BACKGROUND: Based on pre-clinical and clinical activity in adult refractory tumors, and absence of significant neuro-, nephro-, or oto-toxicity, we conducted a pediatric phase 1 trial to determine the toxicities, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and pharmacokinetics of satraplatin, an oral platinum analogue, in children and young adults with refractory solid tumors.
PROCEDURE: Satraplatin was administered orally once daily on days 1-5 of a 28-day cycle at dose level (DL) 1 (60 mg/m(2) /dose), and DL2 (80 mg/m(2) /dose). Toxicities, responses, satraplatin pharmacokinetics, and pharmacogenomic expression of specific DNA repair genes were evaluated.
RESULTS: Nine patients received 1-15 cycles (median = 2). The MTD was exceeded at DL2 with delayed prolonged myelosuppression as dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in 2/4 patients. At DL1, 0/5 patients had DLTs. Common non-DLTs included myelosuppression, gastrointestinal toxicities, fatigue, headache, liver enzyme elevation, and electrolyte abnormalities. No significant neuro-, nephro-, or oto-toxicity was observed. No objective responses were observed but 2 patients experienced prolonged disease stabilization (---6-15 cycles). Satraplatin exposure (day 1 plasma ultrafiltrate area under the curve) was similar at DL1 and DL2. A strong correlation between estimated creatinine clearance and satraplatin pharmacokinetic parameters (clearance, area under the curve, and peak concentration) was observed.
CONCLUSIONS: The MTD of oral satraplatin in children with solid tumors was 60 mg/m(2) /dose daily ×5 days every 28 days, which is lower than the adult recommended dose of 80-120 mg/m(2) /dose. The toxicity profile was similar to adults and delayed myelosuppression was the DLT. No significant neuro-, nephro- or oto-toxicities were observed.

UNLABELLED: The active metabolite (JM118) of the oral platinum analog satraplatin (JM216) was investigated for potential synergism with erlotinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor. JM118 sensitivity of 7 cancer cell lines (ovarian: 2008, A2780; colon: Lovo92, WiDr; lung: A549, SW1573; epidermoid: A431), was enhanced most pronounced when JM118 preceded erlotinib, which was associated with increased formation of DNA-platinum adducts. The combination increased G2/M phase accumulation and enhanced apoptosis. JM118 increased the phosphorylation of the cell cycle proteins CDK2 and CHK1 after 24 hr exposure. JM118/erlotinib enhanced Erk and Akt phosphorylation after 2 hr. JM118 significantly decreased the phosphorylation of PTEN, VEGFR, EPHA1, ERBB4, FGF-R, andSTAT3 by 20 (PTEN) to >90% (STAT3).
CONCLUSION: Erlotinib enhanced the effects of JM118, even in cells with mutations in Ras. The mechanism of synergy involved a combination of effects on platinum-DNA adduct formation, cell cycle distribution and signaling.

Platinum-based chemotherapeutic drugs such as cisplatin, carboplatin and oxaliplatin are widely applied for the treatment of various types of tumours. Over the last few decades, a large variety of Pt(II) and Pt(IV) complexes have been developed to improve the applicability in a wider spectrum of cancers, increase their therapeutic window and reduce the dose-limiting side effects. Photodynamic therapy (PDT), which is the administration of a photosensitiser followed by visible light activation, is a promising route to avoid damage to healthy cells and the surrounding tissue. Transition metal complexes as photochemotherapeutic agents are an attractive option for further development in the field of photoactivated chemotherapy (PACT). These complexes exhibit different numbers and types of excited states which are easily accessible upon light irradiation, subsequently giving rise to the formation of various photoproducts that can enable a distinct mode of action. Platinum-diazido complexes are promising candidates for PACT due to the low cytotoxicity when irradiated with visible light. This review summarises the mode of action of current platinum anticancer drugs with cisplatin as a lead example and the development of non-conventional Pt(II) complexes. Background information regarding PDT the photophysical and photochemical properties of metal complexes is provided, as well as notable examples of photoactivated metal complexes with biological activity. Particular emphasis is placed on recent developments on platinum photoactivated drugs.

