| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Clinical Trials |
1 Division of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, University of Utah (Primary Children’s Medical Center), Salt Lake City, Utah, and Departments of 2 Pharmaceutical Sciences, 3 Molecular Pharmacology, 4 Pathology, 5 Diagnostic Imaging, and 6 Hematology/Oncology, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee
ABSTRACT
Purpose: The purpose is to estimate the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) of temozolomide and irinotecan given on a protracted schedule in 28-day courses to pediatric patients with refractory solid tumors.
Experimental Design: Twelve heavily pretreated patients received 56 courses of oral temozolomide at 100 mg/m2/day for 5 days combined with i.v. irinotecan given daily for 5 days for 2 consecutive weeks at either 10 mg/m2/day (n = 6) or 15 mg/m2/day (n = 6). We assessed toxicity, the pharmacokinetics of temozolomide and irinotecan, and the DNA repair phenotype in tumor samples.
Results: Two patients experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) at the higher dose level; one had grade 4 diarrhea, whereas the other had bacteremia with grade 2 neutropenia. In contrast, no patient receiving temozolomide and 10 mg/m2/day irinotecan experienced DLT. Myelosuppression was minimal and noncumulative. No pharmacokinetic interaction was observed. Drug metabolite exposures at the MTD were similar to exposures previously associated with single-agent antitumor activity. One complete response, two partial responses, and one minor response were observed in Ewing’s sarcoma and neuroblastoma patients previously treated with stem cell transplant. Responding patients had low or absent O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase expression in tumor tissue.
Conclusions: The MTD using this schedule was temozolomide (100 mg/m2/day) and irinotecan (10 mg/m2/day), with DLT being diarrhea and infection. Drug clearance was similar to single-agent values, and clinically relevant SN-38 lactone and MTIC exposures were achieved at the MTD. As predicted by xenograft models, this combination and schedule appears to be tolerable and active in pediatric solid tumors. Evaluation of a 21-day schedule is planned.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  L. M. Wagner, J. G. Villablanca, C. F. Stewart, K. R. Crews, S. Groshen, C. P. Reynolds, J. R. Park, J. M. Maris, R. A. Hawkins, H. E. Daldrup-Link, et al. Phase I Trial of Oral Irinotecan and Temozolomide for Children With Relapsed High-Risk Neuroblastoma: A New Approach to Neuroblastoma Therapy Consortium Study J. Clin. Oncol., March 10, 2009; 27(8): 1290 - 1296. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. M. Wagner, R. E. McLendon, K. J. Yoon, B. D. Weiss, C. A. Billups, and M. K. Danks Targeting Methylguanine-DNA Methyltransferase in the Treatment of Neuroblastoma Clin. Cancer Res., September 15, 2007; 13(18): 5418 - 5425. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. F. Stewart, J. C. Panetta, M. A. O'Shaughnessy, S. L. Throm, C. H. Fraga, T. Owens, T. Liu, C. Billups, C. Rodriguez-Galindo, A. Gajjar, et al. UGT1A1 Promoter Genotype Correlates With SN-38 Pharmacokinetics, but Not Severe Toxicity in Patients Receiving Low-Dose Irinotecan J. Clin. Oncol., June 20, 2007; 25(18): 2594 - 2600. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Y. Ku, G. Krol, and D. H. Ilson Successful Treatment of Leptomeningeal Disease in Colorectal Cancer With a Regimen of Bevacizumab, Temozolomide, and Irinotecan J. Clin. Oncol., May 1, 2007; 25(13): e14 - e16. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. S. Pappo, E. Lyden, P. Breitfeld, S. S. Donaldson, E. Wiener, D. Parham, K. R. Crews, P. Houghton, and W. H. Meyer Two Consecutive Phase II Window Trials of Irinotecan Alone or in Combination With Vincristine for the Treatment of Metastatic Rhabdomyosarcoma: The Children's Oncology Group J. Clin. Oncol., February 1, 2007; 25(4): 362 - 369. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. H. Kushner, K. Kramer, S. Modak, and N.-K. V. Cheung Irinotecan Plus Temozolomide for Relapsed or Refractory Neuroblastoma J. Clin. Oncol., November 20, 2006; 24(33): 5271 - 5276. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. Tentori, C. Leonetti, M. Scarsella, A. Muzi, E. Mazzon, M. Vergati, O. Forini, R. Lapidus, W. Xu, A. S. Dorio, et al. Inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase prevents irinotecan-induced intestinal damage and enhances irinotecan/temozolomide efficacy against colon carcinoma FASEB J, August 1, 2006; 20(10): 1709 - 1711. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Schluep, J. Hwang, J. Cheng, J. D. Heidel, D. W. Bartlett, B. Hollister, and M. E. Davis Preclinical Efficacy of the Camptothecin-Polymer Conjugate IT-101 in Multiple Cancer Models Clin. Cancer Res., March 1, 2006; 12(5): 1606 - 1614. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. L. Furman, K. R. Crews, C. Billups, J. Wu, A. J. Gajjar, N. C. Daw, C. C. Patrick, C. Rodriguez-Galindo, C. F. Stewart, J. S. Dome, et al. Cefixime Allows Greater Dose Escalation of Oral Irinotecan: A Phase I Study in Pediatric Patients With Refractory Solid Tumors J. Clin. Oncol., February 1, 2006; 24(4): 563 - 570. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. H. Kushner Neuroblastoma: A Disease Requiring a Multitude of Imaging Studies J. Nucl. Med., July 1, 2004; 45(7): 1172 - 1188. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Cancer Research | Clinical Cancer Research |
| Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention | Molecular Cancer Therapeutics |
| Molecular Cancer Research | Cancer Prevention Research |
| Cancer Prevention Journals Portal | Cancer Reviews Online |
| Annual Meeting Education Book | Meeting Abstracts Online |
