title: Phase I Clinical Trials in Patients ≥80.
abstract: Phase I clinical trials play a crucial role in development of therapeutics for cancer patients. During phase I clinical trials common toxicities are delineated, dose limiting toxicities (DLT) are determined and a dose for phase II studies is recommended. However, reviews of the phase I population indicate a younger group of participants with a median age of 50-55. No data exists on the performance of octogenarians on phase I trials. Concerns for enrollment of this patient population, relates to presence of comorbidities and possibly altered pharmacokinetics in the setting of unknown potential toxicities. We present herein the largest review of octogenarians on phase I trials. Twenty-two octogenarian patients with a median age of 83 were enrolled on phase I clinical trials. More than 50% of them were chemotherapy-naïve most likely indicative of the fact that treating physicians believed standard therapy to be potentially toxic to this population. These 22 patients were otherwise matched in terms of performance status and other parameters to a control group of participants < 80. This includes a similar number of cycles administered. Patients ≥80 had a 3 fold higher rate of achieving DLT (p=0.06) compared to the control group enrolled at the same dose level. The toxicities observed include cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and infectious complications. Three patients were enrolled on molecular targeted treatments with no significant toxicities. We conclude that enrollment of patients ≥80 on phase I trials of chemotherapy agents is most likely associated with higher risk of DLT.
authors: Division of Hematology/Oncology, Case Western Reserve University and University Hospitals Case Medical Center and the Developmental Therapeutics Program, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH.
authors: Himabindu
authors: H
authors: Gaddipati
authors: Pingfu
authors: P
authors: Fu
authors: Afshin
authors: A
authors: Dowlati
references: N Engl J Med. 2005 Mar 3;352(9):895-904
references: 15745980
references: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2010 Mar;65(4):775-80
references: 19649630
references: Semin Oncol. 2003 Aug;30(4 Suppl 15):20-5
references: 14523791
references: Pediatrics. 2010 Jan;125(1):4-15
references: 20026491
references: Br J Haematol. 2009 Oct;147(1):89-96
references: 19656151
references: Gynecol Oncol. 2006 Aug;102(2):236-9
references: 16412499
references: J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jul 15;21(14):2664-72
references: 12860942
references: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1994;33(6):493-6
references: 8137460
references: Invest New Drugs. 2007 Jun;25(3):211-6
references: 17103043
references: Am J Clin Oncol. 2008 Oct;31(5):476-80
references: 18838885
references: J Clin Oncol. 2008 Feb 1;26(4):570-6
references: 18235116
references: Invest New Drugs. 2009 Oct;27(5):453-60
references: 19011760
references: Invest New Drugs. 2008 Aug;26(4):355-62
references: 18470481
references: J Clin Oncol. 1991 Nov;9(11):2067-75
references: 1941065
references: N Engl J Med. 1999 Dec 30;341(27):2061-7
references: 10615079
references: J Clin Oncol. 2005 Aug 10;23(23):5305-13
references: 15955900
references: J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jun 15;21(12):2268-75
references: 12805325
references: Invest New Drugs. 2011 Feb;29(1):126-30
references: 19774342
references: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2009 Feb;63(3):441-50
references: 18414865
references: Gynecol Oncol. 2002 Apr;85(1):136-9
references: 11925133
references: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2010 Jul;66(2):345-56
references: 19911123