CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 250

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

ANG1005, a Brain-Penetrating Peptide–Drug Conjugate, Shows Activity in Patients with Breast Cancer with Leptomeningeal Carcinomatosis and Recurrent Brain Metastases

Kumthekar, Priya, Tang, Shou-Ching, Brenner, Andrew J., Kesari, Santosh, Piccioni, David E., Anders, Carey, Carrillo, Jose, Chalasani, Pavani, Kabos, Peter, Puhalla, Shannon, Tkaczuk, Katherine, Garcia, Agustin A., Ahluwalia, Manmeet S., Wefel, Jeffrey S., Lakhani, Nehal, Ibrahim, Nuhad·2020·Clinical Cancer Research
DOI 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-19-3258
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: ANG1005, a novel taxane derivative, consists of three paclitaxel molecules covalently linked to Angiopep-2, designed to cross the blood–brain and blood–cerebrospinal barriers and to penetrate malignant cells via LRP1 transport system. Preclinical and clinical evidence of efficacy with ANG1005 has been previously shown. Patients and Methods: A multicenter, open-label phase II study in adult patients with measurable recurrent brain metastases from breast cancer (BCBM), with or without leptomeningeal carcinomatosis was conducted (n = 72 BCBM; n = 28 leptomeningeal carcinomatosis subset). ANG1005 was administered intravenously at 600 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. Tumor assessment was based on central nervous system (CNS) RECIST 1.1 for intracranial, and RECIST 1.1 for extracranial response. The primary endpoint was determination of intracranial objective response rate (iORR). Results: Median age was 47.5 years. Safety profile was similar to that of paclitaxel with myelosuppression as the predominating toxicity. Average number of prior CNS-directed therapies was 2.8 and 94% of the patients had prior taxane treatment. Patient benefit (stable disease or better) was seen in 77% (intracranial) and 86% (extracranial) of the evaluable patients, with iORR of 15% (investigator) or 8% (independent radiology facility [IRF] review). In the leptomeningeal carcinomatosis subset, 79% of the patients had intracranial disease control and estimated median overall survival of 8.0 months (95% CI, 5.4–9.4). Conclusions: Even though the study preset rule for iORR per IRF was not met in this heavily pretreated population, a notable CNS and systemic treatment effect was seen in all patients including symptom improvement and prolonged overall survival compared to historical control for the subset of patients with leptomeningeal carcinomatosis (n = 28).

