Phase I study of intraperitoneal irinotecan combined with palliative systemic chemotherapy in patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases.

BACKGROUND: Patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases who are not eligible for cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) owing to extensive peritoneal disease have a poor prognosis. It was hypothesized that these patients may benefit from the addition of intraperitoneal irinotecan to standard palliative systemic chemotherapy. METHODS: This was a classical 3 + 3 phase I dose-escalation trial in patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases who were not eligible for CRS-HIPEC. Intraperitoneal irinotecan was administered every 2 weeks, concomitantly with systemic FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, folinic acid, oxaliplatin)-bevacizumab. The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose and dose-limiting toxicities. Secondary objectives were to elucidate the systemic and intraperitoneal pharmacokinetics, safety profile, and efficacy. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were treated. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed with 50 mg (4 patients) and 75 mg (9 patients) intraperitoneal irinotecan. Two dose-limiting toxicities occurred with 100 mg irinotecan among five patients. The maximum tolerated dose of intraperitoneal irinotecan was established to be 75 mg, and it was well tolerated. Intraperitoneal exposure to SN-38 (active metabolite of irinotecan) was high compared with systemic exposure (median intraperitoneal area under the curve (AUC) to systemic AUC ratio 4.6). Thirteen patients had a partial radiological response and five had stable disease. Four patients showed a complete response during post-treatment diagnostic laparoscopy. Five patients underwent salvage resection or CRS-HIPEC. Median overall survival was 23.9 months. CONCLUSION: Administration of 75 mg intraperitoneal irinotecan concomitantly with systemic FOLFOX-bevacizumab was safe and well tolerated. Intraperitoneal SN-38 exposure was high and prolonged. As oncological outcomes were promising, intraperitoneal administration of irinotecan may be a good alternative to other, more invasive and costly treatment options. A phase II study is currently accruing.

Patients with extensive colorectal peritoneal metastases who are not eligible for surgery and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy have poor survival. The authors tried to improve the survival of these patients by adding intraperitoneal (inside the abdominal cavity) chemotherapy to standard palliative chemotherapy which is administered into the bloodstream. In this trial, irinotecan (a type of chemotherapy) was administered into the abdomen of patients with extensive colorectal peritoneal metastases. The authors investigated which dose could be administered safely in combination with standard palliative chemotherapy. They also looked into toxicity, safety, benefit, and movement of the drug in the body. Eighteen patients were treated in this study. The maximum tolerated dose of intraperitoneal irinotecan was 75 mg. It was well tolerated and could be administered safely. The intra-abdominal amount of irinotecan was high, whereas the amount of irinotecan in the blood remained low. The benefits of intra-abdominal irinotecan were promising. Because of this, a new study has been started to further investigate this new combination chemotherapy for colorectal cancer.

DPYD genotype-guided dose individualisation of fluoropyrimidine therapy in patients with cancer: a prospective safety analysis.

