Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology

, Volume 79, Issue 3, pp 603–610 | Cite as

A phase 1 trial of intravenous liposomal irinotecan in patients with recurrent high-grade glioma

  • Jennifer L. Clarke
  • Annette M. Molinaro
  • Juan R. Cabrera
  • Ashley A. DeSilva
  • Jane E. Rabbitt
  • Joshua Prey
  • Daryl C. Drummond
  • Jaeyeon Kim
  • Charles Noble
  • Jonathan B. Fitzgerald
  • Susan M. Chang
  • Nicholas A. Butowski
  • Jennie W. Taylor
  • John W. Park
  • Michael D. Prados
Clinical Trial Report

Abstract

Purpose

Preclinical activity of irinotecan has been seen in glioma models, but only modest efficacy has been noted in clinical studies, perhaps related to drug distribution and/or pharmacokinetic limitations. In preclinical testing, irinotecan liposome injection (nal-IRI) results in prolongation of drug exposure and higher tissue levels of drug due to slower metabolism and the effect of enhanced permeability and retention. The objective of the current study was to assess the safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of nal-IRI and to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in patients with recurrent high-grade glioma stratified based on UGT1A1 genotyping.

Methods

This phase I study stratified patients with recurrent high-grade glioma into 2 groups by UGT1A1 status: homozygous WT (“WT”) vs heterozygous WT/*28 (“HT”). Patients who were homozygous *28 were ineligible. The design was a standard 3 + 3 phase I design. WT patients were started at 120 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks with dose increases in 60 mg/m2 increments. HT patients were started at 60 mg/m2, with dose increases in 30 mg/m2 increments. The assessment period for dose-limiting toxicity was 1 cycle (21 days).

Results

In the WT cohort (n = 16), the MTD was 120 mg/m2. In the HT cohort (n = 18), the MTD was 150 mg/m2. Dose-limiting toxicity in both cohorts included diarrhea, some with associated dehydration and/or fatigue. PK results were comparable to those seen in other PK studies of nal-IRI; UGT1A1*28 genotype (WT vs. HT) did not affect PK parameters.

Conclusions

Nal-IRI had no unexpected toxicities when given intravenously. Of note, UGT1A1 genotype did not correlate with toxicity or affect PK profile.

Keywords

Glioblastoma High-grade glioma Chemotherapy Irinotecan Liposomes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Ms. Ilona Garner (UCSF) for her expert assistance with manuscript preparation and editing.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This clinical trial was funded by the UCSF Brain Tumor Research Center’s Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) Grant from the NCI: P50 CA097257.

Conflict of interest

Daryl C. Drummond is both an employee and stockholder in Merrimack, and is the inventor of Onivyde (liposomal irinotecan). Jonathan B. Fitzgerald is an employee of Merrimack. Charles Noble is a stockholder in Merrimack.

