Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant anaplastic thyroid cancer: updated analysis from the phase II ROAR basket study.

BACKGROUND: Combined therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib was approved in several countries for treatment of BRAF V600E-mutant anaplastic thyroid cancer (ATC) based on an earlier interim analysis of 23 response-assessable patients in the ATC cohort of the phase II Rare Oncology Agnostic Research (ROAR) basket study. We report an updated analysis describing the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib plus trametinib in the full ROAR ATC cohort of 36 patients with ∼4 years of additional study follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ROAR (NCT02034110) is an open-label, nonrandomized, phase II basket study evaluating dabrafenib plus trametinib in BRAF V600E-mutant rare cancers. The ATC cohort comprised 36 patients with unresectable or metastatic ATC who received dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily plus trametinib 2 mg once daily orally until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary endpoints were duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: At data cutoff (14 September 2020), median follow-up was 11.1 months (range, 0.9-76.6 months). The investigator-assessed ORR was 56% (95% confidence interval, 38.1% to 72.1%), including three complete responses; the 12-month DOR rate was 50%. Median PFS and OS were 6.7 and 14.5 months, respectively. The respective 12-month PFS and OS rates were 43.2% and 51.7%, and the 24-month OS rate was 31.5%. No new safety signals were identified with additional follow-up, and adverse events were consistent with the established tolerability of dabrafenib plus trametinib. CONCLUSIONS: These updated results confirm the substantial clinical benefit and manageable toxicity of dabrafenib plus trametinib in BRAF V600E-mutant ATC. Dabrafenib plus trametinib notably improved long-term survival and represents a meaningful treatment option for this rare, aggressive cancer.

Metabolic Disposition of Lurbinectedin, a Potent Selective Inhibitor of Active Transcription of Protein-Coding Genes, in Nonclinical Species and Patients.

Lurbinectedin is a novel and potent selective inhibitor of active transcription of protein-coding genes, triggering apoptosis of cancerous cells. It has been approved for the treatment of patients with metastatic small-cell lung cancer with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Studies exploring the disposition and metabolism of lurbinectedin were performed in vitro and in vivo (by intravenous administration of lurbinectedin). Low blood cell partitioning for lurbinectedin in rats, nonhuman primates (NHP), and humans was determined as 23.4%, 29.8%, and 9.8%, respectively. Protein binding was very high (>95%) in total plasma (rat, NHP, and human), albumin, and α-1-acid glycoprotein (both human). In vitro, lurbinectedin underwent intense liver microsome-mediated metabolism-in 10 minutes, 80% of the compound is metabolized in human-with CYP3A4 being the isoform involved in that metabolism. Results also showed NHPs being the nonclinical species which, metabolically, most closely resembles humans. Mass balance studies performed in rats (both genders), NHPs (male only), and patients (both genders) demonstrated that the principal route of excretion of 14C-lurbinectedin-related radioactivity was through the feces (88.7% ± 10.1% in patients), with only a minor fraction recovered from the urine (5.6% ± 2.0% in patients). In plasma samples, the majority of lurbinectedin-related radioactivity was attributed to unchanged compound (95% ± 3.1% and 70.2% ± 10.9% in NHPs and humans, respectively). Plasma metabolic profiling demonstrated the major (% compared with unchanged compound) circulating metabolites were N-Desmethyl-lurbinectedin (0.4% ± 0.2% and 10.4% ± 2.2% in NHPs and patients, respectively) and 1',3'-Desmethylene-lurbinectedin (0.9% ± 0.7% and 14.3% ± 10.4% in NHP and patients, respectively). SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Lurbinectedin is a novel and potent selective inhibitor of active transcription of protein-coding genes, triggering apoptosis of cancerous cells, and was recently approved for the treatment of patients with metastatic small-cell lung cancer with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy. The present study provides a complete set of information on the pharmacokinetics, biotransformation, and elimination of 14C-lurbinectedin and its metabolites, following a single intravenous administration to nonclinical species (rats and nonhuman primates) and patients.

