarcoma. Investig New Drugs 24(3):249–253. doi: 10.1007/s10637-005-3537-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Burris HA 3rd (1999) Single-agent docetaxel (Taxotere) in randomized phase III trials. Semin Oncol 26(3 Suppl 9):1–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shepherd FA, Dancey J, Ramlau R, Mattson K, Gralla R, O’Rourke M, Levitan N, Gressot L, Vincent M, Burkes R, Coughlin S, Kim Y, Berille J (2000) Prospective randomized trial of docetaxel versus best supportive care in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 18(10):2095–2103PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Patel PM, Suciu S, Mortier L, Kruit WH, Robert C, Schadendorf D, Trefzer U, Punt CJ, Dummer R, Davidson N, Becker J, Conry R, Thompson JA, Hwu WJ, Engelen K, Agarwala SS, Keilholz U, Eggermont AM, Spatz A (2011) Extended schedule, escalated dose temozolomide versus dacarbazine in stage IV melanoma: final results of a randomised phase III study (EORTC 18032). Eur J Cancer 47(10):1476–1483. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.04.030 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yung WK, Prados MD, Yaya-Tur R, Rosenfeld SS, Brada M, Friedman HS, Albright R, Olson J, Chang SM, O’Neill AM, Friedman AH, Bruner J, Yue N, Dugan M, Zaknoen S, Levin VA (1999) Multicenter phase II trial of temozolomide in patients with anaplastic astrocytoma or anaplastic oligoastrocytoma at first relapse. Temodal Brain Tumor Group. J Clin Oncol 17(9):2762–2771PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Evans WK, Shepherd FA, Feld R, Osoba D, Dang P, Deboer G (1985) VP-16 and cisplatin as first-line therapy for small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 3(11):1471–1477PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sandler AB, Nemunaitis J, Denham C, von Pawel J, Cormier Y, Gatzemeier U, Mattson K, Manegold C, Palmer MC, Gregor A, Nguyen B, Niyikiza C, Einhorn LH (2000) Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 18(1):122–130PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shepherd FA, Rodrigues Pereira J, Ciuleanu T, Tan EH, Hirsh V, Thongprasert S, Campos D, Maoleekoonpiroj S, Smylie M, Martins R, van Kooten M, Dediu M, Findlay B, Tu D, Johnston D, Bezjak A, Clark G, Santabarbara P, Seymour L (2005) Erlotinib in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 353(2):123–132. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa050753 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, Verweij J, Van Glabbeke M, van Oosterom AT, Christian MC, Gwyther SG (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(3):205–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cheson BD (2007) The international harmonization project for response criteria in lymphoma clinical trials. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 21(5):841–854. doi: 10.1016/j.hoc.2007.06.011 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sterling K (1951) The turnover rate of serum albumin in man as measured by I131-tagged albumin. J Clin Invest 30:1228–1237PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    de Alwis D, Cleverly A, Chow K, Troconiz I, Ilaria R (2010) Tailored dosing of tasisulam sodium (LY573636 sodium) to reduce hematological toxicity and improve therapeutic index. EJC Suppl 8(7):92–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ratain MJ, Mick R, Schilsky RL, Siegler M (1993) Statistical and ethical issues in the design and conduct of phase I and II clinical trials of new anticancer agents. J Natl Cancer Inst 85(20):1637–1643PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. (2006) National Cancer Institute. http://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/ctc.htm. Accessed 7 Apr 2014
  27. 27.
    Lorusso P, Shields AF, Gadgeel S, Vaishampayan U, Guthrie T, Puchalski T, Xu J, Liu Q (2011) Cediranib in combination with various anticancer regimens: results of a phase I multi-cohort study. Investig New Drugs 29(6):1395–1405. doi: 10.1007/s10637-010-9484-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gemzar [package insert] (2013). Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IndianaGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    von Pawel J, Schiller JH, Shepherd FA, Fields SZ, Kleisbauer JP, Chrysson NG, Stewart DJ, Clark PI, Palmer MC, Depierre A, Carmichael J, Krebs JB, Ross G, Lane SR, Gralla R (1999) Topotecan versus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine for the treatment of recurrent small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 17(2):658–667Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert M. Jotte
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Daniel D. Von Hoff
    • 2
    • 3
  • Fadi Braiteh
    • 2
    • 4
  • Carlos R. Becerra
    • 2
    • 5
  • Donald A. Richards
    • 2
    • 6
  • David A. Smith
    • 2
    • 7
  • Lawrence Garbo
    • 2
    • 8
  • Joe Stephenson
    • 2
    • 9
  • Paul R. Conkling
    • 2
    • 10
  • Francisco Robert-Vizcarrondo
    • 11
  • Jian Chen
    • 12
  • P. Kellie Turner
    • 12
  • Kay Hoong Chow
    • 13
  • D. Fritz Tai
    • 12
  • Robert IlariaJr
    • 12
  1. 1.Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers, Lone TreeLone TreeUSA
  2. 2.The US Oncology NetworkThe WoodlandsUSA
  3. 3.TGen/Virginia G. Piper Cancer CenterScottsdaleUSA
  4. 4.Comprehensive Cancer Centers of NevadaLas VegasUSA
  5. 5.Sammons Cancer CenterDallasUSA
  6. 6.Texas OncologyTylerUSA
  7. 7.Compass OncologyVancouverUSA
  8. 8.New York Oncology HematologyAlbanyUSA
  9. 9.Cancer Centers of the CarolinasGreenvilleUSA
  10. 10.Virginia Oncology AssociatesNorfolkUSA
  11. 11.UAB Cancer CenterBirminghamUSA
  12. 12.Eli Lilly and CompanyIndianapolisUSA
  13. 13.Eli Lilly and Company LimitedSurreyUK

Personalised recommendations