References

  1. 1.
    Ostrom QT, Gittleman H, Fulop J, Liu M, Blanda R, Kromer C et al (2015) CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2008–2012. Neurooncology 17(Suppl 4):iv1–iv62Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Drummond DC, Noble CO, Guo Z, Hong K, Park JW, Kirpotin DB (2006) Development of a highly active nanoliposomal irinotecan using a novel intraliposomal stabilization strategy. Cancer Res 66(6):3271–3277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kalra AV, Kim J, Klinz SG, Paz N, Cain J, Drummond DC et al (2014) Preclinical activity of nanoliposomal irinotecan is governed by tumor deposition and intratumor prodrug conversion. Cancer Res 74(23):7003–7013CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kang MH, Wang J, Makena MR, Lee JS, Paz N, Hall CP et al (2015) Activity of MM-398, nanoliposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI), in Ewing’s family tumor xenografts is associated with high exposure of tumor to drug and high SLFN11 expression. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res 21(5):1139–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Noble CO, Krauze MT, Drummond DC, Forsayeth J, Hayes ME, Beyer J et al (2014) Pharmacokinetics, tumor accumulation and antitumor activity of nanoliposomal irinotecan following systemic treatment of intracranial tumors. Nanomedicine (London, England) 9(14):2099–2108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen PY, Ozawa T, Drummond DC, Kalra A, Fitzgerald JB, Kirpotin DB et al (2013) Comparing routes of delivery for nanoliposomal irinotecan shows superior anti-tumor activity of local administration in treating intracranial glioblastoma xenografts. Neurooncology 15(2):189–197Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chang TC, Shiah HS, Yang CH, Yeh KH, Cheng AL, Shen BN et al (2015) Phase I study of nanoliposomal irinotecan (PEP02) in advanced solid tumor patients. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 75(3):579–586CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roy AC, Park SR, Cunningham D, Kang YK, Chao Y, Chen LT et al (2013) A randomized phase II study of PEP02 (MM-398), irinotecan or docetaxel as a second-line therapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Ann Oncol Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol ESMO 24(6):1567–1573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ramanathan RK, Korn RL, Sachdev JC, Fetterly GJ, Jameson G, Marceau K et al (2014) Lesion characterization with ferumoxytol MRI in patients with advanced solid tumors and correlation with treatment response to MM-398, nanoliposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI). Eur J Cancer 50(Suppl 6):87 (abstract 261)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang-Gillam A, Li CP, Bodoky G, Dean A, Shan YS, Jameson G et al (2016) Nanoliposomal irinotecan with fluorouracil and folinic acid in metastatic pancreatic cancer after previous gemcitabine-based therapy (NAPOLI-1): a global, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet (London, England) 387(10018):545–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ando Y, Saka H, Ando M, Sawa T, Muro K, Ueoka H et al (2000) Polymorphisms of UDP-glucuronosyltransferase gene and irinotecan toxicity: a pharmacogenetic analysis. Cancer Res 60(24):6921–6926PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Innocenti F, Undevia SD, Iyer L, Chen PX, Das S, Kocherginsky M et al (2004) Genetic variants in the UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 gene predict the risk of severe neutropenia of irinotecan. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 22(8):1382–1388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Iyer L, Das S, Janisch L, Wen M, Ramirez J, Karrison T et al (2002) UGT1A1*28 polymorphism as a determinant of irinotecan disposition and toxicity. Pharmacogenomics J 2(1):43–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stewart CF, Panetta JC, O’Shaughnessy MA, Throm SL, Fraga CH, Owens T et al (2007) UGT1A1 promoter genotype correlates with SN-38 pharmacokinetics, but not severe toxicity in patients receiving low-dose irinotecan. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 25(18):2594–2600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hoskins JM, Goldberg RM, Qu P, Ibrahim JG, McLeod HL (2007) UGT1A1*28 genotype and irinotecan-induced neutropenia: dose matters. J Natl Cancer Inst 99(17):1290–1295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Noble CO, Krauze MT, Drummond DC, Yamashita Y, Saito R, Berger MS et al (2006) Novel nanoliposomal CPT-11 infused by convection-enhanced delivery in intracranial tumors: pharmacology and efficacy. Cancer Res 66(5):2801–2806CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krauze MT, Noble CO, Kawaguchi T, Drummond D, Kirpotin DB, Yamashita Y et al (2007) Convection-enhanced delivery of nanoliposomal CPT-11 (irinotecan) and PEGylated liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil) in rodent intracranial brain tumor xenografts. Neurooncology 9(4):393–403Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dickinson PJ, LeCouteur RA, Higgins RJ, Bringas JR, Roberts B, Larson RF et al (2008) Canine model of convection-enhanced delivery of liposomes containing CPT-11 monitored with real-time magnetic resonance imaging: laboratory investigation. J Neurosurg 108(5):989–998CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer L. Clarke
    • 1
    • 2
  • Annette M. Molinaro
    • 1
  • Juan R. Cabrera
    • 1
  • Ashley A. DeSilva
    • 1
  • Jane E. Rabbitt
    • 1
  • Joshua Prey
    • 3
  • Daryl C. Drummond
    • 4
  • Jaeyeon Kim
    • 4
  • Charles Noble
    • 4
  • Jonathan B. Fitzgerald
    • 4
  • Susan M. Chang
    • 1
  • Nicholas A. Butowski
    • 1
  • Jennie W. Taylor
    • 1
    • 2
  • John W. Park
    • 5
  • Michael D. Prados
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Neuro-oncology, Department of Neurological SurgeryUniversity of California, San Francisco (UCSF)San FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Department of NeurologyUniversity of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.Roswell Park Cancer InstituteBuffaloUSA
  4. 4.Merrimack PharmaceuticalsCambridgeUSA
  5. 5.Division of Hematology/Oncology, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations