Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Phase I dose-escalation study of pazopanib combined with bevacizumab in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma or other advanced tumors

  • Sylvie Négrier1Email author,
  • David Pérol2,
  • Rastislav Bahleda3,
  • Antoine Hollebecque3,
  • Etienne Chatelut4,
  • Helen Boyle5,
  • Philippe Cassier5,
  • Séverine Metzger5,
  • Ellen Blanc5,
  • Jean-Charles Soria6 and
  • Bernard Escudier7
BMC Cancer201717:547

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3527-7

Received: 21 March 2017

Accepted: 1 August 2017

Published: 15 August 2017

Abstract

Background

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) directed therapies are being used in a large number of advanced tumors. Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is highly dependent on the VEGF pathway; VEGF receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) and humanized VEGF monoclonal antibody have been registered for clinical use in advanced renal cell carcinoma. The VEGFR TKI, pazopanib, with a rather manageable toxicity profile, was preferred to sunitinib by mRCC patients. We investigate the combination of pazopanib and bevacizumab to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in mRCC and other advanced solid tumors.

Methods

In this bicentric phase I trial with a 3 + 3 + 3 dose-escalation design, patients received oral pazopanib once daily plus intravenous infusion of bevacizumab every 2 weeks from D15, at one of the four dose levels (DL) planned according to the occurrence of dose limiting toxicities (DLT). 400 and 600 mg pazopanib were respectively combined with 7.5 mg/kg bevacizumab in DL1 and DL2, and 600 and 800 mg pazopanib with 10 mg/kg bevacizumab in DL3 and DL4. Tumor response was evaluated every 8 weeks. Blood samples were assayed to investigate pazopanib pharmacokinetics.

Results

Twenty five patients including seven mRCC were enrolled. Nine patients received the DL1, ten received the DL2. No DLT were observed at DL1, five DLT at DL2, and 3 DLT in the six additional patients who received the DL1. A grade 3 microangiopathic hemolytic anemia syndrome was observed in four (16%) patients. Five (22%) patients achieved a partial response. The mean (range) plasmatic concentrations of 400 and 600 pazopanib were respectively 283 (139–427) and 494 (227–761) μg.h/mL at Day 1, and 738 (487–989) and 1071 (678–1464) μg.h/mL at Day 15 i.e. higher than those previously reported with pazopanib, and were not directly influenced by bevacizumab infusion.

Conclusions

The combination of pazopanib and bevacizumab induces angiogenic toxicity in patients without any pre-existing renal or vascular damage. Even if a marginal efficacy was reported with five (22%) patients in partial response in different tumor types, the toxicity profile compromises the development of this combination.

Trial registration

The study was retrospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT01202032) on 2010, Sept 14th.

Keywords

Renal carcinoma Bevacizumab Pazopanib Combination Angiogenesis Phase I trial

Background

The efficacy of an anti-VEGF antibody was originally demonstrated in renal cell carcinoma and published forteen years ago [1]. Treatments have evolved from known therapies using exclusively cytokines to therapies targeting angiogenesis, cell proliferation, and tumor growth. These recent developments have enabled tangible clinical benefits in different solid tumor types [25], especially in renal cell cancer, and supported subsequent development of VEGF inhibitors, mainly tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) directed against VEGF receptors (VEGFR). Different agents targeting the VEGF pathway are currently registered for the treatment of advanced renal cell cancer patients [613]. Despite improvements observed with these targeted treatments especially in progression free survival duration, the tumor sensitivity to drugs remains limited with only scarce complete responses observed and over time resistance arises. The combination of different agents has emerged as an interesting strategy to potentially enhance the efficiency of the treatments and delay the disease’s progression due to drug resistance. Combinations of VEGF inhibitors and mTor inhibitors or cytokines, administrated to patients with renal cell cancer, were acceptable in terms of tolerance but no additional gain was achieved [1419] until recently. Indeed, the combination of lenvatinib and everolimus recently re-opened the hypothesis of a synergic combination of VEGFR and mTor inhibitors for the treatment of mRCC [13, 20]. The combination of VEGFR TKI with a VEGF-directed antibody also looks promising but increases the treatment-related toxicity. A rather strong rational supports the combination of bevacizumab known to induce a rapid clearance of circulating VEGF, with VEGFR TKIs that mostly induce an increase of the circulating VEGF levels. High serum or plasmatic levels of VEGF were indeed previously correlated with tumor progression [18, 2123]. The potential binding of VEGF to other receptors such as the platelet-derived-growth-factor receptor (PDGFR) might also contribute to the virtually constant acquired resistance in patients treated with a VEGFR inhibitor [24]. The concomitant blockade of VEGF ligand and receptors might contribute to improve the treatment efficacy. Some of these combinations have been attempted and reported promising results in terms of efficacy but their feasibility remains as a matter of debate [14, 2528].

Pazopanib, one of the most recently registered TKI for first-line advanced renal cancer treatment, is known to target VEGFR-1, −2, and −3, PDGFR-α and –β as well as c-KIT [29]. Its safety profile slightly differs from that of the commonly used sunitinib. With a better tolerance reported with this multitargeted TKI, pazopanib appeared as a promising candidate to be used in combination with bevacizumab. This latter intravenous agent was also registered for treatment in metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) patients in combination with interferon α [7, 30]. Some activity was also demonstrated when used as monotherapy in these patients [31, 32]. Discordant results in terms of efficacy were previously reported with the combination of sunitinib and bevacizumab according to the tumor type [25, 26, 33, 34]. This phase I combination trial was consequently not only conducted in renal cell cancer patients but also in patients with other tumor types. The aim of the PARASOL trial was to test the feasibility of the combination of pazopanib with bevacizumab and to investigate pazopanib pharmacokinetics (PK).

Methods

Patients

Adult patients with histologically confirmed diagnosis of solid tumor excluding squamous non-small-cell lung cancer because of an increased bleeding risk [33, 34], and refractory to a maximum of two lines of standard treatments, or without prior treatment for renal cell carcinoma were eligible. Additional inclusion criteria were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) of 0 or 1, adequate vital functions defined as absolute neutrophil count ≥1500 cells/μL, hemoglobin ≥9.0 g/dL, and platelets ≥100,000 cells/μL, PT ≤1.2xupper limit of normal [ULN] and APTT ≤1.2xULN, hepatic aspartate aminotransferase (AST) / alanine aminotransferase (ALT) ≤2.5xULN, total bilirubin ≤1.5xULN, and serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL or creatinine clearance ≥50 mL/min. Patients with insufficiently controlled blood pressure, increased proteinuria (>1.0 g/L), history of acute cardiac event, coronary disease or stroke in the previous 6 months, or corrected QT (QTc) interval prolongation (>480 ms using Bazett’s formula), and patients with history of brain metastases were excluded.

The study was conducted according to the declaration of Helsinki and the International Conference of Good Clinical Practices after local approval of the Ethic Committee of Lyon Sud-Est IV and all patients provided written informed consent before enrollment. The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01202032.

Study design

This investigator-initiated phase I trial with a 3 + 3 + 3 dose-escalation design was conducted in two institutions. Cohorts of three to nine patients were sequentially enrolled to receive one of the three escalated doses of pazopanib combined with two escalated doses of bevacizumab. The main objective was to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma or with other advanced tumors. MTD was defined as the highest dose level (DL) at which less than two of nine patients experienced a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) during the first 8 weeks. Secondary objectives were the objective response rate based on RECIST 1.1 criteria [35], the 6-month progression-free survival rate, and the pharmacokinetics (PK) of pazopanib in this combination. Cohorts of patients were enrolled in three successive steps according to the study plan shown on Fig. 1. Enrollment of nephrectomized mRCC patients were forbidden in the first step but allowed in the following steps (at least one patient in the second, and three patients in the third step). According to the independent Data and Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMB), patients enrolled at the third step of DL 2 and beyond must not have been nephrectomized. Patients were allowed to pursue the experimental treatment until tumor progression as long as the tolerance was acceptable. Safety analyses were performed after the 19th inclusion, and the steering committee, in agreement with the DSMB, recommended an extension cohort of six non-nephrectomized patients to be treated at the first dose level (400 mg pazopanib, bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg) in order to confirm the MTD.
Fig. 1

Study schedule (3 + 3 + 3 escalation steps)

Treatment and dose escalation plan

Patients received oral pazopanib (Votrient®) (Novartis, Rueil-Malmaison, France) once daily at a dose of 400, 600 or 800 mg per day according to the dose level plan, and intravenous bevacizumab (Avastin®) (Roche, Boulogne-Billancourt, France) at 7.5 or 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks (Q2W). Bevacizumab injections started 2 weeks after pazopanib initiation. Toxicity was assessed according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 3.0. Escalation to the next dose cohort was allowed following safety assessment after at least the first 8 weeks and validation by the DSMB. A DLT was considered in case of any grade 4 adverse event (AE), thrombotic AE, grade 3 cardiac failure, non-controlled hypertension, thrombocytopenia, AST, ALT, or bilirubin level increase, or any other grade 3 AE lasting more than 7 days except fatigue. A 200 mg/day dose reduction of pazopanib was decided for patients experiencing a non-DLT grade 3 AE. No bevacizumab dose modification was allowed but the infusion could be delayed once. Patients requiring larger pazopanib dose reductions, or more than 4 weeks bevacizumab discontinuation were withdrawn from the study. Intra-patient dose escalation was not allowed.

Tumor assessment

Responses were assessed according to RECIST version 1.1 [35] every 8 weeks up to 24 weeks, and every 3 months thereafter. Progression free survival (PFS) was measured from the first day of pazopanib administration until the date of progression, death, or treatment discontinuation for toxicity whichever occurred first.

Pharmacokinetic assessments

Plasmatic concentration of pazopanib was centrally assessed on blood samples collected at different time points on day 1, before treatment, at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 h after the first pazopanib administration, and on day 14, prior to bevacizumab infusion. One serum sample was collected at week 5 and week 7 prior to bevacizumab infusions. Pharmacokinetic analyses (PK) including pazopanib area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) according to dose level, and coefficient of variation (CV%) were performed in the Pharmacology Unit of the Institut Claudius Regaud, Toulouse, France, as previously reported [36].

