A randomized phase II trial on the addition of dutasteride to combined androgen blockade therapy versus combined androgen blockade therapy alone in patients with advanced or metastatic salivary duct carcinoma - the DUCT study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Salivary duct carcinoma (SDC) is a rare and aggressive subtype of salivary gland cancer, frequently associated with incurable recurrences and distant metastases (R/M). Proliferation of SDC relies on androgen receptor (AR) signalling, prompting the use of combined androgen blockade (CAB, i.e., luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist and/or AR antagonists) to R/M SDC patients. However, only a subset of patients benefits from such treatments. We have shown that response to CAB is associated with steroid 5α-reductase 1 (SRD5A1) mRNA expression. SRD5A1 catalyses the intracellular conversion of testosterone into the more potent AR-agonist dihydrotestosterone. This conversion can be inhibited by dutasteride, a potent SRD5A1-inhibitor, which is currently prescribed for benign prostatic hyperplasia. We hypothesize that repurposing dutasteride to target AR signalling in SDC could enhance therapeutic response and clinical outcome in SDC patients. METHODS: This prospective, open-label, randomized controlled phase II clinical trial, is designed to investigate whether dutasteride as an adjunct drug to CAB improves response rate and clinical outcome in patients with AR-positive R/M SDC. Patients are divided in two cohorts based on their prior systemic treatments. In cohort A, CAB-naïve patients (n = 74) will be randomly assigned to either a control arm (Arm 1) receiving CAB (goserelin 10.8 mg/3m and bicalutamide 50 mg/OD) or an experimental arm (Arm 2) where dutasteride (0.5 mg/OD) is added to the CAB regimen. In cohort B, patients with disease progression after adjuvant or first-line palliative CAB therapy (max. n = 24) will receive goserelin, bicalutamide, and dutasteride to assess whether the addition of dutasteride can overcome therapy resistance. The primary endpoints are the objective response rate and duration of response. Secondary endpoints are progression-free survival, overall survival, clinical benefit rate, quality of life, and safety. Translational research will be performed to explore molecular target expression differences and their correlation with clinical outcome. DISCUSSION: The DUCT study addresses an unmet medical need by investigating the repurposing of dutasteride to enhance treatment response and improve clinical outcome for patients with R/M SDC, especially those with limited alternative treatment options, such as HER2-negative cases. By repurposing a registered low-cost drug, this trial's findings could be readily applied into clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT05513365. Date of registration: August 24, 2022. PROTOCOL VERSION: Current protocol version 4.0, February 21, 2024.

Exploring the contribution of genetic variants to high sunitinib exposure in patients with cancer.

AIMS: Sunitinib exhibits considerable interindividual variability in exposure. While the target total plasma concentration of sunitinib and its active metabolite is 50-87.5 ng/mL for the intermittent dosing schedule, ~10-21% of patients experience higher exposures (>87.5 ng/mL), correlated with an increased risk for toxicity. Previous research identified single nucleotide variants (SNVs) in genes from the sunitinib pharmacokinetic pathway to be associated with efficacy and toxicity. However, significant interindividual variability in exposure remains unexplained. Our aim was to identify genetic variants associated with supratherapeutic exposure of sunitinib. METHODS: This was a genome-wide association study. Cases were identified during routine therapeutic drug monitoring and consisted of patients with dose-normalized sunitinib plasma concentrations >87.5 ng/mL (intermittent dosing) or >75 ng/mL (continuous dosing). Controls were sampled from the historical cohort EuroTARGET who tolerated the standard dose of 50 mg in an intermittent schedule. SNVs were tested for an association with sunitinib exposure. A P-value ≤5 × 10-8 was considered significant and a P-value between 5 × 10-8 and 5 × 10-6 was considered suggestive. RESULTS: Sixty-nine cases and 345 controls were included for association analysis. One SNV (rs6923761), located on the gene glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor, was significantly associated with increased sunitinib exposure (P = 7.86 × 10-19). Twelve SNVs were suggestive for an association with sunitinib exposure (P ≤ 5 × 10-6). CONCLUSIONS: While rs6923671 is associated with high sunitinib exposure, the underlying mechanism is not yet clarified and warrants further investigation. We could not confirm the earlier found associations between SNVs in candidate genes involved in the pharmacokinetic pathway of sunitinib and its efficacy and toxicity.

