Medical Oncology

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 323–330 | Cite as

Systematic review to establish the safety profiles for direct and indirect inhibitors of p38 Mitogen-activated protein kinases for treatment of cancer

A systematic review of the literature
  • J. Kay Noel
  • Sheila Crean
  • Janet E. Claflin
  • Gayatri Ranganathan
  • Heather Linz
  • Michael Lahn


Objective To identify potential tolerability issues for a novel selective p38 Mitogen-activated Protein Kinases (p38MAPK) inhibitor, we performed a systematic review of published studies and abstracts reporting safety outcomes for indirect inhibitors of p38MAPK. Methods A systematic review was performed to identify articles and meeting abstracts published between January 1, 1990 and March 31, 2005 that reported safety outcomes in cancer patients. Study, patient, and treatment level data were summarized using descriptive statistics without meta-analyses. Results Of 2,408 studies identified in the search, only 174 met eligibility criteria. Most studies (90%) involved thalidomide (or analog); only 12 (8%) studied sorafenib and 5 studied anti-tumor necrosis factor antibodies. In 165 treatment arms, 32% involved thalidomide (or analog) monotherapy and 2.4% involved sorafenib. The tolerability profiles of the two agents differed markedly. The most common Grade 3/4 adverse events experienced on thalidomide monotherapy were venous thrombosis (3.1% of patients), weakness/asthenia/fatigue (3.0%), neutropenia (2.7%), peripheral neuropathy/tingling/numbness (2.4%), somnolence/drowsiness/lethargy (2.4%), constipation (2.1%), and infection (2.0%). In contrast, the most common Grade 3/4 toxicities with sorafenib were diarrhea (4.8%), weakness/asthenia/fatigue (4.0%), hand–foot syndrome (3.2%), and leukopenia (2.4%). For both types of inhibitors, abnormal liver function tests were reported in about 3% of patients. Conclusions The present review summarizes clinical safety information of anti-cancer drugs with indirect or nonspecific p38MAPK inhibitory activity. Based on our analysis, a novel p38MAPK inhibitor should be monitored for similar neurological, gastrointestinal, and cardiovascular symptoms in Phase I clinical trials.


Design Drug Drug modeling Humans Neoplasms Clinical trials Adverse effects Safety 



Conflict of Interest Statement Authors representing UBC have no financial or personal relationships with companies developing and marketing any of the therapeutic products referenced in the manuscript or with Eli Lilly & Company. Supported by a grant from Eli Lilly & Co.


