Advertisement

Investigational New Drugs

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 216–224 | Cite as

A first-in-human dose-escalation study of the oral proteasome inhibitor oprozomib in patients with advanced solid tumors

  • Jeffrey R. Infante
  • David S. Mendelson
  • Howard A. BurrisIII
  • Johanna C. Bendell
  • Anthony W. Tolcher
  • Michael S. Gordon
  • Heidi H. Gillenwater
  • Shirin Arastu-Kapur
  • Hansen L. Wong
  • Kyriakos P. Papadopoulos
PHASE I STUDIES

Summary

Purpose To determine the dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of the tripeptide epoxyketone proteasome inhibitor oprozomib in patients with advanced refractory or recurrent solid tumors. Methods Patients received escalating once daily (QD) or split doses of oprozomib on days 1–5 of 14-day cycles (C). The split-dose arm was implemented and compared in fasted (C1) and fed (C2) states. Pharmacokinetic samples were collected during C1 and C2. Proteasome inhibition was evaluated in red blood cells and peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Results Forty-four patients (QD, n = 25; split dose, n = 19) were enrolled. The most common primary tumor types were non–small cell lung cancer (18 %) and colorectal cancer (16 %). In the 180-mg QD cohort, two patients experienced DLTs: grade 3 vomiting and dehydration; grade 3 hypophosphatemia (n = 1 each). In the split-dose group, three DLTs were observed (180-mg cohort: grade 3 hypophosphatemia; 210-mg cohort: grade 5 gastrointestinal hemorrhage and grade 3 hallucinations (n = 1 each). In the QD and split-dose groups, the MTD was 150 and 180 mg, respectively. Common adverse events (all grades) included nausea (91 %), vomiting (86 %), and diarrhea (61 %). Peak concentrations and total exposure of oprozomib generally increased with the increasing dose. Oprozomib induced dose-dependent proteasome inhibition. Best response was stable disease. Conclusions While generally low-grade, clinically relevant gastrointestinal toxicities occurred frequently with this oprozomib formulation. Despite dose-dependent increases in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, single-agent oprozomib had minimal antitumor activity in this patient population with advanced solid tumors.

Keywords

Proteasome inhibitor Oprozomib Dose escalation Phase 1 Carfilzomib 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all of the patients and their families and caregivers who contributed to this study; the investigators and staff from the additional participating study sites; all of the participating research nurses and data coordinators; Darrin Bomba and Tina Woo (Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) for clinical operations support; Sandra Dixon (Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) for statistical support; Ying Ou (Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) for her assistance analyzing the pharmacokinetic data; and Janet Anderl (Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) for her assistance running and analyzing the pharmacodynamic assays. This work was supported by Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., an Amgen subsidiary. Editorial assistance was provided by BlueMomentum, a division of KnowledgePoint360 Group and funded by Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., an Amgen subsidiary.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

Jeffrey R. Infante, David S. Mendelson, Howard A. Burris III, Johanna C. Bendell, Michael S. Gordon, and KPP have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Anthony W. Tolcher has received research funding from GSK. Heidi H. Gillenwater, Shirin Arastu-Kapur, and Hansen L. Wong are employed by Onyx.

Ethical statement

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.

Financial support

Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., an Amgen subsidiary, South San Francisco, California.