Dose selection of novel anticancer drugs: exposing the gap between selected and required doses.

Historically, dose selection of anticancer drugs has mainly been based on establishing the maximum tolerated dose in phase 1 clinical trials with a traditional 3 plus 3 design. In the era of targeted therapies and immune-modulating agents, this approach does not necessarily lead to selection of the most favourable dose. This strategy can introduce potentially avoidable toxicity or inconvenience for patients. Multiple changes in drug development could lead to more rational dose selection, such as use of better predictive preclinical models, adaptive and randomised trial design, evaluation of multiple dose levels in late-phase development, assessment of target activity and saturation, and early biomarker use for efficacy and safety evaluation. In this Review, we evaluate the rationale and validation of dose selection in each phase of drug development for anticancer drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration from Jan 1, 2020, to June 30, 2023, and give recommendations for dose optimisation to improve safety and patient convenience. In our evaluation, we classified 20 (65%) of the 31 recently registered anticancer agents as potential candidates for dose optimisation, which could be achieved either by reducing the dose (n=10 [32%]) or adjusting the dosage regimen (n=10 [32%]). Dose selection seemed to be adequately justified for nine (29%) of the drugs, whereas the reviewed data were inconclusive for formulating a recommendation on dose optimisation for two (6%) of the drugs.

Reasons for non-feasibility of therapeutic drug monitoring of oral targeted therapies in oncology - an analysis of the closed cohorts of a multicentre prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) - performing dose adjustments based on measured drug levels and established pharmacokinetic (PK) targets - could optimise treatment with drugs that show large interpatient variability in exposure. We evaluated the feasibility of TDM for multiple oral targeted therapies. Here we report on drugs for which routine TDM is not feasible. METHODS: We evaluated drug cohorts from the Dutch Pharmacology Oncology Group - TDM study. Based on PK levels taken at pre-specified time points, PK-guided interventions were performed. Feasibility of TDM was evaluated, and based on the success and practicability of TDM, cohorts could be closed. RESULTS: For 10 out of 24 cohorts TDM was not feasible and inclusion was closed. A high incidence of adverse events resulted in closing the cabozantinib, dabrafenib/trametinib, everolimus, regorafenib and vismodegib cohort. The enzalutamide and erlotinib cohorts were closed because almost all PK levels were above target. Other, non-pharmacological reasons led to closing the palbociclib, olaparib and tamoxifen cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Although TDM could help personalising treatment for many drugs, the above-mentioned reasons can influence its feasibility, usefulness and clinical applicability. Therefore, routine TDM is not advised for cabozantinib, dabrafenib/trametinib, enzalutamide, erlotinib, everolimus, regorafenib and vismodegib. Nonetheless, TDM remains valuable for individual clinical decisions.

Evaluating the Clinical Impact and Feasibility of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Pazopanib in a Real-World Soft-Tissue Sarcoma Cohort.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Pazopanib is registered for metastatic renal cell carcinoma and soft-tissue sarcoma (STS). Its variable pharmacokinetic (PK) characteristics and narrow therapeutic range provide a strong rationale for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). Prior studies have defined target levels of drug exposure (≥ 20.5 mg/L) linked to prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), but the added value of using TDM remains unclear. This study investigates the effect of TDM of pazopanib in patients with STS on survival outcomes and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and evaluates the feasibility of TDM-guided dosing. METHODS: A TDM-guided cohort was compared to a non-TDM-guided cohort for PFS, overall survival (OS) and DLTs. PK samples were available from all patients, though not acted upon in the non-TDM-guided cohort. We evaluated the feasibility of TDM by comparing the proportion of underdosed patients in our TDM cohort with data from previous publications. RESULTS: A total of 122 STS patients were included in the TDM-guided cohort (n = 95) and non-TDM-guided cohort (n = 27). The average exposure in the overall population was 30.5 mg/L and was similar in both groups. Median PFS and OS did not differ between the TDM-guided cohort and non-TDM-guided cohort (respectively 5.5 vs 4.4 months, p = 0.3, and 12.6 vs 10.1 months, p = 0.8). Slightly more patients in the non-TDM-guided cohort experienced DLTs (54%) compared to the TDM-guided cohort (44%). The proportion of underdosed patients (13.3%) was halved compared to historical data (26.7%). CONCLUSION: TDM reduced the proportion of patients with subtherapeutic exposure levels by ~ 50%. Nonetheless, the added value of TDM for achieving target trough levels of ≥ 20.5 mg/L for pazopanib on survival outcomes could not be confirmed in STS patients.

