Benchmark dose and the adverse effects of exposure to pendimethalin at low dose in female rats.

Pendimethalin (PND) is a dinitroaniline herbicide widely used to control broadleaf and annual grasses. Although the acute oral toxicity of PND is >5 g/kg b.wt. in humans (LD50 for rats >5000 g/kg b.wt.), it has been classified as a possible human carcinogen. It is still used in agriculture so agricultural workers and their families, as well as consumers, can be exposed to this herbicide. The present study is the first report investigating the dose-response effect using the benchmark dose (BMD) and the adverse effects of exposure to PND at low dose via apoptosis responses linked to the expression of tumour necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), FAS and BAX proteins; oxidative stress; and DNA and liver damage in female rats. The rats were exposed to PND via drinking water at doses equivalent to no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL = 100 mg/kg b.wt.), 200 and 400 mg/kg b.wt. for 28 days. PND caused the overexpression of TNF-α, FAS and BAX; increased the levels of serum liver biomarkers; and increased oxidative stress in the liver and erythrocytes. Furthermore, it induced DNA and liver damage in a dose-dependent manner. The BMD showed that serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and total antioxidant capacity (78.4 and 30.1 mg/kg b.wt./day, respectively), lipid peroxidation in liver tissue (30.9 mg/kg b.wt./day), catalase in erythrocytes (14.0 mg/kg b.wt./day) and FAS expression in liver tissue (6.89 mg/kg b.wt./day) were highly sensitive biomarkers of PND toxicity. Our findings suggest the generation of reactive oxygen species as a possible mechanism of PND-induced gene overexpression of tumour necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), FAS and BAX proteins, oxidative stress and DNA and liver damage in female rats.

Phase I Assessment of Safety and Therapeutic Activity of BAY1436032 in Patients with IDH1-Mutant Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: BAY1436032, an inhibitor of mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (mIDH1), was active against multiple IDH1-R132X solid tumors in preclinical models. This first-in-human study was designed to determine the safety and pharmacokinetics of BAY1436032, and to evaluate its potential pharmacodynamics and antitumor effects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study comprised of dose escalation and dose expansion cohorts. BAY1436032 tablets were orally administered twice daily on a continuous basis in subjects with mIDH1 solid tumors. RESULTS: In dose escalation, 29 subjects with various tumor types were administered BAY1436032 across five doses (150-1,500 mg twice daily). BAY1432032 exhibited a relatively short half-life. Most evaluable subjects experienced target inhibition as indicated by a median maximal reduction of plasma R-2-hydroxyglutarate levels of 76%. BAY1436032 was well tolerated and an MTD was not identified. A dose of 1,500 mg twice daily was selected for dose expansion, where 52 subjects were treated in cohorts representing four different tumor types [lower grade glioma (LGG), glioblastoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and a basket cohort of other tumor types]. The best clinical outcomes were in subjects with LGG (n = 35), with an objective response rate of 11% (one complete response and three partial responses) and stable disease in 43%. As of August 2020, four of these subjects were in treatment for >2 years and still ongoing. Objective responses were observed only in LGG. CONCLUSIONS: BAY1436032 was well tolerated and showed evidence of target inhibition and durable objective responses in a small subset of subjects with LGG.

Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced non-small cell lung cancer with mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor in Colombia.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sequences starting with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), afatinib and osimertinib, for the treatment of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive (Exon 19 deletion or L858R) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), stages IIIB - IV in Colombia. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was designed, using information from global and progression-free survival curves. For first and second-generation TKI, second line treatment was assumed according to the presence of T790M mutation to define the use of osimertinib or chemotherapy. The cost of the states without progression and post-progression was estimated using the base case approach, identified through consultation with clinical experts. RESULTS: The cost of treatment starting with afatinib in the first line was of 222,247 USD (1 USD = 3171.99 COP) and produced 1.36 QALYs. The strategy with afatinib was dominant with respect to that of first line TKI (227,289 USD and 1.34 QALY). The strategy with osimertinib resulted in more QALYs and higher costs, with ICERs of 35,062 USD, exceeding the current willingness to pay threshold for Colombia. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment starting with afatinib in the first line is dominant with respect to the strategy with first line TKI. The ICER of osimertinib sequence exceeds the threshold when compared with afatinib one.

Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib versus standard EGFR-TKI as first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer in Australia.

Objectives: To assess the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib versus standard epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs), gefitinib or erlotinib, as first-line treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer in Australia from a healthcare system perspective.Methods: A partitioned survival model comprising three mutually exclusive health states with a five-year time horizon was developed. Model inputs were sourced from the pivotal trial (FLAURA) and published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and cost per life-year (LY) gained, were calculated. Uncertainty of the results was assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.Results: Compared with standard EGFR-TKIs, osimertinib was associated with a higher incremental cost of A$118,502, and an incremental benefit of 0.274 QALYs and 0.313 LYs. The ICER was estimated to be A$432,197/QALY gained and A$378,157/LY gained. The base-case ICER was most sensitive to changes in cost of first-line osimertinib, time horizon, and choice of overall survival data (interim versus final analysis).Conclusions: At a willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000/QALY, first-line osimertinib is not cost-effective compared with standard EGFR-TKIs in Australia based on the current published price. To achieve acceptable cost-effectiveness, the cost of first-line osimertinib needs to be reduced by at least 68.4%.

Cost-effectiveness of Osimertinib vs Docetaxel-bevacizumab in Third-line Treatment in EGFR T790M Resistance Mutation Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib vs docetaxel and bevacizumab in third-line treatment in EGFR T790M resistance mutation advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China from the perspective of the health care system. METHODS: To explore modeling uncertainty, 2 different model methods (a Markov model and a partitioned survival [PS] model) were developed to simulate costs and health outcomes during a lifetime. Both models consisted of 3 health states: progression-free survival, postprogression survival, and death. Efficacy and safety data of osimertinib vs docetaxel and bevacizumab in patients who had acquired EGFR T790M resistance mutation were derived from a key head-to-head clinical trial. Cost and utility values were derived from local charges, the literature, the China Drug Bidding Database, and patients' health care documents. Two scenario analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the robustness of the results. FINDINGS: In the Markov model, compared with docetaxel and bevacizumab, osimertinib yielded 0.69 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an additional cost (in US dollars) of $17,311 for an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of $25,463 per QALY. In the PS model, osimertinib yielded an additional 0.69 QALYs with an incremental cost of $17,827 for an ICUR of $25,951 per QALY. From the Markov model, the ICUR was $29,416 per QALY in scenario 1 and $25,543 per QALY in scenario 2. From the PS model, the ICUR was $30,264 per QALY and $25,947 per QALY for scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, osimertinib treatment had a 21%-63% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $9777 to $29,330 per QALY (1-3 times the gross domestic product per capita). IMPLICATIONS: The findings from the present analysis suggest that osimertinib could be cost-effective vs docetaxel and bevacizumab in third-line treatment in EGFR T790M resistance mutation advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China.

Treatment sequence of first and second generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor followed by osimertinib in EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer: a real life study.

Background: We aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost of patients with first line tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) sequence of first (1G) and second generation (2G) followed by osimertinib. Materials & methods: Using the French nationwide claims and hospitalization database, we analyzed non-small-cell lung cancer patients who had been treated with osimertinib between April 2015 and December 2017, after a first line treatment with a TKI-1G/2G. Results: The median time on treatment for sequential TKI-1G/2G followed by osimertinib was 34 months (95% CI: 31-46); 13 and 12months, respectively for TKI 1G or 2G and TKI 3G, respectively. The median overall survival for sequential TKI 1G or 2G followed by osimertinib was 37 months (95% CI: 34-42). The mean monthly costs per patient was €5162. Conclusion: These results, in line with those observed during clinical trials, confirm the effectiveness of the sequence TKI-1G/2G followed by osimertinib in EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer.

