Isolated limb infusion (ILI) with melphalan (M-ILI) dosing corrected for ideal body weight (IBW) is a well-tolerated treatment for patients with in-transit melanoma with a 29% complete response rate. ADH-1 is a cyclic pentapeptide that disrupts N-cadherin adhesion complexes. In a preclinical animal model, systemic ADH-1 given with regional melphalan demonstrated synergistic antitumor activity, and in a phase I trial with M-ILI it had minimal toxicity.

Patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage IIIB or IIIC extremity melanoma were treated with 4,000 mg of ADH-1, administered systemically on days 1 and 8, and with M-ILI corrected for IBW on day 1. Drug pharmacokinetics and N-cadherin immunohistochemical staining were performed on pretreatment tumor. The primary end point was response at 12 weeks determined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria.

In all, 45 patients were enrolled over 15 months at four institutions. In-field responses included 17 patients with complete responses (CRs; 38%), 10 with partial responses (22%), six with stable disease (13%), eight with progressive disease (18%), and four (9%) who were not evaluable. Median duration of in-field response among the 17 CRs was 5 months, and median time to in-field progression among 41 evaluable patients was 4.6 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 7.1 months). N-cadherin was detected in 20 (69%) of 29 tumor samples. Grade 4 toxicities included creatinine phosphokinase increase (four patients), arterial injury (one), neutropenia (one), and pneumonitis (one).

To the best of our knowledge, this phase II trial is the first prospective multicenter ILI trial and the first to incorporate a targeted agent in an attempt to augment antitumor responses to regional chemotherapy. Although targeting N-cadherin may improve melanoma sensitivity to chemotherapy, no difference in response to treatment was seen in this study.

Despite appropriate initial therapy, approximately 2% to 10% of extremity melanomas recur as in-transit (IT) metastases representing melanoma tumor deposits in the dermal or subcutaneous lymphatic vessels.1,2 The presence of IT metastases is associated with poor prognosis with 5-year survival rates ranging from 12% to 37%.35 Systemic chemotherapy generally has poor, short-lived objective response rates.6,7 The techniques of hyperthermic isolated limb perfusion812 and ILI1316 with melphalan (M-ILI), with or without dactinomycin, allow delivery of regional chemotherapy several orders of magnitude higher than can be attained with systemic administration. In a recent multicenter retrospective study17 of standard of care M-ILI plus dactinomycin, the complete response (CR) rate was found to be 29% in patients (n = 66) who had their melphalan dose corrected for ideal body weight (IBW). New strategies to improve response rates for melanoma have focused on targeted agents that can increase drug delivery to tumors, improve sensitivity to chemotherapy by modulating known resistance proteins, or target signaling proteins in survival or apoptotic pathways.1820

ADH-1 is a novel, pentapeptide drug that targets and disrupts N-cadherin adhesion complexes. ADH-1 was well tolerated in phase I and II single-agent studies and showed evidence of antitumor activity restricted to patients with N-cadherin–positive tumors.2123 N-cadherin is theoretically an ideal protein to target in melanoma because it is expressed on the majority of melanoma tumors as they progress from a predominantly E-cadherin phenotype as melanocytes to a predominantly N-cadherin phenotype during the transition into melanoma and the acquisition of a vertical growth phase.2426 We have demonstrated that ADH-1–induced disruption of N-cadherin adhesion complexes leads to downstream alterations in intracellular signaling pathways that sensitize tumor cells to melphalan and induce alterations in vascular permeability leading to increased melphalan drug delivery to tumors.27,28 In preclinical studies that use a rat xenograft model of extremity melanoma, tumors treated with systemic ADH-1 in combination with M-ILI demonstrated decreased growth and increased apoptosis when compared with tumors treated with M-ILI alone.27,28 We have completed a multicenter phase I study of systemic ADH-1 in combination with M-ILI.29 Encouraging response rates were seen with a CR rate of 50% with no dose-limiting toxicities (n = 16). Here, we report the results from what is, to the best of our knowledge, the first prospective multicenter phase II study of systemic ADH-1 in combination with M-ILI for patients with advanced extremity melanoma.

Patient Eligibility

Patients were eligible for study if they were ≥ 18 years of age, had histologically confirmed recurrent American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage IIIB or IIIC extremity melanoma,30 tissue available for N-cadherin staining by immunohistochemistry (IHC), directly measurable cutaneous disease distal to planned tourniquet placement, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1. Patients who had previously received ADH-1 were excluded, although previous treatment with M-ILI was allowed. All patients were required to give informed consent, and the institutional review boards of the participating institutions approved the study.

Study Design

This trial was an open-label, single-arm, multicenter phase II study. Treatment consisted of 4,000 mg of intravenous ADH-1 administered on days 1 and 8 in combination with melphalan at 10 mg/L delivered regionally via ILI a minimum of 4 hours after ADH-1 on day 1 for the upper extremity and at 7.5 mg/L for the lower extremity corrected for IBW.16 The 4,000-mg dose of ADH-1 was previously demonstrated to be safe in patients and was the highest dose for which there were already extensive safety data.29,31 Administration of ILI was performed as described previously16 by using a rapid infusion of melphalan (2 to 5 minutes) in the arterial catheter after the extremity had been warmed to at least 37.0°C.

Assessment of Tumor Response and Toxicity

Tumor response was evaluated according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria modified for cutaneous lesions at one time point 3 months post-ILI.16 Patients were classified as having a CR, partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), or progressive disease (PD). Toxicity was assessed by using the National Cancer Institute's Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0 (CTCAEv3).

Pharmacokinetic Evaluations

High-performance liquid chromatography was used to measure melphalan infusion circuit concentrations and to measure the concentration of ADH-1 just before the administration of melphalan.16,32


N-cadherin IHC staining and scoring were conducted by Biotechnics (Hillsborough, NC). Sections for IHC staining were processed from tumor samples that had been embedded in paraffin wax blocks. Slides were incubated overnight at 4°C with primary antibody (Invitrogen 18-0224, Carlsbad, CA; 1:200 dilution) or mouse isotype negative control (Invitrogen 08-6599; Invitrogen), followed by incubation with secondary antibody (biotinylated goat antimouse; Jackson Immunoresearch Laboratories 115-066-071, West Grove, PA; 1:500 dilution) for 30 minutes at room temperature. ABC reagent (Vectastain Elite ABC Kit, Vector Labs, Burlingame, CA) was applied to sections and incubated for 30 minutes at 37°C. Sections were developed in diaminobenzidine for 7 minutes at room temperature and counterstained with hematoxylin.

Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction

Tumor biopsies were homogenized by using Lysing Matrix A (MP Biomedicals, Solon, OH) and a mini bead-beater (Biospec Products, Bartlesville, OK). RNA was isolated, cDNA was synthesized, and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) was performed as described previously.33 N-cadherin expression values were normalized to β-actin and expressed as fold difference from a human reference RNA sample (Stratagene, La Jolla, CA). The reference RNA was assigned a value of 1; patient sample values < 1 were considered to be negative while patient sample values ≥ 1 were considered to be N-cadherin–positive.

Microarray Gene Expression Analysis

RNA was reverse transcribed, labeled, and hybridized to the Affymetrix Human Genome U133plus2 (HU133+2) GeneChip (Affymetrix, Santa Clara, CA) at the Duke University Microarray Core Facility. Gene expression data of tumor samples are available at Gene Expression Omnibus (accession number GSE22968). Gene expression data were normalized by the MAS5.0 algorithm by using the Affymetrix Expression Console software (v1.0; Affymetrix), log2 transformed by using the MATLAB log2 function (Mathworks, Natick, MA), and normalized against 69 Affymetrix housekeeping gene probes using Bayesian factor regression modeling.34 Pearson correlation analysis was performed across Bayesian factor regression modeling–normalized matched patient data (pre–ADH-1 and post–ADH-1; 20 samples, 10 patients) yielding a Pearson coefficient of correlation r. The genes were ranked on the basis of r, and genes with an absolute correlation coefficient < 0.6 were filtered out yielding a list of 100 genes. The data were mean centered across genes and arrays and clustered by using unsupervised hierarchical clustering (Cluster v3.0,34a uncentered correlation similarity metric and average linkage clustering); a heat map diagram was generated (Java TreeView; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA).35


With response at 3 months as the primary end point of this trial, the target accrual was 50 patients, which would ensure that the maximum width of the exact 90% binomial CI and the response rate was no larger than 0.25. The response would be considered improved if the lower bound of the CI did not include the historical control rate of 0.29. Accrual was stopped at 45 for lack of funding, and the maximum width of the CI increased by 0.01. All other end points were considered secondary. Time to in-field progression (TTP-I) was defined as the number of months between surgery and in-field progression; out-of-field progressions were ignored. Time to out-of-field progression was defined analogously. Duration of response was defined in patients with CR as the number of months between the 3-month response assessment and in-field progression; out-of-field progressions were ignored. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate all three time-to-event distributions by censoring patients on the date last seen alive and with no progression.

A total of 45 patients were enrolled onto the trial over a 15-month period: 24 patients were treated at Duke University, 14 at MD Anderson Cancer Center, six at Moffitt Cancer Center, and one at the University of Florida. Three of the 45 patients did not complete the entire treatment, and one other patient did not have response data (Fig 1). Patient characteristics are listed in Table 1. ILI procedural variables were similar to what we have previously reported16,17 with a median peak temperature of 38.7°C (range, 37 to 40.1°C) in this study.


Table 1. Patient Characteristics

Table 1. Patient Characteristics

Characteristic No. %
Age, years
    Median 61
    Range 29-89
    Male 19 42
    Female 26 58
AJCC stage
    IIIB 17 38
    IIIC 28 62
Disease burden
    High 12 27
    Low 33 73
Previous ILI/HILP 11 25
N-cadherin positive 20 69*

Abbreviations: AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer; ILI, isolated limb infusion; HILP, hyperthermic isolated limb perfusion.

*20 of 29 patients tested.

Clinical Response

Among the 45 patients in this study, 9% (n = 4) were not evaluable for response, 38% (n = 17) had a CR, 22% (n = 10) had a PR, 13% (n = 6) had SD, and 18% (n = 8) had PD. The 90% CI of the CR rate (38%) was 0.26 to 0.51. The estimated median duration of response among the 17 CRs was 5 months (95% CI, 3.0 to not estimable). Twelve of these patients had progressed in-field by the time of this analysis; median follow-up among the five patients who had not progressed was 22 months. Median TTP-I among all 41 evaluable patients was 4.6 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 7.1 months). Thirty-one of these patients had progressed in-field by the time of this analysis; median follow-up among the 10 patients who had not progressed was almost 20 months. Median time to out-of-field progression in all 45 patients was 10.2 months (95% CI, 6.2 to 19.0 months). Twenty-eight of the 45 patients had progressed out-of-field by the time of this analysis; median follow-up among the 17 who had not progressed was 19.4 months. Seventy-five percent (21 of 28) of field progressions were to regional lymph nodes. Figure 2 compares the response rates of this trial to those of a multicenter retrospective study of M-ILI (n = 66). Figure 3 compares the TTP-I of this trial (median 4.6 months) to that of 59 patients at Duke University undergoing only M-ILI (median 3.2 months).16 These comparisons were exploratory and not specified by the protocol.


The treatment was generally well tolerated, and the addition of ADH-1 did not appear to increase the toxicity of M-ILI alone. Common grade 1 toxicities mostly related to ILI were rash/erythema in 15 patients (33%) and extremity pain in 12 patients (27%). There were nine grade 4 toxicities: five patients had serologic grade 4 toxicities (four patients had increases in creatine kinase [CK] and one patient had neutropenia that resolved), and four patients had clinical grade 4 toxicities. CK values are routinely measured after regional chemotherapy treatments as markers of muscle toxicity.16,17 The four patients in this study with grade 4 CK increases were treated with dexamethasone and the CKs subsequently normalized. As expected from previous studies, patients who experienced grade 3 to 4 toxicities had higher peak CKs and were more likely to be female than patients with grade 1 to 2 toxicities.16

The four grade 4 clinical toxicities were arterial injury, acute respiratory distress syndrome, pneumonitis, and pulmonary infiltrate. The arterial injury occurred 24 hours after ILI and was a superficial femoral artery dissection with a distal embolism possibly caused by placement of the arterial catheter. The patient underwent Fogarty thrombectomy and end arterectomy of the distal superficial femoral artery. Approximately 1 year after ILI, this patient had an extremity amputation due to progression of vascular disease. Whether this was exacerbated by the ILI and complication is unclear. The three grade 4 pulmonary toxicities all occurred in the same patient. On the second postoperative day, the patient developed acute respiratory distress requiring reintubation for 24 hours. Bronchoscopy demonstrated inflamed proximal bronchial mucosa with areas of petechial hemorrhage. The etiology of this event was never clearly established although aspiration, pulmonary embolus, cardiac failure, and bacterial pneumonia were excluded. The patient recovered after being given steroids and antibiotics and was discharged on postoperative day 10.


Twenty-nine study patients were tested for N-cadherin by IHC and/or qPCR; 20 of these patients (69%) tested positive for N-cadherin. Twenty-six of the 29 patients were also evaluated for response. Among these 26 patients, the 18 who tested positive for N-cadherin had a CR rate of 39%; the eight who tested negative had a CR rate of 63%. Eleven patients had tumor tissue analyzed by qPCR for N-cadherin expression. In 10 patients, the results of qPCR agreed with IHC; in one patient, tumor tissue was negative for N-cadherin by IHC but positive by qPCR.


