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 pharmacological rationale for improved everolimus dosing in oncology and transplant patients.

AIMS: Everolimus is a drug from the class of mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors used for both immunosuppressant and oncological indications. We postulate that there is room for improvement of dosing, as the optimal immunosuppressive dose in calcineurin-free regimens is unknown and since the once daily dosing regimen for oncological indications is often associated with treatment-limiting toxicity. METHODS: We developed a mechanistic population pharmacokinetic model for everolimus in cancer and transplant patients and explored alternative dosing regimens. RESULTS: We found that formulation did not influence bioavailability and that use of >20 mg prednisolone daily increased everolimus clearance. In transplant patients, the approved dose of 0.75-1 mg twice daily (BID) results in subtherapeutic trough levels (<6 µg l-1 ) and that a higher starting dose of 2.25-3 mg BID is required. CONCLUSION: For oncological indications, our results encourage the investigation of dosing everolimus 3.75 mg BID in terms of superiority in safety and noninferiority in efficacy.

Clinical validation study of dried blood spot for determining everolimus concentration in patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: Everolimus treatment is seriously hampered by its toxicity profile. As a relationship between everolimus exposure and effectiveness and toxicity has been established, early and ongoing concentration measurement can be key to individualize the dose and optimize treatment outcomes. Dried blood spot (DBS) facilitates sampling at a patients' home and thereby eases dose individualization. The aim of this study is to determine the agreement and predictive performance of DBS compared to whole blood (WB) to measure everolimus concentrations in cancer patients. METHODS: Paired DBS and WB samples were collected in 22 cancer patients treated with everolimus and analyzed using UPLC-MS/MS. Bland-Altman and Passing-Bablok analysis were used to determine method agreement. Limits of clinical relevance were set at a difference of ± 25%, as this would lead to a different dosing advice. Using DBS concentration and Passing-Bablok regression analysis, WB concentrations were predicted. RESULTS: Samples of 20 patients were suitable for analysis. Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean ratio of everolimus WB to DBS concentrations of 0.90, with 95% of data points within limits of clinical relevance. Passing-Bablok regression of DBS compared to WB revealed no constant bias (intercept 0.02; 95% CI 0.93-1.35) and a small proportional bias (slope 0.89; 95% CI 0.76-0.99). Predicted concentrations showed low bias and imprecision and 90% of samples had an absolute percentage prediction error of < 20%. CONCLUSIONS: DBS is a valid method to determine everolimus concentrations in cancer patients. This can especially be of value for early recognition of over- or underexposure to enable dose adaptations.

Use of incretin agents and risk of pancreatic cancer: a population-based cohort study.

AIM: To investigate the association between the use of incretin agents and the risk of pancreatic cancer. METHODS: A retrospective population-based cohort study, using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, 2007-2012, was conducted. Patients (n = 182 428) with at least one non-insulin antidiabetic drug (NIAD) prescription and aged ≥18 years during data collection, were matched one-to-one to control patients without diabetes. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models and a new user design were used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of pancreatic cancer in incretin users (n = 28 370) compared with control subjects without diabetes and other NIAD-treated patients. Time-dependent adjustments were made for age, sex, lifestyle, comorbidities and drug use. RESULTS: The mean duration of follow-up was 4.1 years for incretin users. Current NIAD use was associated with a fourfold increased risk of pancreatic cancer [HR 4.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.49-5.24]. This risk was almost doubled among current incretin users as compared with control subjects. Incretin use was not associated with pancreatic cancer when compared with control subjects with diabetes (HR 1.36, 95% CI 0.94-1.96); however, the 'new user' design did show an association between incretin use and pancreatic cancer when compared with control subjects with diabetes. In both cohorts with prevalent and incident users of antidiabetic drugs, the risk of pancreatic cancer almost doubled in those who had recently initiated incretin therapy (up to seven prescriptions), whereas this elevated risk dropped to baseline levels with prolonged use. CONCLUSIONS: We found that incretin use was not associated with pancreatic cancer after adjustment for the severity of the underlying Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). The elevated risk of pancreatic cancer in those recently initiating incretin agents is likely to be caused by protopathic bias or other types of unknown distortion. The presence of considerable confounding by disease severity and the lack of a duration-of-use relationship do not support a causal explanation for the association between incretin agents and pancreatic cancer.