Model-Informed Development of a Cost-Saving Dosing Regimen for Sacituzumab Govitecan.

BACKGROUND: The antibody-drug conjugate sacituzumab govitecan is approved for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer and has shown promising results in various other types of cancer. Its costs may limit patient access to this novel effective treatment modality. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop an evidence-based rational dosing regimen that results in targeted drug exposure within the therapeutic range while minimizing financial toxicity, to improve treatment access. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Exposure equivalent dosing strategies were developed based on pharmacokinetic modeling and simulation by using the published pharmacokinetic model developed by the license holder. The alternative dose was based on the principle of using complete vials to prevent spillage and on the established non-linear relationship between body weight and systemic exposure. Equivalent exposure compared to the approved dosing regimen of 10 mg/kg was aimed for. Equivalent exposure was conservatively defined as calculated geometric mean ratios within the 0.9-1.11 boundaries for area under the concentration-time curve (AUC), trough concentration (Ctrough) and maximum concentration (Cmax) of the alternative dosing regimen compared to the approved dosing regimen. Since different vial sizes are available for the European Union (EU) and United States (US) market, because body weight distributions differ between these populations, we performed our analysis for both scenarios. RESULTS: Dosing regimens of sacituzumab govitecan for the EU (< 50 kg: 400 mg, 50-80 kg: 600 mg, and > 80 kg: 800 mg) and US population (< 40 kg: 360 mg, 40-65 kg: 540 mg, 65-90 kg: 720 mg, and > 90 kg: 900 mg) were developed, based on weight bands. The geometric mean ratios for all pharmacokinetic outcomes were within the predefined equivalence boundaries, while the quantity of drug used was 21.5% and 19.0% lower for the EU and US scenarios, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: With the alternative dosing proposal, an approximately 20% reduction in drug expenses for sacituzumab govitecan can be realized while maintaining an equivalent and more evenly distributed exposure throughout the body weight range, without notable increases in pharmacokinetic variability.

A Prospective Randomised Trial to Determine the Effect of a Reduced Versus Standard Dose of Enzalutamide on Side Effects in Frail Patients with Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Enzalutamide is a potent androgen receptor signalling inhibitor, effectively used for the treatment of different stages of prostate cancer. Side effects occur frequently at the registered dose, whilst a lower dose might be equally effective. Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine the effect of a reduced dose of enzalutamide on side effects in frail patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: This multicentre randomised trial compared the standard enzalutamide dose of 160 mg once daily (OD) with a reduced dose of 120 mg OD in frail patients with prostate cancer. Fatigue, cognitive side effects, and depressive symptoms were measured by the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue) questionnaire, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive Function (FACT-Cog) questionnaire, and Geriatric Depression Scale-15 (GDS-15). Linear mixed-effect models were used to study differences in side effects over time between both groups. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: In total, 52 patients were included in the analysis (25 reduced dose and 27 standard dose). Patients treated with the reduced dose had significantly lower fatigue after 24 wk than those with the standard dose (difference FACIT-Fatigue 6.2; 95% confidence interval 1.4-11.0; p = 0.01). Patients treated with the reduced dose showed stable fatigue, cognitive side effects, and depressive symptoms over time, whilst patients with the standard dose showed significantly worse side effects after 24 wk than at baseline. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: A reduced dose of enzalutamide results in less fatigue, cognitive side effects, and depressive symptoms in frail patients with prostate cancer than the standard dose, without any indication of interference with efficacy endpoints. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we looked at the side effects of enzalutamide at two dose levels. We found that, in frail patients, three tablets a day result in less fatigue than four tablets a day. Patients treated with four tablets a day showed an increase in fatigue, cognitive side effects, and depression. We conclude that a lower dose of three tablets can be used to alleviate side effects without indications for less efficacy.