Treatment of PERItoneal disease in Stomach Cancer with cytOreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraPEritoneal chemotherapy: PERISCOPE I initial results.

BACKGROUND: The role of cytoreductive surgery combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in gastric cancer is unknown. This non-randomized dose-finding phase I-II study was designed to assess the safety and feasibility of HIPEC, following systemic chemotherapy, in patients with gastric cancer and limited peritoneal dissemination. The maximum tolerated dose of normothermic intraperitoneal docetaxel in combination with a fixed dose of intraperitoneal oxaliplatin was also explored. METHODS: Patients with resectable cT3-cT4a gastric adenocarcinoma with limited peritoneal metastases and/or tumour-positive peritoneal cytology were included. An open HIPEC technique was used with 460 mg/m2 hyperthermic oxaliplatin for 30 min followed by normothermic docetaxel for 90 min in escalating doses (0, 50, 75 mg/m2 ). RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2017, 37 patients were included. Of 25 patients who completed the full study protocol, four were treated at dose level 1 (0 mg/m2 docetaxel), six at dose level 2 (50 mg/m2 ) and four at dose level 3 (75 mg/m2 ). At dose level 3, two dose-limiting toxicities occurred, both associated with postoperative ileus. Thereafter, another 11 patients were treated at dose level 2, with no more dose-limiting toxicities. Based on this, the maximum tolerated dose was 50 mg/m2 intraperitoneal docetaxel. Serious adverse events were scored in 17 of 25 patients. The reoperation rate was 16 per cent (4 of 25) and the treatment-related mortality rate was 8 per cent (2 patients, both in dose level 3). CONCLUSION: Gastrectomy combined with cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC was feasible using 460 mg/m2 oxaliplatin and 50 mg/m2 normothermic docetaxel.

ANTECEDENTES: El papel de la cirugía citorreductora (cytoreductive surgery, CRS) combinado con la quimioterapia intraperitoneal hipertérmica (hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, HIPEC) en el cáncer gástrico no está definido. Este estudio fase I-II no aleatorizado de escalado de dosis fue diseñado para evaluar la seguridad y la viabilidad de HIPEC, después de la quimioterapia sistémica, en pacientes con cáncer gástrico con diseminación peritoneal limitada. Además, se exploró la máxima dosis tolerada (maximum tolerated dose, MTD) de docetaxel intraperitoneal normotérmico en combinación con una dosis fija de oxaliplatino intraperitoneal. MÉTODOS: Se incluyeron pacientes con adenocarcinoma gástrico cT3-cT4a resecable con metástasis peritoneales limitadas y/o citología peritoneal positiva. Se utilizó una técnica HIPEC abierta con 460 mg/m2 de oxaliplatino hipertérmico (30 minutos) seguido de docetaxel normotérmico (90 minutos) en dosis crecientes (0, 50, 75 mg/m2 ). RESULTADOS: Entre 2014 y 2017, se incluyeron 37 pacientes. De los 25 pacientes que completaron la totalidad del protocolo del estudio, 4 pacientes fueron tratados en el nivel de dosis 1 (0 mg/m2 de docetaxel), 6 pacientes en el nivel de dosis 2 (50 mg/m2 ) y 4 pacientes en el nivel de dosis 3 (75 mg/m2 ). En el nivel de dosis 3, se produjeron dos casos de toxicidad limitante de dosis (dose-limiting toxicities, DLTs), ambas asociadas con un íleo postoperatorio. Posteriormente, otros 11 pacientes fueron tratados con el nivel de dosis 2, y no se produjeron más DLTs. La MTD de docetaxel intraperitoneal fue de 50 mg/m2 . Se registraron efectos adversos graves en 17 de 25 pacientes. La tasa de reoperación fue del 16% (n = 4) y la mortalidad relacionada con el tratamiento fue del 8% (n = 2; ambos en el nivel de dosis 3).

