Is Higher Docetaxel Clearance in Prostate Cancer Patients Explained by Higher CYP3A? An In Vivo Phenotyping Study with Midazolam.

Patients with prostate cancer (PCa) have a lower docetaxel exposure for both intravenous (1.8-fold) and oral administration (2.4-fold) than patients with other solid cancers, which could influence efficacy and toxicity. An altered metabolism by cytochrome P450 3A (CYP3A) due to castration status might explain the observed difference in docetaxel pharmacokinetics. In this in vivo phenotyping, pharmacokinetic study, CYP3A activity defined by midazolam clearance (CL) was compared between patients with PCa and male patients with other solid tumors. All patients with solid tumors who did not use CYP3A-modulating drugs were eligible for participation. Patients received 2 mg midazolam orally and 1 mg midazolam intravenously on 2 consecutive days. Plasma concentrations were measured with a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method. Genotyping was performed for CYP3A4 and CYP3A5. Nine patients were included in each group. Oral midazolam CL was 1.26-fold higher in patients with PCa compared to patients with other solid tumors (geometric mean [coefficient of variation], 94.1 [33.5%] L/h vs 74.4 [39.1%] L/h, respectively; P = .08). Intravenous midazolam CL did not significantly differ between the 2 groups (P = .93). Moreover, the metabolic ratio of midazolam to 1'-hydroxy midazolam did not differ between the 2 groups for both oral administration (P = .67) and intravenous administration (P = .26). CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 genotypes did not influence midazolam pharmacokinetics. The observed difference in docetaxel pharmacokinetics between both patient groups therefore appears to be explained neither by a difference in midazolam CL nor by a difference in metabolic conversion rate of midazolam.

Comparison of docetaxel pharmacokinetics between castration-resistant and hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Recently, docetaxel treatment of metastatic prostate cancer patients shifted towards the hormone-sensitive stage of the disease. There are contradictive reports on differences in toxicity of docetaxel in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. Possible differences in toxicity might be attributed to different pharmacokinetics (PK) in the two patient populations. METHODS: Patients with mCRPC or mHSPC and a standard indication for docetaxel treatment were included in the study. All patients had suppressed serum testosterone levels (≤ 0.5 ng/mL or 1.73 nmol/L). Venous blood samples were obtained at the first docetaxel treatment, until 48 h after infusion. Plasma concentrations of docetaxel, unbound docetaxel and docetaxel metabolites were measured using validated liquid chromatography coupled tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) assays and compared between the two groups. Moreover, serum levels of docetaxel transporting α1-acid glycoprotein were measured and docetaxel toxicity recorded. RESULTS: A total of ten mCRPC and nine mHSPC patients were included in the study. The two cohorts differed in the number of prior treatments and opiate use, which were higher for mCRPC patients. The docetaxel PK was not different between mCRPC and mHSPC patients, with areas under the plasma concentration versus time curve (AUC0-48) 1710 [coefficient of variation (CV) 28.4%] and 1486 (CV 25.2%) ng/mL*h (p = 0.27), respectively. Also, the PK profile of unbound docetaxel, M1/M3, M2 and M4 metabolites were similar in both groups. Docetaxel doses were reduced in 50% of the mCRPC patients and 11% of the mHSPC patients. CONCLUSION: The PK profile of docetaxel was similar in mCPRC and mHSPC patients. Therefore, possible differences in toxicity between mCRPC and mHSPC patients cannot be explained by differences in docetaxel PK in our study population. These results suggest that treatment adaptations are not recommended in the new population of patients with mHSPC.

The influence of docetaxel schedule on treatment tolerability and efficacy in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Administration of single-agent docetaxel in a weekly schedule may offer similar efficacy, with a more favorable toxicity profile, compared to a three-weekly schedule in patients with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: The original search of Medline, Embase, and Scopus was performed in September 2018 and references were updated with additional searches up to January 2021. Two reviewers independently screened the identified literature based on a predefined set of criteria. Randomized controlled trials investigating the use of weekly versus three-weekly docetaxel in metastatic breast cancer patients were included. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials (N = 459 patients) were included in the final analyses. No significant differences were found in terms of objective response rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.54 - 1.05), progression-free survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.95, 95% CI: 0.71 - 1.26) or overall survival (HR 0.95, 95% CI: 0.70 - 1.29) between weekly and three-weekly docetaxel, respectively. Weekly docetaxel was associated with a significantly lower risk of grade 3/4 neutropenia (RR 0.16, 95% CI: 0.10 - 0.27), febrile neutropenia (RR 0.21, 95% CI: 0.08 - 0.55), and neuropathy (RR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.11 - 0.78). Although the risk of epiphora (≥ grade 3/leading to treatment withdrawal, RR 3.62, 95% CI: 1.07-12.22) and onycholysis (≥ grade 2/leading to treatment withdrawal, RR 3.90, 95% CI: 1.34 - 11.32) was increased. CONCLUSIONS: Weekly docetaxel is associated with a lower risk of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and neuropathy than the three-weekly docetaxel schedule in metastatic breast cancer patients. However, the risk of onycholysis, epiphora, and treatment discontinuation seems increased with weekly administration. No significant differences in efficacy outcomes were found. Weekly docetaxel might be an alternative for patients at risk for developing neutropenia.