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-19-3258

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 47

  1. Platta, 2010, Current treatment strategies for brain metastasis and complications from therapeutic techniques: a review of current literature, Am J Clin Oncol, 33, 398, 10.1097/COC.0b013e318194f744 · DOI
  2. Wadasadawala, 2007, Brain metastases from breast cancer: management approach, J Cancer Res Ther, 3, 157, 10.4103/0973-1482.37409 · DOI
  3. Barnholtz-Sloan, 2004, Incidence proportions of brain metastases in patients diagnosed (1973 to 2001) in the Metropolitan Detroit Cancer Surveillance System, J Clin Oncol, 22, 2865, 10.1200/JCO.2004.12.149 · DOI
  4. Lin, 2004, CNS metastases in breast cancer, J Clin Oncol, 22, 3608, 10.1200/JCO.2004.01.175 · DOI
  5. Lin, 2007, Brain metastases: the HER2 paradigm, Clin Cancer Res, 13, 1648, 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-2478 · DOI
  6. Lin, 2013, Breast cancer brain metastases: new directions in systemic therapy, Ecancermedicalscience, 7, 307
  7. Sperduto, 2008, A new prognostic index and comparison to three other indices for patients with brain metastases: an analysis of 1,960 patients in the RTOG database, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 70, 510, 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.06.074 · DOI
  8. Ahn, 2013, Clinical implication of time to brain metastasis (TTBM) according to breast cancer subtypes, Springerplus, 2, 136, 10.1186/2193-1801-2-136 · DOI
  9. Drappatz, 2007, Leptomeningeal neoplasms, Curr Treat Options Neurol, 9, 283, 10.1007/s11940-007-0014-5 · DOI
  10. Le Rhun, 2013, Carcinomatous meningitis: leptomeningeal metastases in solid tumors, Surg Neurol Internat, 4, S265, 10.4103/2152-7806.111304 · DOI
  11. Bowman, 2018, Medical management of brain metastases and leptomeningeal disease in patients with breast carcinoma, Future Oncol, 14, 391, 10.2217/fon-2017-0255 · DOI
  12. Clarke, 2010, Leptomeningeal metastases in the MRI era, Neurology, 74, 1449, 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181dc1a69 · DOI
  13. Scott, 2013, Leptomeningeal metastases in breast cancer, Am J Cancer Res, 3, 117
  14. Grossman, 1999, Leptomeningeal carcinomatosis, Cancer Treat Rev, 25, 103, 10.1053/ctrv.1999.0119 · DOI
  15. Jaeckle, 2006, Neoplastic meningitis from systemic malignancies: diagnosis, prognosis and treatment, Semin Oncol, 33, 312, 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2006.04.016 · DOI
  16. de Azevedo, 2011, Meningeal carcinomatosis in breast cancer: prognostic factors and outcome, J Neurooncol, 104, 565, 10.1007/s11060-010-0524-y · DOI
  17. Abouharb, 2014, Leptomeningeal disease and breast cancer: the importance of tumor subtype, Breast Cancer Res Treat, 146, 477, 10.1007/s10549-014-3054-z · DOI
  18. Scott, 2016, Leptomeningeal metastasis in breast cancer - a systematic review, Oncotarget, 7, 3740, 10.18632/oncotarget.5911 · DOI
  19. Ribeiro, 2012, Cytotoxic drugs for patients with breast cancer in the era of targeted treatment: back to the future?, Ann Oncol, 23, 547, 10.1093/annonc/mdr382 · DOI
  20. Spigel, 2012, Treatment update in small-cell lung cancer: from limited to extensive disease, Curr Treat Options Oncol, 13, 505, 10.1007/s11864-012-0212-6 · DOI
  21. Satouchi, 2013, Efficacy and safety of weekly nab-paclitaxel plus carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, Lung Cancer, 81, 97, 10.1016/j.lungcan.2013.02.020 · DOI
  22. Markman, 2013, Current standards of care for chemotherapy of optimally cytoreduced advanced epithelial ovarian cancer, Gynecol Oncol, 131, 241, 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.05.029 · DOI
  23. Foote, 2017, ASCO value framework highlights the relative value of treatment options in ovarian cancer, J Oncol Pract, 13, e1030, 10.1200/JOP.2017.025106 · DOI
  24. Eiseman, 1994, Plasma pharmacokinetics and tissue distribution of paclitaxel in CD2F1 mice, Cancer Chemother Pharmacol, 34, 465, 10.1007/BF00685656 · DOI
  25. Sparreboom, 1996, Tissue distribution, metabolism and excretion of paclitaxel in mice, Anti Canc Drugs, 7, 78, 10.1097/00001813-199601000-00009 · DOI
  26. Demeule, 2008, Identification and design of peptides as a new drug delivery system for the brain, J Pharmacol Exp Ther, 324, 1064, 10.1124/jpet.107.131318 · DOI
  27. Thomas, 2009, Uptake of ANG1005, a novel paclitaxel derivative, through the blood-brain barrier into brain and experimental brain metastases of breast cancer, Pharm Res, 26, 2486, 10.1007/s11095-009-9964-5 · DOI
  28. Lockman, 2010, Heterogenous blood-tumor barrier permeability determines drug efficacy in experimental brain metastases of breast cancer, Clin Cancer Res, 16, 5664, 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-1564 · DOI
  29. Demeule, 2008, Involvement of the low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein in the transcytosis of the brain delivery vector Angiogiopep-2, J Neurochem, 106, 1534, 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2008.05492.x · DOI · Paper page
  30. Demeule, 2014, Conjugation of a brain-penetrant peptide with neurotensin provides antinociceptive properties, J Clin Invest, 124, 1199, 10.1172/JCI70647 · DOI
  31. Deane, 2008, The role of the cell surface LRP and soluble LRP in blood-brain barrier Abeta clearance in Alzheimer's disease, Curr Pharm Des, 14, 1601, 10.2174/138161208784705487 · DOI