BACKGROUND: Several prognostic models for overall survival (OS) have been developed and validated in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who receive first-line chemotherapy. We sought to develop and validate a prognostic model to predict OS in men who had progressed after first-line chemotherapy and were selected to receive second-line chemotherapy.
METHODS: Data from a phase III trial in men with mCRPC who had developed progressive disease after first-line chemotherapy (TROPIC trial) were used. The TROPIC was randomly split into training (n = 507) and testing (n = 248) sets. Another dataset consisting of 488 men previously treated with docetaxel (SPARC trial) was used for external validation. Adaptive least absolute shrinkage and selection operator selected nine prognostic factors of OS. A prognostic score was computed from the regression coefficients. The model was assessed on the testing and validation sets for its predictive accuracy using the time-dependent area under the curve (tAUC).
RESULTS: The nine prognostic variables in the final model were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, time since last docetaxel use, measurable disease, presence of visceral disease, pain, duration of hormonal use, hemoglobin, prostate specific antigen, and alkaline phosphatase. The tAUCs for this model were 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.72 to 0.74) and 0.70 (95% CI = 0.68 to 0.72) for the testing and validation sets, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: A prognostic model of OS in the postdocetaxel, second-line chemotherapy, mCRPC setting was developed and externally validated. This model incorporates novel prognostic factors and can be used to provide predicted probabilities for individual patients and to select patients to participate in clinical trials on the basis of their prognosis. Prospective validation is needed.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the effect of excision repair cross-complementing group 1 (ERCC1) and x-ray cross-complementing group 1 (XRCC1) gene polymorphisms on treatment outcomes with satraplatin and prednisone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel-based therapy.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients were enrolled in this single arm study. The primary objective was to determine if the presence of ERCC1 Asn118Asn (N118N, 500C>T, rs11615) and XRCC1 Arg399Gln (R399Q, 1301G>A, rs25487) genetic variants might be associated with an impact on progression-free survival (PFS); secondary objectives included overall response, survival, and toxicity.
RESULTS: After population stratification by race, white patients carrying heterozygous or variant genotypes at the ERCC1 C>T locus had a >3-fold longer median PFS (5.8 vs. 1.8 months; 2P = .18, adjusted) and 5-fold longer median overall survival (OS) (15.7 vs. 3.2 months; 2P = .010, adjusted) than did patients carrying only wild-type alleles. For the XRCC1 G>A variant, without regard to race, patients carrying the wild-type GG alleles had a longer PFS (9.3 months) than those carrying GA or AA alleles (2.7 months; 2P = .02). Similarly, those carrying GG alleles did not reach median OS, whereas those carrying GA or AA alleles had a median OS of 9.6 months (2P = .12, adjusted). Multivariable analysis by using Cox proportional hazards modeling demonstrated that only XRCC1 was associated with PFS.
CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first prospective study to date in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer that describes predictive germline polymorphisms of ERCC1 and XRCC1 for assessing the clinical activity of satraplatin.

AIMS: Since 2004, docetaxel-based chemotherapy has been the standard of care for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), but recently randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of novel agents have shown promise in extending overall survival. These trials have evaluated agents delivered before chemotherapy, to replace or supplement docetaxel, or addressed treatment options for men who have progressed on docetaxel therapy. This review was undertaken to determine which systemic therapies improve cancer- or patient-related outcomes in men with mCRPC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Searches were carried out in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and relevant conference proceedings. Eligible articles included RCTs comparing systemic therapy or combination (excluding primary or secondary androgen deprivation therapy, bone protective agents or radionuclides) with placebo or other agents in men with mCRPC.
RESULTS: Twenty-five RCTs met the selection criteria. In chemotherapy-naive patients, targeted therapy with tasquinimod conferred a benefit in progression-free survival. Immunotherapy with sipuleucel-T extended overall survival and was well tolerated, but had no effect on the time to disease progression. Hypercastration with abiraterone extended progression-free survival, whereas overall survival was improved but not statistically proven. In the chemotherapy setting, updated and new trials of docetaxel alone confirmed the survival benefit seen in previous studies. A survival benefit with the addition of estramustine to docetaxel shown in a previous study did not lead to an improvement in pain palliation or quality of life. Trials of combining targeted therapies with docetaxel generally did not extend survival. The addition of bevacizumab improved progression-free survival, but not overall survival. The addition of GVAX immunotherapy or calcitriol was harmful. In the post-chemotherapy setting, progression-free and overall survival benefits were detected with cabazitaxel, abiraterone and enzalutamide. Cabazitaxel was associated with greater toxicity, whereas abiraterone and enzalutamide had less severe adverse effects. Satraplatin and sunitinib both extended progression-free survival, but did not improve overall survival.
CONCLUSION: Docetaxel-based chemotherapy remains the standard of care in men with mCRPC who are candidates for palliative systemic therapy. Promising results are emerging with sipuleucel-T and abiraterone in the pre-docetaxel setting and cabazitaxel, abiraterone and enzalutamide in patients who progress on or after docetaxel. Further research to determine the optimal choice, sequence or even the combination of these agents is necessary.

BACKGROUND: Satraplatin is an oral platinum compound that has demonstrated efficacy and tolerability in prostate cancer. Preclinical synergy between bevacizumab and platinum has been noted.
METHODS: Docetaxel-pretreated metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer patients with disease progression were eligible. Satraplatin 80 mg/m(2) orally on days 1 to 5, prednisone 5mg twice daily, and bevacizumab 10mg/kg on day 1, and 15 mg/kg on day 15 were administered in 35-day cycles.
RESULTS: Thirty one patients were enrolled. Grade 3 or 4 toxicities were pulmonary embolism in 2 patients and thrombocytopenia in 1 patient. 31% of the patients had a ≥ 30% decline in prostate-specific antigen. Median time to progression was 7.0 months (90% confidence interval [CI] 4.7-8.5mo) and median overall survival was 11.2 months (90% CI 9.1-16.4 mo). Polymorphism in the excision repair cross-complementation-1 (ERCC-1) gene was associated with time to progression (hazard ratio = 1.91). A circulating tumor cell count ≥ 5 was moderately prognostic of overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.49) as compared with CTC <5.
CONCLUSIONS: The combination was tolerable, and revealed promising efficacy in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer. ERCC1 genotype maybe predictive of clinical benefit with platinum-based therapy in metastatic prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The broad spectrum of antitumor activity of the oral platinum satraplatin (S) and vinorelbine (V) were the rationale for performing a phase I trial to define the maximum tolerated (MTD) and the recommended (RD) dose in adult patients with advanced solid tumors.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: 4 dose levels (DLs) of S (mg/m(2)/day, days 1-5) and V (mg/m(2)/day, days 1, 8, 15, and 22) every 28 days were explored: S60/V60 on days 1, 8 and 15 only; S60/V60; S70/V60; and S80/V60. Subsequently, 3 further DLs were evaluated with V omitted on day 22: S70/V60, S80/V60, and S80/V80.
RESULTS: Treating 27 patients, the MTD was S80/V80 on days 1, 8, and 15, with 2 dose-limiting toxicities in 2 patients (nausea and vomiting grade (G) 3 with skipping of V on day 15, and neutropenia G4 with infection). The RD was S80/V60 on days 1, 8, and 15. The most frequent toxicities (any G) were nausea (70%), diarrhea (59%), anorexia (37%), vomiting (33%), asthenia (26%), constipation (26%), and paresthesia (18%). Partial responses were observed in 2 platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer patients and in 1 prostate cancer patient.
CONCLUSION: The combination of S and V is tolerable at a DL of S80/V60 on days 1, 8, and 15; further evaluations in platinum- and V-sensitive tumor types would be of interest.

