The Drug Rediscovery protocol facilitates the expanded use of existing anticancer drugs.

The large-scale genetic profiling of tumours can identify potentially actionable molecular variants for which approved anticancer drugs are available1-3. However, when patients with such variants are treated with drugs outside of their approved label, successes and failures of targeted therapy are not systematically collected or shared. We therefore initiated the Drug Rediscovery protocol, an adaptive, precision-oncology trial that aims to identify signals of activity in cohorts of patients, with defined tumour types and molecular variants, who are being treated with anticancer drugs outside of their approved label. To be eligible for the trial, patients have to have exhausted or declined standard therapies, and have malignancies with potentially actionable variants for which no approved anticancer drugs are available. Here we show an overall rate of clinical benefit-defined as complete or partial response, or as stable disease beyond 16 weeks-of 34% in 215 treated patients, comprising 136 patients who received targeted therapies and 79 patients who received immunotherapy. The overall median duration of clinical benefit was 9 months (95% confidence interval of 8-11 months), including 26 patients who were experiencing ongoing clinical benefit at data cut-off. The potential of the Drug Rediscovery protocol is illustrated by the identification of a successful cohort of patients with microsatellite instable tumours who received nivolumab (clinical benefit rate of 63%), and a cohort of patients with colorectal cancer with relatively low mutational load who experienced only limited clinical benefit from immunotherapy. The Drug Rediscovery protocol facilitates the defined use of approved drugs beyond their labels in rare subgroups of cancer, identifies early signals of activity in these subgroups, accelerates the clinical translation of new insights into the use of anticancer drugs outside of their approved label, and creates a publicly available repository of knowledge for future decision-making.

The cycle effect quantified: reduced tumour uptake in subsequent cycles of [177Lu]Lu-HA-DOTATATE during peptide receptor radionuclide therapy.

BACKGROUND: Clear evidence regarding the effect of reduced tumour accumulation in later peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) cycles is lacking. Therefore, we aimed to quantify potential cycle effects for patients treated with [177Lu]Lu-HA-DOTATATE using a population pharmacokinetic (PK) modelling approach. METHODS: A population PK model was developed using imaging data from 48 patients who received multiple cycles of [177Lu]Lu-HA-DOTATATE. The five-compartment model included a central, kidney, spleen, tumour and lumped rest compartment. Tumour volume and continued use of long-acting somatostatin analogues (SSAs) were tested as covariates in the model. In addition, the presence of a cycle effect was evaluated by relating the uptake rate in a specific cycle as a fraction of the (tumour or organ) uptake rate in the first cycle. RESULTS: The final PK model adequately captured observed radioactivity accumulation in kidney, spleen and tumour. A higher tumour volume was identified to increase the tumour uptake rate, where a twofold increase in tumour volume resulted in a 2.3-fold higher uptake rate. Also, continued use of long-acting SSAs significantly reduced the spleen uptake rate (68.4% uptake compared to SSA withdrawal (10.5% RSE)). Lastly, a cycle effect was significantly identified, where tumour uptake rate decreased to 86.9% (5.3% RSE) in the second cycle and even further to 79.7% (5.6% RSE) and 77.6% (6.2% RSE) in the third and fourth cycle, respectively, compared to cycle one. CONCLUSIONS: Using a population PK modelling approach, the cycle effect of reduced tumour uptake in subsequent PRRT cycles was quantified. Our findings implied that downregulation of target receptors is probably not the major cause of the cycle effect, due to a plateau in the decrease of tumour uptake in the fourth cycle.