Assessment of Effectiveness and Safety of Osimertinib for Patients With Intracranial Metastatic Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Intracranial metastatic disease (IMD) is a serious and life-altering complication for many patients with cancer. Targeted therapy may address the limitations of current treatments as an additional agent to achieve intracranial disease control in some patients with IMD. Given the paucity of evidence regarding effectiveness, current guidelines have not made recommendations on the use of targeted therapy. Osimertinib mesylate is a mutant epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor that can penetrate the blood-brain barrier and inhibit tumor cell survival and proliferation in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with specific EGFR alterations. Objective: To assess the effectiveness and safety of osimertinib in the management of IMD. Data Sources: Studies were selected from MEDLINE and Embase databases from their inception to September 20, 2019, using the following search query: (osimertinib OR mereletinib OR tagrisso OR tamarix OR azd9291) AND (brain metastases OR intracranial metastatic disease OR cns). Study Selection: Studies reporting intracranial outcomes for patients with metastatic EGFR-variant NSCLC and IMD treated with osimertinib were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Among 271 records identified in the systematic review, 15 studies fulfilled eligibility criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were extracted from published studies and supplements. These data were pooled using a random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Main Outcomes and Measures: Information extracted included study characteristics, intracranial effectiveness measures, and safety measures. Meta-analyses of proportions were conducted to pool estimates for central nervous system (CNS) objective response rate and CNS disease control rate. Results: Fifteen studies reporting on 324 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The CNS objective response rate was 64% (95% CI, 53%-76%; n = 195), and CNS disease control rate was 90% (95% CI, 85%-93%; n = 246). Included studies reported complete intracranial response rates of 7% to 23%, median best decrease in intracranial lesion size of -40% to -64%, and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 3.0) grade 3 or higher adverse event rates of 19% to 39%. Subgroup analyses did not reveal additional sources of heterogeneity. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings reported herein support a potential role for osimertinib in the treatment of patients with metastatic EGFR-variant NSCLC and IMD treated with osimertinib. Clinical decision makers would benefit from the inclusion of patients with IMD in future trials to identify factors that predict responses to targeted therapy.

Cost-effectiveness of Osimertinib in the First-Line Treatment of Patients With EGFR-Mutated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Importance: The survival of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutations has improved substantially in the last decade with the development of targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Osimertinib, a third-generation TKI that is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients who develop EGFR T790M mutations, has recently shown improved clinical outcomes compared with gefitinib and erlotinib for treatment-naive patients. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib for the first-line treatment of patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this cost-effectiveness analysis, we extracted individual patient data from the FLAURA randomized clinical trial and used findings of our earlier meta-analysis to develop a decision-analytic model and determine the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib (AZD9291) compared with first- and second-generation EGFR-TKIs over a 10-year time horizon. All direct costs were based on US and Brazilian payer perspectives. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome of this study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained by using osimertinib compared with first- or second-generation EGFR-TKIs in previously untreated EGFR-mutated NSCLC. Results: In the base case using the data as reported in the FLAURA trial, the incremental QALY for osimertinib was 0.594 compared with the first- and second-generation EGFR-TKIs. In the United States, the osimertinib ICERs were $226 527 vs erlotinib, $231 123 vs gefitinib, and $219 874 vs afatinib. In Brazil, the ICERs were $162 329, $180 804, and $175 432, respectively. The overall survival (95% CI) reported in the FLAURA trial (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45-0.88) had the strongest association with the ICER (ranging from $84 342 to $859 771). Osimertinib price adjustments to the FLAURA trial data improved cost-effectiveness. For example, a discount of 10% on osimertinib acquisition cost was associated with a 20% decreased ICER compared with the base case ICER, and a discount of 20% on osimertinib acquisition cost was associated with a 40% decreased ICER compared with the base case ICER. Conclusions and Relevance: At current costs, by World Health Organization cost-effectiveness threshold criteria, osimertinib is not cost-effective for first-line therapy of EGFR-mutated NSCLC in either the United States or Brazil.

FDA Benefit-Risk Assessment of Osimertinib for the Treatment of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Harboring Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor T790M Mutation.