ADH-1 pharmacokinetics were examined in patients undergoing treatment at Duke University (n = 24). The goal was to administer melphalan approximately 3 to 4 half-lives (6 to 8 hours) after the initial dose of ADH-1 to mimic initial dosing that was used in our preclinical animal model in which ADH-1 pretreatment markedly improved the efficacy of M-ILI.27,36 The median time between the dose of ADH-1 and the administration of melphalan was 7.7 hours (range, 5 to 12 hours). The plasma concentration of ADH-1 measured just before melphalan administration was, in general, predictably lower as the length of time after ADH-1 administration was longer (Fig 4). Median plasma concentration of ADH-1 was 5,818 ng/mL; when calculated according to response status (CR/PR v SD/PD), the median plasma concentrations were similar.

Melphalan pharmacokinetics were analyzed in 28 patients. Median melphalan dose was 50.1 mg; median peak plasma concentration of melphalan during ILI was 25.8 μg/mL. Patients with and without response (CR + PR v SD/PD) had similar medians of both melphalan dose and peak plasma concentration. Likewise, patients with and without grade 3 to 4 toxicities had similar medians. As expected, the peak plasma concentration of melphalan during ILI correlated with the dose of melphalan administered (Pearson correlation 0.58).

ADH-1–Induced Changes in Gene Expression

In the absence of a specific ADH-1–induced target protein alteration that could be monitored, we examined ADH-1–induced alterations in gene expression to determine whether doses of ADH-1 were functionally active. For 10 patients, two matched biopsies were available for analysis: one obtained just before ADH-1 infusion on day 1 (pre) and the second just before ILI, approximately 8 hours after day 1 ADH-1 infusion (post). Pearson correlation analysis identified 100 genes that showed a significant correlation with drug treatment (P ranging from < .001 to .005). Thirty-three genes showed higher expression following treatment with one dose of ADH-1 and 67 genes showed reduced expression (Fig 5 and Appendix Tables A1 and A2, online only). Gene Ontology36a biologic function analysis revealed three genes related to cell adhesion with altered expression. Plakophilin 2 (PKP2), which is thought to be important in linking cadherins to cytoskeletal filaments and may regulate β-catenin activity, showed decreased expression following ADH-1 treatment. Protocadherin-γ-C4 (PCDHGC4), a cadherin family protein, and claudin 3 (CLDN3), a component of tight junctions, both showed increased expression following ADH-1 treatment.

In this multicenter prospective study of ILI in 45 patients, we report a CR rate of 38%, PR rate of 23%, SD in 13%, PD in 18%, and 9% not evaluable. In the U.S. multicenter retrospective study of M-ILI, patients who had their dose corrected for IBW (n = 66) had a CR rate of 29% and a PR rate of 11%. The overall response rate (CR + PR) of 60%, as reported in this ADH-1 plus M-ILI trial, is encouraging compared with the overall response rate of 40% in the multicenter study and compared with other single-center studies reported by other U.S. centers.16,17,37 However, the 90% CI around the ADH-1 response rate of 0.38 included 0.29, which is the response rate of the historical control group treated with melphalan alone. We also compared the TTP-I between patients from this study who received systemic ADH-1 in addition to M-ILI to that of a previous cohort of patients from Duke who were treated with M-ILI.16 Although there was an early trend to an improved TTP-I for patients in this trial (4.6 v 3.2 months), there was no difference when comparing the two curves out to 15 months. Optimization of response to systemic ADH-1 in combination with M-ILI will depend on a better understanding of the mechanism of action of ADH-1 as well as a better understanding of what patient-related factors contribute to response. Although this trial was exploratory and was limited by sample size, gene expression data supported ADH-1–induced changes in the expression of genes that may ultimately contribute to an understanding of the mechanism of action of ADH-1.

In the multicenter study of M-ILI, patients receiving melphalan doses corrected for IBW had significantly lower grade ≥ 3 toxicity (21% v 47%; P < .001).17 The rate of grade ≥ 3 toxicity in this study, in which all patients had a melphalan dose corrected for IBW, was 20% (n = 9). We have previously reported that standard melphalan dosing results in a wide range of plasma melphalan concentrations.38 In this study, correction of the melphalan dose for IBW resulted in a more predictable pharmacokinetic profile of melphalan. Additionally, ADH-1 did not appear to increase toxicity, the combination therapy was well tolerated, and nearly all patients (42 of 45) were able to receive the planned treatment.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first prospective multicenter study of ILI and the first to use combination therapy with a systemic targeted agent. IT melanoma provides an ideal clinical setting in which to explore new therapies by allowing for both analysis of drug pharmacokinetics and evaluation of tumor properties on concurrently obtained sequential tumor specimens. In this study, we measured drug pharmacokinetics and analyzed tumor tissue to determine their correlation with response and toxicity. We did not observe a correlation between tumor N- cadherin expression and response. However, recent studies suggest that vascular N-cadherin expression may be important in the mechanism of action of ADH-1 and suggest that increased tumor responses may be related to ADH-1–induced increases in vascular permeability.28 For this reason, and in contrast to many other targeted therapy trials, we did not limit the study population to patients with high tumor N-cadherin. Studies are currently underway to explore the relationship between tumor and vascular N-cadherin and how disrupting this interaction can make tumors more sensitive to chemotherapy.