Therapeutic drug monitoring-based precision dosing of oral targeted therapies in oncology: a prospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Oral targeted therapies show a high pharmacokinetic (PK) interpatient variability. Even though exposure has been positively correlated with efficacy for many of these drugs, these are still dosed using a one-size-fits-all approach. Consequently, individuals have a high probability to be either underexposed or overexposed, potentially leading to suboptimal outcomes. Therapeutic drug monitoring, which is personalized dosing based on measured systemic drug concentrations, could address these problems. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were enrolled in this prospective multicenter study (www.trialregister.nl; NL6695) if they started treatment with one of the 24 participating oral targeted therapies. Primary outcome was to halve the proportion of underexposed patients, compared with historical data. PK sampling was carried out after 4, 8 and 12 weeks, and every 12 weeks thereafter. In case of Cmin below the predefined target and manageable toxicity, a pharmacokinetically guided intervention was proposed (i.e. checking compliance and drug-drug interactions, concomitant intake with food, splitting intake moments or dose increments). RESULTS: In total, 600 patients were included of whom 426 patients are assessable for the primary outcome and 552 patients had ≥1 PK sample(s) available and were therefore assessable for the overall analyses. Pharmacokinetically guided dosing reduced the proportion of underexposed patients at the third PK measurement by 39.0% (95% confidence interval 28.0% to 49.0%) compared with historical data. At the third PK measurement, 110 out of 426 patients (25.8%) had a low exposure. In total, 294 patients (53.3%) had ≥1 PK sample(s) below the preset target at a certain time point during treatment. In 166 of these patients (56.5%), pharmacokinetically guided interventions were carried out, which were successful in 113 out of 152 assessable patients (74.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacokinetically guided dose optimization of oral targeted therapies was feasible in clinical practice and reduced the proportion of underexposed patients considerably.

A real or apparent decrease in glomerular filtration rate in patients using olaparib?

PURPOSE: Olaparib is a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor indicated for ovarian and metastatic breast cancer. Increased serum creatinine levels have been observed in patients taking olaparib, but the underlying mechanism is unknown. This study aimed to investigate if patients receiving olaparib have increased creatinine levels during olaparib treatment and whether this actually relates to a declined glomerular filtration rate (GFR). METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients using olaparib at the Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek (NKI-AVL) from 2012 until 2020. Patients with at least one plasma or serum sample available at baseline/off treatment and during olaparib treatment were included. Cystatin C levels were measured, creatinine levels were available and renal function was determined by calculating the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) using the Creatinine Equation (CKD-EPI 2009) and the Cystatin C Equation (CKD-EPI 2012). RESULTS: In total, 66 patients were included. Olaparib treatment was associated with a 14% increase in median creatinine from 72 (inter quartile range (IQR): 22) µmol/L before/off treatment to 82 (IQR: 20) µmol/L during treatment (p < 0.001) and a 13% decrease in median creatinine-derived eGFR from 86 (IQR: 26) mL/min/1.73 m2 before/off treatment to 75 (IQR: 29) mL/min/1.73 m2 during treatment (p < 0.001). Olaparib treatment had no significant effect on median cystatin C levels (p = 0.520) and the median cystatin C-derived eGFR (p = 0.918). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that olaparib likely causes inhibition of renal transporters leading to a reversible and dose-dependent increase in creatinine and does not affect GFR, since the median cystatin C-derived eGFR was comparable before/off treatment and during treatment of olaparib. Using the creatinine-derived eGFR can give an underestimation of GFR in patients taking olaparib. Therefore, an alternative renal marker such as cystatin C should be used to accurately calculate eGFR in patients taking olaparib.

Tamoxifen and pregnancy: an absolute contraindication?

PURPOSE: Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among young women of reproductive age. Adjuvant treatment with tamoxifen reduces the risk of recurrence in hormone-sensitive breast cancer. However, the use of tamoxifen is considered contraindicated during pregnancy, because of a limited number of case reports demonstrating potential adverse effects on the fetus. The objective of this report is to give a more broad overview of the available data on the effect of tamoxifen exposure during pregnancy. METHODS: A literature review was performed using PubMed and the databases of the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb and of the International Network on Cancer, Infertility, and Pregnancy. RESULTS: A total of 238 cases of tamoxifen use during pregnancy were found. Of the 167 pregnancies with known outcome, 21 were complicated by an abnormal fetal development. The malformations described were non-specific and the majority of cases concerned healthy infants despite exposure to tamoxifen. CONCLUSION: There seems to be an increased risk of fetal abnormalities when taking tamoxifen during pregnancy (12.6% in contrast to 3.9% in the general population), but the evidence is limited and no causal relationship could be established. The possible disadvantage of postponing or discontinuing tamoxifen for the maternal prognosis is unclear. Patients should be counseled about the use of tamoxifen during pregnancy instead of presenting it as being absolutely contraindicated.

Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus palliative systemic chemotherapy in stomach cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination, the study protocol of a multicentre randomised controlled trial (PERISCOPE II).

