This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Stearns, V. Articles by Ellis, M. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Stearns, V. Articles by Ellis, M. J.

A Pilot Surrogate End Point Biomarker Trial of Perillyl Alcohol in Breast Neoplasia

¹ Breast Cancer Program, ² Departments of Oncology, ³ Pathology, ⁴ Surgery, and ⁵ Cancer Prevention and Control, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., and ⁶ National Cancer Institute, The Chemoprevention Branch, Bethesda, Maryland

Purpose: Efficient strategies to screen promising agents in early phase development are essential for rapid progress in breast cancer chemoprevention. We report our experience with the natural compound perillyl alcohol (POH) administered in a short-term surrogate end point biomarker (SEB) protocol, using the "window" between diagnostic and definitive surgery.

Experimental Design: Eligible patients included those with a diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia, ductal carcinoma in situ, lobular carcinoma in situ, or invasive carcinoma (<3 cm in size) that required further surgery. Thirty-seven of 267 women screened were enrolled in the study (14%). Five women received single-dose POH (1.5 g/m²) 2 days before surgery, 16 received escalating doses of POH (1.2 g/m² to 4.8 g/m²/day) for 2 days before surgery, and 16 served as untreated controls. Exploratory SEB analysis [estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, proliferation, apoptosis, M6P/insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-2R, IGF1, IGF2 and transforming growth factor ß] was conducted before and after POH.

Results: Only a small portion of the population screened entered the study. Reasons for nonparticipation included protocol ineligibility, conflict of timing of surgery, miscellaneous logistical reasons, or patient’s choice. POH administration was well tolerated and did not interfere with surgical management. The power to observe changes in candidate SEB was diminished by a 44% incidence of cases in which the index lesion was not present in the definitive surgical specimen.

Conclusions: Preoperative POH exposure was safe and suitable for a more definitive phase II SEB study. Further investigations must overcome logistical obstacles to accrual, and they must focus on approaches to maximize tissue collection and to incorporate genomic analysis of target lesions.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. C. Wolff, D. Berry, L. A. Carey, M. Colleoni, M. Dowsett, M. Ellis, J. E. Garber, D. Mankoff, S. Paik, L. Pusztai, et al. Research Issues Affecting Preoperative Systemic Therapy for Operable Breast Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., February 10, 2008; 26(5): 806 - 813. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				V. Aaltonen, J. Koivunen, M. Laato, and J. Peltonen Heterogeneity of Cellular Proliferation within Transitional Cell Carcinoma: Correlation of Protein Kinase C Alpha/betaI Expression and Activity J. Histochem. Cytochem., July 1, 2006; 54(7): 795 - 806. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]