In conclusion, in this prospective multicenter study of ILI, systemic ADH-1 in combination with M-ILI was found to be a well-tolerated treatment for patients with advanced extremity melanoma. Although the response rate with the addition of ADH-1 compared with melphalan alone was additively larger by 0.16, there was no difference in the overall TTP-I of regional disease. Future directions for study include defining more clearly the mechanism of action of ADH-1 seen in preclinical models to determine whether more optimal dosing or identification of a group of patients with appropriate N-cadherin expression on target tissue can improve response rates of regionally administered chemotherapy.

© 2011 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Supported by Grant No. AHX2007-075 D100-C from Adherex Technologies and the Duke University Melanoma Research Fund.

Presented in part at the 45th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, May 31-June 2, 2009, Orlando, FL, and the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Society of Surgical Oncology, March 3-7, 2010, St Louis, MO.

Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and author contributions are found at the end of this article.

Clinical trial information can be found for the following: NCT00421811.

Although all authors completed the disclosure declaration, the following author(s) indicated a financial or other interest that is relevant to the subject matter under consideration in this article. Certain relationships marked with a “U” are those for which no compensation was received; those relationships marked with a “C” were compensated. For a detailed description of the disclosure categories, or for more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to the Author Disclosure Declaration and the Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest section in Information for Contributors.

Employment or Leadership Position: None Consultant or Advisory Role: Merrick I. Ross, Genentech (C), GlaxoSmithKline (C); Douglas S. Tyler, Genentech (C) Stock Ownership: None Honoraria: Jonathan S. Zager, Adherex Technologies; Douglas S. Tyler, Adherex Technologies Research Funding: Douglas S. Tyler, Adherex Technologies Expert Testimony: None Other Remuneration: None

Conception and design: Georgia M. Beasley, Jonathan C. Riboh, Christina K. Augustine, Jonathan S. Zager, Stephen R. Grobmyer, Richard Royal, Douglas S. Tyler

Financial support: Douglas S. Tyler

Administrative support: Georgia M. Beasley, Christina K. Augustine, Douglas S. Tyler

Provision of study materials or patients: Jonathan S. Zager, Steven N. Hochwald, Stephen R. Grobmyer, Merrick I. Ross,Douglas S. Tyler

Collection and assembly of data: Georgia M. Beasley, Christina K. Augustine, Jonathan S. Zager, Steven N. Hochwald, Stephen R. Grobmyer, Richard Royal, Merrick I. Ross, Douglas S. Tyler

Data analysis and interpretation: Georgia M. Beasley, Jonathan C. Riboh, Christina K. Augustine, Jonathan S. Zager, Steven N. Hochwald, Stephen R. Grobmyer, Bercedis Peterson, Richard Royal, Merrick I. Ross, Douglas S. Tyler