Enhancing antitumor response by combining immune checkpoint inhibitors with chemotherapy in solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Cancer immunotherapy has changed the standard of care for a subgroup of patients with advanced disease. Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) in particular has shown improved survival compared with previous standards of care for several tumor types. Although proven to be successful in more immunogenic tumors, ICB is still largely ineffective in patients with tumors that are not infiltrated by immune cells, the so-called cold tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This review describes the effects of different chemotherapeutic agents on the immune system and the potential value of these different types of chemotherapy as combination partners with ICB in patients with solid tumors. Both preclinical data and currently ongoing clinical trials were evaluated. In addition, we reviewed findings regarding different dosing schedules, including the effects of an induction phase and applying metronomic doses of chemotherapy. RESULTS: Combining ICB with other treatment modalities may lead to improved immunological conditions in the tumor microenvironment and could thereby enhance the antitumor immune response, even in tumor types that are so far unresponsive to ICB monotherapy. Chemotherapy, that was originally thought to be solely immunosuppressive, can exert immunomodulatory effects which may be beneficial in combination with immunotherapy. Each chemotherapeutic drug impacts the tumor microenvironment differently, and in order to determine the most suitable combination partners for ICB it is crucial to understand these mechanisms. CONCLUSION: Preclinical studies demonstrate that the majority of chemotherapeutic drugs has been shown to exert immunostimulatory effects, either by inhibiting immunosuppressive cells and/or activating effector cells, or by increasing immunogenicity and increasing T-cell infiltration. However, for certain chemotherapeutic agents timing, dose and sequence of administration of chemotherapeutic agents and ICB is important. Further studies should focus on determining the optimal drug combinations, sequence effects and optimal concentration-time profiles in representative preclinical models.

Study protocols of three parallel phase 1 trials combining radical radiotherapy with the PARP inhibitor olaparib.

BACKGROUND: Poly (ADP-ribose) Polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are promising novel radiosensitisers. Pre-clinical models have demonstrated potent and tumour-specific radiosensitisation by PARP inhibitors. Olaparib is a PARP inhibitor with a favourable safety profile in comparison to clinically used radiosensitisers including cisplatin when used as single agent. However, data on safety, tolerability and efficacy of olaparib in combination with radiotherapy are limited. METHODS: Olaparib is dose escalated in combination with radical (chemo-)radiotherapy regimens for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast cancer and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) in three parallel single institution phase 1 trials. All trials investigate a combination treatment of olaparib and radiotherapy, the NSCLC trial also investigates a triple combination of olaparib, radiotherapy and concurrent low dose cisplatin. The primary objective is to identify the maximum tolerated dose of olaparib in these combination treatments, defined as the dose closest to but not exceeding a 15% probability of dose limiting toxicity. Each trial has a separate dose limiting toxicity definition, taking into account incidence, duration and severity of expected toxicities without olaparib. Dose escalation is performed using a time-to-event continual reassessment method (TITE-CRM). TITE-CRM enables the incorporation of late onset toxicity until one year after treatment in the dose limiting toxicity definition while maintaining an acceptable trial duration. Olaparib treatment starts two days before radiotherapy and continues during weekends until two days after radiotherapy. Olaparib will also be given two weeks and one week before radiotherapy in the breast cancer trial and HNSCC trial respectively to allow for translational research. Toxicity is scored using common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) version 4.03. Blood samples, and tumour biopsies in the breast cancer trial, are collected for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses. DISCUSSION: We designed three parallel phase 1 trials to assess the safety and tolerability of the PARP inhibitor olaparib in combination with radical (chemo-)radiotherapy treatment regimens. PARP inhibitors have the potential to improve outcomes in patients treated with radical (chemo-)radiotherapy, by achieving higher locoregional control rates and/or less treatment associated toxicity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT01562210 (registered March 23, 2012), NCT02227082 (retrospectively registered August 27, 2014), NCT02229656 (registered September 1, 2014).

