Bowman Birk Inhibitor Concentrate and Oral Leukoplakia: A Randomized Phase IIb Trial

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Penn collection
Departmental Papers (Dental)
Degree type
Discipline
Subject
Adult
Aged
Aged
80 and over
Dose-Response Relationship
Drug
Double-Blind Method
Female
Humans
Leukoplakia
Oral
Male
Middle Aged
Prognosis
Trypsin Inhibitor
Bowman-Birk Soybean
Trypsin Inhibitors
Bowman Birk inhibitor
epidermal growth factor receptor 2
adult
aged
article
controlled study
dose response
enzyme activity
female
histology
human
leukoplakia
major clinical study
male
multicenter study
phase 2 clinical trial
priority journal
protein degradation
randomized controlled trial
side effect
Dentistry
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Other Dentistry
Periodontics and Periodontology
Funder
Grant number
License
Copyright date
Distributor
Related resources
Author
Armstrong, William B
Taylor, Thomas H
Kennedy, Ann R
Melrose, Raymond J
Messadi, Diana V
Gui, Mai
Le, Anh D
Perloff, Marjorie
Civantos, Francisco
Goodwin, William Jarrard
Contributor
Abstract

Oral premalignancy serves as an ideal model for study of chemopreventive agents. Although 13-cis-retinoic acid showed reversal of oral premalignancy, toxicity, and reversal of clinical response after cessation of therapy obviated its widespread use. A search for nontoxic agents with cancer preventive activity led us to evaluate Bowman Birk Inhibitor (BBI) formulated as BBI Concentrate (BBIC). We previously reported encouraging results in a phase IIa trial of BBIC in patients with oral leukoplakia with measurable clinical responses and favorable biomarker changes. On the basis of these results, we undertook a randomized, placebo controlled phase IIb trial with patients receiving BBIC or placebo for 6 months, with assessment of clinical response and change in lesion area as primary end point and an intent-to-treat analysis. One hundred and thirty two subjects were randomized; and 89 subjects completed six months on study drug or placebo. Both placebo and BBIC showed a statistically significant decrease in mean lesion area of 17.1% and 20.6%, respectively, and partial or greater clinical responses of 30% and 28% respectively. No significant difference between placebo and study drug arms was observed. Histologic review, review of photographs of lesions, and comparison of serum neu protein and oral mucosal cell protease activity also did not show significant differences between study arms. Probable reasons for these negative results were considered, are discussed, and include a placebo with non-BBIC clinical activity and reduced pharmacokinetic availability of the second batch of BBIC. This experience should be a strong cautionary note to those considering "Green" chemoprevention. © 2013 AACR.

Advisor
Date Range for Data Collection (Start Date)
Date Range for Data Collection (End Date)
Digital Object Identifier
Series name and number
Publication date
2013-05-01
Journal title
Cancer Prevention Research
Volume number
Issue number
Publisher
Publisher DOI
Journal Issue
Comments
Recommended citation
Collection