Manuscript writing: All authors

Final approval of manuscript: All authors

1. CM Balch, AN Houghton, LJ Peters : VT DeVita S Hellman SA Rosenberg Cutaneous melanoma Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology 16121661,1993 ed 4 Philadelphia, PA JB Lippincott Google Scholar
2. TM Pawlik, MI Ross, MM Johnson , etal : Predictors and natural history of in-transit melanoma after sentinel lymphadenectomy Ann Surg Oncol 12: 587596,2005 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
3. N Cascinelli, R Bufalino, R Marolda , etal : Regional non-nodal metastases of cutaneous melanoma Eur J Surg Oncol 12: 175180,1986 MedlineGoogle Scholar
4. A Calabro, SE Singletary, CM Balch : Patterns of relapse in 1001 consecutive patients with melanoma nodal metastases Arch Surg 124: 10511055,1989 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
5. TG Zogakis, DL Bartlett, SK Libutti , etal : Factors affecting survival after complete response to isolated limb perfusion in patients with in-transit melanoma Ann Surg Oncol 8: 771778,2001 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
6. W Sun, LM Schuchter : Metastatic melanoma Curr Treat Options Oncol 2: 193202,2001 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
7. H Hochster, MH Strawderman, JE Harris , etal : Conventional dose melphalan is inactive in metastatic melanoma: Results of an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study (E1687) Anticancer Drugs 10: 245248,1999 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
8. AI Skene, AS Bulman, TR Williams , etal : Hyperthermic isolated limb perfusion with melphalan in the treatment of advanced malignant melanoma of the lower limb Br J Surg 77: 765767,1990 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
9. DJ Grünhagen, JH de Wilt, AN van Geel , etal : Isolated limb perfusion for melanoma patients: A review of its indications and the role of tumour necrosis factor-alpha Eur J Surg Oncol 32: 371380,2006 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
10. BC Vrouenraets, OE Nieweg, BB Kroon : Thirty-five years of isolated limb perfusion for melanoma: Indications and results Br J Surg 83: 13191328,1996 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
11. WR Cornett, LM McCall, RP Petersen , etal : Randomized multicenter trial of hyperthermic isolated limb perfusion with melphalan alone compared with melphalan plus tumor necrosis factor: American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Trial Z0020 J Clin Oncol 24: 41964201,2006 LinkGoogle Scholar
12. SW Taber, HC Polk Jr : Mortality, major amputation rates, and leukopenia after isolated limb perfusion with phenylalanine mustard for the treatment of melanoma Ann Surg Oncol 4: 440445,1997 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
13. JF Thompson, PC Kam, RC Waugh , etal : Isolated limb infusion with cytotoxic agents: A simple alternative to isolated limb perfusion Semin Surg Oncol 14: 238247,1998 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
14. JF Thompson, RC Waugh, RP Saw , etal : Isolated limb infusion with melphalan for recurrent limb melanoma: A simple alternative to isolated limb perfusion Reg Cancer Treat 7: 188192,1994 Google Scholar
15. P Lindnér, A Doubrovsky, PC Kam , etal : Prognostic factors after isolated limb infusion with cytotoxic agents for melanoma Ann Surg Oncol 9: 127136,2002 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
16. GM Beasley, RP Petersen, J Yoo , etal : Isolated limb infusion for in-transit malignant melanoma of the extremity: A well-tolerated but less effective alternative to hyperthermic isolated limb perfusion Ann Surg Oncol 15: 21952205,2008 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
17. GM Beasley, A Caudle, RP Petersen , etal : A multi-institutional experience of isolated limb infusion: Defining response and toxicity in the US J Am Coll Surg 208: 706715,2009 discussion 715-717 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
18. KT Flaherty : Chemotherapy and targeted therapy combinations in advanced melanoma Clin Cancer Res 12: 2366s2370s,2006 suppl 7 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
19. DF McDermott, JA Sosman, FS Hodi , etal : Randomized phase II study of dacarbazine with or without sorafenib in patients with advanced melanoma J Clin Oncol 25: 474s,2007 suppl; abstr 8511 Google Scholar
20. GM Beasley, DS Tyler : Optimizing regional therapy for melanoma Ann Surg Onc 16: 10951097,2009 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
21. DJ Jonker, R Stewart, L Goel , etal : A phase I study of the novel molecularly targeted vascular targeting agent, ExherinTM (ADH-1), shows activity in some patients with refractory solid tumors stratified according to N-cadherin expression J Clin Oncol 23: 204s,2005 suppl; abstr 3038 LinkGoogle Scholar
22. C Sessa, A Perotti, M Maur , etal : An enriched phase I, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of the N-cadherin (NCAD) cyclic competitive binder exherin (ADH-1) in patients with solid tumors J Clin Oncol 24: 131s,2006 suppl; abstract 3042 Google Scholar
23. DJ Stewart, DJ Jonker, R Goel , etal : Final clinical and pharmacokinetic (PK) results from a phase 1 study of the novel N-cadherin (N-cad) antagonist, Exherin (ADH-1), in patients with refractory solid tumors stratified according to N-cad expression J Clin Oncol 24: 124s,2006 suppl; abstract 3016 Google Scholar
24. N Matsuyoshi, T Tanaka, K Toda , etal : Identification of novel cadherins expressed in human melanoma cells J Invest Dermatol 108: 908913,1997 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
25. MY Hsu, FE Meier, M Nesbit , etal : E-cadherin expression in melanoma cells restores keratinocyte-mediated growth control and down-regulates expression of invasion-related adhesion receptors Am J Pathol 156: 15151525,2000 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
26. J Qi, N Chen, J Wang , etal : Transendothelial migration of melanoma cells involves N-cadherin-mediated adhesion and activation of the beta-catenin signaling pathway Mol Biol Cell 16: 43864397,2005 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
27. CK Augustine, Y Yoshimoto, M Gupta , etal : Targeting N-cadherin enhances antitumor activity of cytotoxic therapies in melanoma treatment Cancer Res 68: 37773784,2008 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
28. H Toshimitsu, JC Padussis, R Turley , etal : Targeting N-cadherin to augment the efficacy of regional chemotherapy: A potential double- edged sword? Ann Surg Oncol 17: S1,2010 abstr 28 MedlineGoogle Scholar
29. GM Beasley, N McMahon, G Sanders , etal : A phase 1 study of systemic ADH-1 in combination with melphalan via isolated limb infusion in patients with locally advanced in-transit malignant melanoma Cancer 115: 47664774,2009 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
30. CM Balch, AC Buzaid, SJ Soong , etal : Final version of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for cutaneous melanoma J Clin Oncol 19: 36353648,2001 LinkGoogle Scholar
31. C Sessa, A Perotti, M Maur , etal : An enriched phase I, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of the N-cadherin (NCAD) cyclic competitive binder exherin (ADH-1) in patients with solid tumors J Clin Oncol 24: 131s,2006 suppl; abstract 3042 Google Scholar
32. H Ehrsson, S Eksborg, A Lindfors : Quantitative determination of melphalan in plasma by liquid chromatography after derivatization with N-acetylcysteine Chromatogr 380: 222228,1986 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
33. Y Yoshimoto, CK Augustine, JS Yoo , etal : Defining regional infusion treatment strategies for extremity melanoma: Comparative analysis of melphalan and temozolomide as regional chemotherapeutic agents Mol Cancer Ther 6: 14921500,2007 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
34. Bayesian Factor Regression Modeling (BFRM 2.0) Google Scholar
34a. MB Eisen, PT Spellman, PO Brown , etal : Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 95: 1486314868,1998 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
35. CK Augustine, SH Jung, I Sohn , etal : Gene expression signatures as a guide to treatment strategies for in-transit metastatic melanoma Mol Cancer Ther 9: 779790,2010 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
36. Adherex Technologies: ADH-1 Investigators Brochure, version 7.0 January 18 2008 Google Scholar
36a. The Gene Ontology Consortium: Gene Ontology: Tool for the unification of biology Nat Genet 25: 2529,2000 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
37. MS Brady, K Brown, A Patel , etal : Isolated limb infusion with melphalan and dactinomycin for regional melanoma and soft-tissue sarcoma of the extremity: Final report of a phase II clinical trial Melanoma Res 19: 106111,2009 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
38. N McMahon, TY Cheng, GM Beasley , etal : Optimizing melphalan pharmacokinetics in regional melanoma therapy: Does correcting for ideal body weight alter regional response or toxicity? Ann Surg Oncol 16: 953961,2009 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar


Table A1. Increased Expression Post–ADH-1

Table A1. Increased Expression Post–ADH-1

Gene ID Name Gene Description
215724_at PLD1 Phospholipase D1, phosphatidylcholine-specific
242566_at VASH1 Vasohibin 1
213651_at PIB5PA Phosphatidylinositol (4,5) bisphosphate 5-phosphatase, A
213072_at CYHR1 Cysteine/histidine-rich 1
235050_at SLC2A12 Solute carrier family 2 (facilitated glucose transporter), member 12
231754_at PCDHGC4 Protocadherin gamma subfamily C, 4
203953_s_at CLDN3 Claudin 3
216425_at CDNA: FLJ22812 fis, clone KAIA2955
221167_s_at CCDC70 Coiled-coil domain containing 70
1564905_at EST from clone DKFZp434P1912, 3′ end
218759_at DVL2 Dishevelled, dsh homolog 2 (Drosophila)
1557056_at LOC133491 Hypothetical protein LOC133491
200676_s_at UBE2L3 Ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2L 3
216208_s_at CREBL1 cAMP responsive element binding protein-like 1
217910_x_at MLX MAX-like protein X
222769_at MTHFSD Methenyltetrahydrofolate synthetase domain containing
1559559_at C9orf79 Chromosome 9 open reading frame 79
230397_at Transcribed locus
239078_at C1orf58 Chromosome 1 open reading frame 58
208105_at GIPR Gastric inhibitory polypeptide receptor
207348_s_at LIG3 Ligase III, DNA, ATP-dependent
1555339_at RAP1A RAP1A, member of RAS oncogene family
211968_s_at HSP90AA1 Heat shock protein 90 kDa alpha (cytosolic), class A member 1
217002_s_at HTR3A 5-Hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 3A
1552929_at GRK7 G protein-coupled receptor kinase 7
225309_at PHF5A PHD finger protein 5A
238923_at SPOP Speckle-type POZ protein
234236_at FLJ20294 Hypothetical protein FLJ20294
1565677_at Transcribed locus
203954_x_at CLDN3 Claudin 3
215723_s_at PLD1 Phospholipase D1, phosphatidylcholine-specific

Abbreviation: ADH-1, a cyclic pentapeptide that disrupts N-cadherin adhesion complexes; ID, identification.