Prediction of plasma ctDNA fraction and prognostic implications of liquid biopsy in advanced prostate cancer.

No consensus strategies exist for prognosticating metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Circulating tumor DNA fraction (ctDNA%) is increasingly reported by commercial and laboratory tests but its utility for risk stratification is unclear. Here, we intersect ctDNA%, treatment outcomes, and clinical characteristics across 738 plasma samples from 491 male mCRPC patients from two randomized multicentre phase II trials and a prospective province-wide blood biobanking program. ctDNA% correlates with serum and radiographic metrics of disease burden and is highest in patients with liver metastases. ctDNA% strongly predicts overall survival, progression-free survival, and treatment response independent of therapeutic context and outperformed established prognostic clinical factors. Recognizing that ctDNA-based biomarker genotyping is limited by low ctDNA% in some patients, we leverage the relationship between clinical prognostic factors and ctDNA% to develop a clinically-interpretable machine-learning tool that predicts whether a patient has sufficient ctDNA% for informative ctDNA genotyping (available online: https://www.ctDNA.org ). Our results affirm ctDNA% as an actionable tool for patient risk stratification and provide a practical framework for optimized biomarker testing.

Results of the first international quality control programme for oral targeted oncolytics.

AIMS: With the rising number of oral targeted oncolytics and growing awareness of the benefits of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) within the field of oncology, it is expected that the requests for quantifying concentrations of these drugs will increase. It is important to (cross-)validate available assays and ensure its quality, as results may lead to altered dosing recommendations. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the performance of laboratories measuring concentrations of targeted oral oncolytics in a one-time international quality control (QC) programme. METHODS: Participating laboratories received a set of plasma samples containing low, medium and high concentrations of imatinib, sunitinib, desethylsunitinib, pazopanib, cabozantinib, olaparib, enzalutamide, desmethylenzalutamide and abiraterone, with the request to report their results back within five weeks after shipment. Accuracy was defined acceptable if measurements where within 85%-115% from the weighed-in reference concentrations. Besides descriptive statistics, an exploratory ANOVA was performed. RESULTS: Seventeen laboratories from six countries reported 243 results. Overall, 80.7% of all measurements were within the predefined range of acceptable accuracy. Laboratories performed best in quantifying imatinib and poorest in quantifying desethylsunitinib (median absolute inaccuracy respectively 4.0% (interquartile range (IQR) 1.8%-6.5%) and 15.5% (IQR 8.8%-34.9%)). The poorest performance of desethylsunitinib might be caused by using the stable-isotope-labelled sunitinib instead of desethylsunitinib as an internal standard, or due to the light-induced cis(Z)/trans(E) isomerization of (desethyl)sunitinib. Overall, drug substance and performing laboratory seemed to influence the absolute inaccuracy (F = 16.4; p < 0.001 and F = 35.5; p < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Considering this is the first evaluation of an international QC programme for oral targeted oncolytics, an impressive high percentage of measurements were within the predefined range of accuracy. Cross-validation of assays that are used for dose optimization of oncolytics will secure the performance and will protect patients from incorrect advices.

Effect of Aprepitant on Etoposide Pharmacokinetics in Patients with Testicular Cancer: A Pharmacokinetic Study to Determine the Absence of a Clinically Relevant Interaction.

All patients treated with anticancer agents should receive the most effective anti-emetic regimen. Anti-emetic guidelines provide recommendations but do not take into account possible drug-drug interactions between anti-emetics and anticancer drugs. This study determines the clinical relevance of the potential drug-drug interaction of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, aprepitant, on the pharmacokinetics of etoposide. Aprepitant is a moderate CYP3A4 inhibitor and may increase the systemic exposure of etoposide which is partly metabolized by cytochrome P450 enzyme 3A4 (CYP3A4). In this prospective observational study, the pharmacokinetics of etoposide with and without concomitant use of aprepitant was determined in 12 patients receiving first-line chemotherapy for testicular cancer. The geometric mean (95% confidence interval (CI)) area under the plasma concentration-time curve 0-24 hour (AUC0-24h ) of etoposide with aprepitant was 86.2 (79.7-93.2) mg/L*hour vs. 83.7 (75.8-92.4) mg/L*hour without aprepitant. Geometric mean ratios (90% CIs) of AUC0-24h and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ) for etoposide with and without aprepitant were 1.03 (0.96-1.10) and 0.96 (0.89-1.03), respectively. This study confirms the absence of a clinically relevant interaction between etoposide and aprepitant. Both drugs can be safely combined without affecting etoposide exposure.

