4.5 Article

A dose-finding, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of a novel schedule of flavopiridol in patients with advanced solid tumors

期刊

INVESTIGATIONAL NEW DRUGS
卷 30, 期 2, 页码 629-638

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10637-010-9563-7

关键词

Flavopiridol; CDK inhibitor; Phase I trial; Solid tumors

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [U01 CA76576]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Based on the promising activity and tolerability of flavopiridol administered with a pharmacokinetically-derived dosing schedule in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), we conducted a phase I study using this schedule in patients with advanced solid tumors. Experimental Design: Flavopiridol was given IV as a 30-min loading dose followed by a 4-hr infusion weekly for 4 weeks repeated every 6 weeks. Dose-escalation was in cohorts of three patients using the standard 3+3 phase I study design. Blood samples were obtained for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies. Results: Thirty-four eligible patients with advanced solid tumors received a total of 208 doses (median 7, range 1-24). Total doses ranged from 40 to 105 mg/m(2). The primary dose limiting toxicity was cytokine release syndrome (CKRS). No antitumor responses were observed. The mean peak plasma concentration across all doses was 1.65+/-0.86 mu M. Area under the concentration-versus-time curve (AUC(0-infinity)) ranged from 4.31 to 32.2 mu M.hr with an overall mean of 13.6+/-7.0 mu M.hr. Plasma flavopiridol concentrations and AUC increased proportionally with dose. There was no correlation between cytokine levels and clinical outcomes. Conclusions: The maximum-tolerated dose of flavopiridol is 20 mg/m(2) bolus followed by 20 mg/m(2) infusion over 4 h given weekly for 4 weeks on a 6-week cycle in patients with advanced solid tumors. Flavopiridol PK was notably different, and there was a higher frequency of CKRS, despite prophylactic steroids, seen in this patient group compared to previous studies with CLL using a similar dosing schedule.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据