BACKGROUND: Fluoropyrimidine treatment can result in severe toxicity in up to 30% of patients and is often the result of reduced activity of the key metabolic enzyme dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), mostly caused by genetic variants in the gene encoding DPD (DPYD). We assessed the effect of prospective screening for the four most relevant DPYD variants (DPYD*2A [rs3918290, c.1905+1G>A, IVS14+1G>A], c.2846A>T [rs67376798, D949V], c.1679T>G [rs55886062, DPYD*13, I560S], and c.1236G>A [rs56038477, E412E, in haplotype B3]) on patient safety and subsequent DPYD genotype-guided dose individualisation in daily clinical care. METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre, safety analysis in 17 hospitals in the Netherlands, the study population consisted of adult patients (≥18 years) with cancer who were intended to start on a fluoropyrimidine-based anticancer therapy (capecitabine or fluorouracil as single agent or in combination with other chemotherapeutic agents or radiotherapy). Patients with all tumour types for which fluoropyrimidine-based therapy was considered in their best interest were eligible. We did prospective genotyping for DPYD*2A, c.2846A>T, c.1679T>G, and c.1236G>A. Heterozygous DPYD variant allele carriers received an initial dose reduction of 25% (c.2846A>T and c.1236G>A) or 50% (DPYD*2A and c.1679T>G), and DPYD wild-type patients were treated according to the current standard of care. The primary endpoint of the study was the frequency of severe (National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.03 grade ≥3) overall fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity across the entire treatment duration. We compared toxicity incidence between DPYD variant allele carriers and DPYD wild-type patients on an intention-to-treat basis, and relative risks (RRs) for severe toxicity were compared between the current study and a historical cohort of DPYD variant allele carriers treated with full dose fluoropyrimidine-based therapy (derived from a previously published meta-analysis). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02324452, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between April 30, 2015, and Dec 21, 2017, we enrolled 1181 patients. 78 patients were considered non-evaluable, because they were retrospectively identified as not meeting inclusion criteria, did not start fluoropyrimidine-based treatment, or were homozygous or compound heterozygous DPYD variant allele carriers. Of 1103 evaluable patients, 85 (8%) were heterozygous DPYD variant allele carriers, and 1018 (92%) were DPYD wild-type patients. Overall, fluoropyrimidine-related severe toxicity was higher in DPYD variant carriers (33 [39%] of 85 patients) than in wild-type patients (231 [23%] of 1018 patients; p=0·0013). The RR for severe fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity was 1·31 (95% CI 0·63-2·73) for genotype-guided dosing compared with 2·87 (2·14-3·86) in the historical cohort for DPYD*2A carriers, no toxicity compared with 4·30 (2·10-8·80) in c.1679T>G carriers, 2·00 (1·19-3·34) compared with 3·11 (2·25-4·28) for c.2846A>T carriers, and 1·69 (1·18-2·42) compared with 1·72 (1·22-2·42) for c.1236G>A carriers. INTERPRETATION: Prospective DPYD genotyping was feasible in routine clinical practice, and DPYD genotype-based dose reductions improved patient safety of fluoropyrimidine treatment. For DPYD*2A and c.1679T>G carriers, a 50% initial dose reduction was adequate. For c.1236G>A and c.2846A>T carriers, a larger dose reduction of 50% (instead of 25%) requires investigation. Since fluoropyrimidines are among the most commonly used anticancer agents, these findings suggest that implementation of DPYD genotype-guided individualised dosing should be a new standard of care. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Society.

Pretransplant Tacrolimus Dose Requirements Predict Early Posttransplant Dose Requirements in Blood Group AB0-Incompatible Kidney Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate whether pretransplant tacrolimus (Tac) dose requirements of patients scheduled to undergo living donor kidney transplantation correlate with posttransplantation dose requirements. METHODS: The predictive value of Tac dose requirements (defined as the ratio of the Tac predose concentration, C0, divided by the total daily Tac dose, D) pretransplantation on this same parameter posttransplantation was assessed retrospectively in a cohort of 57 AB0-incompatible kidney transplant recipients. These patients started immunosuppressive therapy 14 days before transplant surgery. All patients were using a stable dose of glucocorticoids and were at steady-state Tac exposure before transplantation. RESULTS: Tac dose requirements immediately before transplantation (C0/Dbefore) explained 63% of the Tac dose requirements on day 3 after transplantation: r = 0.633 [F (1, 44) = 75.97, P < 0.01]. No other clinical and demographic variables predicted Tac dose requirements early after transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Steady-state Tac dose requirement before transplantation largely predicted posttransplantation Tac dose requirements in AB0-incompatible kidney transplant recipients. The importance of this finding is that the posttransplantation Tac dose can be individualized based on a patient's pretransplantation Tac concentration/dose ratio. Pretransplant Tac phenotyping therefore has the potential to improve transplantation outcomes.

Survival of Patients With Cancer With DPYD Variant Alleles and Dose-Individualized Fluoropyrimidine Therapy-A Matched-Pair Analysis.

PURPOSE: DPYD-guided fluoropyrimidine dosing improves patient safety in carriers of DPYD variant alleles. However, the impact on treatment outcome in these patients is largely unknown. Therefore, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between DPYD variant carriers treated with a reduced dose and DPYD wild-type controls receiving a full fluoropyrimidine dose in a retrospective matched-pair survival analysis. METHODS: Data from a prospective multicenter study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02324452) in which DPYD variant carriers received a 25% (c.1236G>A and c.2846A>T) or 50% (DPYD*2A and c.1679T>G) reduced dose and data from DPYD variant carriers treated with a similarly reduced dose of fluoropyrimidines identified during routine clinical care were obtained. Each DPYD variant carrier was matched to three DPYD wild-type controls treated with a standard dose. Survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression. RESULTS: In total, 156 DPYD variant carriers and 775 DPYD wild-type controls were available for analysis. Sixty-one c.1236G>A, 25 DPYD*2A, 13 c.2846A>T, and-when pooled-93 DPYD variant carriers could each be matched to three unique DPYD wild-type controls. For pooled DPYD variant carriers, PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.51; P = .053) and OS (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.51; P = .698) were not negatively affected by DPYD-guided dose individualization. In the subgroup analyses, a shorter PFS (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.86; P = .007) was found in c.1236G>A variant carriers, whereas no differences were found for DPYD*2A and c.2846A>T carriers. CONCLUSION: In this exploratory analysis, DPYD-guided fluoropyrimidine dosing does not negatively affect PFS and OS in pooled DPYD variant carriers. Close monitoring with early dose modifications based on toxicity is recommended, especially for c.1236G>A carriers receiving a reduced starting dose.

