Clinical Cancer Research CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium Infection and Cancer: Biology, Therapeutics, and Prevention
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
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Roberts, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Grant, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Roberts, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Grant, S.
Clinical Cancer Research Vol. 12, 5809-5816, October 1, 2006
© 2006 American Association for Cancer Research

Cancer Therapy: Clinical

Phase I Study of Bryostatin 1 and Fludarabine in Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia and Indolent (Non-Hodgkin's) Lymphoma

John D. Roberts1,2, Mitchell R. Smith6, Eric J. Feldman7, Louise Cragg8, Michael M. Millenson6, Gail J. Roboz7, Connie Honeycutt1, Rose Thune1, Kristin Padavic-Shaller6, W. Hans Carter1,5, Viswanathan Ramakrishnan1,5, Anthony J. Murgo9 and Steven Grant1,2,3,4

Authors' Affiliations: 1 Massey Cancer Center and the Departments of 2 Internal Medicine, 3 Microbiology and Immunology, 4 Pharmacology and Toxicology, and 5 Biostatistics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Medical College of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia; 6 Fox Chase Cancer Center, Department of Medical Oncology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 7 Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York; 8 Mercy Cancer Center, Mason City, Iowa; 9 Investigational Drug Branch, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland

Requests for reprints: Steven Grant, Virginia Commonwealth University, P.O. Box 980230, Richmond, VA 23298-0230. Phone: 804-828-5211; Fax: 804-828-2174; E-mail: stgrant{at}vcu.edu.


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Purpose: Preclinical studies suggested that bryostatin 1 might potentiate the therapeutic effects of fludarabine in the treatment of hematologic malignancies. We undertook a phase I study to identify appropriate schedules and doses of bryostatin 1 and fludarabine to be used in phase II studies.

Experimental Design: Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or indolent lymphoma received fludarabine daily for 5 days and a single dose of bryostatin 1 via a 24-hour continuous infusion either before or after the fludarabine course. Doses were escalated in successive patients until recommended phase II doses for each sequence were identified on the basis of dose-limiting toxic events.

Results: Bryostatin 1 can be administered safely and tolerably with full dose fludarabine (25 mg/m2/d x 5). The recommended bryostatin 1 phase II dose is 50 µg/m2 for both sequences, bryostatin 1 -> fludarabine and fludarabine -> bryostatin 1. The combination is active against both CLL and indolent lymphomas with responses seen in patients who had been previously treated with fludarabine. Correlative studies do not support the hypothesis that bryostatin 1 potentiates fludarabine activity through down-regulation of protein kinase C in target cells.

Conclusions: Bryostatin 1 can be administered with full dose fludarabine, and the combination is moderately active in patients with persistent disease following prior treatment. In view of the activity of monoclonal antibodies such as the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody rituximab in the treatment of CLL and indolent lymphomas, the concept of combining bryostatin 1 and fludarabine with rituximab warrants future consideration.

Systemic treatment options for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and indolent (non-Hodgkin's) lymphoma have been expanding in recent years and now include oral alkylating agents with or without corticosteroids; purine nucleoside analogues (fludarabine, 2-chlorodeoxyadenosine); combination chemotherapy, generally combining an alkylating agent or purine nucleoside analogue with a corticosteroid and cytotoxic agent(s) of other classes; monoclonal antibodies (rituximab, alemtuzumab); radiolabeled monoclonal antibodies (ibritumomab tiuxetan; tositumomab); and, for selected patients, high-dose therapy with autologous or allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell rescue. Nevertheless, most patients are treated with palliative intent, and new therapies are needed.

Bryostatin 1 is a macrocyclic lactone isolated from the marine invertebrate bryozoan, Bugula neritina, which has shown promise as an anticancer agent (1). As a single agent, bryostatin 1 displayed antitumor activity against both murine and human tumor cell lines in vitro and against transplantable murine tumors in vivo, including activity against B lymphoid tumors (1–5). After extensive phase II evaluation, however, it is evident that bryostatin 1 has minimal single agent activity (6).

In addition to direct cytotoxic effects, bryostatin 1 exerts a variety of other biological actions including hematopoietic progenitor cell stimulation (7), differentiation induction (8), neutrophil activation (9), immune cell activation (10, 11), induction of platelet aggregation (12), and potentiation of hematopoietic growth factor activity (13, 14). These properties have supported the investigation of bryostatin 1 as a biological response modifier.

Two lines of preclinical investigation suggest that the combination of bryostatin 1 and a purine nucleoside analogue might be clinically useful. Bhatia et al. proposed a general mechanism in which the exposure of leukemic cells to a differentiation stimulus following exposure to a DNA-damaging agent led to a marked potentiation of apoptosis (15). In an analogous manner, we demonstrated that exposure of leukemic cells to fludarabine followed by bryostatin 1 led to enhanced apoptosis and highly synergistic antiproliferative effects in monocytic leukemia cells (16). On the other hand, Mohammad et al. showed that the reverse sequence, i.e., bryostatin 1 followed by 2-chlorodeoxyadenosine, led to enhanced leukemic cell growth inhibition in vitro and in vivo (17). In addition, this sequence was associated with enhanced activity in a murine CLL xenograft model (18).