Therapeutic drug monitoring to personalize dosing of imatinib, sunitinib, and pazopanib: A mixed methods study on barriers and facilitators.

BACKGROUND: Personalized dosing based on measurement of individual drug levels and adjusting the dose accordingly can improve efficacy and decrease unnecessary toxicity of oncological treatment. For imatinib, sunitinib, and pazopanib, this therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)-guided dosing is, however, not routinely used, despite accumulating evidence favoring individualized dosing. Therefore, we aimed to identify and quantify (potential) barriers and facilitators in TDM-guided dosing for imatinib, sunitinib, and pazopanib. METHODS: We performed a mixed methods study among all stakeholders involved: patients, healthcare professionals (HCPs), pharmaceutical companies, and health insurance companies. During the first qualitative part of this study, we performed semi-structured individual interviews and one focus group interview to identify all (potential) barriers and facilitators, and during the second quantitative part of this study, we used a web-based survey to quantify these findings. The interviews addressed the six domains of the implementation of change model of Grol and Wensing: (1) the innovation itself; (2) the HCP; (3) the patient; (4) social context; (5) organizational context; and (6) finances, law, and governance. RESULTS: In the qualitative study, we interviewed 20 patients, 18 HCPs and 10 representatives of pharmaceutical and health insurance companies and identified 72 barriers and 90 facilitators. In the quantitative study, the survey was responded by 66 HCPs and 58 patients. Important barriers were on the domain of the HCP, such as a lack of experience with TDM (36.4%), on the domain of the patient, such as lack of awareness of TDM (39.7%), and the processing time for measurement and interpretation of the TDM result (40.9%) (organizational domain). Important facilitators were education of HCPs (95.5%), education of patients (87.9%) and facilitating an overview of when and where TDM measurements are being performed (86.4%). CONCLUSION: We identified and quantified important barriers and facilitators for the implementation of TDM-guided dosing for imatinib, sunitinib, and pazopanib. Based on our results, the implementation strategy should mainly focus on educating both HCPs and patients and on the organizational aspect of TDM.

Pharmacokinetic boosting of olaparib: A randomised, cross-over study (PROACTIVE-study).

BACKGROUND: Pharmacokinetic (PK) boosting is the intentional use of a drug-drug interaction to enhance systemic drug exposure. PK boosting of olaparib, a CYP3A-substrate, has the potential to reduce PK variability and financial burden. The aim of this study was to investigate equivalence of a boosted, reduced dose of olaparib compared to the non-boosted standard dose. METHODS: This cross-over, multicentre trial compared olaparib 300 mg twice daily (BID) with olaparib 100 mg BID boosted with the strong CYP3A-inhibitor cobicistat 150 mg BID. Patients were randomised to the standard therapy followed by the boosted therapy, or vice versa. After seven days of each therapy, dense PK sampling was performed for noncompartmental PK analysis. Equivalence was defined as a 90% Confidence Interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of the boosted versus standard therapy area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC0-12 h) within no-effect boundaries. These boundaries were set at 0.57-1.25, based on previous pharmacokinetic studies with olaparib capsules and tablets. RESULTS: Of 15 included patients, 12 were eligible for PK analysis. The GMR of the AUC0-12 h was 1.45 (90% CI 1.27-1.65). No grade ≥3 adverse events were reported during the study. CONCLUSIONS: Boosting a 100 mg BID olaparib dose with cobicistat increases olaparib exposure 1.45-fold, compared to the standard dose of 300 mg BID. Equivalence of the boosted olaparib was thus not established. Boosting remains a promising strategy to reduce the olaparib dose as cobicistat increases olaparib exposure Adequate tolerability of the boosted therapy with higher exposure should be established.