Pharmacokinetics of docetaxel and ritonavir after oral administration of ModraDoc006/r in patients with prostate cancer versus patients with other advanced solid tumours.

PURPOSE: ModraDoc006 is a novel oral formulation of docetaxel. The clearance of intravenous docetaxel is higher in medically castrated prostate cancer patients as compared to patients with other types of solid tumours. Oral docetaxel requires co-administration ritonavir (r), which might further impact the pharmacokinetics (PK). We now compare the PK of docetaxel and ritonavir between patients with Hormone Sensitive Prostate Cancer (HSPC), metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC) and other metastatic solid tumours, treated on the same dose and weekly schedule of ModraDoc006/r. METHODS: The docetaxel and ritonavir PK were compared between four patient groups from three clinical phase I trials, including eight male and eight female patients with different types of solid tumours (study 1), seven patients with HSPC (study 2) and five patients with mCRPC (study 3). All patients were treated with ModraDoc006 30 mg and ritonavir 100 mg in the morning, followed by ModraDoc006 20 mg and ritonavir 100 mg in the evening (ModraDoc006/r 30-20/100-100). For comparative purposes, the PK of six mCRPC patients that received 30-20/200-100 in study 3 were also evaluated. RESULTS: The maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) was significantly lower for both docetaxel and ritonavir in the prostate cancer patients as compared to the patients with other types of solid tumours treated at ModraDoc006/r 30-20/100-100. The docetaxel area under the plasma concentration versus time curve (AUC) was significantly different at this dose, with a mean AUC0-48 of 1359 ± 374 ng/mL*h (N = 8) in female patients and 894 ± 223 ng/mL*h (N = 8) in male patients with different solid tumours (study 1), 321 ± 81 (N = 7) in HSPC (study 2) and 367 ± 182 ng/mL*h (N = 5) in mCRPC (study 3). A similar pattern was observed for ritonavir. ModraDoc006/r 30-20/200-100 in six mCRPC patients led to a comparable ritonavir exposure as compared to the patients at 30-20/100-100 in study 1 and increased the docetaxel AUC0-48 to 1266 ± 473 ng/mL*h (N = 6). CONCLUSION: The exposure to docetaxel and ritonavir was significantly lower in prostate cancer patients as compared to patients with other types of solid tumours, treated on ModraDoc006/r 30-20/100-100. An increase of the ritonavir dose increased the docetaxel exposure in mCRPC patients. Therefore, a different RP2D of ModraDoc006/r is pursued in castrated prostate cancer patients as compared to patients with other types of solid tumours. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Study 1: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01173913, date of registration August 2, 2010. Study 2: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03066154, date of registration February 28, 2017. Study 3: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03136640, date of registration May 2, 2017.

ModraDoc006, an oral docetaxel formulation in combination with ritonavir (ModraDoc006/r), in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients: A phase Ib study.

BACKGROUND: ModraDoc006 is an oral formulation of docetaxel, which is co-administered with the cytochrome P450 3A4 and P-glycoprotein inhibitor ritonavir (r): ModraDoc006/r. Weekly treatment with ModraDoc006/r had been evaluated in phase I trials in patients with different types of advanced solid tumors, but up to this point in time not in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). AIM: We assessed safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of ModraDoc006/r to establish the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) in patients with mCRPC. METHODS: mCRPC patients, treatment naïve or following abiraterone or enzalutamide treatment, were included. Dose-escalation of ModraDoc006/r was based on safety and docetaxel PK. Antitumor activity was assessed by serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and radiological evaluation. RESULTS: Cohort 1 (n = 5) received once weekly ModraDoc006 30 mg with ritonavir 100 mg in the morning, and ModraDoc006 20 mg with ritonavir 100 mg in the evening (30-20/100-100). The mean docetaxel area under the plasma concentration-time curve (mAUC0-inf) was 461 ng/mL × h with 1 dose limiting toxicity (DLT); grade 3 alanine transferase increase. In cohort 2 (n = 6, ModraDoc006/r 30-20/200-200), the mAUC0-inf was 1687 ng/mL × h with 2 DLTs; grade 3 diarrhea and mucositis. In cohort 3A (n = 6, ModraDoc006/r 30-20/200-100), the mAUC0-inf was 1517 ng/mL × h with 1 DLT; grade 3 diarrhea. In cohort 3B (n = 3, ModraDoc006/r 20-20/200-100), the mAUC0-inf was 558 ng/mL × h without DLTs. The mAUC0-inf exceeded estimated exposures of intravenous docetaxel in cohort 2 and 3A, was lower in cohort 1 and was in range in cohort 3B. PSA decreases of >50% occurred in 6/10 evaluable patients throughout the various cohorts. In five radiological evaluable patients, two confirmed partial responses were observed. CONCLUSION: The RP2D was established at weekly ModraDoc006/r 30-20/200-100. Observed PSA and radiological responses suggest promising clinical activity. These results have led to an ongoing randomized Phase 2b study, comparing weekly ModraDoc006/r with 3-weekly IV docetaxel in patients with mCRPC.