Effect of the Proton Pump Inhibitor Esomeprazole on the Systemic Exposure of Capecitabine: Results of A Randomized Crossover Trial.

Retrospective data suggest that gastric acid reduction by proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) impairs the dissolution and subsequent absorption of capecitabine, and thus potentially reduces the capecitabine exposure. Therefore, we examined prospectively the effect of esomeprazole on the pharmacokinetics of capecitabine. In this randomized crossover study, patients with cancer were assigned to 2 sequence groups, each consisting of 3 phases: capecitabine with esomeprazole administration 3 hours before (phase A), capecitabine alone (phase B), and capecitabine concomitant with cola and esomeprazole co-administration 3 hours before (phase C). The primary end point was the relative difference (RD) in exposure to capecitabine assessed by the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from zero to infinity (AUC0-inf ) and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model. Twenty-two evaluable patients were included in the analysis. After esomeprazole, there was a 18.9% increase in AUC0-inf of capecitabine (95% confidence interval (CI) -10.0% to 57.0%, P = 0.36). In addition, capecitabine half-life was significantly longer after esomeprazole (median 0.63 hours vs. 0.46 hours, P = 0.005). Concomitant cola did not completely reverse the effects observed after esomeprazole (RD 3.3% (95% CI -16.3 to 27.4%, P = 1.00). Capecitabine exposure is not negatively influenced by esomeprazole cotreatment. Therefore, altered capecitabine pharmacokinetics do not explain the assumed worse clinical outcome of PPI-cotreated patients with cancer.

DPYD*7 as a Predictor of Severe Fluoropyrimidine-Related Adverse Events.

PURPOSE: Around 20%-30% of patients treated with fluoropyrimidines develop severe treatment-related adverse events (AEs). These are mainly caused by deficiency of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase, its main metabolizing enzyme. The DPYD*7 variant allele contains a frameshift mutation that leads to absence of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase. Clinical studies on this variant in patients treated with fluoropyrimidines are lacking because of its low minor allelic frequency. However, the DPYD*7 minor allelic frequency is 56-times higher in the Dutch compared with the global population. This allowed us to evaluate fluoropyrimidine tolerability in DPYD*7 variant allele carriers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients treated with standard-of-care fluoropyrimidine who were pretreatment DPYD genotyped for DPYD*2A, *13, 2846A>T, and 1236G>A single-nucleotide polymorphisms were included for analyses. Patients were additionally screened for the DPYD*7 allele (rs72549309, 295-298delTCAT). AEs were graded if they worsened from baseline, according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. AEs ≥ grade 3 were considered severe. RESULTS: From 3,748 patients, we found 13 patients carrying heterozygous DPYD*7. Relevant clinical data were available for 11 patients. All patients developed fluoropyrimidine-related AEs, of which five patients developed severe AEs (46%). From these five patients, three patients were started with 65% or 50% of standard dose, but apparently still developed severe toxicity. Because of severe AEs, three patients discontinued treatment prematurely (one patient already started with 50% of standard dose) and one patient who started with 50% of standard dose was further reduced to 35% of standard dose. CONCLUSION: In this study, the clinical consequences of carrying the DPYD*7 variant allele were confirmed as 46% of the patients developed severe AEs, even in the presence of initial dose reductions. This underlines the need for prospective studies investigating the required fluoropyrimidine dose for DPYD*7 carriers.

UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing of irinotecan: A prospective safety and cost analysis in poor metaboliser patients.