PARPing up the right tree; an overview of PARP inhibitors for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

PARP inhibitors (PARPi) are transforming the current treatment landscape of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. By reanalysing published data on olaparib, talazoparib, rucaparib and niraparib, we provide a concise overview of responses by molecular subgroup. As monotherapy, all PARPi showed comparable efficacy and the same hierarchy in responsiveness: patients with tumours harbouring aberrations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCAm) evidently demonstrate superior responses when compared to aberrations in other homologous recombination repair (HRR) related genes. Niraparib seems to cause more grade ≥3 adverse events in comparison to other PARPi. PARPi have also been combined with androgen-receptor signalling inhibitors (ARSI) for both patients with tumours harbouring aberrations in HRR genes (HRRm), and molecularly unselected patients. Compared to wildtype, BRCAm patients responded best, followed by HRRm. Olaparib-abiraterone, niraparib-abiraterone, and talazoparib-enzalutamide all prolonged progression-free survival compared to an ARSI alone in HRRm patients. In the non-HRRm subgroup, only olaparib-abiraterone and talazoparib-enzalutamide were effective. Results for the combination of rucaparib with enzalutamide are yet to be reported. The rate of grade ≥3 adverse events for the combination regimens is 10-30% higher when compared to an ARSI alone. Given the limited efficacy in unselected patients, these PARPi-ARSI combinations may be best reserved for selected patients.

Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of the Next Generation Androgen Receptor Inhibitor-Darolutamide.

Darolutamide is a next-generation androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (ARSI) currently approved for the treatment of nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) and metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Studies suggest that darolutamide also has the potential to be used to treat other stages of prostate cancer (PC), suggesting that its indications will broaden in the near future. Since ARSIs show similar efficacy for the treatment of PC, pharmacokinetic properties of these drugs and patient characteristics could help physicians decide which drug to select. This review provides an overview of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of darolutamide. One of the most important pharmacological advantages of darolutamide is its low brain distribution and therefore limited seizure potential and central nervous system adverse effects. In addition, darolutamide has little drug-drug interaction potential and is unlikely to alter the exposure of other cytochrome P450 or P-glycoprotein substrates. Nevertheless, it may significantly increase the exposure of breast cancer resistant protein (BCRP) substrates. The limited solubility and bioavailability of darolutamide increases when taken together with food, regardless of the fat content. Darolutamide is excessively metabolized by oxidation and glucuronidation and excreted in the urine and feces. For this reason, dose reduction is required in patients with moderate and severe renal or severe hepatic impairment. Although no exposure-response relationship was observed with darolutamide, less advanced stages of PC showed better PSA response on treatment. Overall, darolutamide has some advantageous pharmacological properties that may lead to its preferred use, when broader registered, in selected patients across different disease stages.

Measuring Tumour Imatinib Concentrations in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumours: Relevant or Redundant?

Imatinib plasma trough concentrations are associated with efficacy for patients treated for advanced or metastatic KIT-positive gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs). This relationship has not been studied for patients treated in the neoadjuvant setting, let alone its correlation with tumour drug concentrations. In this exploratory study we aimed to determine the correlation between plasma and tumour imatinib concentrations in the neoadjuvant setting, investigate tumour imatinib distribution patterns within GISTs, and analyse its correlation with pathological response. Imatinib concentrations were measured in both plasma and in three regions of the resected primary tumour: the core, middle part, and periphery. Twenty-four tumour samples derived from the primary tumours of eight patients were included in the analyses. Imatinib tumour concentrations were higher compared to plasma concentrations. No correlation was observed between plasma and tumour concentrations. Interpatient variability in tumour concentrations was high compared to interindividual variability in plasma concentrations. Although imatinib accumulates in tumour tissue, no distribution pattern of imatinib in tumour tissue could be identified. There was no correlation between imatinib concentrations in tumour tissue and pathological treatment response.

