- Email: [email protected]
Caelyx (stealth liposomal doxorubicin) in the treatment of advanced breast cancer
Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 37 (2001) 115– 120 www.elsevier.com/locate/critrevonc
Caelyx (stealth liposomal doxorubicin) in the treatment of advanced breast cancer M.R. Ranson a,*, S. Cheeseman a, S. White a, J. Margison b a
Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Research Campaign, Christie Hospital NHS Trust, Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK b Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Christie Hospital NHS Trust, Manchester, UK Accepted 24 July 2000
Contents 1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
115
2. Rationale for testing Caelyx in breast cancer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
116
3. Clinical studies with Caelyx. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
117
4. Combination chemotherapy with Caelyx in breast cancer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
118
5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
118
Reviewers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
118
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
119
Biography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
120
Abstract Anthracyclines are amongst the most active drugs in the treatment of breast cancer. Stealth liposomal doxorubicin (Caelyx, Doxil, Alza Pharmaceuticals Inc.) is a promising new agent under investigation for the treatment of breast cancer and other solid tumours. The liposomal encapsulation alters drug pharmacokinetics and leads to a marked change in toxicity profile compared to non-liposomal doxorubicin. The results of recently completed and ongoing clinical trials in breast cancer are reviewed. © 2001 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Caelyx; Doxil; Doxorubicin; Liposome; Breast cancer
1. Introduction The spectrum of antitumour activity of the anthracyclines has set lasting landmarks in the treatment, not just of breast cancer, but also of leukaemia, lymphomas and sarcomas. Nearly three decades have elapsed since * Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-161-4463743; fax: + 44-1614463299. E-mail address: [email protected] (M.R. Ranson).
the introduction of anthracyclines for the treatment of breast cancer and this class of cytotoxic drug remains at the forefront of treatment for this malignancy. However, anthracycline use, particularly in the elderly, has been hampered because of toxicity considerations. The development of anticancer agents that have reduced toxicity represents one of the principle requirements for improving chemotherapeutic treatment. In the future, greater target specificity of anticancer agents constitutes an important therapeutic objective. However, it is possible to exploit drug delivery systems to confer altered
1040-8428/01/$ - see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 1 0 4 0 - 8 4 2 8 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 1 0 7 - 4
116
M.R. Ranson et al. / Critical Re6iews in Oncology/Hematology 37 (2001) 115–120
biodistribution and drug release properties, in order to improve the therapeutic index of relatively non-specific cytotoxic drugs. Liposomes represent an attractive drug delivery vehicle for cytotoxic agents and this is based upon three pharmacologic parameters. Firstly, liposomes can provide for a slow release of drug, thereby reducing high free peak concentrations. Secondly, liposomes are able to alter the biodistribution of the encapsulated drug so that there is the potential for site avoidance and reduced toxicity. Thirdly, in certain circumstances liposomes act to enhance drug accumulation within tumours. A potential disadvantage may be that liposomes delay the drug becoming bio-available and this may limit the rapid achievement of high tumour drug levels. The pharmacologic principles that underpin liposomal anthracyclines were developed \ 20 years ago. Indeed, the development of liposomal anthracyclines provides an important perspective of the field of liposomal drug delivery [1]. The first liposomal formulations of anthracyclines to be tested in humans were based upon negatively charged lipids (phosphatidylglycerol, cardiolipin) and the liposomes were relatively large at : 300 –500 nm diameter. The rationale for these formulations was to reduce the uptake of doxorubicin by the heart and to enhance uptake by the reticuloendothelial system (RES). It was reasoned that this might increase the efficacy of anthracyclines in hepatic tumours. However, in early imaging studies, although there was rapid drug uptake into the RES of liver and spleen, anthracycline uptake into the tumour was disappointing [2]. The requirement for liposomes with longer circulation times and improved avoidance of RES capture became appreciated and this has culminated in the development of Stealth® or sterically stabilised liposomes for cytotoxic drug delivery. In the case of stealth liposomal doxorubicin (Caelyx® in Europe, Doxil® in US, Alza Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA) the liposomes are small (: 100 nm diameter) and contain a small proportion of phospholipid derivatized with the hydrophilic polymer, methoxypolyethylene glycol (MPEG). The linear MPEG groups extend from the liposome surface to create a hydrophilic layer that reduces interactions between liposome and plasma components. Other liposomal anthracyclines have been developed for clinical use. DaunoXome™ developed by NeXstar Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Boulder, CO) is a formulation of daunorubicin in small (35 –65 nm diameter) unilamellar conventional liposomes, composed of disteroylphosphatidylcholine and cholesterol. TLC D-99 (Evacet™) is a formulation of doxorubicin in conventional liposomes (150 nm diameter) composed of egg phosphatidylcholine and cholesterol and under clinical development by The Liposome Company Inc. (Princeton, NJ). Both DaunoXome and Evaset, which utilise non-pegylated
liposomes have significant pharmacological and pharmacokinetic differences from Caelyx. The interested reader is referred to several recent reviews on their pharmacology [3–5]. The plasma pharmacokinetics of Caelyx are markedly different from conventional doxorubicin. Gabizon determined the pharmacokinetics of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin compared to free doxorubicin [6]. Seven patients with advanced cancer received a single course of conventional doxorubicin and then received the same dose of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. Nine additional patients received pegylated liposomal doxorubicin alone. The apparent volume of distribution following intravenous administration was small compared to conventional doxorubicin (2.35 vs. 149 l/m2) [6], and virtually all the doxorubicin detectable was accounted for by encapsulated drug [6]. Clearance was bi-exponential with a short initial halflife of :2 h and a prolonged terminal half-life of :45 h. Similar results have been reported during studies in patients with AIDS-related Kaposi’s sarcoma [7] and solid tumours. The pharmacokinetic data from multiple studies has recently been reviewed [5]. It should be noted that the pharmacokinetics of liposomal drugs are substantially determined by the structure and physicochemical properties of the liposome. The long plasma half-life of Caelyx reflects the relative efficacy of the membrane modification, in minimising early liposome disruption in plasma and capture by the RES. In pre-clinical models, some workers have reported that there is a correlation between increasing circulation half-life and the antitumour efficacy of liposome encapsulated cytotoxic drugs [8,9]. It is well recognised that solid tumours are characterised by a requirement for new blood vessel development and tumour angiogenesis results in the formation of immature and relatively permeable blood vessels. These tumour blood vessels may facilitate the exit of liposomes and allow the development of sustained drug accumulation within experimental animal tumours [5,10 –12]. The altered pharmacokinetic and biodistribution properties of Caelyx, compared to free doxorubicin, results in a substantial change in the toxicity profile which is discussed below.
