Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Richard Pazdur

Publications and source records attributed to Richard Pazdur.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed2004

Accelerated approval of oncology products: a decade of experience.

We review the regulatory history of the accelerated approval process and summarize the U.S. Food and Drug Administration experience with accelerated approvals in oncology. The accelerated approval regulations, promulgated in 1992, allow approval of drugs for serious or life-threatening diseases on the basis of a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, such as survival or symptom benefit, pending completion of studies designed to confirm clinical benefit, referred to as phase 4 commitments, which are required to be conducted with due diligence. From 1992 to 2004, 22 applications involving anticancer drugs or biologics were approved. Of these 22 applications, accelerated approval was granted to 15 on the basis of findings from studies without an active comparator (i.e., single-arm studies or studies comparing two dose levels) and to the remaining seven on the basis of one or more randomized studies. Of the 22 approved applications, six (i.e., applications for dexrazoxane, irinotecan, capecitabine, docetaxel, imatinib mesylate, and oxaliplatin) have had one or more indications converted to regular approval. This review reports information that was presented at an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee meeting held in March 2003; it also presents a discussion of accelerated approval study designs, the study populations evaluated in the accelerated approval and confirmatory settings, and the integration of accelerated approval into a comprehensive drug development plan.

Antineoplastic Agents↗
PubMed2004

Phase II study of capecitabine in patients with fluorouracil-resistant metastatic colorectal carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Capecitabine is an oral fluoropyrimidine converted to fluourouracil (FU) preferentially in tumor tissue. It has proven clinical activity against colorectal cancer when used as first-line therapy. The objectives of this study were to assess the safety and efficacy of capecitabine in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma who progressed despite previous FU therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: According to the group sequential analysis design of this study, accrual would stop if no responses were observed in the first 20 patients treated. If one or more objective responses were confirmed, the trial would be expanded. Patients received capecitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) twice a day for 14 days, every 3 weeks. Tumor lesions were assessed every 6 weeks, and patients were followed for survival every 3 months after completing treatment. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were enrolled onto the study; 22 fulfilled all the eligibility criteria. No objective responses were observed among the 22 eligible patients; 11 patients (50%) had stable disease for a median duration of 141 days (range, 88-289 days). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of median time to disease progression was 64 days (95% CI, 41 to 134 days). The median survival time estimate was 389 days (95% CI, 267 to 637 days). The most frequent treatment-related adverse events were hand-foot syndrome, diarrhea, and nausea or vomiting. There were no grade 4 toxicities and no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSION: Single-agent capecitabine in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma refractory to FU showed no objective responses and clinical benefit that was, at best, modest. The use of capecitabine in combination with other treatments in this patient population is under investigation.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

United States Food and Drug Administration Drug Approval summary: Gefitinib (ZD1839; Iressa) tablets.