Early On-treatment Changes in Circulating Tumor DNA Fraction and Response to Enzalutamide or Abiraterone in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI) are standard of care for treatment-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), but rapid resistance is common. Early identification of resistance will improve management strategies. We investigated whether changes in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) fraction during ARPI treatment are linked with mCRPC clinical outcomes. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Plasma cell-free DNA was collected from 81 patients with mCRPC at baseline and after 4 weeks of first-line ARPI treatment during two prospective multicenter observational studies (NCT02426333; NCT02471469). ctDNA fraction was calculated from somatic mutations in targeted sequencing and genome copy-number profiles. Samples were classified into detected versus undetected ctDNA. Outcome measurements were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Nondurable treatment response was defined as PFS ≤6 months. RESULTS: ctDNA was detected in 48/81 (59%) baseline and 29/81 (36%) 4-week samples. ctDNA fraction for samples with detected ctDNA was lower at 4 weeks versus baseline (median 5.0% versus 14.5%, P = 0.017). PFS and OS were shortest for patients with persistent ctDNA at 4 weeks (univariate HR, 4.79; 95% CI, 2.62-8.77 and univariate HR, 5.49; 95% CI, 2.76-10.91, respectively), independent of clinical prognostic factors. For patients exhibiting change from detected to undetected ctDNA by 4 weeks, there was no significant PFS difference versus patients with baseline undetected ctDNA. ctDNA change had a positive predictive value of 88% and negative predictive value of 92% for identifying nondurable responses. CONCLUSIONS: Early changes in ctDNA fraction are strongly linked to duration of first-line ARPI treatment benefit and survival in mCRPC and may inform early therapy switches or treatment intensification. See related commentary by Sartor, p. 2745.

Systemic exposure to cisplatin and paclitaxel after intraperitoneal chemotherapy in ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine the systemic exposure to cisplatin and paclitaxel after adjuvant intraperitoneal administration in patients with advanced ovarian cancer who underwent primary debulking surgery. This could provide an explanation for the high incidence of systemic adverse events associated with this treatment regimen. METHODS: This is a prospective pharmacokinetic study in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer who were treated with intraperitoneal administered cisplatin and paclitaxel. Plasma and peritoneal fluid samples were obtained during the first treatment cycle. The systemic exposure to cisplatin and paclitaxel was determined and compared to previously published exposure data after intravenous administration. An exploratory analysis was performed to investigate the relation between systemic exposure to cisplatin and the occurrence of adverse events. RESULTS: Pharmacokinetics of ultrafiltered cisplatin were studied in eleven evaluable patients. The geometric mean [range] peak plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma-concentration time curve (AUC0-24 h) for cisplatin was 2.2 [1.8-2.7] mg/L and 10.1 [9.0-12.6] mg h/L, with a coefficient of variation (CV%) of 14 and 13.0%, respectively. The geometric mean [range] observed plasma concentration of paclitaxel was 0.06 [0.04-0.08] mg/L. No correlation was found between systemic exposure to ultrafiltered cisplatin and adverse events. CONCLUSION: Systemic exposure to ultrafiltered cisplatin after intraperitoneal administration is high. In addition to a local effect, this provides a pharmacological explanation for high incidence of adverse events seen after intraperitoneal administration of high-dose cisplatin. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration number NCT02861872.

Lost in translation: Revisiting the use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in colorectal cancer.

Patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer ((m)CRC) have limited effective treatment options resulting in high mortality rates. A better understanding of the molecular basis of this disease has led to growing interest in small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for its treatment. However, of around 42 TKIs demonstrating preclinical anti-tumour activity, and despite numerous clinical trials, only 1 has been approved for clinical use in mCRC. Clearly, there is a huge gap in the translation of these targeted therapies to the clinic. This underlines the limitations of preclinical models to predict clinical drug efficacy and to fully characterize the mechanism of action. Moreover, several relevant topics remain poorly resolved. Do we know the actual intracellular concentrations that are required for anticancer efficacy, and what range of intra-tumoral drug concentrations is reached in clinical setting? Are the intended targeted kinases responsible for the anti-cancer activity or are other unexpected cellular targets involved? Do we have any idea of the effect of these drugs on the tumour microenvironment and does this help explain therapy success, failure or heterogeneity? In this review, we address these questions and discuss concepts that jointly complicate the clinical translation of TKIs for CRC. Finally, we will argue that an integrated approach with more sophisticated preclinical models and techniques may improve the prediction of clinical treatment efficacy.