2. Rationale for testing Caelyx in breast cancer Caelyx is currently being evaluated in phases II and III studies in breast cancer. In dose escalation phase I trials of Caelyx, responses were recorded in patients with breast cancer, prostate cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, renal carcinoma and head and neck and ovarian carcinoma [13]. The main rationale for the development of Caelyx in patients with breast cancer stems from the fact that anthracyclines are among the most active
M.R. Ranson et al. / Critical Re6iews in Oncology/Hematology 37 (2001) 115–120
agents in this malignancy. Unfortunately, anthracycline use, particularly in the elderly, is limited by its toxicity. The main acute toxicities of conventional anthracyclines comprise myelosuppression, mucositis, alopecia and nausea and vomiting. In addition, this class of cytotoxic agent is associated with a risk of cumulative cardiotoxicity [14,15]. High cumulative doses of conventional doxorubicin are associated with an increasing incidence of clinical cardiac failure [16]. Cardiac toxicity limits the total anthracycline dose that may be administered and has led to particular caution in the elderly. Although anthracyclines continue to be the mainstay of adjuvant treatment for younger women with breast cancer, there remains a need to minimise the potential risks of devastating cardiac damage from anthracycline use in this curative setting. In patients with metastatic breast cancer, response rates to single agent doxorubicin (50 – 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) range from 25 to 58% and are heavily influenced by patient characteristics, such as prior chemotherapy, performance status and the extent and sites of disease [17 – 23]. Intensified dosing of doxorubicin by increasing the dose and by shortening of the cycle interval has been examined for conventional doxorubicin [24]. Whilst this dose dense approach led to responses in almost all patients treated, it was attended by severe mucosal and skin toxicity and the response duration appeared comparable to those achieved with standard dosing [24]. Treatment for patients with advanced breast cancer remains palliative and the most desirable regimen would be one that produced minimal toxicity with the maximal achievable benefit in terms of survival and quality of life. The limited success of highly intensive cytotoxic regimens in advanced breast cancer has reinforced the need for developing regimens that are better tolerated.
3. Clinical studies with Caelyx There has been extensive evaluation of Caelyx in patients with AIDS-related Kaposi’s sarcoma and the agent is licensed in Europe and the US for this indication. The doses of Caelyx used in patients with Kaposi’s sarcoma are lower than those under investigation in patients with breast cancer and solid tumours. Interested readers are referred to a number of recent reviews that provide a detailed appraisal of Caelyx use in AIDS KS patients [5,25 –30]. Phases II and III clinical studies, to assess the safety and efficacy of Caelyx in the treatment of breast cancer, are now in progress. The first indications of the efficacy and safety profile of Caelyx in advanced breast cancer were gleaned during phase I studies [13]. Of the 56 patients with solid tumours, six had metastatic breast cancer and among
117
these there were two partial responses and one minor response. The most common dose limiting toxicities observed during the phase I trials were stomatitis, palmar plantar erythrodysthesia and myelosuppression The most comprehensive data to date comes from a multicentre phase II trial of Caelyx in the UK [31]. The efficacy and toxicity profile of Caelyx was defined at three different dose levels. Patients were required to have measurable metastatic breast cancer and were allowed to have received one prior non-anthracycline chemotherapeutic regimen. The three dose levels evaluated were 60 mg/m2 every 3 weeks, 45 mg/m2 every 3 weeks and 45 mg/m2 every 4 weeks. A maximum of six cycles of treatment was permitted. Dose reductions of 25% were required for grade 3 or worse toxicities excepting nausea, vomiting or alopecia. Seventy-one patients entered the trial and all had metastatic disease and a median Karnofsky performance status of 80 (range: 60–100), a median age of 57 years (range: 33–78). Eighty percent of patients had received prior hormonal agents and 28% of patients had received prior chemotherapy. The patient population was predominantly patients with high tumour burden and visceral tumour involvement. Almost three-quarters of the patients had multiple organ involvement and liver, lung and bone metastasis was the dominant site in 89% of the patients entered. Eight of the entered patients received only one cycle of Caelyx and were not considered assessable for response. The response rate in the 64 assessable patients was 31% and the response rate in those patients who had received prior chemotherapy was 32%. Taking into account the patient characteristics in this trial, the response rate to Caelyx appears comparable to that seen in other multicentre trials with conventional single agent doxorubicin in advanced breast cancer patients with similar pre-treatment characteristics [17 –22]. Unlike conventional doxorubicin, nausea, vomiting and alopecia were notably absent or mild with Caelyx. In addition, myelosuppression was mild and its severity was dose related. At doses recommended by the authors for further study (45 –50 mg/m2 every 4 weeks) grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in just 7% of cycles. The incidence of mucositis was dose related with grade 3 or 4 mucositis occurring in 20% of cycles at 60 mg/m2 and in 9% of cycles at 45 mg/m2 every 4 weeks. The most important dose limiting toxicity of Caelyx is plantar palmer erythrodysthesia and this was severe at 60 mg/m2 of Caelyx every 3 weeks where seven of the 13 patients developed grade 3 or 4 skin toxicity. It is worth noting that similar skin toxicity is seen with conventional doxorubicin during infusional therapy [32 –34] or with dose intensive treatment [24]. Skin toxicity was rarely seen following the first cycle of Caelyx, implying that it occurred as a result of a cumulative but reversible effect. In view of the pro-
118
M.R. Ranson et al. / Critical Re6iews in Oncology/Hematology 37 (2001) 115–120
longed plasma circulation time of stealth liposomes, it is conceivable that a slow release of doxorubicin takes place which mimics the protracted infusion of conventional doxorubicin and that repeated administration at relatively short intervals leads to overt skin toxicity when drug levels persist above a notional threshold. Though the skin toxicity is seen over the palms of the hands and soles of the feet, it may also occur in flexure areas and over pressure areas. This pattern of localisation may reflect relatively higher rates of keratinocyte turnover, although it is also conceivable that this localisation occurs because of the altered biodistribution of stealth liposomes. As with all liposomal drug delivery systems, occasional instances of hypersensitivity reaction were seen and in two of the 71 patients, this prompted withdrawal of Caelyx. The UK trial was not designed to address the issue of cardiac safety since the median cumulative dose of doxorubicin was 179 mg/m2 (range: 45 – 399 mg/m2). Larger scale clinical studies and matched case-controlled studies are required to address the cardiac safety of stealth liposomal doxorubicin. However, there is extensive pre-clinical data [35 – 38] and some limited case-control data which support the view that liposomal formulations of doxorubicin are associated with a significant reduction in the propensity for cardiac toxicity [5,39]. In pre-clinical studies, liposomal doxorubicin has been reported to have activity in some but not all anthracycline resistant models [40,41]. This has prompted clinical studies in the setting of anthracycline resistance. A small-scale phase II trial to evaluate Caelyx in the setting of anthracycline resistant advanced breast cancer has been reported [42]. In 13 patients with anthracycline resistant tumours, treated at a low dose of 30 mg/m2 every 3 weeks, there were no responses although stable disease was recorded in four patients. In a preliminary study in the neo-adjuvant treatment of locally advanced breast cancer, the efficacy of single agent stealth liposomal doxorubicin appears to be lower than that of standard combination chemotherapy [43]. Caelyx is not ideally suited for use in neo-adjuvant treatment since its formulation produces delayed tumour bioavailability.
