CancerNetwork Members: Login | Register
Become a fan on  Facebook  Add us on  Google Plus Follow us on  Twitter Join us on LinkedIn Sign up for our Newsletters Subscribe to our RSS Feed

 

CancerNetwork SearchMedica Medline Drugs

Powered by SearchMedica

 
PUBLICATIONS
NEWS
PODCASTS
TOPICS
BLOGS
NURSES
PATIENTS
JOBS
CONFERENCES
CME
SUPPLEMENTS
 

Home »

ONCOLOGY. Vol. 16 No. 5 5
Pages: 1  2  3  4  5  
Next
 

Irinotecan and Gemcitabine in Patients With Solid Tumors: Phase I Trial

By

Caio Max S. Rocha Lima, MD
Gastrointestinal/Thoracic Program, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida
Swan-Swan Leong, MD
Medical Oncology Attending, National Cancer Center, Singapore
Carol A. Sherman, MD
Assistant Professor of Medicine, Hollings Cancer Center, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina
Joshua A. Perkel, MD
Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina
Terri Putman

Clinical Research Nurse, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina
Ahmad R. Safa, MD, PhD
Professor, University of Indiana, Indianapolis, Indiana
Mark R. Green, MD
Gilbreth Professor of Medicine, Hollings Cancer Center, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina

| May 2, 2002
Using a day 1 and 8, every-3-week schedule, our purpose was to determine the maximum tolerated dose of irinotecan (CPT-11, Camptosar) that can be administered immediately after gemcitabine (Gemzar) at a dose of 1,000 mg/m² IV. In this phase I trial, the maximum tolerated dose was defined as the dose level immediately below the level in which two of the first three patients in any cohort, or at least two of six patients in any expanded cohort, experienced dose-limiting toxicity. Dose-limiting toxicity pertained only to toxicity during the first cycle of treatment. Escalation of irinotecan was planned in groups of three patients, with three additional patients added at the first indication of dose-limiting toxicity. A total of 19 patients have been enrolled. Grade 4 diarrhea was the dose-limiting toxicity at the irinotecan dose of 115 mg/m². Hematologic toxicity was not dose limiting. Three patients required canceling of the day 8 dose due to grade 3 myelosuppression. Three patients, two with pancreatic cancer and one with metastatic carcinoma of unknown primary, had a partial response. The maximum tolerated dose of irinotecan in this combination was 100 mg/m²/dose. The dose-limiting toxicity was diarrhea. The maximum tolerated dose is the recommended starting dose for phase II studies. [ONCOLOGY 16(Suppl 5):19-24, 2002]

Gemcitabine (2¢,2¢-difluorodeoxycytidine [dFdC, Gemzar]) is a pyrimidine analog antimetabolite with single-agent activity in a variety of solid tumors.[1-3] It is activated by intracellular phosphorylation and has multiple mechanisms of cytotoxicity. The predominant intracellular moiety, difluorodeoxycytidine triphosphate (dFdCTP), is incorporated as a substrate during DNA synthesis causing inhibition of DNA elongation and chain termination after the addition of another base or another molecule of dFdCTP.[2,4,5]

Irinotecan (7-ethyl-10-[4-(1-piperidino)-1-piperidino] carbonyloxycamptothecin [CPT-11, Camptosar]) is a camptothecin analog.[6] Its active metabolite, SN-38, inhibits topoisomerase I activity by stabilizing the topoisomerase I-DNA cleavable complex formed during enzymatic relaxation of DNA tortional strain.[7] Irinotecan(Drug information on irinotecan) has demonstrated broad activity against human tumors in vitro and in vivo.[8,9] Significant single-agent activity has been reported in colorectal cancer,[10,11] small-cell lung cancer,[12] non-small-cell lung cancer,[13] uterine cervix cancer,[14] and epithelial ovarian cancer.[15]

Preclinical data evaluating the combination of irinotecan and gemcitabine(Drug information on gemcitabine) are limited. Kanazawa et al,[16] evaluating the combination effects of anti-cancer drugs, suggested dose-dependent interactions between gemcitabine and irinotecan. Moreover, our recent laboratory data suggest antagonism at low concentrations, but synergism at concentrations of gemcitabine above 0.1 µM and irinotecan above 3.2 µM in the SCOG small-cell lung cancer cell line.[17] Absolute, marked synergism was evident in the HL-60 acute myeloid leukemia cell line. Synergism at concentrations of 0.1-2 µM gemcitabine and 0.2-10 µM irinotecan, but antagonism at high concentrations (ie, concentrations > 2 µM gemcitabine and 20 µM irinotecan), was seen in MCF7 breast cancer cells (unpublished data). In addition, preclinical data also suggest synergy with concurrent administration of cytosine arabinoside (a gemcitabine analog) and irinotecan or SN-38.[18-20]

In this phase I trial, initially reported by our group in 1999 [21] and updated here, the dose of gemcitabine was fixed at 1,000 mg/m² and irinotecan doses were escalated until a maximum tolerated dose for the combination was defined. Because other studies of gemcitabine combinations using a day 1, 8, and 15 schedule had shown substantial day 15 marrow toxicity, we chose to administer both drugs on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day treatment cycle.