BACKGROUND: At present, palliative systemic chemotherapy is the standard treatment in the Netherlands for gastric cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination. In contrast to lymphatic and haematogenous dissemination, peritoneal dissemination may be regarded as locoregional spread of disease. Administering cytotoxic drugs directly into the peritoneal cavity has an advantage over systemic chemotherapy since high concentrations can be delivered directly into the peritoneal cavity with limited systemic toxicity. The combination of a radical gastrectomy with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has shown promising results in patients with gastric cancer in Asia. However, the results obtained in Asian patients cannot be extrapolated to Western patients. The aim of this study is to compare the overall survival between patients with gastric cancer with limited peritoneal dissemination and/or tumour positive peritoneal cytology treated with palliative systemic chemotherapy, and those treated with gastrectomy, CRS and HIPEC after neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy. METHODS: In this multicentre randomised controlled two-armed phase III trial, 106 patients will be randomised (1:1) between palliative systemic chemotherapy only (standard treatment) and gastrectomy, CRS and HIPEC (experimental treatment) after 3-4 cycles of systemic chemotherapy.Patients with gastric cancer are eligible for inclusion if (1) the primary cT3-cT4 gastric tumour including regional lymph nodes is considered to be resectable, (2) limited peritoneal dissemination (Peritoneal Cancer Index < 7) and/or tumour positive peritoneal cytology are confirmed by laparoscopy or laparotomy, and (3) systemic chemotherapy was given (prior to inclusion) without disease progression. DISCUSSION: The PERISCOPE II study will determine whether gastric cancer patients with limited peritoneal dissemination and/or tumour positive peritoneal cytology treated with systemic chemotherapy, gastrectomy, CRS and HIPEC have a survival benefit over patients treated with palliative systemic chemotherapy only. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT03348150 ; registration date November 2017; first enrolment November 2017; expected end date December 2022; trial status: Ongoing.

Phenotypic factors associated with amisulpride-induced weight gain in first-episode psychosis patients (from the OPTiMiSE cohort).

OBJECTIVE: Antipsychotic-induced weight gain (AiWG) is a debilitating adverse effect of most antipsychotics. First-episode psychosis patients are particularly vulnerable to the detrimental consequences of AiWG. Amisulpride has good efficacy and tolerability. We here aimed to identify the phenotypic factors associated with amisulpride-induced weight gain in first-episode psychosis patients. METHOD: Data were collected from the Optimization of Treatment and Management of Schizophrenia in Europe trial. Multivariable regression models with various phenotypic variables (N = 305) were performed with absolute AiWG and clinically relevant AiWG (≥7% AiWG) as outcomes. RESULTS: Four weeks of amisulpride treatment increased body weight from 69.7 to 72.4 kg (P < 0.001). In the regression model of absolute AiWG, unemployment (ß = 0.94, P = 0.016), younger age (ß = -0.07, P = 0.031) and absence of current comorbid major depression disorder (ß = -1.61, P = 0.034) were positively associated with absolute AiWG. In the regression model of clinically relevant AiWG, unemployment (OR = 2.83, P = 0.001), schizophreniform disorder (OR = 2.00, P = 0.025) and low baseline weight (OR = 0.97, P = 0.032) increased the likelihood of clinically relevant AiWG. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians prescribing amisulpride should consider the relatively high susceptibility to AiWG in unemployed first-episode patients with psychosis, in particular young subjects with a diagnosis of schizophreniform disorder. We advise to carefully monitor these patients and, when needed, implement weight-reducing strategies.

Development of a nomogram for the estimation of long-term adherence to clozapine therapy using neutrophil fluorescence.