nine patients were reported [44]. Similar high response rates have been reported by others using this combination [45]. The rationale for developing taxane –liposomal anthracycline regimens as an alternative to those based on conventional anthracyclines is based upon an expectation of reduced myelosuppression and cardiac toxicity. Small dose-ranging phase I studies in combination with docetaxel have been reported [46 – 48] and further results in this area are awaited with keen interest. Combination regimens with particular interest for elderly patients with breast cancer or for patients requiring low toxicity have included stealth liposomal doxorubicin in combination with either cyclophosphamide or vinorelbine. The combination of Caelyx with oral cyclophosphamide has been explored in pilot studies [49]. Patients received Caelyx 50 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1 and oral cyclophosphamide 100 mg/m2 on days 1–14. Objective response was seen in five of seven patients and toxicity was mild. In combination with vinorelbine [50], pilot scheduling studies suggested that Caelyx on day 1 with vinorelbine on days 1 and 15 constitutes a well-tolerated schedule suitable for phase II development. However, results of a phase II trial of Caelyx 40 mg/m2 every 4 weeks with vinorelbine 20 mg/m2 i.v. on days 1 and 8 of each cycle produced a disappointing response rate of just 18% (95% confidence interval 2–34%) [51]. The authors did not define the reasons for this result.
5. Conclusions Whilst it has taken almost 30 years from Bangham’s first description of a liposome [52], the clinical development and licensing of liposomal drugs has shown that this technology has now come of age. Stealth liposomes represent an important milestone in the history of liposome technology. It is anticipated that further improvements will be made in the future based upon membrane modification. The unique pharmacologic properties and favourable toxicity profile of Caelyx may enable oncologists to improve the tolerability of therapy for breast cancer patients. The results of these early studies with Caelyx should be seen as an important foundation for the development of other drugs based on this technology.
4. Combination chemotherapy with Caelyx in breast cancer
Reviewers
Given the comparable antitumour activity and mild myelosuppression in single agent studies, combinations with other agents such as taxanes, vinorelbine and cyclophosphamide are being actively pursued. In a preliminary study of stealth liposomal doxorubicin with paclitaxel, a total of seven partial responses in
Dr David B. Smith, Consultant in Medical Oncology, Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology, Clatterbridge Road, Bebington, Merseyside, L63 4JY, UK Dr John Whittaker, Alza International Inc., Profile West, 950 Great West Road, Brentford, Middlesex, TW8 9ES, UK
M.R. Ranson et al. / Critical Re6iews in Oncology/Hematology 37 (2001) 115–120
References [1] Gabizon A. Clinical trials of liposomes as carriers of chemotherapeutic agents: synopsis and perspective. In: Lasic D, Papahadjopoules D, editors. Medical Applications of Liposomes. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 1998:625–34. [2] Gabizon A, Chisin R, Amselem S, et al. Pharmacokinetic and imaging studies in patients receiving a formulation of liposomeassociated adriamycin. Br J Cancer 1991;64:1125–32. [3] Schmidt PG, Adler-Moore JP, Forssen EA, Proffitt RT. Unilamellar liposomes for anticancer and antifungal therapy. In: Lasic D, Papahadjopoules D, editors. Medical Applications of Liposomes. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 1998:703–31. [4] Swenson CE, Freitag J, Janoff AS. The Liposome Company: Lipid-based pharmaceuticals in clinical development. In: Lasic D, Papahadjopoules D, editors. Medical Applications of Liposomes. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 1998:689–702. [5] Martin F. Clinical pharmacology and antitumor efficacy of Doxil (pegylated liposomal doxorubicin). In: Lasic D, Papahadjopoules D, editors. Medical Applications of Liposomes. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 1998:635–88. [6] Gabizon A, Catane R, Uziely B, et al. Prolonged circulation time and enhanced accumulation in malignant exudates of doxorubicin encapsulated in polyethylene-glycol coated liposomes. Cancer Res 1994;54:987–92. [7] Northfelt DW, Martin FJ, Working P, et al. Doxorubicin encapsulated in liposomes containing surface bound polyethylene glycol: pharmacokinetics, tumor localisation and safety in patients with AIDS-related Kaposi’s sarcoma. J Clin Pharmacol 1996;36:55– 63. [8] Gabizon A, Chemla M, Tzemach D, Horowitz AT, Goren D. Liposome longevity and stability in circulation: effects on the in vivo delivery to tumours and therapeutic efficacy of encapsulated anthracyclines. J Drug Targ 1996;3:391–8. [9] Gabizon A. Selective tumor localisation and improved therapeutic index of anthracyclines encapsulated in long circulating liposomes. Cancer Res 1992;52:891–6. [10] Mayhew EG, Lasic D, Babbar S, Martin F. Pharmacokinetics and antitumour activity of epirubicin encapsulated in long circulating liposomes incorporating polyethylene glycol-derivatized phospholipid. Int J Cancer 1992;51:302–9. [11] Vaage J, Mayhew E, Lasic D, Martin F. Therapy of primary and metastatic mouse mammary carcinomas with doxorubicin encapsulated in long circulating liposomes. Int J Cancer 1992;51:942– 8. [12] Williams SS, Alosco TR, Mayhew E, Lasic D, Martin F, Banhert RB. Arrest of human lung tumour xenograft growth in SCID mice using doxorubicin encapsulated in sterically stabilised liposomes. Cancer Res 1993;53:3964–7. [13] Uziely B, Jeffers S, Isacson R, et al. Liposomal doxorubicin, antitumour activity and unique toxicities during two complementary phase I studies. J Clin Oncol 1995;13:1777–17785. [14] Von Hoff DD, Layard MW, Basa P, et al. Risk factors for doxorubicin-induced congestive cardiac failure. Ann Intern Med 1979;91:710– 7. [15] Shan K, Lincoff A, Young J. Anthracycline induced cardiotoxicity. Ann Intern Med 1996;125:47–58. [16] Myers CE. Anthracyclines. In: Chabner B, editor. Pharmacologic Principles of Cancer Treatment. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders, 1982:402–40. [17] Hoogstraten B. Adriamycin in the treatment of advanced breast cancer: studies by the South West Oncology Cancer Co-operative Group. Cancer Chemother Rep 1975;6:329–34. [18] Van Oosterom AT, Mouridsen HT, Wilderiers J, et al. Carminomycin versus doxorubicin in advanced breast cancer, a randomised study of the EORTC Breast Cancer Co-operative Group. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1986;22:601–5.