AIM: To determine the safety, feasibility, pharmacokinetics, and cost of UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing of irinotecan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre, non-randomised study, patients intended for treatment with irinotecan were pre-therapeutically genotyped for UGT1A1∗28 and UGT1A1∗93. Homozygous variant carriers (UGT1A1 poor metabolisers; PMs) received an initial 30% dose reduction. The primary endpoint was incidence of febrile neutropenia in the first two cycles of treatment. Toxicity in UGT1A1 PMs was compared to a historical cohort of UGT1A1 PMs treated with full dose therapy, and to UGT1A1 non-PMs treated with full dose therapy in the current study. Secondary endpoints were pharmacokinetics, feasibility, and costs. RESULTS: Of the 350 evaluable patients, 31 (8.9%) patients were UGT1A1 PM and received a median 30% dose reduction. The incidence of febrile neutropenia in this group was 6.5% compared to 24% in historical UGT1A1 PMs (P = 0.04) and was comparable to the incidence in UGT1A1 non-PMs treated with full dose therapy. Systemic exposure of SN-38 of reduced dosing in UGT1A1 PMs was still slightly higher compared to a standard-dosed irinotecan patient cohort (difference: +32%). Cost analysis showed that genotype-guided dosing was cost-saving with a cost reduction of €183 per patient. CONCLUSION: UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing significantly reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia in UGT1A1 PM patients treated with irinotecan, results in a therapeutically effective systemic drug exposure, and is cost-saving. Therefore, UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing of irinotecan should be considered standard of care in order to improve individual patient safety.

Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase Phenotyping Using Pretreatment Uracil: A Note of Caution Based on a Large Prospective Clinical Study.

In clinical practice, 25-30% of the patients treated with fluoropyrimidines experience severe fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity. Extensively clinically validated DPYD genotyping tests are available to identify patients at risk of severe toxicity due to decreased activity of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), the rate limiting enzyme in fluoropyrimidine metabolism. In April 2020, the European Medicines Agency recommended that, as an alternative for DPYD genotype-based testing for DPD deficiency, also phenotype testing based on pretreatment plasma uracil levels is a suitable method to identify patients with DPD deficiency. Although the evidence for genotype-directed dosing of fluoropyrimidines is substantial, the level of evidence supporting plasma uracil levels to predict DPD activity in clinical practice is limited. Notwithstanding this, uracil-based phenotyping is now used in clinical practice in various countries in Europe. We aimed to determine the value of pretreatment uracil levels in predicting DPD deficiency and severe treatment-related toxicity. To this end, we determined pretreatment uracil levels in 955 patients with cancer, and assessed the correlation with DPD activity in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and fluoropyrimidine-related severe toxicity. We identified substantial issues concerning the use of pretreatment uracil in clinical practice, including large between-center study differences in measured pretreatment uracil levels, most likely as a result of pre-analytical factors. Importantly, we were not able to correlate pretreatment uracil levels with DPD activity nor were uracil levels predictive of severe treatment-related toxicity. We urge that robust clinical validation should first be performed before pretreatment plasma uracil levels are used in clinical practice as part of a dosing strategy for fluoropyrimidines.

Tissue Type Differences in ABCB1 Expression and Paclitaxel Tissue Pharmacokinetics in Patients With Esophageal Cancer.

Background: Data from previous work suggests that there is no correlation between systemic (plasma) paclitaxel exposure and efficacy in patients treated for esophageal cancer. In this trial, we investigated ATP-binding cassette efflux transporter expression and intratumoral pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel to identify changes which could be a first sign of chemoresistance. Methods: Patients with esophageal cancer treated with paclitaxel and carboplatin (± concomitant radiotherapy) were included. During the first and last cycle of weekly paclitaxel, blood samples and biopsies of esophageal mucosa and tumor tissue were taken. Changes in paclitaxel exposure and expression of ABCB1 (P-glycoprotein) over time were studied in both tumor tissue and normal appearing esophageal mucosa. Results: ABCB1 was significantly higher expressed in tumor tissue compared to esophageal tissue, during both the first and last cycle of paclitaxel (cycle 1: p < 0.01; cycle 5/6: p = 0.01). Interestingly, ABCB1 expression was significantly higher in adenocarcinoma than in squamous cell carcinoma (p < 0.01). During the first cycle, a trend towards a higher intratumoral paclitaxel concentration was observed compared to the esophageal mucosa concentration (RD:43%; 95%CI: -3% to 111% p = 0.07). Intratumoral and plasma paclitaxel concentrations were significantly correlated during the first cycle (AUC0-48 h: r = 0.72; p < 0.01). Conclusion: Higher ABCB1 expression in tumor tissue, and differences between histological tumor types might partly explain why tumors respond differently to systemic treatment. Resistance by altered intratumoral paclitaxel concentrations could not be demonstrated because the majority of the biopsies taken at the last cycle of paclitaxel did contain a low amount of tumor cells or no tumor.