On May 5, 2003, gefitinib (Iressa; ZD1839) 250-mg tablets (AstraZeneca Inc.) received accelerated approval by the United States Food and Drug Administration as monotherapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer after failure of both platinum-based and docetaxel chemotherapies. Information provided in this summary includes chemistry manufacturing and controls, clinical pharmacology, and clinical trial efficacy and safety results. Gefitinib is an anilinoquinazoline compound with the chemical name 4-quinazolinamine,N-(3-chloro-4-flurophenyl)-7-methoxy-6-[3-(4-morpholinyl)propoxy]. It has the molecular formula C(22)H(24)ClFN(4)O(3). Gefitinib is often referred to as a "specific" or "selective" inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor. Studies demonstrate, however, that gefitinib inhibits the activity of other intracellular transmembrane tyrosine-specific protein kinases at concentrations similar to those at which it inhibits the epidermal growth factor signal. Maximum plasma concentrations resulting from clinically relevant doses are 0.5-1 microM or more, well within the IC(50) values of several tyrosine kinases. No clinical studies have been performed that demonstrate a correlation between epidermal growth factor receptor expression and response to gefitinib. Gefitinib is 60% available after oral administration and is widely distributed throughout the body. Gefitinib is extensively metabolized in the liver by cytochrome P450 3A4 enzyme. Over a 10-day period, approximately 86% of an orally administered radioactive dose is recovered in the feces, with <4% of the dose in the urine. After daily oral administration, steady-state plasma levels are reached in 10 days and are 2-fold higher than those achieved after single doses. Gefitinib effectiveness was demonstrated in a randomized, double-blind, Phase II, multicenter trial comparing two oral doses of gefitinib (250 versus 500 mg/day). A total of 216 patients were enrolled. The 142 patients who were refractory to or intolerant of a platinum and docetaxel comprised the evaluable population for the efficacy analysis. A partial tumor response occurred in 14% (9 of 66) of patients receiving 250 mg/day gefitinib and in 8% (6 of 76) of patients receiving 500 mg/day gefitinib. The overall objective response rate (RR) for both doses combined was 10.6% (15 of 142 patients; 95% confidence interval, 6.0-16.8%). Responses were more frequent in females and in nonsmokers. The median duration of response was 7.0 months (range, 4.6-18.6+ months). Other submitted data included the results of two large trials conducted in chemotherapy-naive, stage III and IV non-small cell lung cancer patients. Patients were randomized to receive gefitinib (250 or 500 mg daily) or placebo, in combination with either gemcitabine plus cisplatin (n = 1093) or carboplatin plus paclitaxel (n = 1037). Results from this study showed no benefit (RR, time to progression, or survival) from adding gefitinib to chemotherapy. Consequently, gefinitib is only recommended for use as monotherapy. Common adverse events associated with gefitinib treatment included diarrhea, rash, acne, dry skin, nausea, and vomiting. Interstitial lung disease has been observed in patients receiving gefitinib. Worldwide, the incidence of interstitial lung disease was about 1% (2% in the Japanese post-marketing experience and about 0.3% in a United States expanded access program). Approximately one-third of the cases have been fatal. Gefitinib was approved under accelerated approval regulations on the basis of a surrogate end point, RR. No controlled gefitinib trials, to date, demonstrate a clinical benefit, such as improvement in disease-related symptoms or increased survival. Accelerated approval regulations require the sponsor to conduct additional studies to verify that gefitinib therapy produces such benefit.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

A phase II study of intravenous exatecan mesylate (DX-8951f) administered daily for five days every three weeks to patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the antitumor activity, toxicities, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of DX-8951f administered as a 30-min infusion daily for 5 days every 3 weeks in patients with fluorouracil-resistant metastatic colorectal carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients were enrolled. All had metastatic colorectal carcinoma resistant to or progressing after chemotherapy containing 5-fluorouracil and no prior chemotherapy with camptothecin derivatives. DX-8951f was administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Responses were assessed after every two courses. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were evaluable. Fifty-one courses of therapy were delivered (median 2). Responses were one minor response, six stable disease, and eight progressive disease. The principal adverse event was neutropenia, with grade 3 and 4 toxicities in three and eight patients, respectively. Non-hematologic toxicities were mild to moderate; the most common were fatigue, nausea, and diarrhea. Plasma concentrations of DX-8951 were well described using a linear two-compartment PK model. There was no evidence of nonlinearity in the elimination of PK or auto-inhibition or induction of DX-8951 clearance over the 5 days of administration. CONCLUSIONS: DX-8951f at this dose and schedule had no significant activity in this patient population. The toxicity profile, mainly hematologic, was consistent with previous reports. The clearance and volume of distribution were not different from those previously reported.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed2004