The biochemical basis for such synergistic interactions remains unclear. However, several lines of evidence have focused on bryostatin 1–related modulation of protein kinase C (PKC). PKC is an intracellular signal transduction molecule involved in diverse cellular processes, particularly cell growth, cell differentiation, and survival (19). Bryostatin 1 induces initial PKC activation followed by diminished enzyme activity that presumably stems from proteasomal degradation (20). This may promote differentiation which, in the context of prior DNA damage, potentiates apoptotic responses, or, when it precedes DNA damage, may prevent PKC-mediated cytoprotective responses. Other biochemical effects that may be PKC-mediated have been observed including down-regulation of the multidrug resistance protein mdr1 (21), enhanced expression and/or release of IFN-{gamma} (22) and tumor necrosis factor-{alpha} (23), and Bcl-2 phosphorylation (24).

Collectively, these findings provided a basis for clinical studies of bryostatin 1 in combination with the purine nucleoside analogue fludarabine. Single agent bryostatin 1 phase I studies have involved weekly or biweekly administration of infusions ranging from 1 to 72 hours; maximum tolerated doses (MTD) according to these schedules have ranged from 25 to 120 µg/m2 (25–28). Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) has consistently been a transient myalgia of uncertain etiology that may be refractory to narcotic analgesics. This toxicity has uniformly been cumulative in that the onset follows two or more doses. Fludarabine is generally administered at a dose of 25 mg/m2/d for 5 days every 4 weeks. Common toxicities include myelosuppression, which may be cumulative, and infection, particularly pneumonia and opportunistic infections.

In light of these considerations, a phase I study of the combination of bryostatin 1 and fludarabine in patients with CLL (including small lymphocytic lymphoma, SLL) and indolent lymphoma was undertaken. The goals of this trial were to establish the MTD for bryostatin 1 administered in conjunction with a standard 5-day course of fludarabine, to characterize the regimen's toxicities, to identify the recommended doses for phase II trials, to obtain preliminary evidence of the regimen's anticancer activity, and to examine the regimen's pharmacodynamic effects. As preclinical studies supported both sequences of administration, bryostatin 1 -> fludarabine and fludarabine -> bryostatin 1, and because DLTs might differ according to the sequence of administration, the phase I trial involved parallel studies, one of each sequence.


   Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Materials and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Drug sources and formulation. Bryostatin 1 (NSC 339555) was provided by the Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis of the National Cancer Institute. The formulation components were a 10 mL flint vial containing 0.1 mg (100 µg) bryostatin as a lyophilized cake or powder and 5 mg of povidone (as a bulking agent) lyophilized from 40% t-butanol. The formulation was reconstituted with 1 mL sterile diluent containing 60% polyethylene glycol 400, 30% dehydrated ethanol, and 10% polysorbate 80. The resulting solution was diluted with 9 mL of 0.9% sodium chloride injection, and then further diluted in 0.9% sodium chloride or 5% dextrose in water to a final concentration in the range of 0.15 to 0.75 µg/mL. Infusion sets were assembled of glass or polyolefin, not polyvinylchloride, components, and tubing was primed with the formulated product in order to minimize adsorption. The bryostatin 1 formulation was administered by syringe pump or standard infusion controller. If administered via peripheral venous access, a concurrent infusion of 2 L of 0.9% sodium chloride was given in order to minimize phlebitis at the site of infusion. Fludarabine was purchased from commercial sources.

Eligibility criteria. Eligibility criteria included: (a) age ≥18 years and able to give informed consent; (b) either CLL stage I with symptoms and/or bulky lymphadenopathy, or stages II to IV according to the Rai et al. classification (29), with or without prior therapy, or indolent (non-Hodgkin's) lymphoma, progressive or relapsed following chemotherapy. Indolent lymphomas were considered to be lymphomas corresponding to one of the following revised European-American Lymphoma classification (30) categories: B cell CLL/prolymphocytic leukemia/lymphoma (CLL/SLL), lymphoplasmacytoid lymphoma (Waldenström's)/immunocytoma, mantle cell lymphoma, follicular types of follicle center cell lymphoma, marginal zone B cell lymphoma, splenic marginal zone lymphoma, hairy cell leukemia, T cell CLL/prolymphocytic leukemia, large granular lymphocyte leukemia, and mycosis fungoides/Sezary's syndrome. (c) Zubrod performance status ≤2; (d) granulocytes ≥1.0 x 109/L, hemoglobin ≥8 gm/dL, and platelets ≥75 x 109/L; (e) calculated or actual creatinine clearance ≥40 mL/minutes; (f) aspartate aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase ≤2.5x the upper limit of normal and total bilirubin ≤2.0 mg/mL; (g) RBC direct antibody (Coombs)–test negative; (h) no prior bone marrow or peripheral stem cell transplantation (added as a study amendment to exclude patients with compromised myeloid reserve); (i) no systemic chemotherapy within 3 weeks prior to study treatment, and no ongoing requirement for systemic glucocorticoid or immunoglobulin therapy; (j) no intercurrent medical condition that in an investigator's opinion would compromise treatment or assessment of toxicity; (k) no known malignant CNS disease; (l) not pregnant or nursing and willing to use a medically accepted form of birth control. The characteristics of the patients enrolled are shown in Table 1 .