AIMS: Previously, we have reported an association between clozapine use and elevated FL3 neutrophil fluorescence, a flow-cytometric parameter for cell viability. Here, we developed and evaluated a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model relating FL3-fluorescence to clozapine exposure and derived a nomogram for estimation of long-term adherence. METHODS: Data from 27 patients initiating clozapine were analysed using nonlinear mixed effects modelling. A previously described pharmacokinetic model for clozapine was coupled to a FL3 fluorescence model. For this, an effect compartment with clozapine concentrations as input and a first order decay rate as output was linked with an Emax model to FL3-fluorescence. FL3-fluorescence was simulated for clozapine doses of 50, 150 and 400 mg daily (n = 10 000) to establish the nomogram. Finally, true simulated adherence (% of daily doses taken over 100 days) was compared to nomogram-estimated adherence to evaluate the performance of the nomogram. RESULTS: The half-life of FL3-fluorescence was estimated at 228 h (coefficient of variation 35%). Median absolute prediction errors of the nomogram in case of fully random adherence for 50, 150 and 400 mg ranged from -0.193% to -0.525%. The nomogram performed slightly worse in case of nonrandom adherence (median prediction error up to 5.19%), but was still clinically acceptable. Compliance patterns containing longer drug holidays revealed that the nomogram adequately estimates compliance over approximately the last 3 weeks prior to FL3-measurement. CONCLUSION: Our nomogram could provide information regarding long-term adherence based on prescribed clozapine dose and FL3-fluorescence. Future studies should further explore the clinical value of this biomarker and nomogram.

Dosing oxaliplatin in a haemodialysis patient with metastatic rectum cancer monitored by free platinum concentrations.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Oxaliplatin in combination with fluorouracil and folinic acid is one of the preferred chemotherapeutic options in the treatment of metastatic rectum cancer. However, oxaliplatin is contraindicated in patients with a creatinine clearance <30 mL/min and dosing guidelines in patients on haemodialysis have not been established. CASE SUMMARY: A 77-year-old haemodialysis patient with metastatic rectum cancer was treated with FOLFOX and bevacizumab (oxaliplatin 70 mg/m2 , folinic acid 200 mg/m2 , 5-FU 340 mg/m2 bolus and 2040 mg/m2 continuous infusion during 44 hours and bevacizumab 5 mg/kg) every three weeks. Haemodialysis started immediately after infusion of oxaliplatin. The oxaliplatin dose was monitored by measuring free platinum ultrafiltrate concentrations. The AUC0-50 of free platinum plasma ultrafiltrate after cycles 1-3, respectively, was 24.3, 24.7 and 25.8 µg*h/mL. The Cmax was, respectively, 1.3, 1.3 and 2.2 µg/mL. There was no accumulation of free platinum detectable. The patient experienced no toxicity, and after 3 cycles, the CT scan showed a decrease in the liver metastases after which hemihepatectomy and metastasectomy were performed without any complications. A CT scan 6 months after the surgery showed no new liver metastases. However, lymphatic metastasis was diagnosed for which palliative treatment was started. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Dosing oxaliplatin in a haemodialysis patient monitored by free platinum concentrations was effective, safe and feasible in clinical practice. Further research is needed to determine the best pharmacokinetic parameter or combination of parameters and corresponding target values to further optimize the oxaliplatin dose for the individual haemodialysis patient.

Development and validation of a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry analytical method for the therapeutic drug monitoring of eight novel anticancer drugs.

To support therapeutic drug monitoring of patients with cancer, a fast and accurate method for simultaneous quantification of the registered anticancer drugs afatinib, axitinib, ceritinib, crizotinib, dabrafenib, enzalutamide, regorafenib and trametinib in human plasma using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry was developed and validated. Human plasma samples were collected from treated patients and stored at -20°C. Analytes and internal standards (stable isotopically labeled analytes) were extracted with acetonitrile. An equal amount of 10 mm NH4 CO3 was added to the supernatant to yield the final extract. A 2 µL aliquot of this extract was injected onto a C18 -column, gradient elution was applied and triple-quadrupole mass spectrometry in positive-ion mode was used for detection. All results were within the acceptance criteria of the latest US Food and Drug Administration guidance and European Medicines Agency guidelines on method validation, except for the carry-over of ceritinib and crizotinib. These were corrected for by the injection order of samples. Additional stability tests were carried out for axitinib and dabrafenib in relation to their reported photostability. In conclusion, the described method to simultaneously quantify the eight selected anticancer drugs in human plasma was successfully validated and applied for therapeutic drug monitoring in cancer patients treated with these drugs.

An Antiestrogenic Activity Score for tamoxifen and its metabolites is associated with breast cancer outcome.