Statistics and data analysis

This 3 + 3 + 3 dose-escalation study was designed to screen patients for major toxicity in a large proportion of the pazopanib and bevacizumab patient-treated population. Based on binomial probabilities, in three patients (six, and nine patients respectively) cohort, the probability to observe one or more DLT, if that DLT occurred in at least 54% (32 and 23% respectively) of the population, was 90%. A descriptive analysis was performed to describe patient demographics and clinical characteristics, occurrence of adverse events (AE), incidence per CTCAE grade and dose level, and response rates. PFS was defined as the time from the date of first study drug administration until the date of first documented progression or death from any cause, and analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Censoring was applied in the following situations: lost to follow-up and no event before cut-off (Oct 7th, 2013). Associations between dose, PK variables, and toxicity were established using Pearson correlation coefficients and compared using the two-tailed t test. SAS version 9.3 was used for all statistical analyses.

Results

Patients

Between July 2010 and August 2012, 25 patients were enrolled including the six patients of the additional confirmatory cohort. Seven patients had mRCC (only one has not previously undergone a nephrectomy) whereas other patients had melanoma (n = 4), pancreatic cancer (n = 2), head and neck (n = 2) and cervix cancer (n = 2) (Table 1). The median (range) age was 62 (41–79) and 14 (56%) patients were males. Nine (37.5%) patients had a history of hypertension but the blood pressure was adequately controlled at the time of inclusion. The median number (range) of previous treatments in patients with other tumors than mRCC was 3 (1–6). No patient had previously received VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. One patient with metastatic breast cancer had previously received bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel.
Table 1

Patient Demographics and Clinical Characteristics. Data are median (range) or n (%) unless otherwise indicated

Characteristics

Renal cell carcinoma

N = 7 (28.0%)

Other tumor types

N = 18 (72.0%)

Patients

N = 25

Median Age, years (min-max)

53.10 (43.80–71.20)

62.55 (41.00–78.60)

61.90 (41.00–78.60)

Male

5

(71.4)

9

(50.0)

14

(56.0)

History of hypertension

3

(42.9)

6

(33.3)

9

(36.0)

Nephrectomy

6

(85.7)

1

(5.0)

7

(87.5)

Localization

 Cervix cancer

0

-

2

(11.1)

2

(8.1)

 Colorectal cancer

0

-

1

(5.6)

1

(5.6)

 Melanoma

0

-

4

(22.2)

4

(16.0)

 Pancreatic cancer

0

-

2

(11.1)

2

(8.1)

 Breast cancer

0

-

1

(5.6)

1

(5.6)

 Adrenocortical carcinoma

0

-

1

(5.6)

1

(5.6)

 Seminoma

0

-

1

(5.6)

1

(5.6)

 Lung cancer

0

-

1

(5.6)

1

(5.6)

 Other (head and neck, thyroid, bladder, mesothelioma)

0

-

5

(27.8)

5

(25.0)

M0 at diagnosis

5

(71.4)

13

(72.2)

18

(72.0)

Time between diagnosis and first metastases

 Mean (std)

11.86 (15–27)

21.73 (23–56)

18.85 (21–64)

 Median (min-max)

12.88 (−1.28–43.20)

16.29 (−0.39–80.06)

13.14 (−1.28–80.06)

 Missing

0

1

1

Time between diagnosis and first metastases

  ≤ 12 months

3

(42.9)

7

(41.2)

10

(41.7)

  > 12 months

4

(57.1)

10

(58.8)

14

(58.3)

 Missing

0

 

1

 

1

 

Number of metastatic sites

 1

5

(71.4)

12

(70.6)

17

(70.8)

  > 1

2

(28.6)

5

(29.4)

7

(29.2)

 Missing

0

 

1

 

1

 

 Median (min-max)

1 (1–1)

3 (1–6)

3 (1–6)

Number of prior therapy

 Chemotherapy

1

(14.3)

18

(100.0)

19

(76.0)

 Median number of previous chemotherapy (min-max)

1 (1–1)

3 (1–6)

3 (1–6)

 Bevacizumab

0

(0.0)

1

(5.6)

1

(5.3)

 Radiotherapy

3

(42.9)

13

(72.2)

16

(64.0)

Hemoglobin

  < 115 g/L (F), <130 g/L (M)

1

(14.3)

7

(38.9)

8

(32.0)

  ≥ 115 g/L (F), ≥130 g/L (M)

6

(85.7)

11

(61.1)

17

(68.0)

Serum creatinine (μmol/L)

 Median (min-max)

97.5 (84.0–127.0)

79.5 (49.0–127.0)

84.0 (49.0–127.0)

 Missing

1

0

1

AST (UI/L)

 Median (min-max)

17.0 (16.0–21.0)

33.0 (13.0–84.0)

24.0 (13.0–84.0)

 Missing

1

0

1

ALT (UI/L)

 Median (min-max)

21.0 (10.0–34.0)

28.0 (8.0–52.0)

26.0 (8.0–52.0)

 Missing

1

0

1

LDH > normal

2

(28.6)

10

(55.6)

12

(48.0)

Treatment administration

Nine patients were enrolled in the initial cohort and received 400 mg pazopanib combined with 7.5 mg/kg bevacizumab (DL1), ten patients of the second cohort received 600 mg pazopanib with 7.5 mg/kg bevacizumab (DL2) (Fig. 1). One patient was withdrawn after having received a non-authorized reduced dose. Since thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) occurred in two patients in the second step at dose level 2, the DSMB recommended to include exclusively non-nephrectomized patients in the third step to limit the risk of an induced TMA. A confirmatory cohort of six patients received treatments at DL1. Patients received the treatment during a median (range) duration of 6 (1.9–52.4) weeks. Treatment discontinuation was decided because of progression for 12 patients, adverse events for 12 other patients and investigator’s decision for one. The main reasons for discontinuation before the 24-week tumor assessment were disease progression (n = 7) or toxicity (n = 11). One patient with mRCC discontinued treatment since the resection of a single residual pancreatic metastasis was decided. Treatment-related adverse events led to pazopanib dose modifications in 11 of the 25 patients (eight dose interruptions and three dose reductions). Bevacizumab administration was delayed because of toxic effects in six patients, five at DL1 and one at DL2.

