Investigational New Drugs

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 53–61 | Cite as

A Phase II Study of Intravenous Exatecan Mesylate (DX-8951f) Administered Daily for Five Days Every Three Weeks to Patients with Metastatic Adenocarcinoma of the Colon or Rectum

  • Melanie E. Royce
  • Eric K. Rowinsky
  • Paulo M. Hoff
  • John Coyle
  • Robert DeJager
  • Richard Pazdur
  • Leonard B. Saltz


Background: To evaluate the antitumor activity, toxicities, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of DX-8951f administered as a 30-min infusion daily for 5 days every 3 weeks in patients with fluorouracil-resistant metastatic colorectal carcinoma. Patients and methods: Sixteen patients were enrolled. All had metastatic colorectal carcinoma resistant to or progressing after chemotherapy containing 5-fluorouracil and no prior chemotherapy with camptothecin derivatives. DX-8951f was administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Responses were assessed after every two courses. Results: Fifteen patients were evaluable. Fifty-one courses of therapy were delivered (median 2). Responses were one minor response, six stable disease, and eight progressive disease. The principal adverse event was neutropenia, with grade 3 and 4 toxicities in three and eight patients, respectively. Non-hematologic toxicities were mild to moderate; the most common were fatigue, nausea, and diarrhea. Plasma concentrations of DX-8951 were well described using a linear two-compartment PK model. There was no evidence of nonlinearity in the elimination of PK or auto-inhibition or induction of DX-8951 clearance over the 5 days of administration. Conclusions: DX-8951f at this dose and schedule had no significant activity in this patient population. The toxicity profile, mainly hematologic, was consistent with previous reports. The clearance and volume of distribution were not different from those previously reported.