Effect of Food on the Pharmacokinetics of the Oral Docetaxel Tablet Formulation ModraDoc006 Combined with Ritonavir (ModraDoc006/r) in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumours.

INTRODUCTION: ModraDoc006 is a novel docetaxel tablet formulation that is co-administrated with the cytochrome P450 3A4 and P-glycoprotein inhibitor ritonavir (r): ModraDoc006/r. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the effect of food consumed prior to administration of ModraDoc006/r on the pharmacokinetics of docetaxel and ritonavir. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumours were enrolled in this randomized crossover study to receive ModraDoc006/r in a fasted state in week 1 and after a standardized high-fat meal in week 2 and vice versa. Pharmacokinetic sampling was conducted until 48 h after both study drug administrations. Docetaxel and ritonavir plasma concentrations were determined using liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry. Safety was evaluated with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.03. RESULTS: In total, 16 patients completed the food-effect study. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) for the docetaxel area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC)0-48, AUC0-inf and maximum concentration (Cmax) were 1.11 (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.93-1.33), 1.19 (90% CI 1.00-1.41) and 1.07 (90% CI 0.81-1.42) in fed versus fasted conditions, respectively. For the ritonavir Cmax, the GMR was 0.79 (90% CI 0.69-0.90), whereas the AUC0-48 and AUC0-inf were bioequivalent. The most frequent treatment-related toxicities were grade ≤ 2 diarrhoea and fatigue. Hypokalaemia was the only observed treatment-related grade 3 toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: The docetaxel and ritonavir exposure were not bioequivalent, as consumption of a high-fat meal prior to administration of ModraDoc006/r resulted in a slightly higher docetaxel exposure and lower ritonavir Cmax. Since docetaxel exposure is the only clinically relevant parameter in our patient population, the overall conclusion is that combined ModraDoc006 and ritonavir treatment may be slightly affected by concomitant intake of a high-fat meal. In view of the small effect, it is most likely that the intake of a light meal will not affect the systemic exposure to docetaxel. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03147378, date of registration: May 10 2017.

A Phase 1 Dose-Escalation Study of Low-Dose Metronomic Treatment With Novel Oral Paclitaxel Formulations in Combination With Ritonavir in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors.

ModraPac001 (MP1) and ModraPac005 (MP5) are novel oral paclitaxel formulations that are coadministered with the cytochrome P450 3A4 inhibitor ritonavir (r), enabling daily low-dose metronomic (LDM) treatment. The primary aim of this study was to determine the safety, pharmacokinetics and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of MP1/r and MP5/r. The second aim was to establish the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) as LDM treatment. This was an open-label phase 1 trial. Patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled according to a classical 3+3 design. After initial employment of the MP1 capsule, the MP5 tablet was introduced. Safety was assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.02. Pharmacokinetic sampling was performed on days 1, 2, 8, and 22 for determination of paclitaxel and ritonavir plasma concentrations. In this study, 37 patients were treated with up to twice-daily 30-mg paclitaxel combined with twice-daily 100-mg ritonavir (MP5/r 30-30/100-100) in 9 dose levels. Dose-limiting toxicities were nausea, (febrile) neutropenia, dehydration and vomiting. At the MTD/RP2D of MP5/r 20-20/100-100, the maximum paclitaxel plasma concentration and area under the concentration-time curve until 24 hours were 34.6 ng/mL (coefficient of variation, 79%) and 255 ng • h/mL (coefficient of variation, 62%), respectively. Stable disease was observed as best response in 15 of 31 evaluable patients. Based on these results, LDM therapy with oral paclitaxel coadministrated with ritonavir was considered feasible and safe. The MTD and RP2D were determined as MP5/r 20-20/100-100. Further clinical development of MP5/r as an LDM concept, including potential combination treatment, is warranted.