119
[19] Lawson PA, Spittle MF, Ostrowski MJ, et al. A comparison of doxorubicin, epirubicin and mitoxantrone as single agents in advanced breast cancer. Clin Oncol 1993;5:80– 4. [20] Jain KK, Casper ES, Geller NL, et al. A prospective randomised comparison of epirubicin and doxorubicin in patients with advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1985;3:818– 26. [21] Cowan JD, Osbourne CK, Niedhart JA, et al. A randomised trial of doxorubicin, mitoxantrone and bisantrene in advanced breast cancer (a South West Oncology Group Study). Invest New Drugs 1985;3:149– 52. [22] Hortobagi GN, Yap HY, Kau SW, et al. A comparative study of doxorubicin and epirubicin in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 1989;12:57– 62. [23] Carmo-Pereira J, Costa FO, Henriques E, et al. A comparison of two doses of adriamycin in the primary chemotherapy of disseminated breast cancer. Br J Cancer 1987;56:471– 3. [24] Bronchud MH, Howell A, Crowther D, et al. The use of granulocyte colony stimulating factor to increase the intensity of treatment with doxorubicin in patients with breast and ovarian cancer. Br J Cancer 1989;60:121– 5. [25] Hjortberg C, Persson U, Lidbrink E, Bennett C. Cost effectiveness analysis of pegylated-liposomal doxorubicin and liposomal daunorubicin treatments in patients with Kaposi’s sarcoma. Acta Oncol 1999;38:1063– 7. [26] Nasti G, Errante D, Santarossa S, Vaccher E, Tirelli U. A risk and benefit assessment of the treatment of AIDS-related Kaposi’s sarcoma. Drug Saf 1999;20:403– 25. [27] Northfelt DW, Dezube BJ, Thommes JA, et al. Pegylated-liposomal doxorubicin versus doxorubicin, bleomycin and vincristine in the treatment of AIDS-related Kaposi’s sarcoma: results of a randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:2445–51. [28] Stewart S, Jablonowski H, Goebel FD, et al. Randomized comparative trial of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus bleomycin and vincristine in the treatment of AIDS-related Kaposi’s sarcoma. International pegylated liposomal doxorubicin study group. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:683– 91. [29] Coukell AJ, Spencer CM. Polyethylene glycol-liposomal doxorubicin. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic efficacy in the management of AIDSrelated Kaposi’s sarcoma. Drugs 1997;53:520– 38. [30] Northfelt DW, Dezube BJ, Thommes JA, et al. Efficacy of pegylated-liposomal doxorubicin in the treatment of AIDS-related Kaposi’s sarcoma after failure of standard chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:653– 9. [31] Ranson MR, Carmichael J, O’Byrne K, Stewart S, Smith D, Howell A. Treatment of advanced breast cancer with sterically stabilised liposomal doxorubicin: results of a multicentre phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 1987;15:3185– 91. [32] Lokich JJ, Moore C. Chemotherapy associated palmar-plantar erythrodysthesia syndrome. Ann Intern Med 1984;101:798–800. [33] DelaFlor-Weiss E, Uziely B, Muggia FM. Protracted drug infusions in cancer treatment: an appraisal of 5-flurouracil, doxorubicin and platinums. Ann Oncol 1993;4:723– 33. [34] Samuels BL, Vogelzang NJ, Ruane M, et al. Continuous venous infusion of doxorubicin in advanced sarcomas. Cancer Treat Rep 1987;71:971– 2. [35] Forssen EA, Tokes ZA. Use of anionic liposomes for the reduction of chronic doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1981;78:1873– 7. [36] Herman EH, Rahman A, Ferrans VJ, Vick JA, Schein PS. Prevention of chronic doxorubicin cardiotoxicity in beagles by liposomal encapsulation. Cancer Res 1983;43:5427– 32. [37] Kanter PM, Bullard GA, Pilkiewicz FG, Mayer LD, Cullis PR, Pavelic ZP. Pre-clinical toxicology study of liposome encapsulated doxorubicin (TLC D-99): comparison with doxorubicin and empty liposomes in mice and dogs. In Vivo 1993;7:85–95.
120
M.R. Ranson et al. / Critical Re6iews in Oncology/Hematology 37 (2001) 115–120
[38] Working PK, Newman MS, Sullivan T, Yarrington J. Reduction of the cardiotoxicity of doxorubicin in rabbits and dogs by encapsulation in long-circulating pegylated liposomes. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1999;289:1128–33. [39] Berry G, Billingham M, Alderman E, Richardson P, Torti F, Lum B, et al. The use of cardiac biopsy to demonstrate reduced cardiotoxicity in AIDS Kaposi’s sarcoma patients treated with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. Ann Oncol 1998;9:711– 6. [40] Thierry AR, Rahman A, Dritschillo A. A new procedure for the preparation of liposomal doxorubicin: biological activity in multidrug-resistant tumor cells. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1994;35:84– 8. [41] Hu YP, Henry-Toulme N, Robert J. Failure of liposomal encapsulation of doxorubicin to circumvent multidrug resistance in an in vitro model of rat glioblastoma cells. Eur J Cancer 1995;31A:389– 94. [42] Smith FP, Barr F, Hendricks C, et al. Phase II study of Doxil (pegylated liposomal doxorubicin) in doxorubicin resistant metastatic breast cancer, Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1999; 18. Abstract 524. [43] Hurley J, Restrepo A, Boggs J, et al. The use of neoadjuvant Doxil in the treatment of Stage III breast cancer, Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1999; 18. Abstract 524. [44] Woll P, Carmichael S, Chan S, et al. Phase II study results on safety and tolerability of Caelyx in combination with paclitaxel in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer, Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1999; 18. Abstract 442. [45] Jones V, Finucane D, Rodriguez R, Saleh F, Espinoza M, Gutheil JC. Phase II study of weekly paclitaxel (Taxol) and liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil) in patients with locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer, Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2000; 19. Abstract 451. [46] Hirsch R, Jahanzeb M, Marrs N, et al. Phase I Doxil in combination with escalating doses of taxotere in the treatment of patients with advanced malignancy, Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1999; 18. Abstract 820. [47] Wasserheit C, Downey A, Sorich J, et al. A phase I study of
.
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
Taxotere and Doxil in patients with advanced malignancies, Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1999; 18. Abstract 642. Malik UR, Sparano JA, Wolffe A. Phase I trial of liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil) and docetaxel (taxotere) in patients with advanced breast cancer, Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998; 17. Abstract 672. Holder L, Overmoyer B, Silverman P, et al. Doxil and oral cyclophosphamide as first line therapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer: preliminary results of a pilot trial, Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998; 17. Abstract 556. Ramirez MR, Marcom PK, Sutton LM, et al. A phase I/II study of Doxil and vinorelbine in metastatic breast cancer, Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998; 17. Abstract 648. Rimassa L, Salvini P, Carnaghi C, et al. Unexpected low efficacy of Caelyx and vinorelbine in metastatic breast cancer, Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2000; 19. Abstract 446. Bangham AD, Standish MM, Watkins JC. Diffusion of univalent ions across lamellae of swollen phospholipids. J Mol Biol 1965;13:238– 52.
Biography Dr Ranson is a Senior Lecturer in the Cancer Research Campaign Department of Medical Oncology at the Christie Hospital National Health Service Trust in Manchester, UK. After qualifying in Pharmacology he completed his medical training in Manchester. After completing his PhD in 1990, he worked in Clinical Pharmacology at the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, USA. He runs an active phase I and early phase II clinical pharmacology programme, with particular emphasis on drug delivery systems and novel anticancer agents.
