4.4 Article

A phase I/II study of carfilzomib 2-10-min infusion in patients with advanced solid tumors

期刊

CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 72, 期 4, 页码 861-868

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00280-013-2267-x

关键词

Proteasome inhibitor; Carfilzomib; Solid tumors; Pharmacokinetics; Pharmacodynamics

资金

  1. Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity of carfilzomib, a selective proteasome inhibitor, administered twice weekly by 2-10-min intravenous (IV) infusion on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 in 28-day cycles, were assessed in patients with advanced solid tumors in this phase I/II study. Adult patients with solid tumors progressing after a parts per thousand yen1 prior therapies were enrolled. The dose was 20 mg/m(2) in week 1 of cycle 1 and 20, 27, or 36 mg/m(2) thereafter. The maximum tolerated dose or protocol-defined maximum planned dose (MPD) identified during dose escalation was administered to an expansion cohort and to patients with small cell lung, non-small cell lung, ovarian, and renal cancer in phase II tumor-specific cohorts. Fourteen patients received carfilzomib during dose escalation. The single dose-limiting toxicity at 20/36 mg/m(2) was grade 3 fatigue, establishing the MPD as the expansion and phase II dose. Sixty-five additional patients received carfilzomib at the MPD. Adverse events included fatigue, nausea, anorexia, and dyspnea. Carfilzomib PK was dose proportional with a half-life < 1 h. All doses resulted in at least 80 % proteasome inhibition in blood. Partial responses occurred in two patients in phase I, with 21.5 % stable disease after four cycles in evaluable patients in the expansion and phase II cohorts. Carfilzomib 20/36 mg/m(2) was well tolerated when administered twice weekly by 2-10-min IV infusion. At this dose and infusion rate, carfilzomib inhibited the proteasome in blood but demonstrated limited antitumor activity in patients with advanced solid tumors.

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

4.4
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