Effects of Protein and Calorie Restriction on the Metabolism and Toxicity Profile of Irinotecan in Cancer Patients.

Preclinical data suggests that protein and calorie restriction (PCR) might improve treatment tolerability without impairing antitumor efficacy. Therefore, we have studied the influence of PCR on irinotecan pharmacokinetics and toxicity. In this crossover trial, patients with liver metastases of solid tumors were included and randomized to treatment with irinotecan preceded by 5 days of PCR (~ 30% caloric and ~ 70% protein restriction) during the first cycle and a second cycle preceded by a normal diet or vice versa. Pharmacokinetic blood sampling and biopsies of both healthy liver and liver metastases were performed. The primary end point was the relative difference in geometric means for the active metabolite SN-38 concentration in healthy liver analyzed by a linear mixed model. No significant differences were seen in irinotecan (+ 16.8%, P = 0.22) and SN-38 (+ 9.8%, P = 0.48) concentrations between PCR and normal diet in healthy liver, as well as in liver metastases (irinotecan: -38.8%, P = 0.05 and SN-38: -13.8%, P = 0.50). PCR increased irinotecan plasma area under the curve from zero to 24 hours (AUC0-24h ) with 7.1% (P = 0.04) compared with normal diet, whereas the SN-38 plasma AUC0-24h increased with 50.3% (P < 0.001). Grade ≥ 3 toxicity was not increased during PCR vs. normal diet (P = 0.69). No difference was seen in neutropenia grade ≥ 3 (47% vs. 32% P = 0.38), diarrhea grade ≥ 3 (5% vs. 21% P = 0.25), and febrile neutropenia (5% vs. 16% P = 0.50) during PCR vs. normal diet. In conclusion, plasma SN-38 exposure increased dramatically after PCR, whereas toxicity did not change. PCR did not alter the irinotecan and SN-38 exposure in healthy liver and liver metastases. PCR might therefore potentially improve the therapeutic window in patients treated with irinotecan.

Efficacy and Toxicity of Weekly Carboplatin and Paclitaxel as Induction or Palliative Treatment in Advanced Esophageal Cancer Patients.

Many patients have advanced esophageal cancer at diagnosis. However, the most optimal treatment has not been identified. Therefore, we evaluated a weekly regimen of carboplatin (area under the curve (AUC)) of 4 and paclitaxel at 100 mg/m2 as an induction or palliative treatment. All patients with advanced (gastro)esophageal cancer treated with this regimen between 2002-2018 were included. Exclusion criteria were previous radiotherapy or treatment elsewhere. Data on toxicity, response, and survival were collected. Analyses were performed in two groups: induction (iCT) or palliative chemotherapy (pCT). Median progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. A total of 291 patients was included (iCT: 122; pCT: 169). Most patients had T3 carcinoma (iCT: 54%; pCT: 66%) and stage IV disease (iCT: 42%; pCT: 91%). A toxicity grade ≥3 occurred mainly as hematological toxicity (iCT: 71%; pCT: 73%) and gastrointestinal toxicity (iCT: 3%; pCT: 5%). Response rates were 48% (iCT) and 44% (pCT). Esophagectomy or definitive chemoradiotherapy followed in 42% of iCT, resulting in a PFS of 22.1 months (interquartile range (IQR): 12.4-114.2) and OS of 26.8 months (IQR: 15.4-91.7). For pCT, PFS was 8.2 months (IQR: 5.1-14.5) and OS 10.9 months (IQR: 6.5-18.3). This retrospective cohort study demonstrated that weekly carboplatin (AUC4) and paclitaxel (100 mg/m2) is a well-tolerated and effective induction or palliative treatment regimen for patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Future research should directly compare this treatment regimen with other first-line treatment options to determine its true value for clinical practice.

Comparison of toxicity and effectiveness between fixed-dose and body surface area-based dose capecitabine.

