4.7 Article

Phase I Study of Epigenetic Modulation with 5-Azacytidine and Valproic Acid in Patients with Advanced Cancers

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 14, 期 19, 页码 6296-6301

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-1247

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Celgene Corporation [RR024148]
  2. National Center for Research Resources (NCRR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: 5-Azacytidine (5-AZA) is a DNA-hypomethylating agent. Valproic acid is a histone deacetylase inhibitor. Combining hypomethylating agents and histone deacetylase inhibitors produces synergistic anticancer activity in vitro and in vivo. On the basis of this evidence, we conducted a phase I study of the combination of 5-AZA and valproic acid in patients with advanced cancers. Experimental Design: 5-AZA was administered s.c. daily for 10 days. Valproic acid was given orally daily with a goal to titrate to plasma levels of 75 to 100 mu g/mL (therapeutic for seizures). Cycles were 28 days long. 5-AZA was started at 20 mg/m(2) and escalated using an adaptive algorithm based on the toxicity profile in the prior cohort (6 + 6 design). Peripheral blood mononuclear cell global DNA methylation and histone H3 acetylation were estimated with the long interspersed nucleotide elements pyrosequencing assay and Western blots, respectively, on days 1 and 10 of each cycle when patients agreed to provide them. Results: Fifty-five patients were enrolled. Median age was 60 years (range, 12-77 years). The maximum tolerated dose was 75 mg/m(2) of 5-AZA in combination with valproic acid. Dose-limiting toxicities were neutropenic fever and thrombocytopenia, which occurred at a dose of 94 mg/m(2) of 5-AZA. Stable disease lasting 4 to 12 months (median, 6 months) was observed in 14 patients (25%). A significant decrease in global DNA methylation and induction of histone acetylation were observed. Conclusion: The combination of 5-AZA and valproic acid is safe at doses up to 75 mg/m(2) for 5-AZA in patients with advanced malignancies.

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