Caelyx (stealth liposomal doxorubicin) in the treatment of advanced breast cancer M.R. Ranson a,*, S. Cheeseman a, S. White a, J. Margison b a
Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Research Campaign, Christie Hospital NHS Trust, Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK b Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Christie Hospital NHS Trust, Manchester, UK Accepted 24 July 2000
Contents 1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
115
2. Rationale for testing Caelyx in breast cancer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
116
3. Clinical studies with Caelyx. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
117
4. Combination chemotherapy with Caelyx in breast cancer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
118
5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
118
Reviewers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
118
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
119
Biography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
120
Abstract Anthracyclines are amongst the most active drugs in the treatment of breast cancer. Stealth liposomal doxorubicin (Caelyx, Doxil, Alza Pharmaceuticals Inc.) is a promising new agent under investigation for the treatment of breast cancer and other solid tumours. The liposomal encapsulation alters drug pharmacokinetics and leads to a marked change in toxicity profile compared to non-liposomal doxorubicin. The results of recently completed and ongoing clinical trials in breast cancer are reviewed. © 2001 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Caelyx; Doxil; Doxorubicin; Liposome; Breast cancer
1. Introduction The spectrum of antitumour activity of the anthracyclines has set lasting landmarks in the treatment, not just of breast cancer, but also of leukaemia, lymphomas and sarcomas. Nearly three decades have elapsed since * Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-161-4463743; fax: + 44-1614463299. E-mail address: [email protected] (M.R. Ranson).
the introduction of anthracyclines for the treatment of breast cancer and this class of cytotoxic drug remains at the forefront of treatment for this malignancy. However, anthracycline use, particularly in the elderly, has been hampered because of toxicity considerations. The development of anticancer agents that have reduced toxicity represents one of the principle requirements for improving chemotherapeutic treatment. In the future, greater target specificity of anticancer agents constitutes an important therapeutic objective. However, it is possible to exploit drug delivery systems to confer altered
1040-8428/01/$ - see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 1 0 4 0 - 8 4 2 8 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 1 0 7 - 4
116
M.R. Ranson et al. / Critical Re6iews in Oncology/Hematology 37 (2001) 115–120
biodistribution and drug release properties, in order to improve the therapeutic index of relatively non-specific cytotoxic drugs. Liposomes represent an attractive drug delivery vehicle for cytotoxic agents and this is based upon three pharmacologic parameters. Firstly, liposomes can provide for a slow release of drug, thereby reducing high free peak concentrations. Secondly, liposomes are able to alter the biodistribution of the encapsulated drug so that there is the potential for site avoidance and reduced toxicity. Thirdly, in certain circumstances liposomes act to enhance drug accumulation within tumours. A potential disadvantage may be that liposomes delay the drug becoming bio-available and this may limit the rapid achievement of high tumour drug levels. The pharmacologic principles that underpin liposomal anthracyclines were developed \ 20 years ago. Indeed, the development of liposomal anthracyclines provides an important perspective of the field of liposomal drug delivery [1]. The first liposomal formulations of anthracyclines to be tested in humans were based upon negatively charged lipids (phosphatidylglycerol, cardiolipin) and the liposomes were relatively large at : 300 –500 nm diameter. The rationale for these formulations was to reduce the uptake of doxorubicin by the heart and to enhance uptake by the reticuloendothelial system (RES). It was reasoned that this might increase the efficacy of anthracyclines in hepatic tumours. However, in early imaging studies, although there was rapid drug uptake into the RES of liver and spleen, anthracycline uptake into the tumour was disappointing [2]. The requirement for liposomes with longer circulation times and improved avoidance of RES capture became appreciated and this has culminated in the development of Stealth® or sterically stabilised liposomes for cytotoxic drug delivery. In the case of stealth liposomal doxorubicin (Caelyx® in Europe, Doxil® in US, Alza Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA) the liposomes are small (: 100 nm diameter) and contain a small proportion of phospholipid derivatized with the hydrophilic polymer, methoxypolyethylene glycol (MPEG). The linear MPEG groups extend from the liposome surface to create a hydrophilic layer that reduces interactions between liposome and plasma components. Other liposomal anthracyclines have been developed for clinical use. DaunoXome™ developed by NeXstar Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Boulder, CO) is a formulation of daunorubicin in small (35 –65 nm diameter) unilamellar conventional liposomes, composed of disteroylphosphatidylcholine and cholesterol. TLC D-99 (Evacet™) is a formulation of doxorubicin in conventional liposomes (150 nm diameter) composed of egg phosphatidylcholine and cholesterol and under clinical development by The Liposome Company Inc. (Princeton, NJ). Both DaunoXome and Evaset, which utilise non-pegylated
liposomes have significant pharmacological and pharmacokinetic differences from Caelyx. The interested reader is referred to several recent reviews on their pharmacology [3–5]. The plasma pharmacokinetics of Caelyx are markedly different from conventional doxorubicin. Gabizon determined the pharmacokinetics of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin compared to free doxorubicin [6]. Seven patients with advanced cancer received a single course of conventional doxorubicin and then received the same dose of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. Nine additional patients received pegylated liposomal doxorubicin alone. The apparent volume of distribution following intravenous administration was small compared to conventional doxorubicin (2.35 vs. 149 l/m2) [6], and virtually all the doxorubicin detectable was accounted for by encapsulated drug [6]. Clearance was bi-exponential with a short initial halflife of :2 h and a prolonged terminal half-life of :45 h. Similar results have been reported during studies in patients with AIDS-related Kaposi’s sarcoma [7] and solid tumours. The pharmacokinetic data from multiple studies has recently been reviewed [5]. It should be noted that the pharmacokinetics of liposomal drugs are substantially determined by the structure and physicochemical properties of the liposome. The long plasma half-life of Caelyx reflects the relative efficacy of the membrane modification, in minimising early liposome disruption in plasma and capture by the RES. In pre-clinical models, some workers have reported that there is a correlation between increasing circulation half-life and the antitumour efficacy of liposome encapsulated cytotoxic drugs [8,9]. It is well recognised that solid tumours are characterised by a requirement for new blood vessel development and tumour angiogenesis results in the formation of immature and relatively permeable blood vessels. These tumour blood vessels may facilitate the exit of liposomes and allow the development of sustained drug accumulation within experimental animal tumours [5,10 –12]. The altered pharmacokinetic and biodistribution properties of Caelyx, compared to free doxorubicin, results in a substantial change in the toxicity profile which is discussed below.