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Patients

 
Treatment plan. Patients received either a single dose of bryostatin 1 via a 24-hour continuous infusion followed immediately by fludarabine daily for days (bryostatin 1 -> fludarabine), or fludarabine daily for 5 days followed by a single dose of bryostatin 1 via a 24-hour continuous infusion (fludarabine -> bryostatin 1; Fig. 1 ). Initially, patients were assigned at random to one of the two sequences. This policy led to delays in accrual, however, as both sequences might be on enrollment hold pending observation for toxicity in a single sequence, and the protocol was amended so that enrollment to the two sequences became independent. During treatment, patients underwent weekly evaluation by a research nurse with monitoring of peripheral blood cell counts and serum chemistries (aspartate aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, lactate dehydrogenase, bilirubin, creatinine, and glucose) and monthly evaluation by a physician. Treatment was repeated every 4 weeks. The protocol specified dose modifications for patients experiencing significant treatment-related toxicities. Disease status was assessed every 2 months. Patients experiencing a response or stable disease were allowed to continue treatment indefinitely. During the study, however, it became apparent that many patients were eligible to continue treatment for many months, and that many of these patients had achieved a stable disease state but were experiencing progressive lymphopenia with a risk of opportunistic infection. At this time, the protocol was amended with an advisory suggesting limiting treatment to six to nine courses. Prophylactic hematopoietic growth factors were not permitted during the first course of treatment. Otherwise, patients received full supportive care. Prophylactic antibiotics to prevent opportunistic infections (which have been seen with fludarabine use; ref. 31) were permitted. An option existed to re-treat patients who experienced a response, discontinued treatment, and subsequently experienced disease progression. Dose escalation of an individual patient's dose was not permitted, but there was an option to re-enroll a patient only once at a higher fludarabine, but not bryostatin 1, dose.


Figure 1
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. Treatment schema.

 
Toxicity evaluation. All adverse events were characterized by nature, severity, and relationship to study treatment according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria v2.0. Adverse events considered to be possibly, probably, or definitely related to treatment were scored as toxicities. For patients with baseline blood cell counts less than normal, hematologic toxicity was scored according to the National Cancer Institute Working Group criteria (32). Myalgia was scored as: none, grade 0; mild pain not interfering with daily activities, grade 1; moderate pain, or pain or analgesics producing some interference with daily activities, grade 2; severe pain, or pain or analgesics severely interfering with daily activities, grade 3; and disabling, grade 4.

Dose levels, definition of DLT, and identification of MTDs. Initial and subsequent dose levels were identical for each sequence, but dose level escalation was conducted independently (Table 2 ). Initial dose levels incorporated fludarabine at half the standard dose and, based on previous single agent experience (6, 25–28), a moderate dose of bryostatin 1. Fludarabine was escalated to full dose in two successive dose levels, and subsequently, the bryostatin 1 dose was escalated to the MTD. DLT was defined as any grade 4 toxicity except lymphopenia or any grade 3 toxicity except neutropenia, leukopenia, lymphopenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, hyperglycemia, or alopecia during the first course of treatment. MTD was defined as the highest dose level with DLT in one third or fewer patients. Patients were enrolled in cohorts of three according to a modified "three + three" dose escalation scheme designed to identify the highest bryostatin 1 dose for each sequence that could be administered with full dose fludarabine (33).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Dose levels and DLT events

 
Response evaluation. For patients with CLL, response was characterized according to a modification of the National Cancer Institute Working Group criteria (32). For patients with lymphoma, response was categorized as complete or partial response, stable disease, or progression of disease according to criteria based on the sum of the products of bidimensional tumor measurements (partial response as >50% reduction, progression of disease as >25% increase).