PURPOSE: Endoxifen concentrations have been associated with breast cancer recurrence in tamoxifen-treated patients. However, tamoxifen itself and other metabolites also show antiestrogenic anti-tumor activity. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop a comprehensive Antiestrogenic Activity Score (AAS), which accounts for concentration and antiestrogenic activity of tamoxifen and three metabolites. An association between the AAS and recurrence-free survival was investigated and compared to a previously published threshold for endoxifen concentrations of 5.97 ng/mL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The antiestrogenic activities of tamoxifen, (Z)-endoxifen, (Z)-4-hydroxytamoxifen, and N-desmethyltamoxifen were determined in a cell proliferation assay. The AAS was determined by calculating the sum of each metabolite concentration multiplied by an IC50 ratio, relative to tamoxifen. The AAS was calculated for 1370 patients with estrogen receptor alpha (ERα)-positive breast cancer. An association between AAS and recurrence was investigated using Cox regression and compared with the 5.97 ng/mL endoxifen threshold using concordance indices. RESULTS: An AAS threshold of 1798 was associated with recurrence-free survival, hazard ratio (HR) 0.67 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-0.96), bias corrected after bootstrap HR 0.69 (95% CI 0.48-0.99). The concordance indices for AAS and endoxifen did not significantly differ; however, using the AAS threshold instead of endoxifen led to different dose recommendations for 5.2% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Endoxifen concentrations can serve as a proxy for the antiestrogenic effect of tamoxifen and metabolites. However, for the aggregate effect of tamoxifen and three metabolites, defined by an integrative algorithm, a trend towards improving treatment is seen and moreover, is significantly associated with breast cancer recurrence.

Metabolism and disposition of the anticancer quinolone derivative vosaroxin, a novel inhibitor of topoisomerase II.

Background Vosaroxin is a first-in-class anticancer quinolone derivative that is being investigated for patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The primary objective of this study was to quantitatively determine the pharmacokinetics of vosaroxin and its metabolites in patients with advanced solid tumors. Methods This mass balance study investigated the pharmacokinetics (distribution, metabolism, and excretion) of vosaroxin in cancer patients after a single dose of 60 mg/m2 14C-vosaroxin, administered as short intravenous injection. Blood, urine and feces were collected over 168 h after injection or until recovered radioactivity over 24 h was less than 1% of the administered dose (whichever was earlier). Total radioactivity (TRA), vosaroxin and metabolites were studied in all matrices. Results Unchanged vosaroxin was the major species identified in plasma, urine, and feces. N-desmethylvosaroxin was the only circulating metabolite detected in plasma, accounting for <3% of the administered dose. However, in plasma, the combined vosaroxin + N-desmethylvosaroxin AUC0-∞ was 21% lower than the TRA AUC0-∞ , suggesting the possible formation of protein bound metabolites after 48 h when the concentration-time profiles diverged. The mean recovery of TRA in excreta was 81.3% of the total administered dose; 53.1% was excreted through feces and 28.2% through urine. Conclusions Unchanged vosaroxin was the major compound found in the excreta, although 10 minor metabolites were detected. The biotransformation reactions were demethylation, hydrogenation, decarboxylation and phase II conjugation including glucuronidation.

Pharmacodynamic modeling of adverse effects of anti-cancer drug treatment.

PURPOSE: Adverse effects related to anti-cancer drug treatment influence patient's quality of life, have an impact on the realized dosing regimen, and can hamper response to treatment. Quantitative models that relate drug exposure to the dynamics of adverse effects have been developed and proven to be very instrumental to optimize dosing schedules. The aims of this review were (i) to provide a perspective of how adverse effects of anti-cancer drugs are modeled and (ii) to report several model structures of adverse effect models that describe relationships between drug concentrations and toxicities. METHODS: Various quantitative pharmacodynamic models that model adverse effects of anti-cancer drug treatment were reviewed. RESULTS: Quantitative models describing relationships between drug exposure and myelosuppression, cardiotoxicity, and graded adverse effects like fatigue, hand-foot syndrome (HFS), rash, and diarrhea have been presented for different anti-cancer agents, including their clinical applicability. CONCLUSIONS: Mathematical modeling of adverse effects proved to be a helpful tool to improve clinical management and support decision-making (especially in establishment of the optimal dosing regimen) in drug development. The reported models can be used as templates for modeling a variety of anti-cancer-induced adverse effects to further optimize therapy.

The performance of model-based versus rule-based phase I clinical trials in oncology : A quantitative comparison of the performance of model-based versus rule-based phase I trials with molecularly targeted anticancer drugs over the last 2 years.