Cost-effectiveness of monitoring endoxifen levels in breast cancer patients adjuvantly treated with tamoxifen.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women worldwide. Recurrence rates in breast cancer are considered to be dependent on the serum concentration of endoxifen, the active metabolite of tamoxifen. The goal of this study is to investigate the cost-effectiveness of periodically monitoring serum concentrations of endoxifen in adjuvant estrogen receptor alfa (ERα) positive breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen in the Netherlands. METHODS: A Markov model with disease-free survival (DFS), recurrent disease (RD), and death states was constructed. The benefit of drug monitoring was modeled via a difference in the fraction of patients achieving adequate serum concentrations. Robustness of results to changes in model assumptions were tested through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Monitoring of endoxifen added 0.0115 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and saved € 1564 per patient in the base case scenario. Deterministic sensitivity analysis demonstrated a large effect on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the differences in costs and utilities between the DFS and RD states. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness to pay of € 0 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was 89.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this model, monitoring of endoxifen in adjuvant ERα + breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen is likely to add QALYs and save costs from a healthcare payer perspective. We advise clinicians to consider integrating serum endoxifen concentration monitoring into standard adjuvant tamoxifen treatment of ERα + breast cancer patients.

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.

DPYD genotype-guided dose individualization to improve patient safety of fluoropyrimidine therapy: call for a drug label update.

The fluoropyrimidine anticancer drugs, especially 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and capecitabine, are frequently prescribed for several types of cancer, including breast, colorectal, head and neck and gastric cancer. In the current drug labels of 5-FU and capecitabine in the European Union and the United States, no adaptive dosing strategies are incorporated for polymorphic metabolism of 5-FU. Although treatment with fluoropyrimidines is generally well tolerated, a major clinical limitation is that a proportion of the treated population experiences severe, sometimes life-threatening, fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity. This toxicity is strongly affected by interindividual variability in activity of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), the main metabolic enzyme for inactivation of fluoropyrimidines, with an estimated 3%-8% of the population being partially DPD deficient. A reduced functional or abrogated DPD enzyme is often caused by genetic polymorphisms in DPYD, the gene encoding for DPD, and heterozygous carriers of such DPYD polymorphisms have a partial DPD deficiency. When these partially DPD deficient patients are treated with a full dose of fluoropyrimidines, they are generally exposed to toxic levels of 5-FU and its metabolites, and the risk of developing severe treatment-related toxicity is therefore significantly increased.Currently, functional and clinical validity is well established for four DPYD variants (DPYD*2A, c.2846A>T, c.1679T>G and c.1236G>A), as those variants have retrospectively and in a large population study prospectively been shown to be associated with increased risk of fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity. Patient safety of fluoropyrimidine treatment can be significantly improved by pre-emptive screening for DPYD genotype variants and dose reductions in heterozygous DPYD variant allele carriers, thereby normalizing 5-FU exposure. Based on the critical appraisal of currently available data, adjusting the labels of capecitabine and 5-FU by including recommendations on pre-emptive screening for DPYD variants and DPYD genotype-guided dose adjustments should be the new standard of care.

Pharmacogenetic variants associated with outcome in patients with advanced gastric cancer treated with fluoropyrimidine and platinum-based triplet combinations: a pooled analysis of three prospective studies.

The main treatment for advanced gastric cancer is fluoropyrimidine and platinum-based chemotherapy. We investigated the clinical validitiy of 19 candidate pharmacogenetic variants in ENOSF1 (enolase superfamily member 1), TYMS, CDA, MTHFR, TYMP, DPYD, ERCC1, ERCC2, GSTP1, GSTT1, GSTM1, CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 in relation to overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, objective response rate (ORR) and toxicity in 185 patients receiving triplet chemotherapy. The formal significance threshold was P<0.0026. TYMS VNTR (variable number of 28-bp tandem repeats) 3 R/3 R genotype was formally associated with inferior ORR (odds ratio (OR) 0.3, P=0.0025), whereas ENOSF1 rs2612091 G/G was nominally associated with OS after adjustment for TYMS 3 R/3 R (hazard ratio (HR) 1.5, P=0.041). In a subgroup analysis of patients with locally advanced disease (n=33), ENOSF1 rs2612091 was strongly associated with OS (HR 6.5, P=0.001). CYP3A4*22/CYP3A5*3 genotype was nominally associated with grade 3/4 toxicity in patients receiving docetaxel-containing chemotherapy (P=0.0175). This is the first study suggesting that ENOSF1 rs2612091 is prognostic or predictive of OS in gastric cancer. This finding requires prospective validation.

