| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Clinical Trials |
Texas Children’s Cancer Center/Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030 [S. B., S. L. B.]; St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee 38105 [C. P.]; University of Texas, San Antonio, Texas 78284-7810 [S. W.]; Pediatric Oncology Group Statistical Office, Gainesville, Florida 32601 [J. S.]; Washington University Medical Center, St. Louis, Missouri 63110 [L. L-J.]; and University of Montreal, Montreal H3T 1C5, Quebec, Canada [M. B.]
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 Top ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONPATIENTS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TopABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONPATIENTS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
In preclinical studies, irinotecan was highly active in vitro and in vivo against a broad spectrum of human and murine tumor cell lines. Substantial antitumor activity was observed in xenografts derived from pediatric tumors such as neuroblastoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, peripheral primitive neuroectodermal tumors, and CNS3 tumors, as well as in rhabdomyosarcoma xenografts selected in vivo for resistance to vincristine, melphalan, and topotecan (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) . In addition, marked activity was observed against a variety of xenografts derived from adult tumors, including colon adenocarcinoma Co-4; mammary carcinoma MX-1; gastric adenocarcinomas ST-15 and SC-6; squamous cell carcinoma QG-56; and lung tumor xenografts, Mqnul, Msnul, and LX1 (8 , 9) .
In recently completed adult Phase II trials, the clinical antitumor activity of irinotecan has been confirmed in a wide variety of tumor types. There was a 27% objective response rate (PRs) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (10) . The response rate for irinotecan as a single agent in previously untreated non-small cell lung cancer was 32%, and in combination with cisplatin the response rate was 54% (11 , 12) . In patients with refractory or relapsed small cell lung cancer, the response rate was 47% (13) . Responses have also been observed in adults with refractory leukemias and lymphomas (17–34%; Refs. 14 , 15 ) or refractory gliomas (16) . Objective responses have also been observed in a variety of other malignancies in patients treated on Phase I/II trials (10 , 17, 18, 19, 20) . The high level of antitumor activity resulted in recent Food and Drug Administration approval of irinotecan for commercial use in patients with refractory colorectal cancer.
In this report we present the results of a Phase I trial and pharmacokinetic study of irinotecan given daily for 5 days every 3 weeks in pediatric patients with refractory cancer. The objectives of this study were to identify the optimal irinotecan dose for phase II pediatric trials, to determine the incidence and severity of toxicities associated with irinotecan administration, and to determine the pharmacokinetics of irinotecan and its metabolites in children. Results of the pharmacokinetic study will be reported separately.
|
PATIENTS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TopABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONPATIENTS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
6
year and 
21 years of age with a histologically confirmed solid
tumor refractory to standard therapy. After preliminary experience in
older children treated at the first two dose levels demonstrated that
irinotecan-induced diarrhea was readily managed with supportive care,
the patient eligibility criteria were expanded to include patients 1
and <6 years of age. Patients in this younger age group were enrolled
in a separate stratum (stratum 3) at one dose level below the dose
level for older children until the DLT and MTD were defined. Other
eligibility criteria included the following: (a) an
ECOG performance status 2; (b) a life expectancy
>8 weeks; (c) adequate bone marrow function (an absolute
neutrophil count >1500/mm3
, a hemoglobin >9.0
g/dl, and a platelet count >100,000/mm3
);
(d) adequate liver function (serum bilirubin <1.5 mg/100
ml; alanine aminotransferase <2x normal); (e)
adequate renal function (serum creatinine <1.5 mg/100 ml or creatinine
clearance >60 ml/min/1.73m2); (f)
recovery from the toxicity of prior therapy; (g) no other
chemotherapy within 2 weeks (6 weeks for prior nitrosourea therapy) of
entering onto this protocol; and (h) no prior extensive
radiotherapy (e.g., pelvic or craniospinal) or bone marrow
transplantation with total body irradiation. Initially, there
was no limitation on the number of chemotherapy regimens that the
patient could have received before entry onto this trial. After determination of the MTD in this heavily pretreated patient population (stratum 1), the eligibility criteria were revised to study a less-heavily pretreated patient population (stratum 2). The revised eligibility criteria excluded patients who had received >2 prior chemotherapy treatment regimens and patients who had received any prior central axis radiation (skull, spine, pelvis, or ribs) or a bone marrow transplant. The definition of the less-heavily pretreated group was designed to closely mirror pediatric patient populations in classic Phase II trials.
Informed consent was obtained from the patient or his/her legal guardian before entry on this study in accordance with federal and individual institutional policies.
Drug Administration and Study Design.
Irinotecan, supplied by the Division of Cancer Treatment, National
Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, was administered as a 60-min i.v.
infusion immediately after premedication with dexamethasone, 4.0
mg/m2, and ondansetron, 0.15 mg/kg daily for 5
days. The appropriate dose of drug was diluted with normal saline to a
final total volume of 30 ml and administered over a period of 60
min.
The starting dose of irinotecan was 30 mg/m2. Subsequent escalations were to 39 mg/m2 and 50 mg/m2. Because the DLT at the 50 mg/m2 dose level in the heavily pretreated patients was myelosuppression, additional dose escalation was attempted in the less-heavily pretreated patient population starting at the 50 mg/m2 dose level and escalating to 65 mg/m2.
A minimum of three patients evaluable for both hematological and nonhematological toxicity were treated at each dose level. If one of the first three patients entered at any dose level experienced a dose-limiting toxicity during the first course of therapy, up to three additional patients were entered at that dose level. Toxicities were graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (Version 1; Ref. 21 ). Dose-limiting nonhematological toxicity was defined as any grade-3 or grade-4 nonhematological toxicity, with the specific exclusion of grade-3 nausea and vomiting, grade-3 fever, and grade-3 hepatic toxicity that returned to grade 1 before the scheduled time for the next treatment course. Dose-limiting hematological toxicity was defined as grade-4 neutropenia (<500/mm3 ), anemia (Hg <6.5 g/dl), or thrombocytopenia (<25,000/mm3 ) of >7 days duration. Each course was evaluated for both hematological and nonhematological toxicity.
Patient histories, physical examinations, and laboratory studies were obtained before treatment and then weekly throughout the course of the study. Laboratory evaluation included electrolytes, blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, and liver function tests. Complete blood counts were obtained at least twice weekly throughout the course of the study. Patients with measurable disease had appropriate radiographic or bone marrow evaluations at baseline, after the second cycle of irinotecan, and then every other cycle of irinotecan, to assess tumor response.
The MTD of irinotecan was defined as the dose level immediately below the level at which two or more patients of a cohort of up to six patients experienced dose-limiting toxicity. Courses were repeated every 21 days in the absence of DLT. In the absence of PD, patients with reversible DLT could receive additional cycles of irinotecan at one dose level below the dose that resulted in DLT in that patient.
Evaluation of Response.
Patients with measurable disease at the time of study enrollment were
considered evaluable for response. A complete response was defined as
the complete resolution of all measurable tumors and no progression of
bony disease for a duration of 3 weeks. PR was defined as a 50%
reduction in the sum of the products of the two longest perpendicular
diameters of all measurable tumors for a duration of 3 weeks, and a
minimal response was a 25% but <50% reduction in the sum of
the products of the two longest perpendicular diameters of all tumors.
SD or NR were defined as a <25% decrease in the sum of the products
of the maximum perpendicular diameters of all measurable lesions, no
evidence of progression of any lesion, and no evidence of new lesions.
PD was defined as the appearance of new tumors or a 25% increase in
the product of the two longest perpendicular diameters in any
measurable lesion (excluding bone). Patients with PD after one or more
courses of irinotecan were removed from study.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TopABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONPATIENTS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
and 2
.
|
|
Toxicity.