Phase I studies with anticancer drugs are used to evaluate safety and tolerability and to choose a recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Traditionally, phase I trial designs are rule-based, but for several years there is a trend towards model-based designs. Simulations have shown that model-based designs perform better, faster and are safer to establish the RP2D than rule-based designs. However, the superiority of model-based designs has never been confirmed based on true trial performance in practice. To aid evidence-based decisions for designing phase I trials, we compared publications of model-based and rule-based phase I trials in oncology. We reviewed 172 trials that have been published in the last 2 years and assessed the following operating characteristics: efficiency (trial duration, population size, dose-levels), patient safety (dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs)) and treatment optimality (percentage of patients treated below and at or above the recommended phase 2 dose). Our results showed a non-significant but clinically relevant difference in trial duration. Model-based trials needed 10 months less than rule-based trials (26 versus 36 months; p = 0.25). Additionally, fewer patients were treated at dose-levels below the RP2D (31 % versus 40 %; p = 0.73) while safety was preserved (13 % DLTs versus 14 % DLTs). In this review, we provide evidence to encourage the use of model-based designs for future phase I studies, based on a median of 10 months of time gain, acceptable toxicity rates and minimization of suboptimal treatment.

Phase I and pharmacological trial of lapatinib in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lapatinib has proven efficacy as monotherapy and in combination with capecitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) overexpressing HER2 and/or EGFR. Gemcitabine also has anti-tumor activity in MBC and a favourable toxicity profile. In this phase I study lapatinib and gemcitabine were combined. METHODS: Female patients with advanced BC were given lapatinib once daily (QD) in 28-day cycles with gemcitabine administered on day 1, 8 and 15. Physical examinations, vital signs and blood sampling for hematology, clinical chemistry and pharmacokinetics (PK) and radiological assessments of disease were performed at regular intervals. RESULTS: In total, 33 patients were included. Six dose-limiting toxicities were observed, mostly grade 3 increases in liver function tests. Most common toxicities were fatigue (73%), nausea (70%), diarrhea (58%), increases in ALAT and ASAT (55 and 52%, respectively) and rash (46%). The maximum tolerated dose was lapatinib 1250 mg QD with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2). Lapatinib and gemcitabine PK did not appear to be influenced by each other. Anti-tumor activity was observed with one patient (4%) showing complete response and six (23%) partial response. CONCLUSION: Despite a slightly increased toxicity profile compared to their respective monotherapies, lapatinib and gemcitabine can be safely combined while showing signs of anti-tumor activity.

Pharmacokinetically guided sunitinib dosing: a feasibility study in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: Plasma exposure of sunitinib shows large inter-individual variation. Therefore, a pharmacokinetic (PK) study was performed to determine safety and feasibility of sunitinib dosing based on PK levels. METHODS: Patients were treated with sunitinib 37.5 mg once daily. At days 15 and 29 of treatment, plasma trough levels of sunitinib and N-desethyl sunitinib were measured. If the total trough level (TTL) was <50 ng ml(-1) and the patient did not show any grade ⩾3 toxicity, the daily sunitinib dose was increased by 12.5 mg. If the patient suffered from grade ⩾3 toxicity, the sunitinib dose was lowered by 12.5 mg. RESULTS: Twenty-nine out of 43 patients were evaluable for PK assessments. Grade ⩾3 adverse events were experienced in seven patients (24%) at the starting dose and in nine patients (31%) after dose escalation. TTLs were below target in 15 patients (52%) at the starting dose. Of these, five patients (17%) reached target TTL after dose escalation without additional toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: In a third of the patients that were below target TTL at standard dose, the sunitinib dose could be increased without additional toxicities. This could be the basis for future studies and the implementation of a PK-guided dosing strategy in clinical practice.