  1. 1.
    Hommes DW, Peppelenbosch MP, van Deventer SJH. Mitogen activated protein (MAP) kinase signal transduction pathways and novel anti-inflammatory targets. Gut 2003;52:144–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Plantanias LC. Map kinase signaling pathways and hematologic malignancies. Blood 2003;101:4667–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bulavin DV, Fornace AJ Jr. P38 MAP kinase’s emerging role as a tumor suppressor. Adv Cancer Res 2004;92:95–118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Olson JM, Hallahan AR. P38 MAP kinase: a convergence point in cancer therapy. Trends Mol Med 2004;10:125–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schultz RM. Potential of p38 MAP kinase inhibitors in the treatment of cancer. Prog Drug Res 2003;60:59–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hideshima T, et al. Targeting p38 MAPK inhibits multiple myeloma cell growth in the bone marrow milieu. Blood 2003;101:703–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eisenhauer EA, O’Dwyer PJ, Christian M, Humphrey JS. Phase I clinical trial design in cancer drug development. J Clin Oncol 2005;18:684–92.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Horstmann E, McCabe MS, Grochow L, et al. Risks and benefits of Phase I oncology trials, 1991 through 2002. N Engl J Med 2005;352:895–904.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Roberts TG, et al. Trends in the risks and benefits to patients with cancer participating in Phase I clinical trials. JAMA 2004;292:2130–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alderson P, Green S, Higgins JPT, editors. Cochrane collaboration handbook 4.2.1 [updated December 2003]. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2004 [The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2004].Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RG. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med 1997;126:376–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Baz R, et al. Aspirin decreases the throbotic complications (DVT) of liposomal doxorubicin, vincristine, decreased frequency dexamethasone and thalidomide (DVd-T) treatment of multiple myeloma (MM). Proc ASH 2004, abstract 2397.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bowcock SJ, Rassam SM, Ward SM, Turnder JT, Laffan M. Thromboembolism in patients on thalidomide for myeloma. Hematology 2002;7:51–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Corso A, et al. Modification of thrombomodulin plasma levels in refractory myeloma patients during treatment with thalidomide and dexamethasone. Ann Hematol 2004;83:588–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Minnema MC, Fijnheer R, de Groot PG, Lokhorst HM. Extremely high levels of von Willebrand factor antigen and of procoagulant factor VIII found in multiple myeloma patients are associated with activity status but not with thalidomide treatment. J Thromb Haemost 2003;1:445–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moehler TM, et al. Low incidence of deep vein thrombosis in poor prognosis multiple myeloma patients treated with thalidomide and CED chemotherapy. Proc ASH 2002, abstract 5136.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Streetly M, et al. Markers of endothelial and haemostatic function in the treatment of relapsed myeloma with the immunomodulatory agent Actimid (CC-4047) and their relationship with venous thrombosis. Eur J Haematol 2005;74:293–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zangari M, et al. Thalidomide and deep vein thrombosis in multiple myeloma: Risk factors and effect on survival. Clin Lymphoma 2003;4:32–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zangari M, et al. Deep vein thrombosis in patients with multiple myeloma treated with thalidomide and chemotherapy: Effects of prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation. Br J Haematol 2004;126:715–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Caravita T, et al. Thalidomide induced neuropathy in patients treated for multiple myeloma. Proc ASH 2002, abstract 5105.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Laaksonen S, Remes K, Kosela K, Voipio-Pulkki LM, Falck B. Thalidomide therapy and polyneuropathy in myeloma patients. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 2005;45:75–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tosi P, et al. Neurological toxicity of long-term (>1 yr) thalidomide therapy in patients with multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol 2005;74:212–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hattori Y, Kakimoto T, Okamoto S, Sato N, Ideka Y. Thalidomide-induced severe neutropenia during treatment of multiple myeloma. Int J Haematol 2004;79:283–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hall VC, El-Azhary RA, Bouwhuis S, Rajkumar SV. Dermatologic side effects of thalidomide in patients with multiple myeloma. J Am Acad Dermatol 2003;48:548–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Badros A, et al. Hypothyroidism in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) receiving thalidomide. Proc ASH 2000, abstract 4973.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pavlick AC, Gershenhorn B. Lymphopenia and herpes zoster infections in metastatic melanoma patients treated with temozolomide and thalidomide. Proc ASCO 2003, abstract 2866.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dominguez C, Powers DA, Tamayo N. p38 MAP kinase inhibitors: Many are made, but few are chosen. Curr Opin Drug Discov Deve 2005;8:421–30.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bartlett JB, Dredge K, Dalgleish AG. The evolution of thalidomide and its IMiD derivatives as anticancer agents. Nat Rev Cancer 2004;4:314–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    D’Amato RJ, Loughnan MD, Flunn E, Folkman J. Thalidomide is an inhibitor of angiogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1994;91:4082–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Singhal S, et al. Antitumor activity of thalidomide in refractory multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 1999;341:1565–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hussein MA. Thalidomide: present and future in multiple myeloma. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2005;5:25–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weber D. Thalidomide and its derivatives: New promise for multiple myeloma. Cancer Control 2003;10:375–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Teo SK, Stirling DI, Zeldis JB. Thalidomide as a novel therapeutic agent: New uses for an old product. Drug Discov Today 2005;10:107–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ghobrial IM, Rajkumar SV. Management of thalidomide toxicity. J Supp Oncol 2003;1:194–205.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gordon JN, Goggin PM. Thalidomide and its derivatives: Emerging from the wilderness. Postgrad Med J 2003;79:127–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Newman L, et al. Assessment of the effectiveness of animal developmental toxicity testing for human safety. Reprod Toxicol 1993;7:359–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zeldis J, et al. S.T.E.P.S.™: A comprehensive program for controlling and monitoring access to thalidomide. Clin Ther 1999;21:319–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    List A, et al. Effiacy of lenalidomide in myelodysplastic syndromes. N Engl J Med 2005;352:549–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schey SA, et al. Phase I study of an immunomodulatory thalidomide analog, CC-4017, in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:3269–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wilhelm SM, et al. BAY 43–9006 exhibits broad spectrum oral antitumor activity and targets the RAF/MEK/ERK pathway and receptor tyrosine kinases involved in tumor progression and angiogenesis. Cancer Res 2004;64:7099–109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press Inc. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Kay Noel
    • 1
  • Sheila Crean
    • 1
  • Janet E. Claflin
    • 1
  • Gayatri Ranganathan
    • 1
  • Heather Linz
    • 1
  • Michael Lahn
    • 2
  1. 1.United BioSource Corporation (formerly MetaWorks, Inc.)MedfordUSA
  2. 2.Eli Lilly, Oncology Therapeutic Area, Lilly Research LaboratoriesIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations