A phase i pharmacokinetic study of the vascular disrupting agent ombrabulin (AVE8062) and docetaxel in advanced solid tumours

31Citations
Citations of this article
33Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: The vascular disrupting agent ombrabulin shows synergy with docetaxel in vivo. Recommended phase II doses were determined in a dose escalation study in advanced solid tumours. Methods: Ombrabulin (30-min infusion, day 1) followed by docetaxel (1-h infusion, day 2) every 3 weeks was explored. Ombrabulin was escalated from 11.5 to 42 mg m -2 with 75 mg m -2 docetaxel, then from 30 to 35 mg m -2 with 100 mg m -2 docetaxel. Recommended phase II dose cohorts were expanded. Results: Fifty-eight patients were treated. Recommended phase II doses were 35 mg m -2 ombrabulin with 75 mg m -2 docetaxel (35/75 mg m -2; 13 patients) and 30 mg m -2 ombrabulin with 100 mg m -2 docetaxel (30/100 mg m -2; 16 patients). Dose-limiting toxicities were grade 3 fatigue (two patients; 42/75, 35/100), grade 3 neutropaenic infection (25/75), grade 3 headache (42/75), grade 4 febrile neutropaenia (30/100), and grade 3 thrombosis (35/100). Toxicities were consistent with each agent; mild nausea/vomiting, asthaenia/fatigue, alopecia, and anaemia were common, as were neutropaenia and leukopaenia. Diarrhoea, nail disorders and neurological symptoms were frequent at 100 mg m -2 docetaxel. Pharmacokinetic analyses did not show any relevant drug interactions. Ten patients had partial responses (seven at 30 mg m -2 ombrabulin), eight lasting >3 months. Conclusions: Sequential administration of ombrabulin with 75 or 100 mg m -2 docetaxel every 3 weeks is feasible.© 2014 Cancer Research UK. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Eskens, F. A. L. M., Tresca, P., Tosi, D., Van Doorn, L., Fontaine, H., Van Der Gaast, A., … Dieras, V. (2014). A phase i pharmacokinetic study of the vascular disrupting agent ombrabulin (AVE8062) and docetaxel in advanced solid tumours. British Journal of Cancer, 110(9), 2170–2177. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2014.137

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free