Supplementary material

10637_2016_327_MOESM1_ESM.docx (194 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 130 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Glickman MH, Ciechanover A (2002) The ubiquitin-proteasome proteolytic pathway: destruction for the sake of construction. Physiol Rev 82:373–428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adams J (2004) The development of proteasome inhibitors as anticancer drugs. Cancer Cell 5:417–421CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adams J (2004) The proteasome: a suitable antineoplastic target. Nat Rev Cancer 4:349–360CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Richardson PG, Barlogie B, Berenson J, Singhal S, Jagannath S, Irwin D et al (2003) A phase 2 study of bortezomib in relapsed, refractory myeloma. N Engl J Med 348:2609–2617CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moreau P, Masszi T, Grzasko N, Bahlis NJ, Hansson M, Pour L, et al. (2015) Ixazomib, an Investigational Oral Proteasome Inhibitor (PI), in Combination with Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone (IRd), Significantly Extends Progression-Free Survival (PFS) for Patients (Pts) with Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM): The Phase 3 Tourmaline-MM1 Study (NCT01564537). American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting; Orlando, FL; December 5–8. Abstract 727Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Siegel DS, Martin T, Wang M, Vij R, Jakubowiak AJ, Lonial S et al (2012) A phase 2 study of single-agent carfilzomib (PX-171-003-A1) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Blood 120:2817–2825CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Engel RH, Brown JA, Von Roenn JH, O’Regan RM, Bergan R, Badve S et al (2007) A phase II study of single agent bortezomib in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a single institution experience. Cancer Invest 25:733–737CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Papadopoulos KP, Burris HA III, Gordon M, Lee P, Sausvlle EA, Rosen PJ et al (2013) A phase I/II study of carfilzomib 2-10-min infusion in patients with advanced solid tumors. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 72:861–868CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosenberg JE, Halabi S, Sanford BL, Himelstein AL, Atkins JN, Hohl RJ et al (2008) Phase II study of bortezomib in patients with previously treated advanced urothelial tract transitional cell carcinoma: CALGB 90207. Ann Oncol 19:946–950CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shah MA, Power DG, Kindler HL, Holen KD, Kemeny MM, Ilson DH et al (2011) A multicenter, phase II study of bortezomib (PS-341) in patients with unresectable or metastatic gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Invest New Drugs 29:1475–1481CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smith DC, Kalebic T, Infante JR, Siu LL, Sullivan D, Vlahovic G et al (2015) Phase 1 study of ixazomib, an investigational proteasome inhibitor, in advanced non-hematologic malignancies. Invest New Drugs 33:652–663CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhou HJ, Aujay MA, Bennett MK, Dajee M, Demo SD, Fang Y et al (2009) Design and synthesis of an orally bioavailable and selective peptide epoxyketone proteasome inhibitor (PR-047). J Med Chem 52:3028–3038CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hurchla MA, Garcia-Gomez A, Hornick MC, Ocio EM, Li A, Blanco JF et al (2013) The epoxyketone-based proteasome inhibitors carfilzomib and orally bioavailable oprozomib have anti-resorptive and bone-anabolic activity in addition to anti-myeloma effects. Leukemia 27:430–440CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roccaro AM, Sacco A, Aujay M, No HT, Azab AK, Azab F et al (2010) Selective inhibition of chymotrypsin-like activity of the immunoproteasome and constitutive proteasome in Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia. Blood 115:4051–4060CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chauhan D, Singh AV, Aujay M, Kirk CJ, Bandi M, Ciccarelli B et al (2010) A novel orally active proteasome inhibitor ONX 0912 triggers in vitro and in vivo cytotoxicity in multiple myeloma. Blood 116:4906–4915CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zang Y, Thomas SM, Chan ET, Kirk CJ, Freilino ML, DeLancey HM et al (2012) The next generation proteasome inhibitors carfilzomib and oprozomib activate prosurvival autophagy via induction of the unfolded protein response and ATF4. Autophagy 8:1873–1874CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubenstein L 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 92:205–216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.02 (2009) In: [Internet]. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2013 [cited 2013 June 2]. Available from: http://evs.nci.nih.gov/ftp1/CTCAE/Archive/CTCAE_4.02_2009-09-15_QuickReference_8.5x11.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey R. Infante
    • 1
  • David S. Mendelson
    • 2
  • Howard A. BurrisIII
    • 1
  • Johanna C. Bendell
    • 1
  • Anthony W. Tolcher
    • 3
  • Michael S. Gordon
    • 2
  • Heidi H. Gillenwater
    • 4
  • Shirin Arastu-Kapur
    • 4
  • Hansen L. Wong
    • 4
  • Kyriakos P. Papadopoulos
    • 3
  1. 1.Sarah Cannon Research Institute/Tennessee OncologyNashvilleUSA
  2. 2.Pinnacle Oncology HematologyScottsdaleUSA
  3. 3.South Texas Accelerated Research Therapeutics (START)San AntonioUSA
  4. 4.Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., an Amgen SubsidiarySouth San FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations