4.5 Article

Phase I study of gemcitabine, docetaxel and imatinib in refractory and relapsed solid tumors

Journal

INVESTIGATIONAL NEW DRUGS
Volume 30, Issue 1, Pages 258-265

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10637-010-9504-5

Keywords

Phase I Gemcitabine; Docetaxel and Imatinib; Diffusion and dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI

Funding

  1. NIH [P30 CA046592, P01 CA085878]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: In a phase I study, the combination of gemcitabine and imatinib was well tolerated with broad anticancer activity. This phase I trial evaluated the triplet of docetaxel, gemcitabine and imatinib. Experimental Design: Imatinib was administered at 400 mg daily on days 1-5, 8-12 and 15-19. Gemcitabine was started at 600 mg/m(2) at a rate of 10 mg/min on days 3 and 10 and docetaxel at 30 mg/m(2) on day 10, on a 21-day cycle. Diffusion and dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI was performed in selected patients. Results: Twenty patients with relapsed/refractory solid tumors were enrolled in this IRB-approved study. The mean age was 64, and mean ECOG PS was 1. Two patients were evaluated by diffusion/perfusion MRI. After two grade 3 hematological toxicities at dose level 1, the protocol was amended to reduce the dose of imatinib. MTDs were 600 mg/ m(2) on days 3 and 10 for gemcitabine, 30 mg/ m(2) on day 10 for docetaxel, and 400 mg daily on days 1-5 and 8-12 for imatinib. Dose limiting toxicities after one cycle were neutropenic fever, and pleural and pericardial effusions. The best response achieved was stable disease, for six cycles, in one patient each with mesothelioma and non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at the MTD. Two patients with NSCLC had stable disease for four cycles. Discussion: An unexpectedly low MTD for this triplet was identified. Our results suggest drug-drug interactions that amplify toxicities with little evidence of improved tumor control.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available