Patients and Methods

Patient Selection

Adult patients with pathologically confirmed solid tumors refractory to standard therapy were eligible if they had adequate organ function (granulocyte count of at least 1,500/µL, platelet count of at least 100,000/µL, serum creatinine less than 2.1 mg/dL, and serum bilirubin less than 2.1 mg/dL), and performance status of 0 to 2. Patients were ineligible if they had bone marrow metastases, New York Heart Association class III or IV heart disease or myocardial infarction within 6 months, uncontrolled infection, whole pelvic radiation, prior gemcitabine and irinotecan, or a psychiatric condition. Measurable or evaluable disease was not required. All patients gave written informed consent.

Treatment Plan

Pages: 1  2  3  4  5  
Next
 

Join the Conversation

Want to join the conversation? If you're a healthcare professional, we'd like to hear your comments. Just sign in or register today to become part of our growing, online community.






 
TOPIC INDEX

Cancer Types

 
  • Breast
  • Breast (HER2+)
  • Breast (Triple-Negative)
  • CML
  • Colorectal
  • Gastrointestinal
  • GIST
  • Genitourinary
  • Gynecologic
  • Head & Neck
  • Hematology
  • Kidney (Renal Cell)
  • Leukemia
  • Lung
  • Lymphoma
  • Melanoma
  • Multiple Myeloma
  • Ovarian
  • Prostate
  • Sarcoma

Supportive Care

More Topics

  • Bone Metastases
  • End-of-Life Care
  • Palliative Care
  • Ethics in Oncology
  • Practice Management
  • Practice & Policy


All Topics 


 
IMAGE IQ

Lower Back Pain in an Elderly Man With a History of Localized Prostate Cancer
James B. Yu, MD1 , May 17, 2013

A 70-year-old man with a history of localized prostate cancer treated with whole-pelvis radiation therapy with a boost to the prostate, in conjunction with androgen deprivation therapy 7 years prior, presented with lower back pain. A bone scan revealed an area of activity in the sacrum. What is the most likely diagnosis?

More Image IQs 

 
FROM PHYSICIANS PRACTICE
Primary Care Can't Thrive Without Nurse Practitioners
Courtney H. Lyder, ND,  May 17, 2013
With a projected shortfall of primary-care physicians, it's time for alternate solutions to patient care. Nurse practitioners are one logical remedy.
VWhat Physicians Can Learn from the Allscripts EHR Lawsuit
Marisa Torrieri,  May 16, 2013
Lawsuit prompts question: What should physicians do to ensure they end up with a great EHR instead of buyer’s remorse?
Eight Ways ICD-9 Will Still Matter to Medical Practices
Brenda Edwards, CPC,  May 15, 2013
What should your medical practice do with your ICD-9-CM book after October 1, 2014? Keep it.
Seven Ways Technology Can Speed Up Patient Collections
Cheyenne Brinson,  May 15, 2013
Failing to adopt widely available billing and collections technology can cost medical practices big. Here's how to do it right.
Four Reasons Private Medical Practice is Becoming Extinct
Carol Stryker,  May 15, 2013
It’s becoming increasingly difficult for private medical practices to thrive. Here’s what’s driving the trend toward consolidation.
 

 

 
MOST POPULAR
  • Most Popular
  • Most Emailed
  • Most Recent
  • Skin Lesions
  • Colorectal Lesions
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • Dermatologic Adverse Events Associated With Targeted Therapies
  • Slide Show: Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • Dermatologic Adverse Events Associated With Targeted Therapies
  • Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: An Update on Treatment
  • ONS: Understanding Spirituality and How It Can Be Used to Help Patients
  • Colorectal Lesions
  • New AUA Guidelines for Prostate Cancer Screening
  • 50 Shades of Pink—And Why It Helps to Know the Difference
  • Genomics Studies Identify Testicular Cancer Risk Variants
  • Lower Back Pain in an Elderly Man With a History of Localized Prostate Cancer
  • FDA Approves Erlotinib (Tarceva) as First-Line Lung Cancer Therapy for Certain Patients
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
 
COMMENTS
  • Most Commented
  • Most Recent
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • Financial Toxicity, Part II: How Can We Help With the Burden of Treatment-Related Costs?
  • Patient Quality of Life Endpoints in Oncology Trials, Part II
  • Who's Coding Whom?
  • “How Do I Say This Nicely? Your Oncologist Wasn't Following Guidelines”
  • Study: Cholesterol Drugs Reduced Risk of Prostate Cancer Death
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • ONS: Safe Handling of Chemotherapy
  • Financial Toxicity, Part II: How Can We Help With the Burden of Treatment-Related Costs?
  • Conflicts of Interest in Medicine: What About Ties to Payers?
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter



CancerNetwork on Facebook

CancerNetwork | ConsultantLive | Diagnostic Imaging | Musculoskeletal Network | OBGYN.net | PediatricsConsultantLive |
Physicians Practice | Psychiatric Times | SearchMedica | Medical Resources

© 1996 - 2013 UBM Medica LLC, a UBM company
Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Advertising Information - Editorial Policy Statement - UBM Medica Network Privacy Policy