Real-world data on the management of pazopanib-induced liver toxicity in routine care of renal cell cancer and soft tissue sarcoma patients.

PURPOSE: Pazopanib is known to cause liver toxicity. A relationship between pazopanib exposure and alanine transaminase elevations has been described in clinical trials. This study investigated the relation between pazopanib exposure and liver toxicity in real-world patients and evaluated the management of pazopanib-induced liver toxicity in routine care. METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort study was performed in patients treated with pazopanib in whom pazopanib exposure was measured. The percentage of patients with and without liver toxicity during treatment with pazopanib was calculated as well as the average pazopanib exposure in both groups. Furthermore, the management of patients with liver toxicity was evaluated. RESULTS: Liver toxicity was observed in 25 out of the 133 patients included (19%). Pazopanib exposure was comparable in patients with or without liver toxicity (27.7 mg/L versus 28.1 mg/L). Seven patients permanently discontinued pazopanib after the occurrence of liver toxicity. Of the remaining 18 patients, continuation or restart of pazopanib after liver toxicity was successful in 16 patients and half of these patients were able to safely continue pazopanib at the same dose as prior to liver toxicity for the remaining duration of treatment. CONCLUSION: Our study did not demonstrate a clear relationship between pazopanib exposure and the occurrence of pazopanib-induced liver toxicity. Half of the patients were able to safely continue or restart pazopanib treatment after liver toxicity and received the same dose as prior to drug withdrawal. Successful interventions to address pazopanib-induced toxicity in the clinic led to an algorithm for the management of pazopanib-induced liver toxicity.

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.

Unintentional combining enzalutamide with a moderate CYP2C8 inhibitor in a patient with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide, registered for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), is an inducer of multiple CYP-enzymes. Enzalutamide itself is mainly converted by CYP2C8 to the active metabolite N-desmethylenzalutamide (NDME). Due to a pharmacokinetic interaction, combining enzalutamide with a moderate CYP2C8 inhibitor might result in higher enzalutamide concentrations. Addressing this interaction is challenging since pharmacokinetic data are missing. CASE PRESENTATION: We present a case of a Caucasian male with mCRPC who was treated with enzalutamide and a moderate CYP2C8 inhibitor, clopidogrel, concomitantly. Plasma trough levels (Ctrough) of enzalutamide and its active metabolite N-desmethylenzalutamide (NDME) were determined and compared when treated with and without clopidogrel. The sum concentration of enzalutamide and NDME was not affected by coadministration of a moderate CYP2C8 inhibitor. Both treatments were well tolerated and no major side effect were observed. CONCLUSION: This case report shows that enzalutamide can be safely prescribed while cotreated with a moderate CYP2C8-inhibitor, without reducing the dose. More research is warranted to make a statement about the effect of enzalutamide on clopidogrel.

Everolimus pharmacokinetics and its exposure-toxicity relationship in patients with thyroid cancer.

BACKGROUND: Everolimus is a mTOR inhibitor used for the treatment of different solid malignancies. Many patients treated with the registered fixed 10 mg dose once daily are in need of dose interruptions, reductions or treatment discontinuation due to severe adverse events. This study determined the correlation between systemic everolimus exposure and toxicity. Additionally, the effect of different covariates on everolimus pharmacokinetics (PK) was explored. METHODS: Forty-two patients with advanced thyroid carcinoma were treated with 10 mg everolimus once daily. Serial pharmacokinetic sampling was performed on days 1 and 15. Subsequently, a population PK model was developed using NONMEM to estimate individual PK values used for analysis of an exposure-toxicity relationship. Furthermore, this model was used to investigate the influence of patient characteristics and genetic polymorphisms in genes coding for enzymes relevant in everolimus PK. RESULTS: Patients who required a dose reduction (n = 18) due to toxicity at any time during treatment had significant higher everolimus exposures [mean AUC0-24 (SD) 600 (274) vs. 395 (129) µg h/L, P = 0.008] than patients without a dose reduction (n = 22). A significant association between everolimus exposure and stomatitis was found in the four-level ordered logistic regression analysis (P = 0.047). The presence of at least one TTT haplotype in the ABCB1 gene was associated with a 21 % decrease in everolimus exposure. CONCLUSION: The current study showed that dose reductions and everolimus-induced stomatitis were strongly associated with systemic everolimus drug exposure in patients with cancer. Our findings confirm observations from another study in patients with cancer and show us that everolimus is a good candidate for individualized dosing in patients with cancer. CLINICALTRIAL. GOV NUMBER: NCT01118065.