2. Rationale for testing Caelyx in breast cancer Caelyx is currently being evaluated in phases II and III studies in breast cancer. In dose escalation phase I trials of Caelyx, responses were recorded in patients with breast cancer, prostate cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, renal carcinoma and head and neck and ovarian carcinoma [13]. The main rationale for the development of Caelyx in patients with breast cancer stems from the fact that anthracyclines are among the most active
M.R. Ranson et al. / Critical Re6iews in Oncology/Hematology 37 (2001) 115–120
agents in this malignancy. Unfortunately, anthracycline use, particularly in the elderly, is limited by its toxicity. The main acute toxicities of conventional anthracyclines comprise myelosuppression, mucositis, alopecia and nausea and vomiting. In addition, this class of cytotoxic agent is associated with a risk of cumulative cardiotoxicity [14,15]. High cumulative doses of conventional doxorubicin are associated with an increasing incidence of clinical cardiac failure [16]. Cardiac toxicity limits the total anthracycline dose that may be administered and has led to particular caution in the elderly. Although anthracyclines continue to be the mainstay of adjuvant treatment for younger women with breast cancer, there remains a need to minimise the potential risks of devastating cardiac damage from anthracycline use in this curative setting. In patients with metastatic breast cancer, response rates to single agent doxorubicin (50 – 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) range from 25 to 58% and are heavily influenced by patient characteristics, such as prior chemotherapy, performance status and the extent and sites of disease [17 – 23]. Intensified dosing of doxorubicin by increasing the dose and by shortening of the cycle interval has been examined for conventional doxorubicin [24]. Whilst this dose dense approach led to responses in almost all patients treated, it was attended by severe mucosal and skin toxicity and the response duration appeared comparable to those achieved with standard dosing [24]. Treatment for patients with advanced breast cancer remains palliative and the most desirable regimen would be one that produced minimal toxicity with the maximal achievable benefit in terms of survival and quality of life. The limited success of highly intensive cytotoxic regimens in advanced breast cancer has reinforced the need for developing regimens that are better tolerated.
3. Clinical studies with Caelyx There has been extensive evaluation of Caelyx in patients with AIDS-related Kaposi’s sarcoma and the agent is licensed in Europe and the US for this indication. The doses of Caelyx used in patients with Kaposi’s sarcoma are lower than those under investigation in patients with breast cancer and solid tumours. Interested readers are referred to a number of recent reviews that provide a detailed appraisal of Caelyx use in AIDS KS patients [5,25 –30]. Phases II and III clinical studies, to assess the safety and efficacy of Caelyx in the treatment of breast cancer, are now in progress. The first indications of the efficacy and safety profile of Caelyx in advanced breast cancer were gleaned during phase I studies [13]. Of the 56 patients with solid tumours, six had metastatic breast cancer and among
117
these there were two partial responses and one minor response. The most common dose limiting toxicities observed during the phase I trials were stomatitis, palmar plantar erythrodysthesia and myelosuppression The most comprehensive data to date comes from a multicentre phase II trial of Caelyx in the UK [31]. The efficacy and toxicity profile of Caelyx was defined at three different dose levels. Patients were required to have measurable metastatic breast cancer and were allowed to have received one prior non-anthracycline chemotherapeutic regimen. The three dose levels evaluated were 60 mg/m2 every 3 weeks, 45 mg/m2 every 3 weeks and 45 mg/m2 every 4 weeks. A maximum of six cycles of treatment was permitted. Dose reductions of 25% were required for grade 3 or worse toxicities excepting nausea, vomiting or alopecia. Seventy-one patients entered the trial and all had metastatic disease and a median Karnofsky performance status of 80 (range: 60–100), a median age of 57 years (range: 33–78). Eighty percent of patients had received prior hormonal agents and 28% of patients had received prior chemotherapy. The patient population was predominantly patients with high tumour burden and visceral tumour involvement. Almost three-quarters of the patients had multiple organ involvement and liver, lung and bone metastasis was the dominant site in 89% of the patients entered. Eight of the entered patients received only one cycle of Caelyx and were not considered assessable for response. The response rate in the 64 assessable patients was 31% and the response rate in those patients who had received prior chemotherapy was 32%. Taking into account the patient characteristics in this trial, the response rate to Caelyx appears comparable to that seen in other multicentre trials with conventional single agent doxorubicin in advanced breast cancer patients with similar pre-treatment characteristics [17 –22]. Unlike conventional doxorubicin, nausea, vomiting and alopecia were notably absent or mild with Caelyx. In addition, myelosuppression was mild and its severity was dose related. At doses recommended by the authors for further study (45 –50 mg/m2 every 4 weeks) grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in just 7% of cycles. The incidence of mucositis was dose related with grade 3 or 4 mucositis occurring in 20% of cycles at 60 mg/m2 and in 9% of cycles at 45 mg/m2 every 4 weeks. The most important dose limiting toxicity of Caelyx is plantar palmer erythrodysthesia and this was severe at 60 mg/m2 of Caelyx every 3 weeks where seven of the 13 patients developed grade 3 or 4 skin toxicity. It is worth noting that similar skin toxicity is seen with conventional doxorubicin during infusional therapy [32 –34] or with dose intensive treatment [24]. Skin toxicity was rarely seen following the first cycle of Caelyx, implying that it occurred as a result of a cumulative but reversible effect. In view of the pro-
118
M.R. Ranson et al. / Critical Re6iews in Oncology/Hematology 37 (2001) 115–120
longed plasma circulation time of stealth liposomes, it is conceivable that a slow release of doxorubicin takes place which mimics the protracted infusion of conventional doxorubicin and that repeated administration at relatively short intervals leads to overt skin toxicity when drug levels persist above a notional threshold. Though the skin toxicity is seen over the palms of the hands and soles of the feet, it may also occur in flexure areas and over pressure areas. This pattern of localisation may reflect relatively higher rates of keratinocyte turnover, although it is also conceivable that this localisation occurs because of the altered biodistribution of stealth liposomes. As with all liposomal drug delivery systems, occasional instances of hypersensitivity reaction were seen and in two of the 71 patients, this prompted withdrawal of Caelyx. The UK trial was not designed to address the issue of cardiac safety since the median cumulative dose of doxorubicin was 179 mg/m2 (range: 45 – 399 mg/m2). Larger scale clinical studies and matched case-controlled studies are required to address the cardiac safety of stealth liposomal doxorubicin. However, there is extensive pre-clinical data [35 – 38] and some limited case-control data which support the view that liposomal formulations of doxorubicin are associated with a significant reduction in the propensity for cardiac toxicity [5,39]. In pre-clinical studies, liposomal doxorubicin has been reported to have activity in some but not all anthracycline resistant models [40,41]. This has prompted clinical studies in the setting of anthracycline resistance. A small-scale phase II trial to evaluate Caelyx in the setting of anthracycline resistant advanced breast cancer has been reported [42]. In 13 patients with anthracycline resistant tumours, treated at a low dose of 30 mg/m2 every 3 weeks, there were no responses although stable disease was recorded in four patients. In a preliminary study in the neo-adjuvant treatment of locally advanced breast cancer, the efficacy of single agent stealth liposomal doxorubicin appears to be lower than that of standard combination chemotherapy [43]. Caelyx is not ideally suited for use in neo-adjuvant treatment since its formulation produces delayed tumour bioavailability.
