Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 17, Issue 2
(February), 1999: 697
© 1999 American Society for Clinical Oncology
Phase I Study of Liposomal Vincristine
K. A. Gelmon,
A. Tolcher,
A. R. Diab,
M. B. Bally,
L. Embree,
N. Hudon,
C. Dedhar,
D. Ayers,
A. Eisen,
B. Melosky,
C. Burge,
P. Logan,
L. D. Mayer
From the British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, University of British Columbia, and Inex Pharmaceuticals, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
Address reprint requests to Karen Gelmon, MD, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver Centre, 600 West 10th Ave, Vancouver, British Columbia V5Z 4E6, Canada; email kgelmon{at}bccancer.bc.ca
PURPOSE: A phase I study of vincristine encapsulated inside 120-nm-diameter distearoylphosphatidylcholine-cholesterol liposomes was performed. The primary objectives were to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), recommended phase II dose, toxicity, and pharmacokinetics of liposomal vincristine (ONCO-TCS).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients with histologically confirmed malignancies were enrolled and assessable. Vincristine doses were increased from 0.5 mg/m2 to 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.4, and 2.8 mg/m2 with cohorts of three or more patients per dose level. A total of 64 courses of ONCO-TCS were administered intravenously once every 3 weeks. The pharmacokinetics of total vincristine content in plasma were determined using a high-performance liquid chromatography method.
RESULTS: Patients were treated with vincristine doses up to 2.8 mg/m2; however, 2.4 mg/m2 was defined as the MTD and 2.0 mg/m2 as the phase II recommended dose. Pain and obstipation were the dose-limiting toxicites. Other toxicities were fever, rigors, fatigue, myalgias, and peripheral neuropathy. Hematologic toxicity was mild. All patients who were treated with doses above 1.5 mg/m2 received in excess of 2.0 mg of vincristine, with doses as high as 6.2 mg. One partial response was seen in a patient with pancreatic cancer. Tumor response not meeting partial response criteria was seen in two other patients. Pharmacokinetic studies revealed significantly elevated concentrations of total vincristine, but parameters varied and were not directly correlated with toxicity or response.
CONCLUSION: The ability to administer elevated doses of vincristine, as well as indications of efficacy, suggests that ONCO-TCS warrants further clinical investigation in a phase II setting.

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Facebook Reddit Technorati Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
C. O. Noble, M. T. Krauze, D. C. Drummond, Y. Yamashita, R. Saito, M. S. Berger, D. B. Kirpotin, K. S. Bankiewicz, and J. W. Park
Novel Nanoliposomal CPT-11 Infused by Convection-Enhanced Delivery in Intracranial Tumors: Pharmacology and Efficacy.
Cancer Res.,
March 1, 2006;
66(5):
2801 - 2806.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
R. A. Larson
Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: Older Patients and Newer Drugs
Hematology,
January 1, 2005;
2005(1):
131 - 136.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
T. M. Allen and P. R. Cullis
Drug Delivery Systems: Entering the Mainstream
Science,
March 19, 2004;
303(5665):
1818 - 1822.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
P. Sapra, E. H. Moase, J. Ma, and T. M. Allen
Improved Therapeutic Responses in a Xenograft Model of Human B Lymphoma (Namalwa) for Liposomal Vincristine versus Liposomal Doxorubicin Targeted via Anti-CD19 IgG2a or Fab' Fragments
Clin. Cancer Res.,
February 1, 2004;
10(3):
1100 - 1111.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
D. F.S. Kehrer, A. M. Bos, J. Verweij, H. J. Groen, W. J. Loos, A. Sparreboom, M. J.A. de Jonge, M. Hamilton, T. Cameron, and E. G.E. de Vries
Phase I and Pharmacologic Study of Liposomal Lurtotecan, NX 211: Urinary Excretion Predicts Hematologic Toxicity
J. Clin. Oncol.,
March 1, 2002;
20(5):
1222 - 1231.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
D. C. Drummond, O. Meyer, K. Hong, D. B. Kirpotin, and D. Papahadjopoulos
Optimizing Liposomes for Delivery of Chemotherapeutic Agents to Solid Tumors
Pharmacol. Rev.,
December 1, 1999;
51(4):
691 - 744.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
|