Irinotecan was well tolerated by these pediatric patients with
refractory cancer. Dose-related myelosuppression was the primary
dose-limiting toxicity of irinotecan in the heavily pretreated patient
population treated at the 50 mg/m2/day dose
level. At this dose level, one patient with neuroblastoma experienced
dose-limiting grade 4 neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count
<500/µl for >7 days) and a second with pinealoblastoma and a prior
history of craniospinal irradiation had prolonged neutropenia (grade
3–4 for 
16 days) accompanied by thrombocytopenia (grade 2 for
almost 1 month). As a result, this patient had a long treatment delay
between cycles 1 and 2 of therapy, and thus this toxicity was
considered dose-limiting. The MTD for heavily pretreated patients was
39 mg/m2/dose. Subsequent protocol accrual was
limited to less-heavily pretreated patients. Dose-limiting diarrhea
occurred in two of three patients treated at the 65
mg/m2 dose level. The maximum tolerated dose for
less-heavily treated children was therefore 50
mg/m2/dose.
Although neutropenia was dose-limiting in two heavily pretreated patients, myelosuppression was not a significant toxicity for the majority of patients enrolled in this study. Only 20% of patients experienced grade 4 neutropenia and <15% had grade 4 thrombocytopenia. Even grade 3 myelotoxicity was infrequent with fewer than 15% of patients experiencing grade 3 neutropenia and fewer than 10% either grade 3 thrombocytopenia or anemia.
Three patients experienced diaphoresis and flushing which in some was also accompanied by diarrhea ("early diarrhea") during or immediately after completion of the irinotecan infusion. When this symptom complex was observed, it resolved spontaneously or after the administration of a single dose of atropine. Early diarrhea did not always occur with subsequent doses of irinotecan. Late diarrhea, primarily grade 1 or 2, occurred in approximately two-thirds of patients. Only one patient with diarrhea required hospitalization for fluid administration. The diarrhea in this particular instance was probably not drug-related because the patient’s entire family had gastroenteritis.
Other toxicities associated with irinotecan administration were
primarily grade 1 or 2 (Table 3)
. In addition to these toxicities, one patient with a brainstem glioma
developed severe erythema multiforme. This patient was hospitalized
approximately 2 weeks after irinotecan administration with a history of
diarrhea, lethargy, and respiratory distress. The next day, she had
fever, mucosal bleeding, and skin lesions consistent with varicella and
erythema multiforme. She also developed grade 4 neutropenia and
thrombocytopenia during this time. It is not known whether the erythema
multiforme was irinotecan-related or secondary to the patient’s
underlying infection. The direct fluorescence antigen for varicella was
negative. The patient died of PD 2 weeks after the onset of this
event.
|
6 years of age.
Dose-limiting diarrhea did not occur in any of the patients <6 years
of age.
Response.
The responses to irinotecan are summarized in Table 4
. A PR was documented in one patient with recurrent hepatic
neuroblastoma who was treated at the 30 mg/m2
dose level. Almost complete radiographic resolution of the hepatic
disease occurred gradually over many cycles of therapy. The patient
developed leptomeningeal dissemination of his tumor after his fifteenth
cycle of irinotecan. A PR was also observed in a patient with
hepatocellular carcinoma who was treated at the 65
mg/m2 dose level. This patient also had a gradual
reduction in his tumor mass that was documented on serial imaging
studies and additionally by a reduction in the serum 
-fetoprotein
level from 253.5 µg/liter to 26.9 µg/liter. In addition to the
objective responses observed in these two patients, 25% of the
patients who were evaluable for response had documented stable disease
(Table 4)
. The patients with prolonged stable disease included one with
hepatoblastoma who had a marked reduction in his serum -fetoprotein
level from an initial 122,030 µg/liter to 534 µg/liter during his
thirteenth cycle of irinotecan. At that time the patient was removed
from the study by his treating physician to receive a liver transplant.