nine patients were reported [44]. Similar high response rates have been reported by others using this combination [45]. The rationale for developing taxane –liposomal anthracycline regimens as an alternative to those based on conventional anthracyclines is based upon an expectation of reduced myelosuppression and cardiac toxicity. Small dose-ranging phase I studies in combination with docetaxel have been reported [46 – 48] and further results in this area are awaited with keen interest. Combination regimens with particular interest for elderly patients with breast cancer or for patients requiring low toxicity have included stealth liposomal doxorubicin in combination with either cyclophosphamide or vinorelbine. The combination of Caelyx with oral cyclophosphamide has been explored in pilot studies [49]. Patients received Caelyx 50 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1 and oral cyclophosphamide 100 mg/m2 on days 1–14. Objective response was seen in five of seven patients and toxicity was mild. In combination with vinorelbine [50], pilot scheduling studies suggested that Caelyx on day 1 with vinorelbine on days 1 and 15 constitutes a well-tolerated schedule suitable for phase II development. However, results of a phase II trial of Caelyx 40 mg/m2 every 4 weeks with vinorelbine 20 mg/m2 i.v. on days 1 and 8 of each cycle produced a disappointing response rate of just 18% (95% confidence interval 2–34%) [51]. The authors did not define the reasons for this result.
5. Conclusions Whilst it has taken almost 30 years from Bangham’s first description of a liposome [52], the clinical development and licensing of liposomal drugs has shown that this technology has now come of age. Stealth liposomes represent an important milestone in the history of liposome technology. It is anticipated that further improvements will be made in the future based upon membrane modification. The unique pharmacologic properties and favourable toxicity profile of Caelyx may enable oncologists to improve the tolerability of therapy for breast cancer patients. The results of these early studies with Caelyx should be seen as an important foundation for the development of other drugs based on this technology.
4. Combination chemotherapy with Caelyx in breast cancer
Reviewers
Given the comparable antitumour activity and mild myelosuppression in single agent studies, combinations with other agents such as taxanes, vinorelbine and cyclophosphamide are being actively pursued. In a preliminary study of stealth liposomal doxorubicin with paclitaxel, a total of seven partial responses in
Dr David B. Smith, Consultant in Medical Oncology, Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology, Clatterbridge Road, Bebington, Merseyside, L63 4JY, UK Dr John Whittaker, Alza International Inc., Profile West, 950 Great West Road, Brentford, Middlesex, TW8 9ES, UK
M.R. Ranson et al. / Critical Re6iews in Oncology/Hematology 37 (2001) 115–120
References [1] Gabizon A. Clinical trials of liposomes as carriers of chemotherapeutic agents: synopsis and perspective. In: Lasic D, Papahadjopoules D, editors. Medical Applications of Liposomes. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 1998:625–34. [2] Gabizon A, Chisin R, Amselem S, et al. Pharmacokinetic and imaging studies in patients receiving a formulation of liposomeassociated adriamycin. Br J Cancer 1991;64:1125–32. [3] Schmidt PG, Adler-Moore JP, Forssen EA, Proffitt RT. Unilamellar liposomes for anticancer and antifungal therapy. In: Lasic D, Papahadjopoules D, editors. Medical Applications of Liposomes. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 1998:703–31. [4] Swenson CE, Freitag J, Janoff AS. The Liposome Company: Lipid-based pharmaceuticals in clinical development. In: Lasic D, Papahadjopoules D, editors. Medical Applications of Liposomes. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 1998:689–702. [5] Martin F. Clinical pharmacology and antitumor efficacy of Doxil (pegylated liposomal doxorubicin). In: Lasic D, Papahadjopoules D, editors. Medical Applications of Liposomes. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 1998:635–88. [6] Gabizon A, Catane R, Uziely B, et al. Prolonged circulation time and enhanced accumulation in malignant exudates of doxorubicin encapsulated in polyethylene-glycol coated liposomes. Cancer Res 1994;54:987–92. [7] Northfelt DW, Martin FJ, Working P, et al. Doxorubicin encapsulated in liposomes containing surface bound polyethylene glycol: pharmacokinetics, tumor localisation and safety in patients with AIDS-related Kaposi’s sarcoma. J Clin Pharmacol 1996;36:55– 63. [8] Gabizon A, Chemla M, Tzemach D, Horowitz AT, Goren D. Liposome longevity and stability in circulation: effects on the in vivo delivery to tumours and therapeutic efficacy of encapsulated anthracyclines. J Drug Targ 1996;3:391–8. [9] Gabizon A. Selective tumor localisation and improved therapeutic index of anthracyclines encapsulated in long circulating liposomes. Cancer Res 1992;52:891–6. [10] Mayhew EG, Lasic D, Babbar S, Martin F. Pharmacokinetics and antitumour activity of epirubicin encapsulated in long circulating liposomes incorporating polyethylene glycol-derivatized phospholipid. Int J Cancer 1992;51:302–9. [11] Vaage J, Mayhew E, Lasic D, Martin F. Therapy of primary and metastatic mouse mammary carcinomas with doxorubicin encapsulated in long circulating liposomes. Int J Cancer 1992;51:942– 8. [12] Williams SS, Alosco TR, Mayhew E, Lasic D, Martin F, Banhert RB. Arrest of human lung tumour xenograft growth in SCID mice using doxorubicin encapsulated in sterically stabilised liposomes. Cancer Res 1993;53:3964–7. [13] Uziely B, Jeffers S, Isacson R, et al. Liposomal doxorubicin, antitumour activity and unique toxicities during two complementary phase I studies. J Clin Oncol 1995;13:1777–17785. [14] Von Hoff DD, Layard MW, Basa P, et al. Risk factors for doxorubicin-induced congestive cardiac failure. Ann Intern Med 1979;91:710– 7. [15] Shan K, Lincoff A, Young J. Anthracycline induced cardiotoxicity. Ann Intern Med 1996;125:47–58. [16] Myers CE. Anthracyclines. In: Chabner B, editor. Pharmacologic Principles of Cancer Treatment. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders, 1982:402–40. [17] Hoogstraten B. Adriamycin in the treatment of advanced breast cancer: studies by the South West Oncology Cancer Co-operative Group. Cancer Chemother Rep 1975;6:329–34. [18] Van Oosterom AT, Mouridsen HT, Wilderiers J, et al. Carminomycin versus doxorubicin in advanced breast cancer, a randomised study of the EORTC Breast Cancer Co-operative Group. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1986;22:601–5.