Phase I trial of combined irinotecan and oxaliplatin given every three weeks to patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Both irinotecan and oxaliplatin are active agents in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCC). There is a strong preclinical rationale for combining these two agents. We sought to determine the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of combined irinotecan and oxaliplatin given every three weeks. METHODS: Cohorts of patients with MCC previously treated with 5-fluorouracil received escalating doses of irinotecan (150, 175, and 200 mg/m(2)) and a fixed dose of oxaliplatin (130 mg/m(2)), both given intravenously every 3 weeks. DLT was evaluated within the first course of treatment. Objective responses were evaluated every two courses and were confirmed at least four weeks later. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were treated and evaluated for toxicity. The DLT was neutropenia, with or without fever, and delayed recovery of neutrophil counts was frequent (13 courses in six patients). Other toxic effects (peripheral neuropathy, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and fatigue) were mild to moderate. Among 13 patients evaluable for activity, four achieved partial responses and nine had stable disease. CONCLUSION: The combination of irinotecan and oxaliplatin is safe and apparently active in the treatment of MCC patients. The recommended dose for phase II studies is 175 mg/m(2) irinotecan plus 130 mg/m(2) oxaliplatin, given every 3 weeks. Neutropenia and delayed recovery of neutrophil counts are the predominant early toxicities with this schedule.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Assessing tumor-related signs and symptoms to support cancer drug approval.

Cancer causes premature death and significant, often devastating, symptoms. While prolongation of survival is an obvious end point for new cancer drug approval, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also utilized end points that evaluate patient symptoms. In this article we discuss the end points, evidence, and analyses supporting cancer drug approvals based on evaluations of tumor-related signs and symptoms. With advice from the Oncologic Drug Advisory Committee (ODAC) in the late 1970s and early 1980s, FDA determined that acceptable end points for cancer drug approval were survival or an improvement in the quality of a patient's life, e.g., an improvement in tumor-related symptoms. This article summarizes 15 FDA cancer drug approvals based on patient symptom assessments and/or physical signs (thought to represent symptomatic improvement) as the primary evidence of effectiveness. These include painful bone events (three cases), cosmetic improvement in Kaposi's sarcoma and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (six cases), the consequences (decreased transfusions, etc.) of long-duration responses in leukemias and lymphomas (two cases), relief of pulmonary or esophageal obstruction (two cases), and one case each of symptom benefit in pancreatic cancer (also associated with survival benefit) and pulmonary symptom benefit in lung cancer. An instructive example of an individual patient benefit end point is discussed, though it did not lead to a drug approval (the cisplatin-epinephrine gel application). Improved trial designs and analysis plans may allow greater reliance on morbidity assessments to support future cancer drug approvals. Drug sponsors are encouraged to include symptom assessments in cancer clinical trials and to perform further research to improve symptom-assessment methods. The FDA routinely meets with sponsors at End of Phase 2 Meetings to discuss drug development plans and the design of phase 3 trials. We encourage sponsors to request special protocol assessments (SPA) after meeting with the FDA to get written confirmation of the adequacy of plans for assessing cancer morbidity and quality of life, including protocols, end points, statistical analysis plans, and draft case report forms.

Antineoplastic Agents↗
PubMed2004

The Jim interview.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Administrative Personnel↗
PubMed2004

FDA drug approval summaries: oxaliplatin.

The purpose of this report is to summarize information on oxaliplatin, a drug recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Information provided includes regulatory history, study design, efficacy and safety results, and pertinent literature references. A single, multicenter, randomized trial, enrolling 463 patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma whose disease had recurred or progressed during or within 6 months of completion of therapy with the combination of bolus 5-fluorouracil (FU)/leucovorin (LV) and irinotecan, was submitted. Study arms included infusional 5-FU/LV alone (arm A), oxaliplatin alone (arm B), and the combination of oxaliplatin and infusional 5-FU/LV(arm C). Oxaliplatin, at a dose of 85 mg/m2, was administered to patients in arms B and C intravenously over 2 hours in 250-500 ml of dextrose 5% in water (D5W) on day 1 only. A 200-mg/m2 dose of LV was administered simultaneously to arm C patients, in a separate bag using a Y-line, or alone to arm A patients, by i.v. infusion, over 2 hours. 5-FU was then administered to arms A and C patients, first as a bolus injection over 2-4 minutes at a dose of 400 mg/m2, then as a continuous infusion in 500 ml of D5W over 22 hours at a dose of 600 mg/m2. LV was repeated on day 2 of the cycle (arms A and C) followed by a 400-mg/m2 5-FU bolus and a 600-mg/m2 22-hour infusion. Treatment was repeated every 2 weeks. Response rate was the prespecified end point for accelerated approval. Time to progression (TTP) was a secondary end point. The prespecified primary comparison was between the 5-FU/LV regimen and the 5-FU/LV/ oxaliplatin combination regimen. The three arms were well balanced for patient prognostic factors. There were no complete responders. The partial response rates were 0%, 1%, and 9% for the 5-FU/LV, oxaliplatin, and oxaliplatin plus 5-FU/LV treatments, respectively (p = 0.0002, arm C versus arm A). The median times to radiographic tumor progression, based on available radiographs, were 2.7 months, 1.6 months, and 4.6 months, respectively (p < 0.0001, arm C versus arm A). Common adverse events associated with the combination treatment included peripheral neuropathy, fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, stomatitis, and abdominal pain. Neutropenia was the major hematologic toxicity. Adverse events were similar in men and women and in patients <65 and > or =65 years of age, but older patients may have been more susceptible to dehydration, diarrhea, hypokalemia, and fatigue. Oxaliplatin in combination with infusional 5-FU/LV was approved for the treatment of patients with metastatic carcinoma of the colon or rectum whose disease has recurred or progressed during or within 6 months of completion of first-line therapy with the combination of bolus 5-FU/LV and irinotecan. Approval was based on response rate and on an interim analysis of TTP. No results are available, at this time, that demonstrate a clinical benefit, such as improvement in disease-related symptoms or survival.

Antineoplastic Agents↗
PubMed2004

FDA drug approval summaries: pemetrexed (Alimta).

The purpose of this report is to summarize information on pemetrexed (LY231514; MTA; Alimta; Eli Lilly and Company; Indianapolis, IN), a drug recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The review of the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed is summarized below. Pemetrexed is a pyrrolopyrimidine antifolate. It inhibits thymidylate synthase, glycinamide ribonucleotide formyltransferase, and dihydrofolate reductase. In a single, randomized, single-blind, multicenter phase III trial, the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed combined with cisplatin (Platinol; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Princeton, NJ) were compared with those of single-agent cisplatin in 448 patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Two hundred twenty-six patients were randomized to receive pemetrexed and cisplatin, while 222 patients were randomized to receive cisplatin alone. The primary study end point was survival. Median survival times were 12.1 months for the pemetrexed plus cisplatin treated arm and 9.3 months for the cisplatin alone arm. Pemetrexed causes myelosuppression. The most common adverse events were neutropenia, fatigue, leukopenia, nausea, dyspnea, and vomiting. On February 4, 2004, pemetrexed was approved by the FDA in combination with cisplatin for the treatment of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma whose disease is unresectable or who are otherwise not candidates for curative surgery. The recommended dose of pemetrexed is 500 mg/m(2) administered as an i.v. infusion over 10 minutes on day 1 of each 21-day cycle together with cisplatin at a dose of 75 mg/m(2) infused over 2 hours beginning 30 minutes after the pemetrexed infusion. Patients must receive oral folic acid and vitamin B(12) injections prior to the start of therapy and continue these during therapy to reduce severe toxicities. Patients should also receive corticosteroids with chemotherapy to reduce the risk of skin rashes. Approval was based on superior survival as a clinical benefit.

Adrenal Cortex Hormones↗
PubMed2004

Progress in the development of novel treatments for colorectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer remains one of the major causes of cancer death worldwide, but the past few years have witnessed the development of a number of new, effective treatment options, which have led to considerable improvement in the survival rate for patients suffering from this common cancer. The advent of agents such as capecitabine (Xeloda), irinotecan (Camptosar), and oxaliplatin (Eloxatin), and newer molecular targeted agents such as cetuximab (Erbitux) and bevacizumab (Avastin) brought innovation to the treatment of colorectal cancer. Oncologists are no longer restricted to using fluorouracil and its variations as the only active treatment, and the number of patients who are able to live longer continues to increase. Patients presenting with stage III cancer can expect a greater chance for cure, and those presenting with metastatic disease can expect a median survival approaching 2 years.