Correlative laboratory studies. Blood samples for correlative studies were obtained during the first treatment cycle from patients with CLL receiving the bryostatin -> fludarabine schedule in which peripheral blood leukocytes were ≥80% leukemia cells and who were being treated at one of the three participating centers (Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA). One sample was obtained prior to initiation of the first bryostatin 1 infusion, and another was obtained within 1 hour of the conclusion of the first bryostatin 1 infusion and prior to administration of fludarabine. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells were isolated from blood samples by centrifugation over Ficoll-Hypaque. Total cellular PKC activity was assessed using a commercially available kit as previously described (34). Apoptosis was assessed as the fraction of cells in the sub-G1, hypodiploid population as determined by flow cytometry following staining with propidium iodide or by terminal nucleotidyl transferase–mediated nick end labeling assay as previously described (35).

Statistical analysis. The significance of differences between experimental variables was determined using Student's t test for unpaired observations.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Materials and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
Patients. Fifty-nine patients were enrolled between November 5, 1998 and July 3, 2003 (Table 1). There were approximately equivalent numbers of patients with CLL/SLL and lymphoma. Patients were predominantly male, in middle or late life, of good performance status, and with extensive prior treatment; slightly fewer than 50% of patients had received prior fludarabine.

DLT and MTDs. Neutropenia was the most common DLT and largely defined the MTD for both sequences, bryostatin 1 -> fludarabine and fludarabine -> bryostatin 1 (Table 2). For each sequence, bryostatin 1 could be administered safely and tolerably with full dose fludarabine (25 mg/m2/d x 5), and the bryostatin 1 MTD for each sequence was 50 µg/m2. DLT was more frequent in patients with CLL/SLL than in patients with lymphoma (Table 3 ), but the study was not designed to compare the tolerability of the combination by diagnosis, and this difference may not be significant.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. DLTs according to diagnostic category: CLL/SLL versus lymphoma

 
Other toxicities and tolerability. Most patients received multiple treatment courses (Table 1), and treatment was well tolerated with toxicities that were transient and/or manageable. There was no remarkable difference in overall toxicity between the two sequences. Myelosuppression, particularly anemia, neutropenia, and lymphopenia, was common (Table 4 ). Infectious complications were relatively uncommon (Table 5 ). Nine patients received prophylactic sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim. Other common grade 3 or greater toxicities included hyperbilirubinemia, fatigue, and hyperglycemia (Table 5). Severe myalgia was less frequent than in single-agent studies in which bryostatin 1 was more frequently administered (6, 25–28).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 4. Hematologic toxicities occurring during any treatment course

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 5. Nonhematologic toxicities during any treatment course

 
Disease response. Although most patients had received extensive prior treatment (Table 1), responses were common with either treatment sequence and in patients with either CLL/SLL or lymphoma (Table 6 ). Response rates were slightly higher with the sequence bryostatin 1 -> fludarabine and in patients with lymphoma. However, as the study was not powered to assess response by treatment or diagnosis, the significance of these differences is uncertain. There was no apparent relationship between response rate and dose level (data not shown). One complete and seven partial responses were observed among 25 patients who had received prior fludarabine; however, as intermittent treatment is a common clinical practice in the management of CLL/SLL and indolent lymphoma, it cannot be assumed that most or all of these patients were fludarabine-refractory. Two partial responses were observed among eight patients who had received fludarabine within 2 months of study enrollment and therefore might be presumed to be fludarabine-refractory. Another patient experienced dramatic but transient resolution of bilateral pleural effusions, ascites, and scrotal and bilateral lower leg edema that did not qualify as a partial response.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 6. Treatment response by treatment sequence and diagnosis

 
Correlative laboratory studies. The effects of in vivo exposure to bryostatin 1 on the ex vivo response to fludarabine were examined in CLL cells obtained from five patients randomized to the bryostatin 1 -> fludarabine sequence (Fig. 2 ). Cells from all five patients showed increased apoptosis following ex vivo exposure to 10 µmol/L fludarabine, and cells from two of five patients (patient nos. 1 and 3) displayed an increase in apoptosis following in vivo exposure to bryostatin 1 (P < 0.05 in each case). Cells from only one patient (no. 3) showed an increase in fludarabine-mediated apoptosis that was specific to the post-in vivo bryostatin exposure state. In no case did in vivo exposure to bryostatin 1 diminish the ex vivo sensitivity of cells to fludarabine.


Figure 2
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. Cells were obtained from the peripheral blood from patients with CLL assigned to the bryostatin 1 -> fludarabine sequence before treatment and immediately after completion of the bryostatin 1 infusion. After processing, as described in Materials and Methods, cells were suspended in RPMI 1640 containing 10% FCS and transferred to sterile tissue culture flasks containing either no drug or 10 µmol/L of fludarabine. After 24 hours of incubation in a 37°C, 5% CO2 incubator, apoptosis was monitored by Annexin V/propidium iodide staining as described in Materials and Methods. C, pretreatment cells; F, pretreatment cells exposed to fludarabine; B, post-bryostatin 1 cells; F + B, post-bryostatin 1 cells exposed to fludarabine. Columns, mean of triplicate determinations; bars, ±SD. *, P < 0.05, significantly greater pretreatment values compared with cells exposed to fludarabine.