BACKGROUND: Tea catechin epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) and other polyphenols, such as theaflavins (TFs), are increasingly proving useful as chemopreventives in a number of human cancers. They can also affect normal cells. The polyphenols in tea are known to have antioxidant properties that can quench free radical species, and pro-oxidant activities that appear to be responsible for the induction of apoptosis in tumor cells. The bioavailability of these natural compounds is an important factor that determines their efficacy. Nanoparticle (NP)-mediated delivery techniques of EGCG and TFs have been found to improve their bioavailability to a level that could benefit their effectiveness as chemopreventives.
AIM: The present study was conducted to compare the effects of TFs and EGCG, when used in the bulk form and in the polymer (poly[lactic-co-glycolic acid])-based NP form, in oxaliplatin- and satraplatin-treated lymphocytes as surrogate cells from colorectal cancer patients and healthy volunteers.
MATERIALS & METHODS: NPs were examined for their size distribution, surface morphology, entrapment efficiency and release profile. Lymphocytes were treated in the Comet assay with oxaliplatin and satraplatin, washed and treated with bulk or NP forms of tea phenols, washed and then treated with hydrogen peroxide to determine single-strand breaks after crosslinking.
RESULTS: The results of DNA damage measurements by the Comet assay revealed opposite trends in bulk and NP forms of TFs, as well as EGCG. Both the compounds in the bulk form produced statistically significant concentration-dependent reductions in DNA damage in oxaliplatin- or satraplatin-treated lymphocytes. In contrast, when used in the NP form both TFs and EGCG, although initially causing a reduction, produced a concentration-dependent statistically significant increase in DNA damage in the lymphocytes.
DISCUSSION: These observations support the notion that TFs and EGCG act as both antioxidants and pro-oxidants, depending on the form in which they are administered under the conditions of investigation.

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer worldwide and the sixth cause of cancer-related death in men. When hormone therapy fails to control tumour growth, castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) occurs and chemotherapy drugs must be administered. Since 2004, docetaxel administration is the standard of care in metastatic CRPC, although it presents severe limitations such as acquired resistance and poor prognosis. An analogue (cabazitaxel) was approved by the FDA in 2010 as a second-line chemotherapeutic agent. Novel immuno- and hormonal therapy agents, as well as tumour vaccines, have been recently developed, but new strategies are still needed for effectively handling this type of neoplasia. Platinum compounds, in particular, have been the object of a growing interest, despite the former belief that they should have modest activity against prostate cancer. Compounds such as carboplatin, oxaliplatin or satraplatin, either alone or in combination, have lately shown promising results. In order to overcome the deleterious side-effects usually associated to these metal-based agents, several approaches have been followed with a view to optimise drug delivery and targeting, some of which showed considerable success in CRPC. Platinum drugs may therefore have an important role in the chemotherapeutic management of human metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, mostly in second-line strategies. The present review addresses the most relevant studies on platinum-based antineoplastic agents towards CRPC in the last decade--from first--and second-generation complexes to newly developed compounds.

A British humorist said, "There is much to be said for failure. It is much more interesting than success." This CCR Focus section is aimed at identifying lessons to be learned from difficulties encountered in recent years during development of anticancer agents. Clearly, we have not found a silver bullet tyrosine kinase inhibitor against solid tumors comparable with imatinib in chronic myelogenous leukemia. Although vemurafenib for B-Raf-mutated melanoma and crizotinib for non-small cell lung cancers with echinoderm microtubule-associated protein-like 4 (EML4)-anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangements were developed rapidly and offer hope for individualized targeted therapies, the development of agents targeting a number of other pathways has been slower and less successful. These agents include drugs for blocking the insulin-like growth factor I/insulin receptor pathways, mitotic kinase inhibitors, and Hsp90 antagonists. Several potentially useful, if not groundbreaking, agents have had setbacks in clinical development, including trastuzumab emtansine, gemtuzumab ozogamicin, and satraplatin. From experience, we have learned the following: (i) not every altered protein or pathway is a valid anticancer target; (ii) drugs must effectively engage the target; (iii) the biology of the systems we use must be very well understood; and (iv) clinical trials must be designed to assess whether the drug reached and impaired the target. It is also important that we improve the drug development enterprise to enhance enrollment, streamline clinical trials, reduce financial risk, and encourage the development of agents for niche indications. Such enormous challenges are offset by potentially tremendous gains in our understanding and treatment of cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The toxicities of cisplatin, that is, nephrotoxicity, neurotoxicity and emesis, provided the impetus for the development of more tolerable platinum analogs. Satraplatin is an investigational third-generation orally available lipophilic platinum, which has demonstrated safety and antitumor activity in multiple settings.
AREAS COVERED: The clinical activity of satraplatin in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), breast, lung and other advanced solid tumors is discussed with a focus on its pharmacokinetic properties. The article was formulated using publications found through PubMed search in addition to presentations given at major conferences.
EXPERT OPINION: Satraplatin was associated with dose-limiting myelosuppression, but no significant ototoxicity, neurotoxicity or nephrotoxicity. Despite the activity of satraplatin in mCRPC, survival was not extended in an unselected population included in a Phase III trial. While further development of satraplatin in large Phase III trials is not planned at this time, efforts are ongoing to develop tailored therapy in mCRPC based on excision repair cross-complementing group 1 expression or BRCAness. Moreover, based on potentially better central nervous system penetration due to lipophilicity, evaluation in patients with brain tumors is ongoing. Given the favorable toxicity profile and convenient oral administration, satraplatin may warrant development in settings that preclude cisplatin, for example, underlying renal dysfunction, elderly age and poor performance status.