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.

Pharmacokinetics and excretion of 14C-Plitidepsin in patients with advanced cancer.

Plitidepsin (Aplidin®) is a marine-derived anticancer compound currently investigated in phase III clinical trials. This article describes the distribution, metabolism and excretion of this novel agent and it mainly aims to identify the major routes of elimination. Six subjects were enrolled in a mass balance study during which radiolabelled plitidepsin was administered as a 3-h intravenous infusion. Blood samples were taken and urine and faeces were collected. Total radioactivity (TRA) analysis using Liquid Scintillation Counting (LSC) was done to determine the amount of radioactivity excreted from the body and plitidepsin concentrations in whole blood, plasma and urine were determined by validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) assays. In total, a mean of 77.4% of the administered radioactivity was excreted over a time period of 20 days, of which 71.3% was recovered in faeces and 6.1% was found in urine. The majority excreted in urine was accounted for by unchanged plitidepsin, with only 1.5% of the total administered dose explained by metabolites in urine. Faeces, on the other hand contained low levels of parent compound, which means that most of the TRA excreted in faeces was accounted for by metabolites. TRA levels were 3.7 times higher in whole blood compared to plasma. Plitidepsin was widely distributed and plasma clearance was low. This study shows that red blood cells are a major distribution compartment and that the biliary route is the main route of total radioactivity excretion.

Human mass balance study and metabolite profiling of 14C-niraparib, a novel poly(ADP-Ribose) polymerase (PARP)-1 and PARP-2 inhibitor, in patients with advanced cancer.

Niraparib is an investigational oral, once daily, selective poly(ADP-Ribose) polymerase (PARP)-1 and PARP-2 inhibitor. In the pivotal Phase 3 NOVA/ENGOT/OV16 study, niraparib met its primary endpoint of improving progression-free survival (PFS) for adult patients with recurrent, platinum sensitive, ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer in complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy. Significant improvements in PFS were seen in all patient cohorts regardless of biomarker status. This study evaluates the absorption, metabolism and excretion (AME) of 14C-niraparib, administered to six patients as a single oral dose of 300 mg with a radioactivity of 100 µCi. Total radioactivity (TRA) in whole blood, plasma, urine and faeces was measured using liquid scintillation counting (LSC) to obtain the mass balance of niraparib. Moreover, metabolite profiling was performed on selected plasma, urine and faeces samples using liquid chromatography - tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) coupled to off-line LSC. Mean TRA recovered over 504 h was 47.5% in urine and 38.8% in faeces, indicating that both renal and hepatic pathways are comparably involved in excretion of niraparib and its metabolites. The elimination of 14C-radioactivity was slow, with t1/2 in plasma on average 92.5 h. Oral absorption of 14C-niraparib was rapid, with niraparib concentrations peaking at 2.49 h, and reaching a mean maximum concentration of 540 ng/mL. Two major metabolites were found: the known metabolite M1 (amide hydrolysed niraparib) and the glucuronide of M1. Based on this study it was shown that niraparib undergoes hydrolytic, and conjugative metabolic conversions, with the oxidative pathway being minimal.

Development and Validation of an LC-MS/MS Method for the Simultaneous Quantification of Abiraterone, Enzalutamide, and Their Major Metabolites in Human Plasma.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide are 2 novel drugs for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The metabolism of these drugs is extensive. Major metabolites are N-desmethyl enzalutamide, enzalutamide carboxylic acid, abiraterone N-oxide sulfate, and abiraterone sulfate; of which N-desmethyl enzalutamide is reported to possess antiandrogen capacities. A liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method for simultaneous quantification of abiraterone, enzalutamide, and the main metabolites has been developed and validated to support therapeutic drug monitoring. METHODS: Human plasma samples of patients treated with abiraterone or enzalutamide were harvested at the clinic and stored at -20°C. Proteins were precipitated by acetonitrile, and the final extract was injected on a Kinetex C18 column and separated with gradient elution. Analytes were detected by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (Triple Quad 6500). RESULTS: The method was validated over various linear ranges: 1-100 ng/mL for abiraterone, 5-500 ng/mL for enzalutamide and enzalutamide carboxylic acid, 10-1000 ng/mL for N-desmethyl enzalutamide, 30-3000 ng/mL for abiraterone N-oxide sulfate, and 100-10,000 ng/mL for abiraterone sulfate. Intra-assay and interassay variabilities were within ±15% of the nominal concentrations for quality control samples at medium and high concentrations and within ±20% at the lower limit of quantification, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The described method for simultaneous determination of abiraterone and enzalutamide was validated successfully and provides a useful tool for therapeutic drug monitoring in patients treated with these agents.