Optimizing anticancer drug treatment in pregnant cancer patients: pharmacokinetic analysis of gestation-induced changes for doxorubicin, epirubicin, docetaxel and paclitaxel.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant patients with cancer are increasingly treated with anticancer drugs, although the specific impact of pregnancy-induced physiological changes on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of anticancer drugs and associated implications for optimal dose regimens remains unclear. Our objectives were to quantify changes in PK during pregnancy for four frequently used anticancer agents doxorubicin, epirubicin, docetaxel and paclitaxel, and to determine associated necessary dose adjustments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A pooled analysis of PK data was carried out for pregnant (Pr) and nonpregnant (NPr) patients for doxorubicin (n = 16 Pr/59 NPr), epirubicin (n = 14 Pr/57 NPr), docetaxel (n = 3 Pr/32 NPr) and paclitaxel (n = 5 Pr/105 NPr). Compartmental nonlinear mixed effect models were used to describe the PK and gestational effects. Subsequently, we derived optimized dose regimens aiming to match to the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) in nonpregnant patients. RESULTS: The effect of pregnancy on volumes of distribution for doxorubicin, epirubicin, docetaxel and paclitaxel were estimated as fold-change of <1.32, <2.08, <1.37 and <4.21, respectively, with adequate precision [relative standard error (RSE) <37%]. For doxorubicin, no gestational effect could be estimated on clearance (CL). For epirubicin, docetaxel and paclitaxel, a fold-change of 1.1 (RSE 9%), 1.19 (RSE 7%) and 1.92 (RSE 21%) were, respectively, estimated on CL. Calculated dose adjustment requirements for doxorubicin, epirubicin, docetaxel and paclitaxel were +5.5%, +8.0%, +16.9% and +37.8%, respectively. Estimated changes in infusion duration were marginal (<4.2%) except for paclitaxel (-21.4%). CONCLUSION: Clinicians should be aware of a decrease in drug exposure during pregnancy and should not a priori reduce dose. The decrease in exposure was most apparent for docetaxel and paclitaxel which is supported by known physiological changes during pregnancy. The suggested dose adaptations should only be implemented after conduct of further confirmatory studies of the PK during pregnancy.

Dosing of carboplatin in a patient with amputated legs: A case report.

Carboplatin is a platinum derivative that is commonly used in combination chemotherapy for treatment of several malignancies, including small-cell lung carcinoma (SCLC). Because the estimated glomerular filtration rate, and therefore the carboplatin dose, is based on the serum creatinine level, dosing of carboplatin for amputees is a challenge. This case report describes how serum carboplatin levels were used to determine the most suitable carboplatin dose for an amputee. The patient received four cycles of etoposide in combination with carboplatin area under the curve = 5 mg·min/ml, with a dose reduction of 25% and concurrent radiotherapy. The measured area under the curve was found to be 3.41 mg·min/ml, while the target area under the curve was 3.75 mg·min/ml (75% of 5 mg·min/ml). Therefore, for the next cycles, the carboplatin dose was calculated using the Calvert formula. No recurrence of disease was seen within two years after completion of therapy. This case demonstrates that therapeutic drug monitoring can successfully be used to determine the carboplatin dose for an amputee.

Sunitinib for the treatment of metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors: the effect of TDM-guided dose optimization on clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib is an oral anticancer drug approved for the treatment of among others gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Previous analyses demonstrated an exposure-response relationship at the standard dose, and minimum target levels of drug exposure have been defined above which better treatment outcomes are observed. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) could be used as a tool to optimize the individual dose, aiming at sunitinib trough concentrations ≥37.5 ng/ml for continuous dosing. Nonetheless, data on the added value of TDM-guided dosing on clinical endpoints are currently lacking. Therefore, we evaluate the effect of TDM in patients with advanced and metastatic GIST treated with sunitinib in terms of efficacy and toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A TDM-guided cohort was compared to a non-TDM-guided cohort in terms of median progression-free survival (mPFS) and overall survival (mOS). Also, mPFS between patients with and without dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) was compared. Patients in the prospective cohort were included in two studies on TDM-guided dosing (the DPOG-TDM study and TUNE study). The retrospective cohort consisted of patients from the Dutch GIST Registry who did not receive TDM-guided dosing. RESULTS: In total, 51 and 106 patients were included in the TDM-guided cohort and non-TDM-guided cohort, respectively. No statistical difference in mPFS was observed between these two cohorts (39.4 versus 46.9 weeks, respectively; P = 0.52). Patients who experienced sunitinib-induced DLTs had longer mPFS compared to those who did not (51.9 versus 28.9 weeks, respectively; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not support the routine use of TDM-guided dose optimization of sunitinib in patients with advanced/metastatic GIST to improve survival.