Safety and MTD determination

The dose escalation and DLT are listed in Table 2. No DLT was observed within the initial cohort (DL1) of nine patients. Ten patients were enrolled at DL2 i.e. 600 mg pazopanib combined with 7.5 mg/kg bevacizumab, five DLT were observed. Two patients experienced a grade 3 hepatic cytolysis with ALT/AST elevation (ALT >6xULN and AST >3xULN; ALT >9xULN and AST >7xULN, respectively) associated with hyperbilirubinemia (total bilirubin >1.7xULN and >1.2xULN, respectively). A pulmonary embolism occurred in one patient. Two patients developed clinical features consistent with a microangiopathic hemolytic anemia (MAHA) syndrome with proteinuria, hemolytic anemia, low haptoglobin, thrombocytopenia, and serum creatinine increase, 4 weeks after pazopanib initiation and 2 weeks after the first bevacizumab infusion. To note, one of these patients was previously nephrectomized for his RCC and had a creatinine level above normal at baseline (122 μmol/L for a normal range upper value of 110 μmol/L); both patients had a history of hypertension.
Table 2

DLTs according to dose levels

Dose level

Number of Assessable patients

Bevacizumab

(Q2W)

Pazopanib (Q.D)

Number of DLT

DL1

9

7.5 mg/kg

400 mg

No DLT

DL1 Confirmatory Cohort

6

  

3 DLT:- 2 grade 3 MAHAb

- 1 grade 3 ALT/AST

DL2

10a

7.5 mg/kg

600 mg

5 DLT:- 2 grade 3 ALT/ASTc

- 1 grade 3 pulmonary embolismc

- 2 grade 3 MAHAc

a1 patient dropped out for non-authorized dose reduction at week 5

bMAHA: Microangiopathic & hemolytic anemia

coccurred in one nephrectomized patient

In the six non-nephrectomized patients enrolled in the confirmatory cohort at DL1, one patient with metastatic melanoma was not assessable for MTD of the combination because of an early grade 3 thrombocytopenia during the first fortnight of pazopanib administration, and before any bevacizumab infusion. Grade 3 ALT/AST elevations were observed in one patient. Two patients developed a MAHA syndrome (grade 3) with proteinuria, hematuria, renal impairment, and thrombocytopenia; a renal biopsy confirmed the diagnosis of thrombotic microangiopathy in both cases. One occurred 4 weeks after pazopanib initiation and 2 weeks after the first bevacizumab injection, the other 6 weeks after pazopanib initiation and 1 week after the second bevacizumab injection. Patients had no history of hypertension and a normal renal function at baseline.

Adverse events (any grade) are shown in Table 3. The most frequently reported adverse events included fatigue (52%), hypertension (48%), anorexia (44%) and nausea (44%). The most frequently reported grade 3 and 4 adverse events included TMA (16%), thrombocytopenia (12%), abdominal pain (8%), thoracic musculoskeletal pain (8%), hypertension (8%) and proteinuria (8%) (Table 4). The occurrence of grade 3–4 events was equally represented in the first (n = 16) and in the second dose level (n = 14).
Table 3

Adverse events (all grades, occurring in >10% of patients). Total number of patients N = 25

 

Grade

1

2

3

4

All

N

N

N

N

N

%

Fatigue

6

6

1

0

13

52.0

Hypertension

4

6

2

0

12

48.0

Anorexia

8

3

0

0

11

44.0

Nausea

11

0

0

0

11

44.0

Asthenia

6

4

0

0

10

40.0

Diarrhea

8

1

1

0

10

40.0

Dysphonia

10

0

0

0

10

40.0

Vomiting

7

2

1

0

10

40.0

Thrombocytopenia

3

2

3

0

8

32.0

Headache

6

0

0

0

6

24.0

Abdominal pain

2

2

2

0

6

24.0

Dysgeusia

4

2

0

0

6

24.0

Myalgia

5

1

0

0

6

24.0

Neck pain

4

1

0

0

5

20.0

Hypothyroidism

3

2

0

0

5

20.0

Proteinuria

0

3

2

0

5

20.0

Dry skin

4

1

0

0

5

20.0

Arthralgia

3

1

0

0

4

16.0

Elevated bilirubin

0

4

0

0

4

16.0

Muscular contractures

4

0

0

0

4

16.0

Hair modified color

4

0

0

0

4

16.0

Epistaxis

4

0

0

0

4

16.0

Hemorrhoids

3

1

0

0

4

16.0

Microangiopathy

0

0

4

0

4

16.0

Paresthesia

4

0

0

0

4

16.0

Stomatitis

2

2

0

0

4

16.0

Hand & foot syndrome

3

0

1

0

4

16.0

Mucositis

3

1

0

0

4

16.0

Elevated AST

2

1

0

0

3

12.0

Back pain

2

1

0

0

3

12.0

Musculoskeletal pain

2

1

0

0

3

12.0

Thoracic musculoskeletal pain

0

1

2

0

3

12.0

Dyspnea

3

0

0

0

3

12.0

Urinary tract infection

0

3

0

0

3

12.0

Neutropenia

0

3

0

0

3

12.0

Table 4

Grade 3/4 adverse events according to dose level and nephrectomy

 