Antibodies, Monoclonal↗
PubMed2003

Fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with hormone-sensitive breast cancer who have responded to tamoxifen (TAM) may receive additional benefit from a second endocrine agent after progression or relapse after TAM therapy. Fulvestrant (FVT; Faslodex; i.m. injection, ICI 182,780; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Wilmington, DE) was developed as a selective antagonist of estrogen. In postmenopausal women, FVT is reported to inhibit the proliferative effects of estrogen on sensitive tissues and has no apparent measurable estrogenic activity. In this report, we describe the data and analyses supporting marketing approval for FVT by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The FDA review of 16 clinical trials and 6 pharmacokinetic trials, as well as preclinical pharmacology and chemistry data, are described. The bases for marketing approval are summarized. RESULTS: Toxicology studies in the mouse, rat, and dog showed minimal toxicity except for antiestrogenic effects. Because of FVT aqueous insolubility, an i.m. formulation, given at monthly intervals, was selected for clinical studies. Pharmacokinetic studies demonstrated sustained concentrations with monthly injection. In in vitro studies FVT was extensively metabolized, primarily by hepatic cytochrome P450 3A4. Phase I studies showed minimal toxicity, and the maximal dose (250 mg) was limited by FVT solubility. In two Phase III trials, 851 patients were randomized to either 250 mg FVT i.m. monthly or to anastrozole (ANZ) 1 mg p.o. daily. Ninety-six percent of patients had received TAM previously for early (adjuvant treatment) or advanced breast cancer. Response rates (RR) were 17% for both FVT and ANZ study arms in the North American trial, and were 20% versus 15% for FVT versus ANZ, respectively, in the European trial. There were no observed differences between study arms with respect to time to progression or survival. The most common FVT adverse events reported as potentially treatment-related were injection site reactions and hot flashes. CONCLUSIONS: FVT was approved on April 25, 2002 by the FDA for the treatment of hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer in postmenopausal women with disease progression after antiestrogen therapy. The recommended dose is 250 mg i.m. monthly as a single 5 ml injection or as two concurrent 2.5 ml injections into the buttocks. Approval was based on results of two randomized trials comparing response rates and time to progression of FVT- and ANZ-treated patients. Complete prescribing information is available on the FDA website.

Anastrozole↗
PubMed2003

End points and United States Food and Drug Administration approval of oncology drugs.

PURPOSE: To summarize the end points used by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve new cancer drug applications over the last 13 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The FDA granted marketing approval to 71 oncology drug applications between January 1, 1990, and November 1, 2002. The end points used as the approval basis for each application are presented, and the rationale for each end point is discussed. RESULTS: The FDA grants either regular marketing approval or accelerated marketing approval for oncology drug applications. Regular approval is based on end points that demonstrate that the drug provides a longer life, a better life, or a favorable effect on an established surrogate for a longer life or a better life. Accelerated approval (AA) is based on a surrogate end point that is less well established but that is reasonably likely to predict a longer or a better life. Tumor response was the approval basis in 26 of 57 regular approvals, supported by relief of tumor-specific symptoms in nine of these 26 regular approvals. Relief of tumor-specific symptoms provided critical support for approval in 13 of 57 regular approvals. Approval was based on tumor response in 12 of 14 AAs. CONCLUSION: End points other than survival were the approval basis for 68% (39 of 57) of oncology drug marketing applications granted regular approval and for all 14 applications granted accelerated approval from January 1, 1990, to November 1, 2002.

Antineoplastic Agents↗
PubMed2003

Regulatory approvals of pediatric oncology drugs: previous experience and new initiatives.

