4.5 Article

Phase I/II study of pegylated arginine deiminase (ADI-PEG 20) in patients with advanced melanoma

期刊

INVESTIGATIONAL NEW DRUGS
卷 31, 期 2, 页码 425-434

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10637-012-9862-2

关键词

Melanoma; Metastatic; Auxotrophy; Arginine deiminase; Argininosuccinate synthetase

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P30 CA008748] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Arginine deiminase (ADI) is an enzyme that degrades arginine, an amino acid that is important for growth and development of normal and neoplastic cells. Melanoma cells are auxotrophic for arginine, because they lack argininosuccinatesynthetase (ASS), a key enzyme required for the synthesis of arginine. Patients and methods Patients with advanced melanoma were treated with 40, 80 or 160 IU/m(2) ADI-PEG 20 i.m. weekly. Primary endpoints were toxicity and tumor response, secondary endpoints included metabolic response by (18)FDG-PET, pharmacodynamic (PD) effects upon circulating arginine levels, and argininosuccinate synthetase tumor expression by immunohistochemistry. Results 31 previously treated patients were enrolled. The main toxicities were grade 1 and 2 adverse events including injection site pain, rash, and fatigue. No objective responses were seen. Nine patients achieved stable disease (SD), with 2 of these durable for > 6 months. Four of the 9 patients with SD had uveal melanoma. PD analysis showed complete plasma arginine depletion in 30/31 patients by day 8. Mean plasma levels of ADI-PEG 20 correlated inversely with ADI-PEG 20 antibody levels. Immunohistochemical ASS expression analysis in tumor tissue was negative in 24 patients, whereas 5 patients had < 5 % cells positive. Conclusions ADI-PEG 20 is well tolerated in advanced melanoma patients and leads to consistent, but transient, arginine depletion. Although no RECIST responses were observed, the encouraging rate of SD in uveal melanoma patients indicates that it may be worthwhile to evaluate ADI-PEG 20 in this melanoma subgroup.

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