Pharmaceutical development of an amorphous solid dispersion formulation of elacridar hydrochloride for proof-of-concept clinical studies.

OBJECTIVE: A novel tablet formulation containing an amorphous solid dispersion (ASD) of elacridar hydrochloride was developed with the purpose to resolve the drug's low solubility in water and to conduct proof-of-concept clinical studies. SIGNIFICANCE: Elacridar is highly demanded for proof-of-concept clinical trials that study the drug's suitability to boost brain penetration and bioavailability of numerous anticancer agents. Previously, clinical trials with elacridar were performed with a tablet containing elacridar hydrochloride. However, this tablet formulation resulted in poor and unpredictable absorption which was caused by the low aqueous solubility of elacridar hydrochloride. METHODS: Twenty four different ASDs were produced and dissolution was compared to crystalline elacridar hydrochloride and a crystalline physical mixture. The formulation with highest dissolution was characterized for amorphicity. Subsequently, a tablet was developed and monitored for chemical/physical stability for 12 months at +15-25 °C, +2-8 °C and -20 °C. RESULTS: The ASD powder was composed of freeze dried elacridar hydrochloride-povidone K30-sodium dodecyl sulfate (1:6:1, w/w/w), appeared fully amorphous and resulted in complete dissolution whereas crystalline elacridar hydrochloride resulted in only 1% dissolution. The ASD tablets contained 25 mg elacridar hydrochloride and were stable for at least 12 months at -20 °C. CONCLUSIONS: The ASD tablet was considered feasible for proof-of-concept clinical studies and is now used as such.

Validation and Clinical Evaluation of a Novel Method To Measure Miltefosine in Leishmaniasis Patients Using Dried Blood Spot Sample Collection.

To facilitate future pharmacokinetic studies of combination treatments against leishmaniasis in remote regions in which the disease is endemic, a simple cheap sampling method is required for miltefosine quantification. The aims of this study were to validate a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method to quantify miltefosine in dried blood spot (DBS) samples and to validate its use with Ethiopian patients with visceral leishmaniasis (VL). Since hematocrit (Ht) levels are typically severely decreased in VL patients, returning to normal during treatment, the method was evaluated over a range of clinically relevant Ht values. Miltefosine was extracted from DBS samples using a simple method of pretreatment with methanol, resulting in >97% recovery. The method was validated over a calibration range of 10 to 2,000 ng/ml, and accuracy and precision were within ±11.2% and ≤7.0% (≤19.1% at the lower limit of quantification), respectively. The method was accurate and precise for blood spot volumes between 10 and 30 µl and for Ht levels of 20 to 35%, although a linear effect of Ht levels on miltefosine quantification was observed in the bioanalytical validation. DBS samples were stable for at least 162 days at 37°C. Clinical validation of the method using paired DBS and plasma samples from 16 VL patients showed a median observed DBS/plasma miltefosine concentration ratio of 0.99, with good correlation (Pearson'sr= 0.946). Correcting for patient-specific Ht levels did not further improve the concordance between the sampling methods. This successfully validated method to quantify miltefosine in DBS samples was demonstrated to be a valid and practical alternative to venous blood sampling that can be applied in future miltefosine pharmacokinetic studies with leishmaniasis patients, without Ht correction.

The time to progression ratio: a new individualized volumetric parameter for the early detection of clinical benefit of targeted therapies.