On March 30, 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved osimertinib for the treatment of patients with metastatic, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M mutation-positive, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as detected by an FDA-approved test, whose disease has progressed following EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy. Approval was based on demonstration of a statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) when comparing osimertinib with chemotherapy in an international, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial (AURA3). In this confirmatory trial, which enrolled 419 patients, the PFS hazard ratio for osimertinib compared with chemotherapy per investigator assessment was 0.30 (95% confidence interval 0.23-0.41), p < .001, with median PFS of 10.1 months in the osimertinib arm and 4.4 months in the chemotherapy arm. Supportive efficacy data included PFS per blinded independent review committee demonstrating similar PFS results and an improved confirmed objective response rate per investigator assessment of 65% and 29%, with estimated median durations of response of 11.0 months and 4.2 months, in the osimertinib and chemotherapy arms, respectively. Patients received osimertinib 80 mg once daily and had a median duration of exposure of 8 months. The toxicity profile of osimertinib compared favorably with the profile of other approved EGFR TKIs and chemotherapy. The most common adverse drug reactions (>20%) in patients treated with osimertinib were diarrhea, rash, dry skin, nail toxicity, and fatigue. Herein, we review the benefit-risk assessment of osimertinib that led to regular approval, for patients with metastatic NSCLC harboring EGFR TKI whose disease has progressed on or after EGFR TKI therapy. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Osimertinib administered to metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients harboring an EGFR T790M mutation, who have progressed on or following EGFR TKI therapy, demonstrated a substantial improvement over platinum-based doublet chemotherapy as well as durable intracranial responses. The ability to test for the T790M mutation in plasma using the FDA-approved cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2 (Roche, Basel, Switzerland) identifies patients with NSCLC tumors not amenable to biopsy. Since a 40% false-negative rate has been observed with the circulating tumor DNA test, re-evaluation of the feasibility of tissue biopsy is recommended to identify patients with a false-negative plasma test result who may benefit from osimertinib.

A Platform for Rapid, Quantitative Assessment of Multiple Drug Combinations Simultaneously in Solid Tumors In Vivo.

While advances in high-throughput screening have resulted in increased ability to identify synergistic anti-cancer drug combinations, validation of drug synergy in the in vivo setting and prioritization of combinations for clinical development remain low-throughput and resource intensive. Furthermore, there is currently no viable method for prospectively assessing drug synergy directly in human patients in order to potentially tailor therapies. To address these issues we have employed the previously described CIVO platform and developed a quantitative approach for investigating multiple combination hypotheses simultaneously in single living tumors. This platform provides a rapid, quantitative and cost effective approach to compare and prioritize drug combinations based on evidence of synergistic tumor cell killing in the live tumor context. Using a gemcitabine resistant model of pancreatic cancer, we efficiently investigated nine rationally selected Abraxane-based combinations employing only 19 xenografted mice. Among the drugs tested, the BCL2/BCLxL inhibitor ABT-263 was identified as the one agent that synergized with Abraxane® to enhance acute induction of localized apoptosis in this model of human pancreatic cancer. Importantly, results obtained with CIVO accurately predicted the outcome of systemic dosing studies in the same model where superior tumor regression induced by the Abraxane/ABT-263 combination was observed compared to that induced by either single agent. This supports expanded use of CIVO as an in vivo platform for expedited in vivo drug combination validation and sets the stage for performing toxicity-sparing drug combination studies directly in cancer patients with solid malignancies.

Human health risk assessment of nitrosamines and nitramines for potential application in CO2 capture.

Emission and accumulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere exert an environmental and climate change challenge. An attempt to deal with this challenge is made at Mongstad by application of amines for CO2 capture and storage (CO2 capture Mongstad (CCM) project). As part of the CO2 capture process, nitrosamines and nitramines may be emitted. Toxicological testing of nitrosamines and nitramines indicate a genotoxic potential of these substances. Here we present a risk characterization and assessment for five nitrosamines (N-Nitrosodi-methylamine (NDMA) N-Nitrosodi-ethylamine (NDEA), N-Nitroso-morpholine (NNM), N-Nitroso-piperidine (NPIP), and Dinitroso-piperazine (DNP)) and two nitramines (N-Methyl-nitramine (NTMA), Dimethyl-nitramine (NDTMA)), which are potentially emitted from the CO2 capture plant (CCP). Human health risk assessment of genotoxic non-threshold substances is a heavily debated topic, and no consensus methodology exists internationally. Extrapolation modeling from high-dose animal exposures to low-dose human exposures can be crucial for the final risk calculation. In the work presented here, different extrapolation models are discussed, and suggestions on applications are given. Then, preferred methods for calculating derived minimal effect level (DMEL) are presented with the selected nitrosamines and nitramines.