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TopABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONPATIENTS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Although the cytotoxic activity of topoisomerase I inhibitors is schedule-dependent, the optimal dosing schedule for topoisomerase I inhibitors in humans is not known. Houghton et al. (24) have demonstrated in a variety of xenograft models that prolonged exposure to topoisomerase I inhibitors such as topotecan or irinotecan is associated with increased efficacy. On the basis of these preclinical studies, they advocate a protracted schedule of drug administration, e.g., daily for 5 days for 2 consecutive weeks with cycles repeated every 3 weeks. In the clinical setting, objective antitumor activity has been observed in a wide spectrum of malignancies despite a multitude of topoisomerase I treatment schedules. Randomized studies in humans to evaluate whether a protracted administration schedule affects efficacy have not been performed. However, a comparison of the clinical pharmacodynamics of four different schedules of oral topotecan (daily x5, every 21 days; (daily x5 x 2, every 21 days; b.i.d. x10, every 21 days; and b.i.d. x21, every 28 days) has been published (25) . In this report, the total drug exposure [area under the concentration versus time cuve (AUC)] per course was relatively consistent regardless of the schedule of drug administration. In contrast, toxicity seemed to be related to schedule rather than to AUC, with myelosuppression dose-limiting on shorter schedules and intestinal side effects dose-limiting on protracted schedules (25) . There was no apparent difference in antitumor activity among these four schedules; and based on patient convenience, the daily x5 schedule was favored. For similar reasons, this pediatric study evaluated a daily x5, every-21-days schedule.
In this trial, we evaluated the clinical toxicities of the topoisomerase I inhibitor, irinotecan, administered as a 60-min i.v. infusion following premedication with dexamethasone and ondansetron. Myelosuppression was dose-limiting in heavily pretreated patients at 50 mg/m2/dose, and diarrhea was dose-limiting in less-heavily pretreated children at 65 mg/m2/dose. Thus, the recommended Phase II doses of irinotecan are 39 mg/m2/dose for heavily pretreated patients and 50 mg/m2/dose for less-heavily pretreated patients.
The toxicity profile of irinotecan in children treated in this study was similar to that reported in adults and to children treated with a more protracted dosing schedule, (daily [times 5 x 2, every-21-days schedule (26) with diarrhea and myelosuppression, primarily neutropenia, being the predominant toxicities.
The antitumor activity observed in this study is very encouraging. Nine
of 29 (30%) of the evaluable patients had disease stabilization or
response, and of these 9 patients, 7 received 10 cycles of drug.
In summary, irinotecan is well-tolerated in children with refractory cancer. As with docetaxel, the recommended dosage for and toxicity profile of irinotecan in heavily versus less-heavily treated children differs (27) . Such studies underscore the continued need to evaluate less-heavily pretreated pediatric patients in a separate stratum in an attempt to recommend the optimal dose for Phase II studies. The objective responses and prolonged stable disease observed in this study occurred in a wide spectrum of pediatric tumors. Phase II studies of irinotecan in children with refractory solid tumors and refractory CNS tumors at a dose of 50 mg/m2 administered daily x5 every 21 days are in progress.
|
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
1 Supported in part by Grant U01CA57745 from the
Cancer Therapy Evaluation Programs Division Cancer Treatment/National
Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD and Grant MO1RR00188, General
Clinical Research Center, NCRR, NIH, Bethesda, MD. 
2 To whom requests for reprints should be
addressed, at Texas Children’s Cancer Center, 6621 Fannin Street, MC
3-3320, Houston, TX 77030. Phone: (713) 770-4586; Fax: (713) 770-4039;
E-mail: sblaney{at}txccc.org
3 The abbreviations used are: CNS, central nervous
system; PR, partial response; MTD, maximum tolerated dose; DLT,
dose-limiting toxicity; PD, progressive disease.