AIM: Platinum-(IV)-derivative satraplatin represents a new generation of orally available anti-cancer drugs that are under development for the treatment of several cancers. Understanding the mechanisms of cell cycle modulation and apoptosis is necessary to define the mode of action of satraplatin. In this study, we investigate the ability of satraplatin to induce cell cycle perturbation, clonogenicity loss and apoptosis in colorectal cancer (CRC) cells.
METHODS: CRC cells were treated with satraplatin, and the effects of satraplatin on apoptosis and the cell cycle were evaluated by flow cytometry. Western blot analysis was used to investigate the effects of satraplatin on cell cycle and apoptosis-related proteins. RT-qPCR was used to evaluate p53-related mRNA modulation.
RESULTS: Satraplatin induced an accumulation of CRC cells predominantly in the G(2)/M phase. Increased p53 protein expression was observed in the p53 wild-type HCT116 and LoVo cells together with p21(waf1/cip1) protein up-regulation. However, p21(waf1/cip1) protein accumulation was not observed in the p53 mutant HCT15, HT29, and WiDr cells, even when p53 protein expression was compromised, suggesting that the cell cycle perturbation is p53-p21(waf1/cip1) independent. Following a candidate approach, we found an elevated expression of 14-3-3σ protein levels in CRC cells, which was independent of the status of p53, further supporting the role of satraplatin in the perturbation of the G(2)/M cell cycle phase. Moreover, satraplatin treatment induced apoptosis along with Bcl-2 protein down-regulation and abrogated the clonogenic formation of CRC cells in vitro.
CONCLUSION: Collectively, our data suggest that satraplatin induces apoptosis in CRC cells, which is preceded by cell cycle arrest at G(2)/M due to the effect of 14-3-3σ and in a p53-p21(waf1/cip1)-independent manner. Taken together, these findings highlight the potential use of satraplatin for CRC treatment.

Recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) remains a major clinical challenge. Invasive and metastatic PCa lesions often exhibit a partial and time-limited response to therapy before the cancer progresses and the patient succumbs to the disease. Despite recent advances in early diagnosis and treatment, approximately one-third of treated patients will relapse and become resistant to currently available treatments. In this review we evaluate current treatment practices and recent advances in therapy for localized prostate malignancy and advanced, metastatic prostate cancer. Some of the promising new drugs for PCa treatment include MDV3100, an androgen receptor (AR) antagonist that prevents androgens from binding to the AR and nuclear translocation and co-activator recruitment of the ligand-receptor complex; abiraterone, an orally administered drug that irreversibly inhibits a rate-limiting enzyme in androgen biosynthesis, CYP17; and several newer cytotoxic drugs (epothilones, satraplatin). Key new insights are that cancer stem cells play a role in PCa and that PCa cells are dependent on the AR for proliferation, even in the hormone refractory state of the disease. We also discuss potential molecular targets for new drug candidates for the treatment of metastatic PCa.

BACKGROUND: Satraplatin is an oral platinum analog with demonstrated activity in a range of malignancies. The current study was designed to evaluate the effect of varying degrees of renal impairment on the safety and pharmacokinetics (PKs) of satraplatin.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors, refractory to standard therapies, were eligible. The study included four cohorts of patients with varying levels of renal function, and eight patients per cohort: Group 1 (G1) = normal renal function; G2 = mild renal impairment [creatinine clearance (CrCl) 50-80 ml/min]; G3 = moderate impairment (CrCl 30 to <50 ml/min); G4 = severe impairment (CrCl <30 ml/min). Satraplatin was administered orally at 80 mg/m(2)/day on days 1-5 every 35 days.
RESULTS: A total of 32 patients were enrolled, 8 patients in each renal function group. Each group tolerated the dose of 80 mg/m(2)/day on days 1-5 every 35 days without the need for dose deescalation. The most common adverse events were fatigue (63%), nausea (56%), diarrhea (53%), anorexia (47%), constipation (38%), vomiting (28%), anemia, dyspnea, and thrombocytopenia (25%). There were no dose-limiting toxic effects in any study group. There was increased exposure to plasma platinum and plasma ultrafiltrate platinum in patients with moderate to severe renal impairment.
CONCLUSIONS: Satraplatin PKs was altered in patients with renal impairment. However, a corresponding increase in satraplatin-related toxic effects was not observed.

UNLABELLED: Satraplatin is a novel platinum agent with favorable clinical attributes including oral bioavailability and lack of significant treatment-associated neuropathy and nephropathy. Furthermore, preclinical studies have shown that satraplatin is active is cisplatin-resistant tumors. We retrospectively evaluated the activity of satraplatin in patients with cisplatin or carboplatin-refractory urothelial carcinoma and demonstrated lack of significant antitumor activity in this population.
BACKGROUND: Satraplatin is an oral platinum analogue with antitumor activity in cisplatin-resistant cells lines. The activity of satraplatin in patients with metastatic cancers of the urothelial tract refractory to standard platinum agents has not previously been reported.
METHODS: We previously reported a phase I study of the safety and pharmacokinetics of satraplatin in patients with refractory solid tumors and varying degrees of renal impairment. Given that the majority of patients enrolled in the study had metastatic cancers of the urothelial tract, and all patients were treated with a uniform dose and schedule, we performed a retrospective analysis to describe the activity of satraplatin in this cohort.
RESULTS: A total of 12 patients with metastatic cancers of the urothelial tract were enrolled. The majority (83%) had transitional cell carcinomas, whereas 2 patients (17%) had adenocarcinomas. All patients were treated previously with platinum agents; 6 patients (50%) had previously received cisplatin and 8 patients (67%) had previously received carboplatin. Patients were treated with a median of 1.5 cycles of satraplatin (range, 1-4). There were no objective responses; 1/12 (8%) patients experienced transient stable disease and 11/12 (92%) experienced disease progression as best response.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with satraplatin in patients with metastatic cancers of the urothelial tract who had progressed on standard platinum-based chemotherapy resulted in negligible antitumor activity. These conclusions are limited by the retrospective nature of the analysis and the phase I population from which the data were derived. The activity of satraplatin in patients with metastatic cancers of the urothelial tract who have been less heavily pretreated is unknown.

BACKGROUND: Satraplatin is an oral platinum with potential advantages over other platinum agents. This study investigated the combination of satraplatin and docetaxel in a phase 1 study of patients with advanced solid tumor malignancies followed by a phase 1b study in men with chemotherapy naïve metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).
METHODS: In this single institution phase 1/1b study, patients received docetaxel on day 1 and satraplatin on days 1-5 of a 21-day cycle ± granulocyte colony stimulating factor (GCSF). For phase 1b, prednisone 10 mg daily was added.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients received treatment. Based on 3 dose limiting toxicities (DLT) (grade 4 neutropenia) in 13 patients at dose levels 1 and -1 (docetaxel 60 mg/m(2) plus satraplatin 40 mg/m(2) and docetaxel 60 mg/m(2) plus satraplatin 50 mg/m(2)) GCSF was administered with subsequent cohorts. A dose level of docetaxel 60 mg/m(2) plus satraplatin 50 mg/m(2) with GCSF was the starting dose level for phase 1b. At the highest dose in the phase 1b (docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) plus satraplatin 50 mg/m(2)) there were no DLTs.
CONCLUSION: The combination of satraplatin and docetaxel is feasible in solid tumor malignancies. In advanced malignancies, the recommended phase 2 dose is docetaxel 60 mg/m(2) IV day 1 with satraplatin 40 mg/m(2)/d PO days 1-5, without G-CSF, and Docetaxel 70 mg/m(2) IV day 1 with Satraplatin 50 mg/m(2)/day PO days 1-5, with G-CSF support, repeated in 3-week cycles. For patients with CRPC the recommended phase 2 dose is docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) IV day 1 with satraplatin 50 mg/m(2)/d PO days 1--5, with G-CSF and prednisone 10 mg daily, repeated in 3-week cycles.

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy for advanced well-differentiated carcinoids is characterised by low response rates and short duration of responses. The present study aimed to assess the in vitro activity of novel platinum-based chemotherapeutic drugs in combination with dichloroacetate (DCA), a sensitiser to apoptosis, against lung carcinoid cell lines.
METHODS: Three permanent cell lines (UMC-11, H727 and H835) were exposed to 14 different established cytotoxic drugs and the novel platinum-based compounds as satraplatin, JM118 and picoplatin in combination with DCA, and viability of the cells was measured using a tetrazoliumbased dye assay.
RESULTS: With exception of the highly chemoresistant UMC- 11 line, the carcinoid cell lines (H727, H835) were sensitive to the majority of chemotherapeutics in vitro. Among the platinum-based drugs, carboplatin and oxaliplatin showed highest efficacy. H835 cells growing as multicellular spheroids were 2.7-8.7-fold more resistant to picoplatin, satraplatin and its metabolite compared to single cell suspensions. DCA (10 mM) inhibited the growth of UMC- 11 cells by 22% and sensitised these highly resistant cells to carboplatin, satraplatin and JM118 1.4-2.4-fold.
CONCLUSION: The highly resistant UMC-11 lung carcinoid cells are sensitive to carboplatin, oxaliplatin and the satraplatin metabolite JM118, but multicellular spheroidal growth, as observed in the H835 cell line and pulmonary tumourlets, seems to increase chemoresistance markedly. The activity of carboplatin and JM118 is significantly and specifically increased in combination with the apoptosis sensitiser DCA that promotes mitochondrial respiration over aerobic glycolysis. In summary, among the novel platinum drugs satraplatin has the potential for treatment of lung carcinoids and DCA potentiates the cytotoxicity of selected platinum drugs.

BACKGROUND: The broad spectrum of antitumor activity of both the oral platinum analogue satraplatin (S) and capecitabine (C), along with the advantage of their oral administration, prompted a clinical study aimed to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four dose levels of S (mg/m(2)/day) and C (mg/m(2)/day) were evaluated in adult patients with advanced solid tumors: 60/1650, 80/1650, 60/2000, 70/2000; a course consisted of 28 days with sequential administration of S (days 1-5) and C (days 8-21) followed by one week rest.
RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were treated, 24 in the dose escalation and 13 in the expansion phase; at the MTD, defined at S 70/C 2000, two patients presented dose limiting toxicities: lack of recovery of neutropenia by day 42 and nausea with dose skip of C. Most frequent toxicities were nausea (57%), diarrhea (51%), neutropenia (46%), anorexia, fatigue, vomiting (38% each). Two partial responses were observed in platinum sensitive ovarian cancer and one in prostate cancer.
CONCLUSION: At S 70/C 2000 the combination of sequential S and C is tolerated with manageable toxicities; its evaluation in platinum and fluorouracil sensitive tumor types is worthwhile because of the easier administration and lack of nephro- and neurotoxicity as compared to parent compounds.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the current study was to identify the antitumor activity of satraplatin in paired cisplatin (CDDP)-resistant oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) cell line and its parental cell line.
METHODS: CDDP-resistant (KB-R) cells and parental cells (KB) pair were used. Viability was assessed using the MTT and clonogenic assay. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), glutathione (GSH) assay, and flow cytometric analysis were used for further assessment.
RESULTS: KB-R cells did not show cross-resistance to satraplatin. The expression status of almost all transporters was upregulated in the KB-R cells. There was no difference in the GSH levels between the KB and KB-R cells. Flow cytometric analysis indicated that with satraplatin the G2/M phase was arrested in the KB-R cells. KB-R cells contain enriched side population cells.
CONCLUSION: These data suggested that satraplatin has antitumor activity against the CDDP-resistant OSCC cells. The mechanism of cross-resistance to platinum agents seems to be multifactorial.

PURPOSES: Satraplatin acts as a potent inhibitor of proliferation in castration-resistant prostate cancer, yet the basic and molecular pharmacological mechanisms are still unknown in all types of cancer including colorectal cancer (CRC). In an effort to explain the mechanism of tumour sensitivity to satraplatin, the cytotoxic effects in a panel of CRC cell lines was examined with regard to their p53 genotype in comparison with oxaliplatin.
METHODS: CRC cell lines were chosen to ascertain the mechanism of satraplatin-enhanced cytotoxicity. Cells were incubated with oxaliplatin and satraplatin for 24-72 h, followed by the assessment of cell chemosensitivity with MTS. Western blot analysis was used to detect the expressions of p53-related molecules. Flow cytometry was used to monitor cell cycle perturbation while qRT-PCR to detect mRNA and miRNAs activities.
RESULTS: Satraplatin treatment resulted an elevated increase in cell death in vitro compared to oxaliplatin preceded by an acute arrest at G2/M phase, along with cyclin B1 and p21(waf/cip1) up-regulation. It also exhibited fourfold higher cellular platinum accumulations compared to oxaliplatin. Satraplatin treatment induces p53-related genes and its direct microRNA target of miR-34a independently. Thus, it potentiates apoptosis via multiple death pathways including the caspase 8 cleavages and Fas protein expression. The data suggest that the loss of p53 can increase oxaliplatin resistance but not satraplatin resistance.
CONCLUSION: Further molecular biology studies are needed to identify the activity of satraplatin in platinum-resistant cancer models and to determine whether this orally administered platinum analogue has synergistic effects in combination with other chemotherapy agents.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, JM-216/satraplatin (GPC Biotech, Inc.) has emerged as a novel oral platinum analogue with a better toxicity profile than cisplatin. Since satraplatin is more hydrophobic than cisplatin or oxaliplatin, it appears to demonstrate efficacy in cisplatin-resistant cell lines. The preclinical and clinical evaluation of satraplatin stimulated this review of the pharmacology and clinical trial data of this agent.
METHODS: A literature review was conducted in the MEDLINE database from 1985 to present using the keywords 'satraplatin' or 'JM-216'. The abstracts regarding satraplatin reported at the 2007 - 2009 American Society of Clinical Oncology meetings were also reviewed.
RESULTS/CONCLUSION: Satraplatin has a favorable toxicity profile, and appears to have clinical activity against a variety of malignancies such as breast, prostate and lung cancer. The oral route of administration and the intermittent schedule makes it very convenient for clinical use. Despite this, a FDA-approved indication has not yet been achieved. The only Phase III trial with satraplatin was conducted in pretreated metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), revealing an improvement in progression-free survival but no overall survival benefit. Future development would have to include designing trials in docetaxel-refractory metastatic CRPC, or in other malignancies where cisplatin is of benefit.

PURPOSE: This multinational, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III trial assessed the efficacy and tolerability of the oral platinum analog satraplatin in patients with metastatic castrate-refractory prostate cancer (CRPC) experiencing progression after one prior chemotherapy regimen.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Nine hundred fifty patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive oral satraplatin (n = 635) 80 mg/m(2) on days 1 to 5 of a 35-day cycle and prednisone 5 mg twice daily or placebo (n = 315) and prednisone 5 mg twice daily. Primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival (OS). The secondary end point was time to pain progression (TPP).
RESULTS: A 33% reduction (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.77; P < .001) was observed in the risk of progression or death with satraplatin versus placebo. This effect was maintained irrespective of prior docetaxel treatment. No difference in OS was seen between the satraplatin and placebo arms (HR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.15; P = .80). Compared with placebo, satraplatin significantly reduced TPP (HR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.79; P < .001). Satraplatin was generally well tolerated, although myelosuppression and GI disorders occurred more frequently with satraplatin.
CONCLUSION: Oral satraplatin delayed progression of disease and pain in patients with metastatic CRPC experiencing progression after initial chemotherapy but did not provide a significant OS benefit. Satraplatin was generally well tolerated. These results suggest activity for satraplatin in patients with CRPC who experience progression after initial chemotherapy.

