4.7 Article

Phase Ib study of weekly mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor ridaforolimus (AP23573; MK-8669) with weekly paclitaxel

期刊

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
卷 21, 期 6, 页码 1315-1322

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdp504

关键词

angiogenesis; mTOR inhibitor; paclitaxel; phase I; ridaforolimus

类别

资金

  1. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals Inc.
  2. RTICC [06/0020/19]
  3. Fundacio Cellex (Barcelona)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The additive cytotoxicity in vitro prompted a clinical study evaluating the non-prodrug rapamycin analogue ridaforolimus (AP23573; MK-8669; formerly deforolimus) administered i.v. combined with paclitaxel (PTX; Taxol). Materials and methods: Patients with taxane-sensitive solid tumors were eligible. The main dose escalation foresaw 50% ridaforolimus increments from 25 mg with a fixed PTX dose of 80 mg/m(2), both given weekly 3 weeks in a 4-week cycle. Collateral levels with a lower dose of either drug were planned upon achievement of the maximum tolerated dose in the main escalation. Pharmacodynamic studies in plasma, peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and skin biopsies and pharmacokinetic (PK) interaction studies at cycles 1 and 2 were carried out. Results: Two recommended doses were determined: 37.5 mg ridaforolimus/60 mg/m(2) PTX and 12.5 mg/80 mg/m(2). Most frequent toxic effects were mouth sores (79%), anemia (79%), fatigue (59%), neutropenia (55%) and dermatitis (48%). Two partial responses were observed in pharyngeal squamous cell and pancreatic carcinoma. Eight patients achieved stable disease >= 4 months. No drug interaction emerged from PK studies. Decrease of eukaryotic initiation factor 4E-binding protein1 (4E-BP1) phosphorylation was shown in PBMCs. Similar inhibition of phosphorylation of 4E-BP1 and mitogen-activated protein kinase was present in reparative epidermis and vascular tissues, respectively. Conclusion: Potential antiangiogenic effects and encouraging antitumor activity justify further development of the combination.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据