BACKGROUND: Early signs of efficacy are critical in drug development. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) are commonly used to determine the efficacy of anti-cancer therapy in clinical trials. RECIST, however, emphasizes the value of tumor shrinkage, while many targeted agents induce prolonged tumor growth arrest. This limits its use for the detection of treatment efficacy for these more cytostatic regimens. Therefore, we designed an individualized variant of a time to progression (TTP) end point based on prospective volumetric measurements and an intra-patient control, the TTP ratio. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with any metastatic malignancy, without regular treatment options, were treated with the mTOR inhibitor everolimus. Treatment response was determined using both RECIST and the TTP ratio. The TTP ratio was defined as the volumetric pretreatment TTP divided by the volumetric on-treatment TTP. A patient was classified as a responder if the TTP ratio was <0.7. Consistency and reproducibility of volumetric measurements were determined. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients were included of whom 59 started treatment. A TTP ratio could be established in 73% (n = 43) of the treated patients. The inter-observer agreement for volumetric progression was 0.78 (95% confidence interval 0.70-0.87) (Krippendorff's α-coefficient). According to RECIST, 35 patients (59%) had stable disease (SD) and 1 patient demonstrated a partial response (PR), whereas only 21 patients (36%) met the prespecified criteria for treatment efficacy according to the TTP ratio. Treatment response according to both the TTP ratio and RECIST (SD + PR) correlated with overall survival (OS) [P(log-rank) < 0.001]. The TTP ratio, however, was also able to differentiate which patients had a better OS within the RECIST SD group [P(log-rank) = 0.0496]. CONCLUSION: The TTP ratio had a high inter-observer agreement, correlated with OS and identified which patients within the RECIST SD group had a longer OS. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01566279.

Regulatory aspects of human radiolabeled mass balance studies in oncology: concise review.

Human radiolabeled mass balance studies are performed to obtain information about the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of a drug in development. The main goals are to determine the route of elimination and major metabolic pathways. This review provides an overview of the current regulatory guidelines concerning human radiolabeled mass balance studies and discusses scientific trends seen in the last decade with a focus on mass balance studies of anticancer drugs. This paper also provides an overview of mass balance studies of anticancer agents that were executed in the last 10 years.

A phase I, dose escalation, pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetic, and food-effect study of α2 integrin inhibitor E7820 in patients with advanced solid tumors.

UNLABELLED: Introduction E7820 is an orally administered sulfonamide that inhibits alfa-2-integrin mRNA expression. Pre-clinically E7820 showed tumor anti-angiogenic effects in various tumor cell lines and xenograft mouse models. Human daily dosing of 100 mg QD had previously been shown to be safe and tolerable. Methods The study consisted of two parts: Part A (food effect) and Part B (determination of maximum tolerated dose (MTD) for bi-daily (BID) dosing). E7820 dosing started at 50 mg BID with planned escalation to 60, 80 and 100 mg BID every 28 days. Results Fifteen patients were enrolled in Part A and 26 in Part B. The most frequent adverse events of all grades were constipation, diarrhea, nausea, and fatigue while anemia, neutropenia, and fatigue were most frequent grade ≥3 toxicities. At dose-level 60 mg BID, two patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities (grade 3 neutropenic sepsis and grade 4 neutropenia). Therefore the recommended dose (RD) was 50 mg BID. Food had no effect on E7820 exposure. E7820 exposure following twice daily administration was dose-proportional. Expression of platelet integrin-α2 measured as a response biomarker in Part B, generally decreased by a median 7.7 % from baseline following treatment with 50 mg BID E7820. Reduction was most pronounced within 1-week post treatment. The median duration of treatment was median 54, range 20-111 days. The best overall response in any treatment group was stable disease (SD): 23.1 % in Part A (100 mg QD); at the RD 66.7 % (12 of 18 patients) and 40 % in the 60 mg BID group in Part B. CONCLUSIONS: Food had no effect on E7820 exposure. A dose of 50 mg BID was considered the MTD. Treatment with E7820 is safe and tolerable with 2/3 of patients (66.7 %) at MTD having SD as their best response.

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.