Entity

Time filter

Source Type

Goshen, United States

Vlahovic G.,Duke University | Meadows K.L.,Duke University | Uronis H.E.,Duke University | Morse M.A.,Duke University | And 12 more authors.
Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology | Year: 2012

Purpose: Preclinical data suggest concurrent inhibition of VEGF, mTOR and EGFR pathways may augment antitumor and antiangiogenic effects compared to inhibition of each pathway alone. This study evaluated the maximum tolerated dose/recommended phase II dose and safety and tolerability of bevacizumab, everolimus and panitumumab drug combination. Methods: Subjects with advanced solid tumors received escalating doses of everolimus and flat dosing of panitumumab at 4.8 mg/kg and bevacizumab at 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were assessed in cycle 1; toxicity evaluation was closely monitored throughout treatment. Treatment continued until disease progression or undesirable toxicity. Results: Thirty-two subjects were evaluable for toxicity; 31 subjects were evaluable for tumor response. DLTs were observed in cohorts with everolimus at 10 and 5 mg daily and included grade 3 mucositis, skin rash and thrombocytopenia. Therefore, everolimus was dose-reduced to 5 mg three times weekly, which improved the tolerability of the treatment regimen. Common adverse events were skin rash/pruritus (91 %), mucositis/stomatitis (75 %), hypomagnesemia (72 %), hypocalcemia (56 %) and hypokalemia (50 %). There were 3 partial responses; an additional 10 subjects had stable disease ≥6 months. Three subjects with ovarian cancer and one with endometrial cancer achieved prolonged disease control ranging from 11 to >40 months. Conclusions: The recommended phase II dose is everolimus at 5 mg three times weekly plus panitumumab at 4.8 mg/kg and bevacizumab at 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. This dosing regimen has an acceptable safety and tolerability profile and appears to have moderate the clinical activity in refractory tumors. © 2012 Springer-Verlag. Source


Strickler J.H.,Duke University | Starodub A.N.,Duke University | Starodub A.N.,Goshen Center for Cancer Care | Jia J.,Duke University | And 9 more authors.
Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology | Year: 2012

Purpose To define the maximum tolerated dose, clinical toxicities, and pharmacodynamics of bevacizumab, everolimus, and panobinostat (LBH-589) when administered in combination to patients with advanced solid tumor malignancies. Experiment design Subjects received 10 mg of panobinostat three times weekly, 5 or 10 mg everolimus daily, and bevacizumab at 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were assessed in cycle 1; toxicity evaluation was closely monitored throughout treatment. Treatment continued until disease progression or undesirable toxicity. Protein acetylation was assessed in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) both at baseline and on treatment. Results Twelve subjects were evaluable for toxicity and nine subjects for response. DLTs in cohort 1 included grade 2 esophagitis and grade 3 oral mucositis; DLTs in cohort -1 were grade 2 ventricular arrhythmia and grade 2 intolerable skin rash. Common adverse events were diarrhea (50 %), headache (33 %), mucositis/stomatitis (25 %), hyperlipidemia (25 %), and thrombocytopenia (25 %). There was 1 partial response; an additional 2 subjects had stable disease as best response. No consistent changes in protein acetylation in PBMC were observed in samples available from eight patients on treatment compared with baseline. Conclusions Bevacizumab, everolimus, and panobinostat in combination at the lowest proposed doses did not have an acceptable safety and tolerability profile and did not consistently inhibit HDAC activity; therefore, we do not recommend further evaluation. © Springer-Verlag 2012. Source


Weixler B.,University of Basel | Warschkow R.,Kantonsspital St. Gallen | Warschkow R.,University of Heidelberg | Ramser M.,University of Basel | And 5 more authors.
BMC Cancer | Year: 2016

Background: It remains a matter of debate whether colorectal cancer resection in an emergency setting negatively impacts on survival. Our objective was therefore to assess the impact of urgent versus elective operation on overall and disease-free survival in patients undergoing resection for colorectal cancer by using propensity score adjusted analysis. Methods: In a single-center study patients operated for colorectal cancer between 1989 and 2013 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Median follow-up was 44months. Patients with neoadjuvant treatment were excluded. The impact of urgent operation on overall and disease-free survival was assessed using both Cox regression and propensity score analyses. Results: Of 747 patients with colorectal cancer, 84 (11%) had urgent and 663 elective cancer resection. The propensity score revealed strongly biased patient characteristics (0.22 ± 0.16 vs. 0.10 ± 0.09; P < 0.001). In unadjusted analysis urgent operation was associated with a 35% increased risk of overall mortality (hazard ratio(HR) of death = 1.35, 95% confidence interval(CI):1.02-1.78, P = 0.045). In risk-adjusted Cox regression analysis urgent operation was not associated with poor overall (HR = 1.08, 95%CI:0.79-1.48; P = 0.629) or disease-free survival (HR = 1.02, 95%CI:0.76-1.38; P = 0.877). Similarly in propensity score analysis urgent operation did not influence overall (HR = 0.98, 95% CI:0.74-1.29), P = 0.872) and disease-free survival (HR = 0.89, 95%CI:0.68 to 1.16, P = 0.387). Conclusions: This study provides evidence that worse oncologic outcomes after urgent operation for colorectal cancer are caused by clinical circumstances and not due to the urgent operation itself. Urgent operation is not a risk factor for colorectal cancer resection. © 2016 Weixler et al. Source