While docetaxel-based chemotherapy improves survival in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer, all of these patient's cancers will eventually progress and other active treatment agents are necessary. Satraplatin is a third-generation orally-available platinum analog that demonstrated a 33% reduction in the risk of progression in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer following one prior chemotherapy regimen in the large Phase III Satraplatin and Prednisone Against Refractory Cancer (SPARC) trial. Satraplatin also demonstrated beneficial effects on pain and displayed evidence of biological activity with prostate-specific antigen level declines and objective response rates. Satraplatin did not significantly extend survival, although this analysis may have been confounded by post-study therapy. Further development is ongoing with the evaluation of combination regimens containing satraplatin in other solid tumors. In addition, efforts are ongoing to select patients who are more likely to benefit from satraplatin.

Cisplatin and carboplatin have antitumor activity in breast cancer. Satraplatin, an orally bioavailable platinum analog, offers a potential alternative to intravenous chemotherapy. We conducted a multicenter phase II study of this agent as first- or second-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Satraplatin 80 mg/m(2) was taken PO Days 1-5 q 21 days in cycles 1 and 2, and if tolerated, increased to 100 mg/m(2) for subsequent cycles. Restaging studies to assess response were performed after every 2 cycles. Between November 2005 and March 2006, 40 patients were enrolled. Baseline characteristics: 48% prior adjuvant chemotherapy, 60% prior chemotherapy for MBC; median age, 62 years (ranges 43-83), 58% ER+/PR+, 23% ER+/PR-, 18% ER-/PR-/HER2-, and 5% HER2+. In 31 patients with measurable disease, there were two partial responses (PR; 6%; 95% CI 0, 15.2); and four patients (13%) had SD > or =6 months for a clinical benefit rate of 19%. Among the subanalysis of seven triple-negative patients with measurable disease, there were 2 SD and 2 PD. Median survival was 15 months and median progression-free survival was 2.7 months. The most common grade 3-4 toxicities were neutropenia (28%) and thrombocytopenia (25%). AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were nausea (n = 3), thrombocytopenia (n = 3), fever (n = 2), and vomiting (n = 2). This phase II study demonstrates oral satraplatin has limited activity as a single agent for MBC. Satraplatin, at a lower dose used in this study, could be combined with other chemotherapy agents in future trials in breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The study aimed to assess the pharmacokinetic behavior of satraplatin under fasted and fed conditions, and its safety and preliminary antitumor activity in adults with advanced solid tumors.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Satraplatin was administered orally at 80 mg/m(2) once daily with prophylactic antiemetics for 5 consecutive days every 5 weeks. Patients were randomized to receive day 1 and day 5 doses of satraplatin in either the fed or fasted state, the order being reversed for cycle 2. Pharmacokinetic sampling was done during the first two cycles. For all subsequent cycles, patients received satraplatin in the fasted state.
RESULTS: Seventeen patients were treated with 60 total cycles of satraplatin. There was no dose-limiting toxicity during cycle 1. Severe hematologic toxicity was rare and the hematologic nadir occurred during week 4. Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea were grade 1/2. No significant cardiac, renal, hepatic, or neurologic toxicity was observed. The hypothesis that food decreased ultrafiltrate platinum bioavailability could not be rejected, as the lower limit of the 90% confidence intervals for peak plasma concentration and area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to 24 hours were 56.14% and 73.53%, respectively, both below the 80% bioequivalence acceptance criterion. One partial response (hormone refractory prostate cancer) and four durable stable diseases (breast, ovarian, parotid, and hormone refractory prostate cancer) were confirmed.
CONCLUSIONS: There is an effect of food on the pharmacokinetics of satraplatin, the clinical significance of which is unclear. It is recommended that satraplatin be administered in the fasting state. This 5-week interval schedule of satraplatin was well tolerated in heavily pretreated patients.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Prostate cancer continues to represent a major health problem. It represents the most common cancer in US men, with an estimated 186 320 new cases diagnosed in 2008. It is the second leading cause of cancer death in men in the United States. Despite several attempts, the median survival for men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer is 1-2 years, with improvements in survival seen primarily with docetaxel-based therapies. Treatment options are limited, and there is a clear need for therapies that improve outcome. The purpose of this article is to discuss recent developments in the field of metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer, including new cytotoxic agents, antiproliferative agents, immune-based therapies, circulating tumor markers and antiangiogenic agents.
RECENT FINDINGS: During this last year, several promising approaches yielded disappointing results in the phase III setting (GVAX, satraplatin, DN-101); nonetheless, expectations for other agents (abiraterone, zibotentan, Provenge) still remain high.
SUMMARY: These new agents will need to demonstrate survival benefit for approval. Circulating tumor cells have been shown to provide important prognostic information and are anticipated to be incorporated in future clinical decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Germ cell tumours (GCT) can become resistant to cisplatin, which is associated with a relatively poor prognosis. Oxaliplatin and satraplatin have been developed to overcome cisplatin resistance in other cancers, but their effect in cisplatin resistant (cisR) GCTs is unclear. In this work we address this issue by comparing their efficacy in three paired sensitive and cisR GCT cell lines.
METHODS: Three established cisplatin sensitive (cisS) and resistant cell line pairs were used (GCT27, GCT27r: SUSA, SUSAr: 833k, 833kr). Viability was assessed using a luciferase based ATP assay and EC(50) and EC(80) concentrations were calculated. Western blot analysis and flow cytometry was used for further assessment.
RESULTS: Sensitivity to the three platinum compounds was broadly similar in the three cisS lines GCT cell lines (EC(50) = 0.27-0.51 microM for cisplatin, 0.52-0.79 microM for oxaliplatin, 0.31-1.26 microM for satraplatin). EC(50) values for cisplatin in the three cisR sub lines were 1.8- to 3.8-fold higher than in the sensitive parental lines. Cross resistance to satraplatin and oxaliplatin occurred in all three cisR cell lines (resistance factor 1.9-4.4), with the exception of oxaliplatin in the 833Kr (resistance factor 0.9). Differences in the effect of specific drugs on cell cycle distribution, p53, p21 and MDM2 were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that satraplatin and oxaliplatin could theoretically be used in chemo-naive GCTs and support the further clinical evaluation of these agents in this setting. The mechanism of cross resistance to these drugs appears multifactorial.