Dose level 1

Dose level 2

All

N = 25

Nephrec-tomized

N = 4

Non nephrec-tomized

N = 11

All

N = 15

Nephrec-tomized

N = 3

Non nephrec-tomized

N = 7

All

N = 10

N

N

N

%

N

N

N

%

N

%

Thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA)

0

2

2

13.3

1

1

2

20.0

4

16.0

Thrombocytopenia

0

2

2

13.3

0

1

1

10.0

3

12.0

Elevated ALT and/or AST

0

1

1

6.7

1

1

2

20.0

3

12.0

Abdominal pain

0

1

1

6.7

0

1

1

10.0

2

8.0

Thoracic musculoskeletal pain

0

2

2

13.3

0

0

0

0.0

2

8.0

Hypertension

0

0

0

0.0

1

1

2

20.0

2

8.0

Proteinuria

1

0

1

6.7

0

1

1

10.0

2

8.0

Perianal abscess

1

0

1

6.7

0

0

0

0.0

1

4.0

Seizure

0

1

1

6.7

0

0

0

0.0

1

4.0

Diarrhea

0

0

0

0.0

0

1

1

10.0

1

4.0

Confusiona

0

1

1

6.7

0

0

0

0.0

1

4.0

Fatigue

0

1

1

6.7

0

0

0

0.0

1

4.0

Hypernatremia

0

0

0

0.0

1

0

1

10.0

1

4.0

Post-surgery bleeding

0

0

0

0.0

1

0

1

10.0

1

4.0

Lipase increase

0

0

0

0.0

1

0

1

10.0

1

4.0

Pyelonephritis

0

1

1

6.7

0

0

0

0.0

1

4.0

Hand & foot syndrome

1

0

1

6.7

0

0

0

0.0

1

4.0

Venous thrombosis

0

0

0

0.0

1

0

1

10.0

1

4.0

Vomiting

0

1

1

6.7

0

0

0

0.0

1

4.0

aGrade 4 adverse event

The DL1 (400 mg pazopanib-7.5 mg/kg bevacizumab) was defined as the MTD since no DLT was observed in the nine first patients treated at DL1 but three DLTs occurred in the six additional patients.

Pharmacokinetics

The mean (range) plasma concentration (AUC) with 400 and 600 mg pazopanib administration were respectively 283 (139–427) (n = 15), and 494 (227–761) μg.h/mL (n = 10) at Day 1, and 738 (487–989) and 1071 (678–1464) μg.h/mL at Day 15, with 37% of inter-individual variability in apparent clearance. These values were significantly higher than those previously described in the initial phase 1 trial with pazopanib as monotherapy [37]. However, they were not influenced by bevacizumab infusion since pazopanib trough plasma concentrations were not significantly higher 24 h after bevacizumab infusion than before infusion (at D15). The detailed results were previously published [36].

Efficacy

As of the cutoff data for data analysis (Oct 7th, 2013), the median (range) follow-up was 11.4 months (1.8–25.8). Twenty-two patients were evaluable for response to treatment. To note, two patients stopped prematurely the experimental treatment for toxicity after a treatment period of 4 and 5 weeks respectively, and one patient never received bevacizumab. The best overall response observed was partial response (PR) in five (22.7%) patients (three at DL1 and two at DL2; responses occurring in mRCC, lung cancer, cervix cancer (n = 2), and seminoma patients), stable disease (SD) in 11 (50%) patients (eight at DL1 and three at DL2; five patients with mRCC and six with other tumors), and progressive disease (PD) in six (27.3%) patients (three at each DL; six patients with other tumors than mRCC). The 24-week progression-free rate was 33.3% (95% CI, 15.63–55.32%) in the whole study cohort, with a median PFS of 18 (95% CI, 15–30) weeks (Fig. 2). No difference in PFS was observed in patients at DL1 and those at DL2 (data not shown). Median PFS were 23.3 weeks (95% CI, 15.7–31.4) and 17.1 weeks (95% CI, 8.1–26.7) in patients with mRCC and other tumor types, respectively.
Fig. 2

Progression-free Survival

Discussion

The combination of the VEGF-directed monoclonal antibody bevacizumab with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor directed against VEGF receptors has already been investigated [28]. These combination regimens were difficult to manage since increased toxicities have been described, and some of them were even considered as not feasible despite promising efficacy. The more recently registered TKI pazopanib, appeared to induce fewer side effects than other previous VEGFR TKIs [8, 38]. Most patients with mRCC also preferred pazopanib to sunitinib [39]. The combination of pazopanib and bevacizumab appeared feasible and a promising efficacy was expected. This trial is the first to report this combination in patients with different solid tumor including mRCC patients.

The MTD was 400 mg pazopanib and 7.5 mg bevacizumab, defined as the initial DL combination to investigate in this trial. These doses are equivalent to one half of pazopanib and three-quarters of bevacizumab doses recommended when administrated as monotherapy. AST or ALT increases to up to a grade 3 toxicity level were considered as a DLT in three patients. This severe hepatotoxicity was already described in trials investigating pazopanib as monotherapy [8, 38, 40, 41]. This VEGFR TKI appears to commonly induce some hepato-toxicity. However, the rate of hepatic toxicity was notably higher in the large pazopanib phase III trial (N = 557), than that observed with the combined treatment [38]. Hepatic toxicity might therefore not be linked to the combination under investigation. On the opposite, the occurrence of a microangiopathic hemolytic anemia (MAHA), initially reported with bevacizumab but also observed with sunitinib, might be favored by the combination of both agents targeting the VEGF pathway [4244]. Four patients with MAHA syndrome were observed in our series; two occurred at DL2 in patients with a history of hypertension, one of them previously underwent a nephrectomy and had an increased creatinine level before receiving the treatment. MAHA syndromes were also observed in two patients within the non-nephrectomized additional cohort of patients treated at DL1. Both occurred in patients with no history of hypertension and with previously normal renal function. Our results demonstrate that this vasculo-renal impairment can be induced in patients without any vascular or renal pre-existing risk. Thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA), as the initial phenomenon in the development of a MAHA syndrome, has been reported by several authors investigating the combination of sunitinib and bevacizumab [25, 28, 45]. On the contrary, another registered TKI directed against VEGFR, sorafenib, combined with bevacizumab did not mention any occurrence of MAHA syndrome nor TMA [14, 16, 19]. Pazopanib combined with bevacizumab might damage the renal nephron, with a rapid onset of a microangiopathy closed to that reported in the combination of bevacizumab with sunitinib [28]. In addition, our series confirmed that this microangiopathic effect does not only occur in patients suffering from renal tumors.

To note, no significant change in pazopanib PK was noticed following bevacizumab administration, especially in patients who experienced severe adverse events [36]. Moreover, the mean daily AUC at Day 15 (i.e., 1071 ± 398 μg.h/mL) at the maximum dose tested (600 mg) in combination with bevacizumab was higher in this trial than that determined in the first-in-man phase 1 study with 800 mg pazopanib once-daily administration as monotherapy (i.e. 743 ± 76 μg.h/mL, n = 8) [37]. This could be related to a different patient selection and may explain the poor tolerance we observed, imposing 400 mg pazopanib as the maximum tolerated dose in the combination with bevacizumab.

Beside these dose limiting toxicities, the type and frequency of other adverse events were similar to those observed with pazopanib as monotherapy in large randomized trial [38].

Even if 22% patients achieved a partial response, the response rate in the six mRCC patients, with one responding patient only, was not promising despite the administration of this combination in first-line setting. Interestingly, several objective responses were observed in other heavily pretreated tumors. If bevacizumab is already part of the treatment strategy used in cervix and lung carcinomas [3, 46], a significant tumor reduction in a patient with a seminoma was more surprising.

Conclusions

The combination of pazopanib and bevacizumab displays significant toxicity. This combination required the use of reduced doses compared to their respective monotherapy administration. A microangiopathy was observed in some patients without any specific pre-existing vascular or renal conditions. The safety issues, together with a rather disappointing efficacy rate, preclude the further development of this combination.

Abbreviations

AE: 

Adverse event

ALT: 

Alanine aminotransferase

APPT: 

Activated partial thromboplastin time

AST: 

Aspartate aminotransferase

CTCAE: 

National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events

DL: 

Dose levels

DLT: 

Dose limiting toxicities

DSMB: 

Independent Data and Safety Monitoring Committee

ECOG-PS: 

Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status

MAHA: 

Microangiopathic hemolytic anemia

mRCC: 

Metastatic renal cell carcinoma

MTD: 

Maximum tolerated dose

PDGFR: 

Platelet-derived-growth-factor receptor

PK: 

Pharmacokinetics

PT: 

Prothrombine time

TKI: 

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors

TMA: 

Thrombotic microangiopathy

ULN: 

Upper limit of normal [ULN]

VEGF: 

Vascular endothelial growth factor

VEGFR: 

VEGF receptors

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The trial was supported by GlaxoSmithKline and Roche. The authors thank the participating patients, staff at each study site, the independent data and safety monitoring committee members. The authors thank Sophie Darnis (Centre Léon Bérard) for medical editorial assistance with this manuscript.

Funding

The Centre Léon Bérard as sponsor was responsible for trial conception and coordination, data analysis and publication writing. Study drugs were graciously provided. Glaxo Smith Kline (Marly-le-Roi, France) provided pazopanib (Votrient®); Roche (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) provided bevacizumab (Avastin®). The study was funded by Glaxo Smith Kline. The funder had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated or analyzed during the study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

SN, DP, EB, and BE contributed to conception and design of the trial. SN, RB, AH, EC, HB, PC, SM, J-CS, and BE contributed to acquisition of data or analysis and interpretation. DP did the statistical analysis and contributed together with SN, SM, EC, and EB to data analysis and interpretation. SN, EB and DP supervised the study. SN and EB drafted the manuscript. All authors critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content and approved the final version to be published. All authors agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity in any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The trial received local approval of the Ethic Committee of Lyon Sud-Est IV (n°10/008). Initial approval was obtained on 2010, Feb 1st. All patients provided written informed consent before enrolment.