 
Leukemic cell total PKC activity was assayed in samples obtained prior to and shortly following the infusion of bryostatin 1 in 12 patients with CLL (Fig. 3 ). In three patients, total leukemic cell PKC activity increased significantly following bryostatin 1 infusion (patient nos. 3, 11, and 12; P < 0.05). In no sample was there a significant reduction in CLL cell total PKC activity. There also was no correlation between the effects of leukemic cell PKC activity and clinical response (data not shown).


Figure 3
View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. Peripheral blood was obtained prior to treatment and immediately after the end of the 24-hour bryostatin 1 infusion from 12 patients with CLL assigned to the bryostatin 1 -> fludarabine sequence. Cells were processed as described above and assayed for total cellular PKC activity as outlined in Materials and Methods. Columns, mean of triplicate determinations; bars, ±SD. *, P < 0.05, significantly greater than values for pretreatment cells.

 

   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
The results of this study indicate that full dose fludarabine (25 mg/m2/d x 5) can be administered in conjunction with bryostatin 1 safely and tolerably in patients with CLL and indolent lymphoma who have received extensive prior treatment other than bone marrow and/or stem cell transplantation. The recommended bryostatin 1 dose for phase II study is 50 µg/m2 for both sequences, bryostatin 1 -> fludarabine and fludarabine -> bryostatin 1. The toxicities of the combination are similar to those of single-agent fludarabine, except that hyperbilirubinemia, fatigue, and hyperglycemia may be more common. Although preclinical studies had suggested that administration sequence might be important in the clinical effects of the combination, the recommended phase II bryostatin 1 dose is the same and toxicities were similar for each sequence.

Fludarabine, with or without corticosteroids, has been associated with response (complete remission + partial remission) rates in the range of 50% to 60% in CLL (36–38) and 50% to 100% in indolent lymphoma (39–41). The rationale for the addition of bryostatin 1 to fludarabine was that the combination might be more active than fludarabine as a single agent. The response rates in this study were in the lower end of these ranges, but it would not be appropriate to conclude that the combination is without promise as this phase I study was not designed to assess activity. Factors that might diminish apparent response rates include a study population with an adverse prognosis due to extensive prior treatment, and administration of disparate drug doses. However, if bryostatin 1 does potentiate the actions of fludarabine, one might expect to observe the activity of the combination in patients refractory to fludarabine as a single agent. In fact, some evidence of such activity was observed. Response rates were higher in the bryostatin 1 -> fludarabine sequence; but the study was not designed to compare the activity of the two sequences, and no conclusions about relative activity can be reliably drawn.

A similarly promising activity for bryostatin 1 as a potential biological response modifier was seen in a phase I study of the combination of bryostatin 1 and vincristine (42).

The present study was based on the concept that bryostatin potentiates the proapoptotic effects of fludarabine, possibly through down-regulation of PKC activity (16). However, other studies have suggested that bryostatin 1 may antagonize the proapoptotic effects of fludarabine (43). In the present study, leukemic cells exposed to bryostatin 1 in vivo showed neither increased nor reduced sensitivity to fludarabine in subsequent ex vivo assay (Fig. 2). This may reflect differences among the cell lines used for preclinical investigations and fresh human leukemia cells, the inability to achieve adequate plasma bryostatin 1 concentrations in vivo, the inability to mimic in vivo fludarabine plasma concentrations ex vivo, or a combination of these factors.

Preclinical studies suggested that bryostatin 1–related potentiation of the proapoptotic effects of fludarabine might result from the down-regulation of PKC activity. In a prior study, we showed a trend toward down-regulation of total PKC activity in peripheral blood mononuclear cells obtained 72 hours after the initiation of bryostatin 1 infusions in patients with solid tumors or lymphoma receiving bryostatin 1 as a single agent (44). However, no down-regulation of total PKC activity in leukemic cells was observed in the present study (Fig. 3). This finding may reflect that, in order to avoid the confounding effects of fludarabine, PKC activity was assayed shortly after the completion of the 24-hour bryostatin 1 infusion, which contrasts with the later sampling time of 72 hours employed in the previous study. In fact, the pharmacodynamics of bryostatin 1 with regard to PKC are quite complex (7, 45). When assayed within a few hours of bryostatin 1 exposure, total cellular PKC may show up-regulation. Changes in total PKC activity reflect potentially disparate effects on different PKC isoforms. Furthermore, PKC activity in specific cellular compartments may be more relevant to clinical effects than changes in total cellular PKC. Finally, the differences may reflect the disparate in vivo responses of CLL cells and normal peripheral blood mononuclear cells to bryostatin 1.

In the interval following the completion of this trial, the first clinically relevant method for sample analysis of bryostatin 1 pharmacokinetics was described (46). In a limited report of clinical results, continuous infusion of bryostatin (20 µg/m2/d x 14 days) resulted in concentrations of ~90 pmol/L; measured on days 8 to 15 of the infusion. None of the four patients had bryostatin 1 concentrations above the lower limit of quantitation (~55 pmol/L) at the end of the first day of infusion.10 These values stand in contrast to bryostatin 1 concentrations employed in the preclinical studies that formed the basis for this clinical study (16, 17), which ranged from 10 to 100 nmol/L. The results of the pharmacokinetic analysis raises the possibility that the effects of bryostatin 1 observed in preclinical studies may not be apparent in patients due to inadequate plasma concentrations.

Recently, a large number of clinical investigations involving new strategies for the treatment of CLL/SLL and indolent lymphoma have been implemented. An important development has been the observation that monoclonal antibodies such as the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody rituximab have significant activity in the treatment of B cell disorders, including B cell CLL/SLL and lymphoma. Currently, optimal therapeutic strategies involving established agents remain to be defined, and differences may be emerging for different diseases within this group. For example, in CLL/SLL, the combination of fludarabine and alkylating agents is very active but potentially too toxic, whereas the combination of fludarabine and rituximab is very active and tolerable (47). In indolent lymphoma, the combination of fludarabine and rituximab is also very active and tolerable, and the combination of rituximab with classical nonfludarabine combination chemotherapy such as cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/vincristine/prednisone is tolerable and extremely active (48). Moreover, it has been shown that when leukemia and lymphoma progress on treatment, malignant cells are likely to retain the surface expression of CD20. Consequently, it is possible that rituximab may be an appropriate component of combination therapy for patients with "rituximab-refractory" disease (49). For these reasons, "second line" treatment regimens commonly involve rituximab or other monoclonal antibody agents.

Although the clinical activity of the combination of bryostatin 1 and fludarabine in CLL and indolent lymphoma has not been definitively assessed, it is unlikely that its activity will approach the activity of combinations of conventional chemotherapeutic agents with rituximab or other monoclonal antibodies. Thus, further clinical investigation of the bryostatin 1/fludarabine regimen may be hard to justify or implement. However, recent preclinical studies suggest that bryostatin 1 may`-regulate the expression of CD20 in malignant cells, raising the possibility that bryostatin 1 might potentiate the proapoptotic effects of rituximab (50). These observations have lead to a clinical trial of bryostatin 1 and rituximab in patients with refractory CLL (see http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00087425). Thus, (a) preclinical and clinical results with bryostatin 1 and fludarabine, (b) clinical results with the fludarabine/rituximab regimen (47), and (c) preclinical results with the bryostatin 1/rituximab combination (50) collectively provide a rationale for the investigation of a combination involving all three agents.


   Footnotes
 
Grant support: National Cancer Institute R21CA87056, P30CA16059, P30CA06927, CA63753, NCRR MO1-RR00065, and Berlex Laboratories.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