119
[19] Lawson PA, Spittle MF, Ostrowski MJ, et al. A comparison of doxorubicin, epirubicin and mitoxantrone as single agents in advanced breast cancer. Clin Oncol 1993;5:80– 4. [20] Jain KK, Casper ES, Geller NL, et al. A prospective randomised comparison of epirubicin and doxorubicin in patients with advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1985;3:818– 26. [21] Cowan JD, Osbourne CK, Niedhart JA, et al. A randomised trial of doxorubicin, mitoxantrone and bisantrene in advanced breast cancer (a South West Oncology Group Study). Invest New Drugs 1985;3:149– 52. [22] Hortobagi GN, Yap HY, Kau SW, et al. A comparative study of doxorubicin and epirubicin in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 1989;12:57– 62. [23] Carmo-Pereira J, Costa FO, Henriques E, et al. A comparison of two doses of adriamycin in the primary chemotherapy of disseminated breast cancer. Br J Cancer 1987;56:471– 3. [24] Bronchud MH, Howell A, Crowther D, et al. The use of granulocyte colony stimulating factor to increase the intensity of treatment with doxorubicin in patients with breast and ovarian cancer. Br J Cancer 1989;60:121– 5. [25] Hjortberg C, Persson U, Lidbrink E, Bennett C. Cost effectiveness analysis of pegylated-liposomal doxorubicin and liposomal daunorubicin treatments in patients with Kaposi’s sarcoma. Acta Oncol 1999;38:1063– 7. [26] Nasti G, Errante D, Santarossa S, Vaccher E, Tirelli U. A risk and benefit assessment of the treatment of AIDS-related Kaposi’s sarcoma. Drug Saf 1999;20:403– 25. [27] Northfelt DW, Dezube BJ, Thommes JA, et al. Pegylated-liposomal doxorubicin versus doxorubicin, bleomycin and vincristine in the treatment of AIDS-related Kaposi’s sarcoma: results of a randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:2445–51. [28] Stewart S, Jablonowski H, Goebel FD, et al. Randomized comparative trial of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus bleomycin and vincristine in the treatment of AIDS-related Kaposi’s sarcoma. International pegylated liposomal doxorubicin study group. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:683– 91. [29] Coukell AJ, Spencer CM. Polyethylene glycol-liposomal doxorubicin. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic efficacy in the management of AIDSrelated Kaposi’s sarcoma. Drugs 1997;53:520– 38. [30] Northfelt DW, Dezube BJ, Thommes JA, et al. Efficacy of pegylated-liposomal doxorubicin in the treatment of AIDS-related Kaposi’s sarcoma after failure of standard chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:653– 9. [31] Ranson MR, Carmichael J, O’Byrne K, Stewart S, Smith D, Howell A. Treatment of advanced breast cancer with sterically stabilised liposomal doxorubicin: results of a multicentre phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 1987;15:3185– 91. [32] Lokich JJ, Moore C. Chemotherapy associated palmar-plantar erythrodysthesia syndrome. Ann Intern Med 1984;101:798–800. [33] DelaFlor-Weiss E, Uziely B, Muggia FM. Protracted drug infusions in cancer treatment: an appraisal of 5-flurouracil, doxorubicin and platinums. Ann Oncol 1993;4:723– 33. [34] Samuels BL, Vogelzang NJ, Ruane M, et al. Continuous venous infusion of doxorubicin in advanced sarcomas. Cancer Treat Rep 1987;71:971– 2. [35] Forssen EA, Tokes ZA. Use of anionic liposomes for the reduction of chronic doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1981;78:1873– 7. [36] Herman EH, Rahman A, Ferrans VJ, Vick JA, Schein PS. Prevention of chronic doxorubicin cardiotoxicity in beagles by liposomal encapsulation. Cancer Res 1983;43:5427– 32. [37] Kanter PM, Bullard GA, Pilkiewicz FG, Mayer LD, Cullis PR, Pavelic ZP. Pre-clinical toxicology study of liposome encapsulated doxorubicin (TLC D-99): comparison with doxorubicin and empty liposomes in mice and dogs. In Vivo 1993;7:85–95.
120
M.R. Ranson et al. / Critical Re6iews in Oncology/Hematology 37 (2001) 115–120
[38] Working PK, Newman MS, Sullivan T, Yarrington J. Reduction of the cardiotoxicity of doxorubicin in rabbits and dogs by encapsulation in long-circulating pegylated liposomes. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1999;289:1128–33. [39] Berry G, Billingham M, Alderman E, Richardson P, Torti F, Lum B, et al. The use of cardiac biopsy to demonstrate reduced cardiotoxicity in AIDS Kaposi’s sarcoma patients treated with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. Ann Oncol 1998;9:711– 6. [40] Thierry AR, Rahman A, Dritschillo A. A new procedure for the preparation of liposomal doxorubicin: biological activity in multidrug-resistant tumor cells. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1994;35:84– 8. [41] Hu YP, Henry-Toulme N, Robert J. Failure of liposomal encapsulation of doxorubicin to circumvent multidrug resistance in an in vitro model of rat glioblastoma cells. Eur J Cancer 1995;31A:389– 94. [42] Smith FP, Barr F, Hendricks C, et al. Phase II study of Doxil (pegylated liposomal doxorubicin) in doxorubicin resistant metastatic breast cancer, Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1999; 18. Abstract 524. [43] Hurley J, Restrepo A, Boggs J, et al. The use of neoadjuvant Doxil in the treatment of Stage III breast cancer, Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1999; 18. Abstract 524. [44] Woll P, Carmichael S, Chan S, et al. Phase II study results on safety and tolerability of Caelyx in combination with paclitaxel in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer, Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1999; 18. Abstract 442. [45] Jones V, Finucane D, Rodriguez R, Saleh F, Espinoza M, Gutheil JC. Phase II study of weekly paclitaxel (Taxol) and liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil) in patients with locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer, Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2000; 19. Abstract 451. [46] Hirsch R, Jahanzeb M, Marrs N, et al. Phase I Doxil in combination with escalating doses of taxotere in the treatment of patients with advanced malignancy, Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1999; 18. Abstract 820. [47] Wasserheit C, Downey A, Sorich J, et al. A phase I study of
.
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
Taxotere and Doxil in patients with advanced malignancies, Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1999; 18. Abstract 642. Malik UR, Sparano JA, Wolffe A. Phase I trial of liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil) and docetaxel (taxotere) in patients with advanced breast cancer, Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998; 17. Abstract 672. Holder L, Overmoyer B, Silverman P, et al. Doxil and oral cyclophosphamide as first line therapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer: preliminary results of a pilot trial, Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998; 17. Abstract 556. Ramirez MR, Marcom PK, Sutton LM, et al. A phase I/II study of Doxil and vinorelbine in metastatic breast cancer, Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998; 17. Abstract 648. Rimassa L, Salvini P, Carnaghi C, et al. Unexpected low efficacy of Caelyx and vinorelbine in metastatic breast cancer, Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2000; 19. Abstract 446. Bangham AD, Standish MM, Watkins JC. Diffusion of univalent ions across lamellae of swollen phospholipids. J Mol Biol 1965;13:238– 52.
Biography Dr Ranson is a Senior Lecturer in the Cancer Research Campaign Department of Medical Oncology at the Christie Hospital National Health Service Trust in Manchester, UK. After qualifying in Pharmacology he completed his medical training in Manchester. After completing his PhD in 1990, he worked in Clinical Pharmacology at the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, USA. He runs an active phase I and early phase II clinical pharmacology programme, with particular emphasis on drug delivery systems and novel anticancer agents.