camptothecin clinical trial DX-8951f exatecan mesylate topoisomerase-1 inhibitor 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Jemal A, Murray T, Samuels A, Ghafoor A, Ward E, Thun MJ: Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 53: 5–26, 2003Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hansen RM, Quebbeman E, Anderson T: 5-Fluorouracil by protracted venous infusion: A review of current progress. Oncology 46: 245–250, 1989Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lokich JJ, Ahlgren JD, Gullo JJ, Philips JA, Fryer JG: A prospective randomized comparison of continuous infusion fluorouracil with a conventional bolus schedule in metastatic colorectal carcinoma: A mid-atlantic oncology program study. J Clin Oncol 7: 425–432, 1989Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Efficacy of intravenous continuous infusion of fluorouracil compared with bolus administration in advanced colorectal cancer. Meta-analysis group in cancer. J Clin Oncol 16: 301–308, 1998Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Erlichman C, Fine S, Wong A, Elhakim T: A randomized trial of fluorouracil and folinic acid in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 6: 469–475, 1988Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Laufman LR, Krzeczowski KA, Roach R, Segal M: Leucovorin plus 5-fluorouracil: An effective treatment for metastatic colon cancer. J Clin Oncol 5: 1394–1400, 1987Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gamelin E, Boisdron-Celle M, Delva R, Regimbeau C, Cailleux PE, Alleaume C, Maillet ML, Goudier MJ, Sire M, Person-Joly MC, Maigre M, Maillart P, Fety R, Burtin P, Lortholary A, Dumesnil Y, Picon L, Geslin J, Gesta P, Danquechin-Dorval E, Larra F, Robert J: Long-term weekly treatment of colorectal metastatic cancer with fluorouracil and leucovorin: Results of a multicentric prospective trial of fluorouracil dosage optimization by pharmacokinetic monitoring in 152 patients. J Clin Oncol 16: 1470–1478, 1998Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mayer RJ: Chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer 70: 1414–1424, 1992Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Saltz LB, Cox JV, Blanke C, Rosen LS, Fehrenbacher L, Moore MJ, Maroun JA, Ackland SP, Locker PK, Pirotta N, Elfring GL, Miller LL: Irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. New Engl J Med 343: 905–914, 2000Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Douillard JY, Cunningham D, Roth AD, Navarro M, James RD, Karasek P, Jandik P, Iveson T, Carmichael J, Alakl M, Gruia G, Awad L, Rougier P: Irinotecan combined with fluorouracil compared with fluorouracil alone as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: A multicentre randomized trial. Lancet 355: 1041–1047, 2000Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pitot HC: US pivotal studies of irinotecan in colorectal carcinoma. Oncology (Hunting) 12: 48–53, 1998Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cunningham D, Pyrhonen S, James RD, Punt CJ, Hickish TF, Heikkila R, Johannesen TB, Starkhammar H, Topham CA, Awad L, Jacques C, Herait P: Randomised trial of irinotecan plus supportive care versus supportive care alone after fluorouracil failure for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Lancet 352: 1413–1418, 1998Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rougier P, Van Cutsem E, Bajetta E, Niederle N, Possinger K, Labianca R, Navarro M, Morant R, Bleiberg H, Wils J, Awad L, Herait P, Jacques C: Randomised trial of irinotecan versus fluorouracil by continuous infusion after fluorouracil failure in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Lancet 352: 1407–1412, 1998 [published erratum appears in Lancet 352: 1634]; 1998Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures. 10: 18–23, 1999Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mitsui I, Kumazawa E, Hirota Y, Aonuma M, Sugimori M, Ohsuki S, Uoto K, Ejima A, Terasawa H, Sato K: A new water-soluble camptothecin derivative, DX-8951f, exhibits potent antitumor activity against human tumors in vitro and in vivo. Jpn J Cancer Res 86: 776–782, 1995Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    de Gramont A, Figer A, Seymour M, Homerin M, Hmissi A, Cassidy J, Boni C, Cortes-Funes H, Cervantes A, Freyer G, Papamichael D, Le Bail N, Louvet C, Hendler D, de Braud F, Wilson C, Morvan F, Bonetti A: Leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 18: 2938–2947, 2000Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kumazawa E, Jimbo T, Ochi Y, Tohgo A: Potent and broad antitumor effects of DX-8951f, a water-soluble camptothecin derivative, against various human tumors xenografted in nude mice. