Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and efficacy of weekly 1-hour paclitaxel with 3 days of high dose oral estramustine were evaluated in patients with hormone-refractory prostate carcinoma. METHODS: Patients enrolled in cohorts of three received two cycles of six weekly treatments with 1 week of rest: Cohort I received paclitaxel 40 mg/m2 and estramustine 600 mg/m2, and Cohorts II-IV received paclitaxel 60 mg/m2, 75 mg/m2, or 90 mg/m2, respectively, and estramustine 900 mg/m2. Toxicity was assessed weekly, and response was measured by serum prostate specific antigen (PSA), abdominal computed tomography scans, and bone scans at Week 13. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were enrolled, with 12 in Cohorts III and IV. Four patients did not complete treatment. Grade 3 toxicity included one patient with nausea and diarrhea in Cohort III and one patient each with neutropenia and edema followed by Grade 4 thromboembolism in Cohort IV. Grade 1-2 anemia or myelotoxicity were not observed; 3 patients had neuropathy, 5 patients had hair loss, and 8 patients had gastrointestinal symptoms. A decline in the serum PSA level > or = 50% occurred in none of three patients, one of three patients, four of six patients, and four of six patients in Cohorts I-IV, respectively. An intent-to-treat analysis showed responses in 9 of 18 patients (50%) in Cohorts I-IV, with 9 of 15 responders (60%) in Cohorts II-IV. Seven patients achieved declines in serum PSA levels > 75%. The median duration of PSA response was 16.7 weeks. Response was observed in one of three patients with measurable disease. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD for 1-hour weekly paclitaxel was 90 mg/m2 with 3 days of 900 mg/m2 estramustine. Hematologic and neurotoxicity were reduced markedly, and gastrointestinal symptoms were ameliorated, but thromboembolic events were unaffected. PSA response rates were within the expected 60% range for these agents

BACKGROUND: The indications for pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (doxil) are expanding. We, therefore, wished to assess the safety of delivering doses exceeding 500 mg/m2 of doxil to patients with solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Subjects accrued to eight phase I and II protocol studies conducted at two institutions, were assessed for cardiac function at baseline and at specified intervals by MUGA scans. In this retrospective analysis, the findings of 42 patients, from the total of 237 entered, who had reached or exceeded cumulative doses of 500 mg/m2 (range 500-1500 mg/m2) were reviewed. Changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and in clinical cardiac status were analyzed. Six patients, three who had received prior doxorubicin, also underwent endomyocardial biopsies after cumulative doses of 490-1320 mg/m2. RESULTS: None of the 42 patients had clinical congestive heart failure (CHF) secondary to cardiomyopathy. Post doxil MUGA scans were available for 41 of the 42 patients. Five had a drop of 10% or more in LVEF; three of these had received prior doxorubicin. Billingham endomyocardial biopsy scores ranged from 0-1 in five patients, while the sixth had a score of 1.5 after both 900 mg/m2 and 1320 mg/m2 doxil. Of a remaining 195 patients, 1 episode of CHF was recorded in a patient who had received 312 mg/m2 doxil over 120 mg/m2 of mitoxantrone and chest radiation. CONCLUSIONS: Cumulative doses in excess of 500 mg/m2 of doxil appear to carry a considerably lesser risk of cardiomyopathy as judged by serial LVEF's and clinical follow-up, than is generally associated with free doxorubicin. Heart biopsies have provided reassuring data in a small number of patients, even if pretreated with doxorubicin. However, since three doxorubicin pretreated patients were among the five experiencing drops in LVEF, more data are warranted on such patients.

BACKGROUND: The work-up of adenocarcinoma of unknown primary usually includes history, physical examination, radiographic imaging, tumor markers, and more recently molecular and genetic information. We report here on how the suggestion by family history of a BRCA1 mutation guided the diagnostic and therapeutic approach in a patient with metastatic carcinoma of unknown primary. METHODS: BRCA1 mutation was screened for by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and single-strand conformational polymorphism analysis. Primers for PCR amplification included selected BRCA1 exons 2, 110, 11L, 13, and 20. The PCR product was cloned into a PCRII vector and sequenced with a Sequenase Version 2.0 Sequencing Kit. RESULTS: Single-strand conformational polymorphism analysis suggested a mutation in the region of exon 20 and sequencing confirmed the presence of a germline mutation 5382insC. CONCLUSIONS: This case illustrates an unusual presentation of adenocarcinoma of unknown primary in a patient with a germline BRCA1 mutation, the use of a suspected germline mutation to guide the work-up and treatment, and finally the value of positron emission tomography scanning in the work-up of an unknown primary.