The study was retrospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01202032 on 2010, Sept 14th. The date of enrolment of the first patient in the protocol was 2010, July 2d.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Reagents and funding were received from both Glaxo Smith Kline and Roche. S. Négrier received honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, EUSA Pharma, IPSEN and Bristol-Meyer Squibb. D. Pérol received honoraria from Novartis, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, is a consultant/advisory board member for Celgene, Janssen and Roche, and received personal compensation for travel/accommodations from Roche. H. Boyle received honoraria for presentations and personal compensation for travel/accommodations from Pfizer, Sanofi, Janssen, Novartis, Amgen, and Astellas. P. Cassier received research support from Roche/Genentech, and honoraria from Roche. J.C. Soria declares personal compensation for travel/accommodations, and personal consultancy fees (<10,000 USD) from Roche. B. Escudier received honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb Roche, and Exelixis. No potential competing interest were disclosed by the other authors.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
University Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Centre Léon Bérard
(2)
Clinical Research and Innovation Department, Centre Léon Bérard
(3)
DITEP -Département d’Innovation Thérapeutiques et Essais Précoces, Institut Gustave Roussy
(4)
Institut Claudius Regaud, Inserm UMR1037 CRCT, Université Paul-Sabatier
(5)
Medical Oncology Department, Centre Léon Bérard
(6)
University of Paris Sud, Orsay, Institut Gustave Roussy
(7)
Department of Medical Oncology, Institut Gustave Roussy

