4.5 Article

First-in-human study of the epichaperome inhibitor PU-H71: clinical results and metabolic profile

期刊

INVESTIGATIONAL NEW DRUGS
卷 36, 期 2, 页码 230-239

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10637-017-0495-3

关键词

Hsp90; Epichaperome; PU-H71; Pharmacokinetics; Cancer

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health [HHSN261200800001E]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Molecular chaperone targeting has shown promise as a therapeutic approach in human cancers of various histologies and genetic backgrounds. The purine-scaffold inhibitor PU-H71 (NSC 750424), selective for Hsp90 in epichaperome networks, has demonstrated antitumor activity in multiple preclinical cancer models. The present study was a first in-human trial of PU-H71 aimed at establishing its safety and tolerability and characterizing its pharmacokinetic (PK) profile on a weekly administration schedule in human subjects with solid tumors refractory to standard treatments. Methods PU-H71 was administered intravenously over 1 h on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles in patients with refractory solid tumors. Dose escalation followed a modified accelerated design. Blood and urine were collected during cycles 1 and 2 for pharmacokinetics analysis. Results Seventeen patients were enrolled in this trial. Grade 2 and 3 adverse events were observed but no dose limiting toxicities occurred, thus the human maximum tolerated dose was not determined. The mean terminal half-life (T-1/2) was 8.4 +/- 3.6 h, with no dependency to dose level. A pathway for the metabolic disposal of PU-H71 in humans was derived from microsome studies. Fourteen patients were also evaluable for clinical response; 6 (35%) achieved a best response of stable disease for > 2 cycles, with 2 patients remaining on study for 6 cycles. The study closed prematurely due to discontinuation of drug supply. Conclusions PU-H71 was well tolerated at the doses administered during this study (10 to 470 mg/m(2)/day), with no dose limiting toxicities.

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