Rangwala F.,Duke University | Bendell J.C.,Sarah Cannon Research Institute | Kozloff M.F.,Cancer Research Center | Arrowood C.C.,Duke University | And 23 more authors.
Investigational New Drugs | Year: 2014

Purpose: To define maximum tolerated dose (MTD), toxicities, and pharmacodynamics of capecitabine, oxaliplatin, bevacizumab, and everolimus in advanced solid tumor patients. Design: This was a standard "3 + 3" dose-escalation trial. All subjects received bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg on day 1 of each cycle. Doses for capecitabine, oxaliplatin and everolimus were modified per dose limiting toxicity (DLT). Baseline and on-treatment plasma biomarkers were analyzed. Archived tumor mRNA levels were evaluated for NRP1, NRP2 and VEGF-A isoforms. Results: Twenty-nine patients were evaluable for toxicity and 30 for efficacy. Two DLTs were observed in cohort 1 and one DLT each was observed in cohort -1 and -1b. Grade ≥3 toxicities included neutropenia, hypertension, perforation/fistula/hemorrhage, hypertriglyceridemia, diarrhea, and thromboembolism. Twelve subjects experienced partial response (PR); 12 had stable disease as best response. Three of seven chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) subjects experienced PR; 8 of 15 chemonaive mCRC subjects experienced PR. Plasma TβRIII and IL-6 increased on treatment but without correlation to outcome. Increased VEGF165 levels significantly correlated with longer progression free survival. Conclusions: Everolimus with full dose capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab had unacceptable toxicity. MTD was: everolimus 5 mg daily; capecitabine 680 mg/m2 BID days 1-14; oxaliplatin 100 mg/m2 and bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg, day 1. Activity was noted in mCRC. © 2014 Springer Science+Business Media. Source


Gulec S.A.,Goshen Center for Cancer Care | Gulec S.A.,Florida International University | Cohen S.J.,Fox Chase Cancer Center | Pennington K.L.,Goshen Center for Cancer Care | And 9 more authors.
Clinical Cancer Research | Year: 2011

Purpose: Humanized antibody hPAM4 specifically binds a mucin glycoprotein expressed in pancreatic adenocarcinomas. This phase I study evaluated a single dose of 90Y-clivatuzumab tetraxetan (90Y-labeled hPAM4) in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Experimental Design: Twenty-one patients (4 stage III; 17 stage IV) received 111In-hPAM4 for imaging and serum sampling before 90Y-hPAM4. Study procedures evaluated adverse events, safety laboratories, computed tomography (CT) scans, biomarkers, pharmacokinetics, radiation dosimetry, and immunogenicity (HAHA). Results: 111In-hPAM4 showed normal biodistribution with radiation dose estimates to red marrow and solid organs acceptable for radioimmunotherapy and with tumor targeting in 12 patients. One patient withdrew before 90Y-hPAM4; otherwise, 20 patients received 90Y doses of 15 (n = 7), 20 (n = 9), and 25 mCi/m2 (n = 4). Treatment was well tolerated; the only significant drug-related toxicities were (NCI CTC v.3) grade 3 to 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia increasing with 90Y dose. There were no bleeding events or serious infections, and most cytopenias recovered to grade 1 within 12 weeks. Three patients at 25 mCi/m2 encountered dose-limiting toxicity with grade 4 cytopenias more than 7 days, establishing 20 mCi/m2 as the maximal tolerated 90Y dose. Two patients developed HAHA of uncertain clinical significance. Most patients progressed rapidly and with CA19-9 levels increasing within 1 month of therapy, but 7 remained progression-free by CT for 1.5 to 5.6 months, including 3 achieving transient partial responses (32%-52% tumor diameter shrinkage). Conclusion: 90Y-Clivatuzumab tetraxetan was well tolerated with manageable hematologic toxicity at the maximal tolerated 90Y dose, and is a potential new therapeutic for advanced pancreatic cancer. ©2011 AACR. Source

Discover hidden collaborations