References

  1. Yang JC, Haworth L, Sherry RM, Hwu P, Schwartzentruber DJ, Topalian SL, et al. A randomized trial of bevacizumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor antibody, for metastatic renal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:427–34.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Hurwitz H, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny W, Cartwright T, Hainsworth J, Heim W, et al. Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2335–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Sandler A, Gray R, Perry MC, Brahmer J, Schiller JH, Dowlati A, et al. Paclitaxel-carboplatin alone or with bevacizumab for non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2542–50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Miller K, Wang M, Gralow J, Dickler M, Cobleigh M, Perez EA, et al. Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab versus paclitaxel alone for metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2666–76.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, Hilgard P, Gane E, Blanc JF, et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:378–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Tomczak P, Michaelson MD, Bukowski RM, Rixe O, et al. Sunitinib versus interferon alfa in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:115–24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Escudier B, Pluzanska A, Koralewski P, Ravaud A, Bracarda S, Szczylik C, et al. Bevacizumab plus interferon alfa-2a for treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a randomised, double-blind phase III trial. Lancet. 2007;370:2103–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Sternberg CN, Davis ID, Mardiak J, Szczylik C, Lee E, Wagstaff J, et al. Pazopanib in locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results of a randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1061–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hudes G, Carducci M, Tomczak P, Dutcher J, Figlin R, Kapoor A, et al. Temsirolimus, interferon alfa, or both for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:2271–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Escudier B, Eisen T, Stadler WM, Szczylik C, Oudard S, Siebels M, et al. Sorafenib in advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:125–34.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Rini BI, Escudier B, Tomczak P, Kaprin A, Szczylik C, Hutson TE, et al. Comparative effectiveness of axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (AXIS): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2011;378:1931–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Choueiri TK, Escudier B, Powles T, Tannir NM, Mainwaring PN, Rini BI, et al. Cabozantinib versus everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma (METEOR): final results from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:917–27.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Glen H, Michaelson MD, Molina A, Eisen T, et al. Lenvatinib, everolimus, and the combination in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a randomised, phase 2, open-label, multicentre trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1473–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Azad NS, Posadas EM, Kwitkowski VE, Steinberg SM, Jain L, Annunziata CM, et al. Combination targeted therapy with sorafenib and bevacizumab results in enhanced toxicity and antitumor activity. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3709–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Negrier S, Gravis G, Perol D, Chevreau C, Delva R, Bay JO, et al. Temsirolimus and bevacizumab, or sunitinib, or interferon alfa and bevacizumab for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (TORAVA): a randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:673–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Castellano D, Capdevila J, Sastre J, Alonso V, Llanos M, Garcia-Carbonero R, et al. Sorafenib and bevacizumab combination targeted therapy in advanced neuroendocrine tumour: a phase II study of Spanish Neuroendocrine tumour group (GETNE0801). Eur J Cancer. 2013;49:3780–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Mina LA, Yu M, Johnson C, Burkhardt C, Miller KD, Zon R. A phase II study of combined VEGF inhibitor (bevacizumab+sorafenib) in patients with metastatic breast cancer: Hoosier oncology group study BRE06-109. Investig New Drugs. 2013;31:1307–10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Mahalingam D, Malik L, Beeram M, Rodon J, Sankhala K, Mita A, et al. Phase II study evaluating the efficacy, safety, and pharmacodynamic correlative study of dual antiangiogenic inhibition using bevacizumab in combination with sorafenib in patients with advanced malignant melanoma. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2014;74:77–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Galanis E, Anderson SK, Lafky JM, Uhm JH, Giannini C, Kumar SK, et al. Phase II study of bevacizumab in combination with sorafenib in recurrent glioblastoma (N0776): a north central cancer treatment group trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:4816–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Buti S, Bersanelli M. Combination therapy in kidney cancer: the next revolution? Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1441–2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hegde PS, Jubb AM, Chen D, Li NF, Meng YG, Bernaards C, et al. Predictive impact of circulating vascular endothelial growth factor in four phase III trials evaluating bevacizumab. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:929–37.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ljungberg B, Jacobsen J, Haggstrom-Rudolfssson S, Rasmuson T, Lindh G, Grankvist K. Tumour vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) mRNA in relation to serum VEGF protein levels and tumour progression in human renal cell carcinoma. Urol Res. 2003;31:335–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Negrier S, Perol D, Menetrier-Caux C, Escudier B, Pallardy M, Ravaud A, et al. Interleukin-6, interleukin-10, and vascular endothelial growth factor in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: prognostic value of interleukin-6--from the Groupe Francais d'Immunotherapie. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2371–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Choueiri TK, Motzer RJ. Systemic therapy for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:354–66.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Feldman DR, Baum MS, Ginsberg MS, Hassoun H, Flombaum CD, Velasco S, et al. Phase I trial of bevacizumab plus escalated doses of sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1432–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Rini BI, Garcia JA, Cooney MM, Elson P, Tyler A, Beatty K, et al. A phase I study of sunitinib plus bevacizumab in advanced solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:6277–83.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Moreno G. V, Basu B, Molife LR, Kaye SB: combining antiangiogenics to overcome resistance: rationale and clinical experience. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:3750–61.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Mittal K, Koon H, Elson P, Triozzi P, Dowlati A, Chen H, et al. Dual VEGF/VEGFR inhibition in advanced solid malignancies: clinical effects and pharmacodynamic biomarkers. Cancer Biol Ther. 2014;15:975–81.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Hutson TE, Davis ID, Machiels JP, De Souza PL, Rottey S, Hong BF, et al. Efficacy and safety of pazopanib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:475–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Rini BI, Halabi S, Rosenberg JE, Stadler WM, Vaena DA, Ou SS, et al. Bevacizumab plus interferon alfa compared with interferon alfa monotherapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: CALGB 90206. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5422–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Bukowski RM, Kabbinavar FF, Figlin RA, Flaherty K, Srinivas S, Vaishampayan U, et al. Randomized phase II study of erlotinib combined with bevacizumab compared with bevacizumab alone in metastatic renal cell cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:4536–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Flaherty KT, Manola JB, Pins M, McDermott DF, Atkins MB, Dutcher JJ, et al. BEST: a randomized phase II study of vascular endothelial growth factor, RAF Kinase, and mammalian target of Rapamycin combination targeted therapy with Bevacizumab, Sorafenib, and Temsirolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma--a trial of the ECOG-ACRIN cancer research group (E2804). J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2384–91.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson DH, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny WF, Herbst RS, Nemunaitis JJ, Jablons DM, et al. Randomized phase II trial comparing bevacizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel with carboplatin and paclitaxel alone in previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2184–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Socinski MA, Scappaticci FA, Samant M, Kolb MM, Kozloff MF. Safety and efficacy of combining sunitinib with bevacizumab + paclitaxel/carboplatin in non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5:354–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–47.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Imbs DC, Negrier S, Cassier P, Hollebecque A, Varga A, Blanc E, et al. Pharmacokinetics of pazopanib administered in combination with bevacizumab. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2014;73:1189–96.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Hurwitz HI, Dowlati A, Saini S, Savage S, Suttle AB, Gibson DM, et al. Phase I trial of pazopanib in patients with advanced cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:4220–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Cella D, Reeves J, Hawkins R, Guo J, et al. Pazopanib versus sunitinib in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:722–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Escudier B, Porta C, Bono P, Powles T, Eisen T, Sternberg CN, et al. Randomized, controlled, double-blind, cross-over trial assessing treatment preference for pazopanib versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: PISCES study. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1412–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. van der Graaf WT, Blay JY, Chawla SP, Kim DW, Bui-Nguyen B, Casali PG, et al. Pazopanib for metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (PALETTE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2012;379:1879–86.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Kapadia S, Hapani S, Choueiri TK, Wu S. Risk of liver toxicity with the angiogenesis inhibitor pazopanib in cancer patients. Acta Oncol. 2013;52:1202–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Frangie C, Lefaucheur C, Medioni J, Jacquot C, Hill GS, Nochy D. Renal thrombotic microangiopathy caused by anti-VEGF-antibody treatment for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:177–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Eremina V, Jefferson JA, Kowalewska J, Hochster H, Haas M, Weisstuch J, et al. VEGF inhibition and renal thrombotic microangiopathy. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1129–36.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Kapiteijn E, Brand A, Kroep J, Gelderblom H. Sunitinib induced hypertension, thrombotic microangiopathy and reversible posterior leukencephalopathy syndrome. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:1745–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Bruce JY, Kolesar JM, Hammers H, Stein MN, Carmichael L, Eickhoff J, et al. A phase I pharmacodynamic trial of sequential sunitinib with bevacizumab in patients with renal cell carcinoma and other advanced solid malignancies. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2014;73:485–93.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Tewari KS, Sill MW, Long HJ III, Penson RT, Huang H, Ramondetta LM, et al. Improved survival with bevacizumab in advanced cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:734–43.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement