4.4 Article

Phase I study of bevacizumab, everolimus, and panobinostat (LBH-589) in advanced solid tumors

Journal

CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY AND PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 70, Issue 2, Pages 251-258

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00280-012-1911-1

Keywords

Bevacizumab; Everolimus; Panobinostat; Phase I; Advanced cancer

Funding

  1. National Institute of Health [5K24-CA113755-05]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To define the maximum tolerated dose, clinical toxicities, and pharmacodynamics of bevacizumab, everolimus, and panobinostat (LBH-589) when administered in combination to patients with advanced solid tumor malignancies. Subjects received 10 mg of panobinostat three times weekly, 5 or 10 mg everolimus daily, and bevacizumab at 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were assessed in cycle 1; toxicity evaluation was closely monitored throughout treatment. Treatment continued until disease progression or undesirable toxicity. Protein acetylation was assessed in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) both at baseline and on treatment. Twelve subjects were evaluable for toxicity and nine subjects for response. DLTs in cohort 1 included grade 2 esophagitis and grade 3 oral mucositis; DLTs in cohort -1 were grade 2 ventricular arrhythmia and grade 2 intolerable skin rash. Common adverse events were diarrhea (50 %), headache (33 %), mucositis/stomatitis (25 %), hyperlipidemia (25 %), and thrombocytopenia (25 %). There was 1 partial response; an additional 2 subjects had stable disease as best response. No consistent changes in protein acetylation in PBMC were observed in samples available from eight patients on treatment compared with baseline. Bevacizumab, everolimus, and panobinostat in combination at the lowest proposed doses did not have an acceptable safety and tolerability profile and did not consistently inhibit HDAC activity; therefore, we do not recommend further evaluation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available