4.7 Article

A Phase I Clinical Trial of the Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitor Veliparib and Weekly Topotecan in Patients with Solid Tumors

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 24, 期 4, 页码 744-752

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-1590

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [UM1 CA186686, 5K12 CA090628, P50 CA136393]
  2. Stand Up To Cancer-Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Alliance-National Ovarian Cancer Coalition Dream Team Translational Research Grant [SU2C-AACR-DT16-15]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To determine the dose limiting toxicities (DLT), maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of veliparib in combination with weekly topotecan in patients with solid tumors. Correlative studies were included to assess the impact of topotecan and veliparib on poly(ADP-ribose) levels in peripheral blood mononuclear cells, serum pharmacokinetics of both agents, and potential association of germline repair gene mutations with outcome. Experimental Design: Eligible patients had metastatic nonhematologic malignancies with measurable disease. Using a 3 + 3 design, patients were treated with veliparib orally twice daily on days 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 and topotecan intravenously on days 2, 9, and 16 every 28 days. Tumor responses were assessed by RECIST. Results: Of 58 patients enrolled, 51 were evaluable for the primary endpoint. The MTD and RP2D was veliparib 300 mg twice daily on days 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 along with topotecan 3 mg/m(2) on days 2, 9, and 16 of a 28-day cycle. DLTs were grade 4 neutropenia lasting > 5 days. The median number of cycles was 2 (1-26). The objective response rate was 10%, with 1 complete and 4 partial responses. Twenty-two patients (42%) had stable disease ranging from 4 to 26 cycles. Patients with germline BRCA1, BRCA2, or RAD51D mutations remained on study longer than those without homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene mutations (median 4 vs. 2 cycles). Conclusions: Weekly topotecan in combination with veliparib has a manageable safety profile and appears to warrant further investigation. (C) 2017 AACR.

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

4.7
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