Cisplatin was one of the first chemotherapeutic agents to exhibit broad efficacy in solid tumors and it remains among the most widely used agents in the treatment of cancer. Its introduction inspired great efforts to design similarly effective platinum agents that overcome the three main limitations of cisplatin: toxicity, tumor resistance and poor oral bioavailability. However, 40 years after the initial discovery of cisplatin, only two platinum agents have garnered US FDA approval: carboplatin and oxaliplatin. Although hundreds of promising agents were tested in clinical trials during the 1990s, only oxaliplatin made it past clinical development. For a brief period, the economic cost of these unsuccessful efforts retarded further efforts to develop new agents. However, two exciting platinum agents have been brought to Phase III trials: satraplatin in hormone-refractory prostate cancer and picoplatin in small-cell lung cancer. If successful, they may inspire a new effort to bring better-designed platinum agents to market. This article reviews the clinical development of platinum agents to date and speculates on the role of platinum agents in the near future.

Independent central review (ICR) is advocated by regulatory authorities as a means of independent verification of clinical trial end-points dependent on medical imaging, when the data from the trials may be submitted for licensing applications [Food and Drug Administration. United States food and drug administration guidance for industry: clinical trial endpoints for the approval of cancer drugs and biologics. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2007; Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. European Medicines Agency Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) guideline on the evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man. London, UK: European Medicines Agency; 2006; United States Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Approval package for application number NDA 21-492 (oxaliplatin). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2002; United States Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Approval package for application number NDA 21-923 (sorafenib tosylate). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2005; United States Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Approval package for application number NDA 22-065 (ixabepilone). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2007; United States Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Approval package for application number NDA 22-059 (lapatinib ditosylate). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2007; United States Food and Drug Administration Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Approval package for BLA numbers 97-0260 and BLA Number 97-0244 (rituximab). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1997; United States Food and Drug Administration. FDA clinical review of BLA 98-0369 (Herceptin((R)) trastuzumab (rhuMAb HER2)). FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research; 1998; United States Food and Drug Administration. FDA Briefing Document Oncology Drugs Advisory Committee meeting NDA 21801 (satraplatin). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2007; Thomas ES, Gomez HL, Li RK, et al. Ixabepilone plus capecitabine for metastatic breast cancer progressing after anthracycline and taxane treatment. JCO 2007(November):5210-7]. In addition, clinical trial sponsors have used ICR in Phase I-II studies to assist in critical pathway decisions including in-licensing of compounds [Cannistra SA, Matulonis UA, Penson RT, et al. Phase II study of bevacizumab in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer or peritoneal serous cancer. JCO 2007(November):5180-6; Perez EA, Lerzo G, Pivot X, et al. Efficacy and safety of ixabepilone (BMS-247550) in a phase II study of patients with advanced breast cancer resistant to an anthracycline, a taxane, and capecitabine. JCO 2007(August):3407-14; Vermorken JB, Trigo J, Hitt R, et al. Open-label, uncontrolled, multicenter phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of cetuximab as a single agent in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck who failed to respond to platinum-based therapy. JCO 2007(June):2171-7; Ghassan KA, Schwartz L, Ricci S, et al. Phase II study of sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. JCO 2006(September):4293-300; Boué F, Gabarre J, GaBarre J, et al. Phase II trial of CHOP plus rituximab in patients with HIV-associated non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. JCO 2006(September):4123-8; Chen HX, Mooney M, Boron M, et al. Phase II multicenter trial of bevacizumab plus fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with advanced refractory colorectal cancer: an NCI Treatment Referral Center Trial TRC-0301. JCO 2006(July):3354-60; Ratain MJ, Eisen T, Stadler WM, et al. Phase II placebo-controlled randomized discontinuation trial of sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. JCO 2006(June):2502-12; Jaffer AA, Lee FC, Singh DA, et al. Multicenter phase II trial of S-1 plus cisplatin in patients with untreated advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. JCO 2006(February):663-7; Bouché O, Raoul JL, Bonnetain F, et al. Randomized multicenter phase II trial of a biweekly regimen of fluorouracil and leucovorin (LV5FU2), LV5FU2 plus cisplatin, or LV5FU2 plus irinotecan in patients with previously untreated metastatic gastric cancer: a Fédération Francophone de Cancérologie Digestive Group Study-FFCD 9803. JCO 2004(November):4319-28]. This article will focus on the definition and purpose of ICR and the issues and lessons learned in the ICR setting primarily in Phase II and III oncology studies. This will include a discussion on discordance between local and central interpretations, consequences of ICR, reader discordance during the ICR, operational considerations and the need for specific imaging requirements as part of the study protocol.