10 Smith BD and Rudek MA, personal communication, February 28, 2005. Back

Received 12/16/05; revised 5/11/06; accepted 6/22/06.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Mutter R, Wills M. Chemistry and clinical biology of the bryostatins. Bioorg Med Chem 2000;8:1841–60.[CrossRef][Medline]
  2. Grant S, Traylor R, Bhalla K, McCrady C, Pettit CR. Effect of a combined exposure to cytosine arabinoside, bryostatin 1, and recombinant granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor on the clonogenic growth in vitro of normal and leukemic human hematopoietic progenitor cells. Leukemia 1992;6:432–9.[Medline]
  3. Hornung RL, Pearson, JW, Beckwith M, Longo D. Preclinical evaluation of bryostatin as an anticancer agent against several murine tumor cell lines: in vitro versus in vivo activity. Cancer Res 1992;52:101–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Kennedy MJ, Prestigiacomo LJ, Tyler G, May WS, Davidson NE. Differential effects of bryostatin 1 and phorbol ester on human breast cancer cell lines. Cancer Res 1992;52:1278–83.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Grant S, Pettit GR, Howe C, McCrady C. Effect of the protein kinase C activating agent bryostatin 1 on the clonagenic response of leukemic blast progenitors to recombinant granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor. Leukemia 1991;5:392–8.[Medline]
  6. Kortmansky J, Schwartz GK. Bryostatin-1: a novel PKC inhibitor in clinical development. Cancer Invest 2003;21:924–36.[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. May WS, Sharkis SJ, Esa AH, et al. Antineoplastic bryostatins are multipotential stimulators of human hematopoietic progenitor cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1987;84:8483–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Drexler HG, Gignac SM, Jones RA, Scott CS, Pettit GR, Hoffbrand AV. Bryostatin 1 induces differentiation of B-chronic lymphocytic leukemia cells. Blood 1989;74:1747–57.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Berkow RL, Kraft AS. Bryostatin, a non-phorbol macrocyclic lactone, activates intact human polymorphonuclear leukocytes and binds to the phorbol receptor. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1985;131:1109–16.[CrossRef][Medline]
  10. Bosco MC, Rottschafer S, Taylor LS, Ortaldo JR, Longo DL, Espinoza-Delgado I. The antineoplastic agent bryostatin-1 induces proinflammatory cytokine production in human monocytes: synergy with interleukin-2 and modulation of interleukin-2R{gamma} chain expression. Blood 1997;89:3402–11.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Hess AD, Silanskis MK, Esa AH, Pettit GR, May WS. Activation of human T lymphocytes by bryostatin. J Immunol 1988;141:3263–9.[Abstract]
  12. Tallant EA, Smith JB, Wallace RW. Bryostatins mimic the effects of phorbol esters in intact human platelets. Biochim Biophys Acta 1987;929:40–6.[Medline]
  13. McCrady CW, Staniswalis J, Pettit GR, Howe C, Grant S. Effect of pharmacologic manipulation of protein kinase C by phorbol dibutyrate and bryostatin 1on the clonogenic response of human granulocyte-macrophage progenitors to recombinant GM-CSF. Br J Haematol 1991;77:5–15.[Medline]
  14. Li F, Grant S, Pettit GR, McCrady CW. Bryostatin 1 modulates the proliferation and lineage commitment of human myeloid progenitor cells exposed to recombinant interleukin-3 and recombinant granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor. Blood 1992;80:2495–502.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Bhatia U, Traganos F, Darzynkiewicz Z. Induction of cell differentiation potentiates apoptosis triggered by prior exposure to DNA-damaging drugs. Cell Growth Differ 1995;6:937–44.[Abstract]
  16. Vrana JA, Wang Z, Rao AS, et al. Induction of apoptosis and differentiation by fludarabine in human leukemia cells (U937): interactions with the macrocyclic lactone bryostatin 1. Leukemia 1999;13:1046–55.[CrossRef][Medline]
  17. Mohammad RM, Katato K, Almatchy VP, et al. Sequential treatment of human chronic lymphocytic leukemia with bryostatin 1 followed by 2-chlorodeoxyadenosine: preclinical studies. Clin Cancer Res 1998;4:445–53.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Mohammad RM, Limvarapuss C, Hamdy N, et al. Treatment of a de novo fludarabine resistant CLL-xenograft model with bryostatin 1followed by fludarabine. Int J Oncol 1999;14:945–50.[Medline]
  19. Goekjian PG, Jirousek MR. Protein kinase C inhibitors as novel anticancer drugs. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 2001;10:2117–40.[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Lee HW, Smith L, Pettit GR, Smith JB. Bryostatin 1 and phorbol ester down-modulate protein kinase C-{alpha} and -{varepsilon} via the ubiquitin/proteasome pathway in human fibroblasts. Mol Pharmacol 1997;51:439–47.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Al-Katib AM, Smith MR, Kamanda WS, et al. Bryostatin 1 down-regulates mdr1 and potentiates vincristine toxicity in diffuse large cell lymphoma xenografts. Clin Cancer Res 1998;4:1305–14.[Abstract]
  22. Curiel RE, Garcia CS, Farooq L, Aguero MF, Espinoza-Delgado I. Bryostatin-1 and IL-2 synergize to induce IFN-{gamma} expression in human peripheral blood T cells: implications for cancer immunotherapy. J Immunol 2001;167:4828–37.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Steube KG, Drexler HG. The protein kinase C activator bryostatin-1 induces the rapid release of TNF{alpha} from MONO-MAC-6 cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1995;214:1197–203.[CrossRef][Medline]
  24. Wall NR, Mohammad RM, Reddy KB, Al-Katib AM. Bryostatin-1 induces ubiquitination and proteasome degradation of Bcl-2 in the human acute lymphoblastic leukemia cell line, Reh. Int J Mol Med 2000;5:165–71.[Medline]
  25. Prendiville J, Crowther D, Thatcher N, et al. A phase I study of intravenous bryostatin 1 in patients with advanced cancer. Br J Cancer 1993;68:418–24.[Medline]