Table A2. Decreased Expression Post–ADH-1

Table A2. Decreased Expression Post–ADH-1

Gene ID Name Gene Description
1556469_s_at CDNA FLJ34611 fis, clone KIDNE2014112
1563116_at Homo sapiens, clone IMAGE:5166470, mRNA
223025_s_at AP1M1 Adaptor-related protein complex 1, mu 1 subunit
213591_at ALDH7A1 Aldehyde dehydrogenase 7 family, member A1
234789_at CDNA FLJ13017 fis, clone NT2RP3000628
1564584_at CDNA FLJ25771 fis, clone TST06415
214559_at DRD3 Dopamine receptor D3
1567361_at BDNFOS Brain-derived neurotrophic factor opposite strand
204512_at HIVEP1 Human immunodeficiency virus type I enhancer binding protein 1
1566577_at MRNA; cDNA DKFZp547I1410 (from clone DKFZp547I1410)
1561027_at LOC646241 Hypothetical protein LOC646241
1556012_at KLHDC7A Kelch domain containing 7A
1558658_at ZNF391 Zinc finger protein 391
226096_at FNDC5 Fibronectin type III domain containing 5
1560169_at CDNA FLJ32626 fis, clone SYNOV1000045
220697_at CDNA clone IMAGE:40003562
239618_at SEC16B SEC16 homolog B (S. cerevisiae)
221093_at BRD7P3 Bromodomain containing 7 pseudogene 3
233466_at MRNA; cDNA DKFZp434G0523 (from clone DKFZp434G0523)
216745_x_at CDNA: FLJ20953 fis, clone ADSE01979
1562974_at CDNA clone IMAGE:5302821
244120_at LOC340178 Hypothetical protein LOC340178
215852_x_at C20orf117 Chromosome 20 open reading frame 117
1561327_at C6orf122 Chromosome 6 open reading frame 122
1560453_at MRNA; cDNA DKFZp564G203 (from clone DKFZp564G203)
241512_at SPATC1 Spermatogenesis and centriole associated 1
230605_at Transcribed locus, strongly similar to XP_001149935.1 potassium voltage-gated channel, shaker-related subfamily, beta member 1 isoform 4 [Pan troglodytes]
1555509_a_at SLC25A41 Solute carrier family 25, member 41
243136_at Transcribed locus
238251_at Transcribed locus
1561962_at CDNA clone IMAGE:4794289
208337_s_at NR5A2 Nuclear receptor subfamily 5, group A, member 2
234044_at CDNA: FLJ22608 fis, clone HSI04854
236230_at MRNA; cDNA DKFZp434A202 (from clone DKFZp434A202)
233209_at LOC200609 Hypothetical protein LOC200609
216156_at RECK Reversion-inducing-cysteine-rich protein with kazal motifs
215962_at EST clone 22,453 mariner transposon Hsmar1 sequence
241349_at Transcribed locus
207589_at ADRA1B Adrenergic, alpha-1B-, receptor
231382_at FGF18 Fibroblast growth factor 18
230478_at OIT3 Oncoprotein induced transcript 3
238488_at IPO11 Importin 11
228609_at LOC728439/// LOC729043 Hypothetical protein LOC728439///hypothetical protein LOC729043
238111_at SDCCAG3 Serologically defined colon cancer antigen 3
1565924_a_at CD77 protein
1556491_at Full length insert cDNA clone YB29A02
233096_at KIAA1109 KIAA1109
1563250_at Homo sapiens, clone IMAGE:3451264, mRNA
230858_at CDNA FLJ20470 fis, clone KAT06815
1569136_at MGAT4A Mannosyl (alpha-1,3-)-glycoprotein beta-1,4-N-acetylglucosaminyltransferase, isozyme A
231338_at NUT Nuclear protein in testis
232276_at HS6ST3 Heparan sulfate 6-O-sulfotransferase 3
214154_s_at PKP2 Plakophilin 2
223499_at C1QTNF5 C1q and tumor necrosis factor–related protein 5
211627_x_at ESR1 Estrogen receptor 1
215865_at SYT12 Synaptotagmin XII
241070_at Transcribed locus
1558052_at TMED4 Transmembrane emp24 protein transport domain containing 4
228936_at Transcribed locus
234506_at MRNA; cDNA DKFZp564M163 (from clone DKFZp564M163)

Abbreviation: ADH-1, a cyclic pentapeptide that disrupts N-cadherin adhesion complexes; ID, identification.


No companion articles


DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.1224 Journal of Clinical Oncology 29, no. 9 (March 20, 2011) 1210-1215.

Published online February 22, 2011.

PMID: 21343562

ASCO Career Center