PURPOSE: To review the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) experience with approvals of new drugs for pediatric oncology and to discuss new regulatory initiatives directed at pediatric oncology. METHODS: A retrospective review of FDA archival documents and the published literature. RESULTS: More than 100 drugs have been approved by the Division of Oncology Drug Products of the FDA for the treatment of malignancies. Only 15 have pediatric use information in their labeling, which is less than 50% of the drugs commonly used in the treatment of pediatric malignancies. In the past 20 years, there have been six submissions to the FDA for pediatric oncology indications. To illustrate principles of the approval process, each submission is discussed. CONCLUSION: Potential reasons for a lack of New Drug Application submissions for pediatric oncology include the small pediatric oncology market compared with the adult oncology market and perceived barriers to performing studies in children. Reasons for failure to approve pediatric indications include small numbers of patients, lack of appropriate controls, and failure to demonstrate patient benefit. Approval criteria include the use of controlled trials, prospective data collection, and disease-appropriate end points. Regulatory initiatives to promote pediatric therapeutic development and product labeling are discussed.

Antineoplastic Agents↗
PubMed2003

FDA drug approval summary: gefitinib (ZD1839) (Iressa) tablets.

On May 5, 2003, gefitinib (Iressa), ZD1839) 250-mg tablets received accelerated approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as monotherapy treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after failure of both platinum-based and docetaxel chemotherapies. Information provided in this summary includes efficacy and safety results of relevant clinical trials. Effectiveness was demonstrated in a randomized, double-blind, phase II, multicenter trial comparing two oral doses of gefitinib (250 mg/day versus 500 mg/day). Two hundred sixteen patients were enrolled. The 142 patients who were refractory to or intolerant of a platinum and docetaxel comprised the evaluable population for the efficacy analysis. A partial tumor response occurred in 14% (9 of 66) of patients receiving gefitinib 250 mg/day and in 8% (6 of 76) of patients receiving gefitinib 500 mg/day. The overall objective response rate for both doses combined was 10.6% (15 of 142 patients) (95% confidence interval 6.0%-16.8%). Responses were more frequent in females and in nonsmokers. The median duration of response was 7.0 months (range 4.6-18.6+ months). Other submitted data included the results of two large trials conducted in chemotherapy-naive, stage III and IV NSCLC patients. Patients were randomized to receive gefitinib (250 mg or 500 mg daily) or placebo, in combination with either gemcitabine plus cisplatin (n = 1,093) or carboplatin plus paclitaxel (n = 1,037). Results from those studies showed no benefit (response rate, time to progression, or survival) from adding gefitinib to chemotherapy. Consequently, gefinitib is only recommended for use as monotherapy. Common adverse events associated with gefitinib treatment included diarrhea, rash, acne, dry skin, nausea, and vomiting. Most toxicities were Common Toxicity Criteria grade 1 or 2. Interstitial lung disease (ILD) has been observed in patients receiving gefitinib. Worldwide, the incidence of ILD is about 1% (2% in the Japanese postmarketing experience and about 0.3% in a U.S. expanded access program). Approximately one-third of the cases were fatal. Physicians should promptly evaluate new or worsening pulmonary symptoms. If ILD is confirmed, appropriate management includes discontinuation of gefitinib. Gefitinib was approved under accelerated approval regulations on the basis of a surrogate end point response rate. No controlled gefitinib trials, to date, demonstrate a clinical benefit, such as improvement in disease-related symptoms or greater survival. Accelerated approval regulations require the sponsor to conduct further studies to verify that gefitinib therapy produces such a benefit.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2003

Velcade: U.S. FDA approval for the treatment of multiple myeloma progressing on prior therapy.

Bortezomib (formerly PS-341), a promising new drug for the treatment of multiple myeloma, recently received accelerated approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the therapy of patients with progressive myeloma after previous treatment. Two phase II studies of bortezomib used the same schedule of twice-weekly i.v. dosing for the first 2 weeks of each 3-week cycle. In a randomized study of 54 patients, two doses were compared (1.0 and 1.3 mg/m2) and objective responses occurred at both dose levels (23% versus 35%), including one complete response in each arm. In the other phase II study, 202 heavily pretreated patients (median of six prior therapies) all received the same schedule at 1.3 mg/m2. Of 188 evaluable patients, complete responses occurred in five (3%) and partial responses occurred in 47 (25%). The median duration of response was 365 days. The most clinically relevant adverse events were asthenic conditions, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, and a peripheral neuropathy that often was painful. This report highlights the FDA analysis supporting the accelerated approval.