Beneficial Effects of the mTOR Inhibitor Everolimus in Patients with Advanced Medullary Thyroid Carcinoma: Subgroup Results of a Phase II Trial.

Objective. Until recently, advanced medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) had few treatment options except surgery. The mTOR inhibitor everolimus has shown encouraging results in neuroendocrine tumors. As part of a prospective phase II study, we analyzed the safety and efficacy of everolimus in advanced MTC. Methods. Seven patients with per RECIST 1.1 documented advanced MTC were included and received everolimus 10 mg daily. The primary objective was determining treatment efficacy. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), toxicity, and pharmacokinetics (PK). Results. Median follow-up duration was 28 weeks (17-147). Five patients (71%) showed SD, of which 4 (57%) showed SD >24 weeks. Median PFS and OS were 33 (95%CI: 8-56) and 30 (95%CI: 15-45) weeks, respectively. Toxicity was predominantly grade 1/2 and included mucositis (43%), fatigue (43%), and hypertriglyceridemia (43%). Four MTCs harbored the somatic RET mutation c.2753T>C, p.Met918Thr. The best clinical response was seen in a MEN2A patient. PK characteristics were consistent with phase I data. One patient exhibited extensive toxicity accompanying elevated everolimus plasma concentrations. Conclusions. This study suggests that everolimus exerts clinically relevant antitumor activity in patients with advanced MTC. Given the high level of clinical benefit and the relatively low toxicity profile, further investigation of everolimus in these patients is warranted.

Midazolam as a phenotyping probe to predict sunitinib exposure in patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients treated with sunitinib show substantial inter-patient variability in drug exposure (~30-40 %), which is largely unexplained. Since sunitinib is metabolized by cytochrome P450(CYP)3A4, variability in the activity of this enzyme may explain a considerable proportion of this inter-patient variability. Midazolam is widely used as a phenotyping probe to assess CYP3A4-activity. The objective of this study was to prospectively evaluate the relationship between midazolam and sunitinib exposure. Additionally, the correlation between sunitinib trough levels and exposure and the influence of sunitinib on midazolam exposure was determined. METHODS: Thirteen patients treated with sunitinib in a 4 weeks "on"-2 weeks "off" regimen received twice 7.5 mg midazolam; once with and once without sunitinib. Steady-state sunitinib, its active metabolite SU12662 and midazolam exposures were determined. RESULTS: A significant correlation between midazolam exposure (AUC(0-7h)) and steady-state sunitinib and sunitinib + SU12662 exposure (AUC(0-24h)) was found (p = 0.006 and p = 0.0018, respectively); midazolam exposure explained 51 and 41 % of the inter-patient variability in sunitinib and sunitinib + SU12622 exposure. Furthermore, C trough was highly correlated (r(2) = 0.94) with sunitinib AUC(0-24h). Sunitinib decreased midazolam exposure with 24 % (p = 0.034). CONCLUSION: Midazolam exposure is highly correlated with sunitinib exposure and explains a large proportion of the observed inter-patient variability in sunitinib pharmacokinetics. Consequently, midazolam could be used to identify patients that are at risk of under- or overtreatment, respectively, at the start of sunitinib therapy. Moreover, sunitinib and sunitinib + SU12662 trough levels are highly correlated with drug exposure and can thus be used in clinical practice to individualize sunitinib therapy. The decrease in midazolam exposure by sunitinib needs further investigation.