  26. Philip PA, Rea D, Thavasu P, et al. Phase I study of bryostatin 1: assessment of interleukin 6 and tumor necrosis factor {alpha} induction in vivo. The Cancer Research Campaign Phase I Committee. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:1812–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Jayson GC, Crowther D, Prendiville J, et al. A phase I trial of bryostatin 1 in patients with advanced malignancy using a 24 hour intravenous infusion. Br J Cancer 1995;72:461–8.[Medline]
  28. Varterasian ML, Mohammad RM, Eilender DS, et al. Phase I study of bryostatin 1 in patients with relapsed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Clin Oncol 1998;16:56–62.[CrossRef]
  29. Rai KR, Sawitsky A, Cronkite EP, Chanana AD, Levy RN, Pasternack BS. Clinical staging of chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood 1975;46:219–34.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Harris NL, Jaffe ES, Stein H, et al. A revised European-American classification of lymphoid neoplasms: a proposal from the International Lymphoma Study Group. Blood 1994;84:1361.[Free Full Text]
  31. Anaissie EJ, Kontoyiannis DP, O'Brien S, et al. Infections in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia treated with fludarabine. Ann Intern Med 1998;129:559–66.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Cheson BD, Bennett JM, Rai KR, et al. Guidelines for clinical protocols for chronic lymphocytic leukemia: recommendations of the National Cancer Institute-sponsored working group. Am J Hematol 1988;29:152–63.[Medline]
  33. Simon R, Freidlin B, Rubinstein L, Arbuck SG, Collins J, Christian MC. Accelerated titration designs for phase I clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997;89:1138–47.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Jarvis WD, Fornari FA, Kolesnick RN, Browning JL, Gewirtz DA, Grant S. Attenuation of ceramide-induced apoptosis in human myeloid leukemia cells by diglyceride. J Biol Chem 1994;269:31685–92.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Jarvis D, Povirk L, Turner A, Traylor R, Grant S. Induction of DNA fragmentation and cell death in (HL-60) human promyelocytic leukemia cells by pharmacologic inhibitors of protein kinase C. Cancer Res 1994;54:1707–14.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Keating MJ, Kantarjian H, Talpaz M, et al. Fludarabine: a new agent with major activity against chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood 1989;74:19–25.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. O'Brien S, Kantarjian H, Beran M, et al. Results of fludarabine and prednisone therapy in 264 patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia with multivariate analysis-derived prognostic model for response to treatment. Blood 1993;82:1695–700.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Puccio CA, Mittelman A, Lichtman SM, et al. A loading dose/continuous infusion schedule of fludarabine phosphate in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. J Clin Oncol 1991;9:1562–9.[Abstract]
  39. Solal-Celigny P, Brice P, Brousse N, et al. Phase II trial of fludarabine monophosphate as first-line treatment in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma: a multicenter study by the Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomes de l'Adulte. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:514–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Redman JR, Cabanillas F, Velasquez WS, et al. Phase II trial of fludarabine phosphate in lymphoma: an effective new agent in low-grade lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 1992;10:790–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Whelan JS, Davis CL, Rule S, et al. Fludarabine phosphate for the treatment of low grade lymphoid malignancy. Br J Cancer 1991;64:120–3.[Medline]
  42. Dowlati A, Lazarus HM, Hartman P, et al. Phase I and correlative study of combination bryostatin 1 and vincristine in relapsed B-cell malignancies. Clin Cancer Res 2003;9:5929–35.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Kitada S, Zapata JM, Andreeff M, Reed JC. Bryostatin and CD40-ligand enhance apoptosis resistance and induce expression of cell survival genes in B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Br J Haematol 1999;106:995–1004.[CrossRef][Medline]
  44. Grant S, Roberts J, Poplin E, et al. Phase Ib trial of bryostatin 1 in patients with refractory malignancies. Clin Cancer Res 1998;4:611–8.[Abstract]
  45. Hofmann J. Protein kinase C isozymes as potential targets for anticancer therapy. Curr Cancer Drug Targets 2004;4:125–46.[CrossRef][Medline]
  46. Zhao M, Rudek MA, He P, Smith BD, Baker SD. Validation and implementation of a method for determination of bryostatin 1 in human plasma by using liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Anal Biochem 2005;337:143–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  47. Savage DG, Cohen NS, Hesdorffer CS, et al. Combined fludarabine and rituximab for low grade lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma 2003;44:477–81.[CrossRef][Medline]
  48. Hiddemann W, Forstpointner R, Kneba M, et al. The addition of rituximab to combination chemotherapy with CHOP has a long lasting impact on subsequent treatment in remission in follicular lymphoma but not in mantle cell lymphoma: results of two prospective randomized studies of the German Low Grade Lymphoma Study Group (GLSG) [abstract 161]. Blood 2004;104:50a.
  49. Smith MR. Rituximab (monoclonal anti-CD20 antibody): mechanisms of action and resistance. Oncogene 2003;22:7359–68.[CrossRef][Medline]
  50. Wojciechowski W, Li H, Marshall S, Dell'Agnola C, Espinoza-Delgado I. Enhanced expression of CD20 in human tumor B cells is controlled through ERK-dependent mechanisms. J Immunol 2005;174:7859–68.[Abstract/Free Full Text]




This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Roberts, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Grant, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Roberts, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Grant, S.

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