Effects of variations in agent, dose, and route of treatment administration on patient reported quality of life (QOL) were examined for 279 patients enrolled on a seven-arm randomized clinical trial (S8905) of 5-FU and its modulation for advanced colorectal cancer. Patients completed QOL questionnaires at randomization and weeks 6, 11, and 21 post-randomization with five QOL endpoints considered primary: three treatment-specific symptoms (stomatitis, diarrhea, and hand/foot sensitivity); physical functioning; and emotional functioning. Patient compliance with the QOL assessment schedule was good, supporting the feasibility of including QOL measures in cooperative group trials. However, death and deteriorating health produced substantial missing data. Cross-sectional analyses indicated that the seven therapeutic arms did not differ in their impact on QOL. Unfortunately, longitudinal analyses of the QOL data were inappropriate given non-random missing data. Graphical presentation of non-random missing data identified the seriousness of this problem and its effect on potential conclusions about QOL during treatment. This problem appears to be particularly challenging in the context of advanced-stage disease. Failure to recognize the presence of non-random missing data can lead to serious overestimates of patient QOL over time.

OBJECTIVE: Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil) may have enhanced therapeutic efficacy and reduced toxicity compared with the parent compound. This phase II study further evaluates the activity of Doxil in patients with ovarian cancer and explores activity in other gynecologic cancers. METHODS: Sixty-three patients were treated with Doxil 50 mg/m(2) infused over 1 h; 44 were evaluable. Forty-eight had epithelial ovarian cancer and all received prior treatment with cisplatin and paclitaxel: 27 received two to six prior regimens, 44 were platinum resistant, 21 patients had measurable disease, and 27 had evaluable disease only. RESULTS: The overall survival of these patients was 10 months (range, 0.25-33); progression-free survival was 3 months (range, 0.25-18). The response rate among those with measurable disease was 19%, with a median duration of 4.5 months (range, 3-12). The response rate of 22 patients with elevated CA-125 was 59%; median duration was 3.5 months (range, 1-12). Also, 27% achieved prolonged stabilization of disease for a median of 7 months (range, 5-18). Overall, treatment was well tolerated in this heavily pretreated population. Grade 3 and 4 toxic effects were: 5 grade 3 stomatitis, 3 grade 3 skin, 1 each grade 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, 5 admits for infection, and no neutropenic fever; nausea and vomiting were uncommon in 204 cycles to ovarian cancer patients. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the activity of Doxil in heavily pretreated patients with ovarian cancer and poor prognostic features and confirms the prolonged responses and favorable toxicity profile. Encouraging findings were also observed in the patients with nonovarian gynecologic cancers.

A phase I study was performed to determine the maximum tolerated doses of intravenous etoposide and paclitaxel for women with previously treated persistent or recurrent ovarian cancer. Starting doses were paclitaxel 135 mg/m2 during 24 hours and etoposide 50 mg/m2/day for 3 consecutive days. The study was designed to escalate first the dose of etoposide, and then the dose of paclitaxel, in successive cohorts of patients. In an attempt to determine whether toxicity was affected by sequence of the drugs, the order of administration of the two drugs was reversed on alternate cycles. The starting doses of paclitaxel (135 mg/m2/24 hours) and etoposide (50 mg/m2/day x 3) caused severe neutropenia even with the addition of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, and the trial was amended to administer the paclitaxel during 3 hours. However, this also proved too myelosuppressive without growth factor support. Twenty-one women were treated. A complete response was observed in one of nine patients with measurable disease, and a major decrease in CA-125 was noted in two patients who did not have measurable disease. Because of the severe myelosuppression observed in most patients, dose reduction was often required after the first cycle. The power to detect sequence-dependent variation in toxicity was minimal; however, no large differences were observed. A combination of the usual doses of these drugs will be difficult to administer in patients who have received previous chemotherapy for ovarian cancer.

The i.p. administration of topoisomerase I (Topo I) inhibitors has a pharmacologic advantage over intravenous application, including preservation of the biologically active lactone form. In our ongoing study, patients have received 9-amino-20(S)-camptothecin (9-AC) i.p. on days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, and 12, repeated every 4 weeks. The daily dose has been escalated to level IV of 1.5 mg/m2 (9.0 mg/m2 per course), median of 3 cycles, range 1-4, with a reversible Grade 3 neutropenia in one patient. Responses included one CR (resolution of a pleural effusion), two patients without progressive disease (PD), two not evaluable, and two patients too early for evaluation. The area under the curve (AUC)i.p./AUCpl ratio (pharmacologic advantage) ranged from 7.6 to 16.5 on average, and, using nonlinear modeling, the pharmacologic decay data were fit to one- or two-compartmental models. Overall, a 9-AC i.p. application is well tolerated and anticipated to be an active regimen against i.p. malignancies, particularly those known to be sensitive to systemic Topo-I inhibitors