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 42: 210–220, 1998Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Takiguchi S, Kumazawa E, Shimazoe T, Tohgo A, Kono A: Antitumor effect of DX-8951, a novel camptothecin analog, on human pancreatic tumor cells and their CPT-11-resistant variants cultured in vitro and xenografted into nude mice. Jpn J Cancer Res 88: 760–769, 1997 [published erratum appears in Jpn J Cancer Res 88: 919, 1997]Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    DX-8951f for injection: Investigators Brochure. Daiichi Pharmaceutical Corporation, Fort Lee, NJ, September 22, 1998Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rowinsky EK, Johnson TR, Geyer CE, Hammond LA, Eckhardt SG, Drengler R, Smetzer L, Coyle J, Rizzo J, Schwartz G, Tolcher A, Von Hoff DD, De Jager RL: DX-8951f, a hexacyclic camptothecin analog, on a dailytimes-five schedule: A Phase I and pharmacokinetic study in patients with advanced solid malignancies. J Clin Oncol 18: 3151–3163, 2000Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Royce ME, Hoff PM, Dumas P, Lassere Y, Lee JJ, Coyle J, Ducharme MP, De Jager R, Pazdur R: Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of exatecan mesylate (DX-8951f): A novel camptothecin analog. J Clin Oncol 19: 1493–1500, 2001Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    De Jager R, Cheverton P, Tamanoi K, Coyle J, Ducharme M, Sakamoto N, Satomi M, Suzuki M: and DX-8931f Investigators: DX-8951f: Summary of Phase I clinical trials. Ann N Y Acad Sci 922: 260–273, 2000Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) Version 2.0; January 30, 1998Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Green S, Weiss GR. Southwest Oncology Group standard response criteria, endpoint definitions and toxicity criteria. Invest New Drugs 10:239–253, 1992Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Simon R: Optimal two-stage designs for Phase II clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials 10: 1–10, 1989Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Oguma T, Ohshima Y, Nakaoka M: Sensitive high-performance liquid chromatographic method for the determination of the lactone form and the lactone plus hydroxy-acid forms of the new camptothecin derivative DX-8951 in human plasma using fluorescence detection. J Chromatogr B Biomed Sci Appl 740: 237–245, 2000Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Oguma T, Konno T, Inaba A, Nakaoka M: Validation study of assay method for DX-8951 and its metabolite in human plasma and urine by high-performance liquid chromatography/atmospheric pressure chemical ionization tandem mass spectrometry. Biomed Chromatogr 15: 108–115, 2001Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Collins DG, Forrest A: IT2S User's Guide. State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 1995Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Slichenmyer WJ, Rowinsky EK, Donehower RC, Kaufmann SH: The current status of camptothecin analogues as antitumor agents. J Natl Cancer Inst 85: 271–291, 1993Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eng WK, Faucette L, Johnson RK, Sternglanz R: Evidence that DNA topoisomerase I is necessary for the cytotoxic effects of camptothecin. Mol Pharmacol 34: 755–760, 1988Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jaxel C, Kohn KW, Wani MC, Wall ME, Pommier Y: Structure-activity study of the actions of camptothecin derivatives on mammalian topoisomerase I: Evidence for a specific receptor site and a relation to antitumor activity. Cancer Res 49: 1465–1469, 1989Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kumazawa E, Tohgo A: Antitumor activity of DX-8951f: A new camptothecin derivative. Exp Opin Invest Drugs 7: 625–632, 1998Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Joto N, Ishii M, Minami M, Kuga H, Mitsui I, Tohgo A: DX-8951f, a water-soluble camptothecin analog, exhibits potent antitumor activity against a human lung cancer cell line and its SN-38-resistant variant. Int J Cancer 72: 680–686, 1997Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lawrence RA, Izbicka E, De Jager RL, Tohgo A, Clark GM, Weitman SD, Rowinsky EK, Von Hoff DD: Comparison of DX-8951f and topotecan effects on tumor colony formation from freshly explanted adult and pediatric human tumor cells. Anticancer Drugs 10: 655–661, 1999Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Davidson K, Izbicka E, Lawrence C, Cerna C, Gomez L, Clark GM, DeJaeger RL, Weitman S, Von Hoff DD: Anti-cancer activity of DX-8951f, a water soluble camptothecin against human tumor specimens taken directly from adult and pediatric patients. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 17: 197, 1998 (Abstract)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Boige V, Raymond E, Faivre S, Gatineau M, Meely K, Mekhaldi S, Pautier P, Ducreux M, Rixe O, Armand JP: Phase I and Pharmacokinetic study of the camptothecin analog DX-8951f administered as a 30-minute infusion every 3 weeks in patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol 18: 3986–3992, 2000Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    D'Adamo D, Hammond L, Donehower R, Sharma S, Aird S, Kelsen DP, Ochoa L, Rowinsky E, De Jager R, O'Reilly EM: Final results of a Phase II study of DX-8951f (Exatecan Mesylate, DX) in advanced pancreatic cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 20: 134, 2001 (Abstract)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melanie E. Royce
    • 1
  • Eric K. Rowinsky
    • 2
  • Paulo M. Hoff
    • 3
  • John Coyle
    • 4
  • Robert DeJager
    • 4
  • Richard Pazdur
    • 5
  • Leonard B. Saltz
    • 6
  1. 1.MD Anderson Cancer CenterThe University of TexasHoustonU.S.A.
  2. 2.Cancer Therapy and Research CenterInstitute for Drug DevelopmentSan AntonioU.S.A
  3. 3.Center for Clinical Studies in CancerAlbert Einstein HospitalSao PauloBrazil
  4. 4.Daiichi Pharmaceutical CorporationMontvaleU.S.A
  5. 5.Division of Oncology Drug ProductsU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRockvilleU.S.A
  6. 6.Memorial Sloan Ketterirg Cancer CenterNew York CityU.S.A

Personalised recommendations