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.

Therapeutic drug monitoring in anticancer agents: perspectives of Australian medical oncologists.

BACKGROUND: In the development of anticancer agents for solid tumours, body surface area continues to be used to personalise dosing despite minimal evidence for its use over other dosing strategies. With the development of tyrosine kinase inhibitors and other oral targeted anticancer agents, dosing using therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is now utilised in many health systems but has had limited uptake in Australia. AIM: To determine attitudes and barriers to the implementation of TDM among Australian oncologists. METHODS: A comprehensive questionnaire was developed by the Dutch Pharmacology Oncology Group from semistructured interviews of stakeholders. Seventy-nine questions across seven domains were developed with three free-text responses. This was rationalised to 17 questions with three free-text responses for Australian medical oncologists who identified limited experience with TDM. RESULTS: Fifty-seven responses were received, with 49 clinicians (86%) identifying limited experience of performing TDM in daily practice. Clinicians were positive (62-91% agree/strongly agree across seven questions) about the advantages of TDM. There was a mixed response for cost-effectiveness and scientific evidence being a barrier to implementation, but strong agreement that prospective studies were needed (75% agreed or strongly agreed); that national treatment guidelines would enable practice (80%) and that a 'pharmacology of oncolytics' education programme would be useful (96%) to provide knowledge for dose individualisation. CONCLUSION: Despite the limited experience of TDM in oncology in Australia, medical oncologists appear positive about the potential benefit to their patients. We have identified three barriers to implementation that could be targeted for increased adoption of TDM in oncology in Australia.

The relationship between sunitinib exposure and both efficacy and toxicity in real-world patients with renal cell carcinoma and gastrointestinal stromal tumour.

AIM: Sunitinib is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Because of the large interpatient pharmacokinetic variability and established exposure-response and exposure-toxicity relationships in clinical trial patients, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) seems promising for optimizing sunitinib exposure. We aimed to investigate the relationship between sunitinib exposure and treatment outcome in a real-world patient cohort. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational cohort study in 53 patients with metastatic RCC and 18 patients with metastatic GIST treated with sunitinib and receiving TDM-guided dosing. Time on treatment - as a surrogate for progression-free survival - in patients who achieved adequate sunitinib exposure was compared with patients who did not. Additionaly, the median sunitinib exposure was compared in patients with or without sunitinib-induced toxicity leading to dose reduction. RESULTS: The median time on treatment in patients with RCC who achieved adequate sunitinib exposure (n = 39) was 32 weeks, compared to 15 weeks in patients who did not achieve adequate sunitinib exposure (n = 12) (P = 0.244). In 29 patients (41%) with toxicity leading to dose reduction, sunitinib sum plasma trough concentration (Ctrough ) until dose reduction was significantly higher compared to patients without toxicity leading to dose reduction (median 60 ng/mL vs 44 ng/mL; P < 0.001) and reduced to comparable levels after dose reduction (44 ng/mL; P = 0.488). CONCLUSION: In our real-world patient cohort, patients with sunitinib-induced toxicity requiring dose reduction had significantly higher sunitinib exposure compared to patients without toxicity. The threshold for toxicity, however, was lower compared to that previously described in clinical trials.

Imatinib, sunitinib and pazopanib: From flat-fixed dosing towards a pharmacokinetically guided personalized dose.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are anti-cancer drugs that target tyrosine kinases, enzymes that are involved in multiple cellular processes. Currently, multiple oral TKIs have been introduced in the treatment of solid tumours, all administered in a fixed dose, although large interpatient pharmacokinetic (PK) variability is described. For imatinib, sunitinib and pazopanib exposure-treatment outcome (efficacy and toxicity) relationships have been established and therapeutic windows have been defined, therefore dose optimization based on the measured blood concentration, called therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), can be valuable in increasing efficacy and reducing the toxicity of these drugs. In this review, an overview of the current knowledge on TDM guided individualized dosing of imatinib, sunitinib and pazopanib for the treatment of solid tumours is presented. We summarize preclinical and clinical data that have defined thresholds for efficacy and toxicity. Furthermore, PK models and factors that influence the PK of these drugs which partly explain the interpatient PK variability are summarized. Finally, pharmacological interventions that have been performed to optimize plasma concentrations are described. Based on current literature, we advise which methods should be used to optimize exposure to imatinib, sunitinib and pazopanib.

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.

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.

The value of the neutrophil-lymphocyte count ratio in the diagnosis of sepsis in patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis and treatment has proven to be of utmost importance in the outcome of sepsis patients. We compared the accuracy of the neutrophil-lymphocyte count ratio (NLCR) to conventional inflammatory markers in patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study consisting of 276 ICU patients with sepsis and 388 ICU patients without sepsis. We compared the NLCR as well as C-reactive protein (CRP) level, procalcitonin (PCT) level, white blood cell (WBC) count, neutrophil count and lymphocyte count on ICU admission between sepsis and non-sepsis ICU patients. To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity, we constructed receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. RESULTS: Significant differences in NLCR values were observed between sepsis and non-sepsis patients (15.3 [10.8-38.2] (median [interquartile range] vs. 9.3 [6.2-14.5]; P<0.001), as well as for CRP level, PCT level and lymphocyte count. The area under the ROC curve (AUROC) of the NLCR was 0.66 (95%CI = 0.62-0.71). AUROC was significantly higher for CRP and PCT level with AUROC's of 0.89 (95%CI 0.87-0.92) and 0.88 (95%CI 0.86-0.91) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The NLCR is less suitable than conventional inflammatory markers CRP and PCT to detect the presence of sepsis in ICU patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01274819.