  32. Sakamoto, 2017, A novel LRP1-binding peptide L57 that crosses the blood brain barrier, Biochem Biophys Rep, 12, 135
  33. Pascale, 2011, Amyloid-beta transporter expression at the blood-CSF barrier is age-dependent, Fluids Barriers CNS, 8, 21, 10.1186/2045-8118-8-21 · DOI
  34. Ruzali, 2012, LRP1 expression in cerebral cortex, choroid plexus and meningeal blood vessels: relationship to cerebral amyloid angiopathy and APOE status, Neurosci Lett, 525, 123, 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.07.065 · DOI
  35. Regina, 2008, Antitumour activity of ANG1005, a conjugate between paclitaxel and the new brain delivery vector Angiopep-2, Br J Pharmacol, 155, 185, 10.1038/bjp.2008.260 · DOI
  36. Maletínská, 2000, Human glioblastoma cell lines: levels of low-density lipoprotein receptor and low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein, Cancer Res, 60, 2300
  37. Bertrand, 2011, Influence of glioma tumour microenvironment on the transport of ANG1005 via low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 1, Br J Cancer, 105, 1697, 10.1038/bjc.2011.427 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Kurzrock, 2012, Safety, pharmacokinetics and activity of GRN1005, a novel conjugate of Angiopep-2, a peptide facilitating brain penetration, and paclitaxel, in patients with advanced solid tumors, Mol Cancer Ther, 11, 308, 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-11-0566 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Lin, 2014, Evaluation of CNS and peripheral anti-tumor activity of ANG1005 in patients with brain metastases from breast tumors and other advanced solid tumors, J Clin Oncol, 32, 10.1200/jco.2014.32.15_suppl.2523 · DOI
  40. Benedict, 1998, Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised: normative data and analysis of inter-form and test-retest reliability, Clin Neuropsychologist, 12, 43, 10.1076/clin.12.1.43.1726 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Tombaugh, 2004, Trail Making Test A and B: normative data stratified by age and education, Arch Clin Neuropsychol, 19, 203, 10.1016/S0887-6177(03)00039-8 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Ruff, 1996, Benton controlled oral word association test: reliability and updated norms, Arch Clin Neuropsychol, 11, 329, 10.1093/arclin/11.4.329 · DOI
  43. Wefel, 2011, Neurocognitive function in patients with recurrent glioblastoma treated with bevacizumab, Neuro Oncol, 13, 660, 10.1093/neuonc/nor024 · DOI
  44. Lin, 2015, Response assessment criteria for brain metastases: proposal from the RANO group, Lancet Oncol, 16, e270, 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)70057-4 · DOI
  45. Brower, 2016, Management of leptomeningeal metastases: Prognostic factors and associated outcomes, J Clin Neurosci, 27, 130, 10.1016/j.jocn.2015.11.012 · DOI
  46. Lassman, 2006, Systemic high-dose intravenous methotrexate for central nervous system metastases, J. Neurooncol, 78, 255, 10.1007/s11060-005-9044-6 · DOI
  47. Kumthekar, 2013, Pharmacokinetics and efficacy of pemetrexed in patients with brain or leptomeningeal metastases, J. Neurooncol, 112, 247, 10.1007/s11060-013-1055-0 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kumthekar, P., Tang, S.-C., Brenner, A. J., Kesari, S., Piccioni, D. E., Anders, C., Carrillo, J., Chalasani, P., Kabos, P., Puhalla, S., Tkaczuk, K., Garcia, A. A., Ahluwalia, M. S., Wefel, J. S., Lakhani, N., & Ibrahim, N.
Affiliations
  • 1Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
  • 2Cancer Center and Research Institute, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi.
  • 3Mays Cancer Center, UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas.
  • 4John Wayne Cancer Institute and Pacific Neuroscience Institute, Santa Monica, California.
  • 5Department of Neurosciences, UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, California.
  • 6Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, North Carolina.
  • 7John Wayne Cancer Institute, Providence Saint John's Health Center, Santa Monica, California.
  • 8University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, Arizona.
  • 9University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Greenwood Village, Colorado.
  • 10University of Pittsburgh Magee Women's Cancer Program, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
  • 11University Maryland Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, Maryland.
  • 12Louisiana State University, New Orleans, Louisiana.
  • 13Miller Family Endowed Chair in NeuroOncology; Burkhardt Brain Tumor and Neuro-Oncology Center, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
  • 14Departments of Neuro-Oncology and Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
  • 15Cancer and Hematology Centers of Western Michigan, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
  • 16Department of Breast Medical Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; Houston, Texas.
ORCID
Venue
Clinical Cancer Research
Publisher
American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)
Published
2020-06-15
Volume
26
Issue
12
Pages
2789-2799
ISSN
  • 1078-0432
  • 1557-3265
DOI
10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-19-3258
Cited by
250
References
3
Language
en
Funders
Laval University (ANG1005)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review