Received 7/18/00; revised 9/30/00; accepted 10/ 5/00.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TopABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONPATIENTS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
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. R. Bomgaars, M. Bernstein, M. Krailo, R. Kadota, S. Das, Z. Chen, P. C. Adamson, and S. M. Blaney Phase II Trial of Irinotecan in Children With Refractory Solid Tumors: A Children's Oncology Group Study J. Clin. Oncol., October 10, 2007; 25(29): 4622 - 4627. [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. Vassal, D. Couanet, E. Stockdale, A. Geoffray, B. Geoerger, D. Orbach, F. Pichon, J. C. Gentet, S. Picton, C. Bergeron, et al. Phase II Trial of Irinotecan in Children With Relapsed or Refractory Rhabdomyosarcoma: A Joint Study of the French Society of Pediatric Oncology and the United Kingdom Children's Cancer Study Group J. Clin. Oncol., February 1, 2007; 25(4): 356 - 361. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Mora, O. Cruz, S. Gala, and R. Navarro Successful treatment of childhood intramedullary spinal cord astrocytomas with irinotecan and cisplatin Neuro-oncol, January 1, 2007; 9(1): 39 - 46. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. P. Lee, J. M. Skolnik, and P. C. Adamson Pediatric Phase I Trials in Oncology: An Analysis of Study Conduct Efficiency J. Clin. Oncol., November 20, 2005; 23(33): 8431 - 8441. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. T Holdsworth and T. Vo-Nguyen Employment of Substandard Antiemetic Prophylaxis in Recent Trials of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Ann. Pharmacother., November 1, 2005; 39(11): 1903 - 1910. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. F. Stewart, M. Leggas, J. D. Schuetz, J. C. Panetta, P. J. Cheshire, J. Peterson, N. Daw, J. J. Jenkins III, R. Gilbertson, G. S. Germain, et al. Gefitinib Enhances the Antitumor Activity and Oral Bioavailability of Irinotecan in Mice Cancer Res., October 15, 2004; 64(20): 7491 - 7499. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. M. Katzenstein, S. L. Cohn, R. M. Shore, D. M.E. Bardo, P. R. Haut, M. Olszewski, J. Schmoldt, D. Liu, A. W. Rademaker, and M. Kletzel Scintigraphic Response by 123I-Metaiodobenzylguanidine Scan Correlates With Event-Free Survival in High-Risk Neuroblastoma J. Clin. Oncol., October 1, 2004; 22(19): 3909 - 3915. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. M. Wagner, K. R. Crews, L. C. Iacono, P. J. Houghton, C. E. Fuller, M. B. McCarville, R. E. Goldsby, K. Albritton, C. F. Stewart, and V. M. Santana Phase I Trial of Temozolomide and Protracted Irinotecan in Pediatric Patients with Refractory Solid Tumors Clin. Cancer Res., February 1, 2004; 10(3): 840 - 848. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. H. Kushner, K. Kramer, S. Modak, and N.-K. V. Cheung Camptothecin Analogs (Irinotecan or Topotecan) plus High-Dose Cyclophosphamide as Preparative Regimens for Antibody-Based Immunotherapy in Resistant Neuroblastoma Clin. Cancer Res., January 1, 2004; 10(1): 84 - 87. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Vassal, F. Doz, D. Frappaz, K. Imadalou, E. Sicard, A. Santos, J. O'Quigley, C. Germa, M.-L. Risse, D. Mignard, et al. A Phase I Study of Irinotecan As a 3-Week Schedule in Children With Refractory or Recurrent Solid Tumors J. Clin. Oncol., October 15, 2003; 21(20): 3844 - 3852. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. D. Turner, S. Gururangan, J. Eastwood, K. Bottom, M. Watral, R. Beason, R. E. McLendon, A. H. Friedman, S. Tourt-Uhlig, L. L. Miller, et al. Phase II study of irinotecan (CPT-11) in children with high-risk malignant brain tumors: The Duke experience Neuro-oncol, April 1, 2002; 4(2): 102 - 108. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. Bomgaars, S. L. Berg, and S. M. Blaney The Development of Camptothecin Analogs in Childhood Cancers Oncologist, December 1, 2001; 6(6): 506 - 516. [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 |