Antineoplastic Agents↗
PubMed2003

Phase I study with pharmacokinetics of S-1 on an oral daily schedule for 28 days in patients with solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Our purpose in the study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose and dose-limiting toxicity and investigate the clinical pharmacology of S-1, a combination of tegafur, 5-chloro-2,4-dihydroxypyridine (CDHP), and potassium oxonate. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Eligible patients had advanced solid tumors, adequate organ function, and no anticancer therapy in the preceding 4 weeks. Dose level 1 was 30 mg/m(2)/dose, level 2 was 40 mg/m(2)/dose, and level 3 was 35 allmg/m(2)/dose, all of the levels comprising two daily doses. S-1 was administered as a single dose at each level, and its pharmacology was studied. The first course was begun 3 days later and consisted of 28 consecutive treatment days, followed by a 1-week rest. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were enrolled; toxicity could be assessed in all of the 16 and response in 15. At dose level 1, two of nine patients developed grade 3 hyperbilirubinemia or diarrhea. Dose-limiting toxicity (diarrhea) occurred in all three of the patients at dose level 2. The protocol was, therefore, amended to include an intermediate dose level (level 3), which caused grade 3 or 4 diarrhea or hyperbilirubinemia in three of four patients. Dose level 1 was thus considered as the maximum tolerated dose. Other grade 3 or 4 toxic effects at dose level 2 or 3 were granulocytopenia, nausea, and vomiting. The pharmacology of tegafur, CDHP, potassium oxonate, and fluorouracil (a metabolite of tegafur) was characterized by rapid absorption and was consistent with first-order kinetics. One patient with colorectal cancer had a durable partial response. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended S-1 dose for future studies is 30 mg/m(2) twice daily, and diarrhea is the most frequent toxic effect. Additional trials of S-1 in the treatment of patients with solid tumors are warranted.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Approval summary: imatinib mesylate capsules for treatment of adult patients with newly diagnosed philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myelogenous leukemia in chronic phase.

PURPOSE: The purpose is to describe the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review and approval of imatinib (Gleevec; Novartis Pharmaceuticals, East Hanover, NJ) for treatment of adult patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) in chronic phase. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The FDA reviewed data in electronic format from a randomized controlled clinical trial of 1106 adult patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive CML in chronic phase, comparing imatinib with the combination of IFN-alpha and cytarabine. RESULTS: Imatinib showed clinically and statistically significantly better results for time-to-progression to accelerated phase or blast crisis, progression-free survival, complete hematological response rate, and cytogenetic response rate. With a median follow-up of 14 months, a maximum follow-up of 19.5 months, and an expected median survival of 5-6 years on the IFN-alpha/cytarabine control arm, few of the expected progressions to accelerated or blast phase or deaths have occurred. Imatinib was also better tolerated. Edema, nausea, rigors, neutropenia, and headache were more frequent in women. Only 57% of the IFN-alpha target dose was administered, and only 68% of patients received any cytarabine. However, this does not appear to adequately explain the superiority of imatinib observed in this trial. Results of a population pharmacokinetic study in a subgroup of 371 patients and a separate rifampin-imatinib drug-drug interaction study in healthy volunteers are presented. CONCLUSIONS: On December 20, 2002, imatinib was granted accelerated approval under subpart H, rather than regular approval. Follow-up is short compared with the natural history of chronic phase CML or more mature results with established therapies such as IFN-alpha or transplantation. If imatinib should stop working after 1.5-2 years, the results could be importantly different from the present analysis. As a Phase IV postmarketing commitment, the applicant has agreed to provide follow-up reports on this imatinib study annually for the next 6 years.

Adult↗