BACKGROUND: Capecitabine is generally dosed based on body surface area (BSA). This dosing strategy has several limitations; however, evidence for alternative strategies is lacking. Therefore, we analyzed the toxicity and effectiveness of fixed-dose capecitabine and compared this strategy with a BSA-based dose of capecitabine in a large set of patients. METHODS: Patients treated with fixed-dose capecitabine between 2003 and 2015 were studied. A comparable group of patients, dosed based on BSA, was chosen as a control cohort. A total of two combined scores were used: capecitabine-specific toxicity (diarrhea, National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria grade ⩾3, hand-foot syndrome ⩾2, or neutropenia ⩾2), and clinically relevant events due to toxicity, that is, hospital admission, dose reduction, or discontinuation. Per treatment regimen, patients were divided into three BSA groups based on BSA quartiles corrected for sex. Toxicity scores were compared by a Chi-square test between cohorts, and within cohorts using BSA groups. Progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 2319 patients were included (fixed dosed, n = 1126 and BSA-based dose, n = 1193). Overall, four regimens were evaluated: capecitabine-radiotherapy (n = 1178), capecitabine-oxaliplatin (n = 519), capecitabine triplet (n = 181) and capecitabine monotherapy (n = 441). The incidence of capecitabine-specific toxicity and clinically relevant events was comparable between fixed-dose and BSA-dosed patients, while a small difference (7.1%) in absolute dose was found. Both cohorts showed only a higher incidence of both toxicity scores in the lowest BSA group of the capecitabine-radiotherapy group (p < 0.05). Subgroups of the fixed-dose cohort analyzed for PFS, showed no differences between BSA groups. CONCLUSIONS: Fixed-dose capecitabine is as comparably well tolerated and effective as BSA-based dosing and could be considered as a reasonable alternative for BSA-based dosing.

Association between Paclitaxel Clearance and Tumor Response in Patients with Esophageal Cancer.

Inter-individual variability in paclitaxel pharmacokinetics may play a role in the response to chemotherapy. Therefore, we studied the association between paclitaxel clearance and treatment response in patients with esophageal cancer. All patients who received paclitaxel (plus carboplatin) treatment for esophageal cancer between 2007 and 2013 were included. The treatment was given as neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT), induction chemotherapy (iCT), or palliative chemotherapy (pCT). The treatment response was assessed by the tumor regression grade (TRG) or by the RECIST1.1 criteria, respectively. The unbound paclitaxel clearance (CL) was estimated with NONMEM. The log-transformed clearance was related to response with ANOVA and independent sample t-tests. A total of 166 patients were included, of whom 113 received nCRT, 23 iCT and 30 pCT. In patients receiving nCRT, paclitaxel clearance was not associated with tumor regression grade (p-value = 0.25), nor with pathologically complete response (geometric mean 561.6 L/h) and residual disease (geometric mean 566.1 L/h, p-value = 0.90). In patients who underwent iCT or pCT, also no association between paclitaxel clearance and RECIST outcome was identified (iCT: p-value = 0.08 and pCT: p-value = 0.81, respectively). In conclusion, systemic paclitaxel exposure was not associated with response to common paclitaxel-based treatment regimens for esophageal cancer. Future studies should focus on tumor exposure in relation to systemic exposure and treatment outcome.

Influence of the Proton Pump Inhibitor Esomeprazole on the Bioavailability of Regorafenib: A Randomized Crossover Pharmacokinetic Study.

Regorafenib exposure could potentially be influenced by an interaction with acid-reducing drugs. In this crossover trial, patients were randomized into two sequence groups consisting of three phases: regorafenib intake alone, regorafenib with concomitant esomeprazole, and regorafenib with esomeprazole 3 hours prior. The primary end point was the relative difference (RD) in geometric means for regorafenib 0-24-hour area under the concentration-time curve (AUC0-24h ) and was analyzed by a linear mixed model in 14 patients. AUC0-24h for regorafenib alone was 55.9 µg·hour/mL (coefficient of variance (CV): 40%), and for regorafenib with concomitant esomeprazole or with esomeprazole 3 hours prior AUC0-24h was 53.7 µg·hour/mL (CV: 34%) and 53.6 µg·hour/mL (CV: 43%), respectively. No significant differences were identified when regorafenib alone was compared with regorafenib with concomitant esomeprazole (RD: -3.9%; 95% confidence interval (CI): -20.5 to 16.1%; P = 1.0) or regorafenib with esomeprazole 3 hours prior (RD: -4.1%; 95% CI: -22.8 to 19.2%; P = 1.0). These findings indicate that regorafenib and esomeprazole can be safely combined in clinical practice.

Concomitant intraperitoneal and systemic chemotherapy for extensive peritoneal metastases of colorectal origin: protocol of the multicentre, open-label, phase I, dose-escalation INTERACT trial.

INTRODUCTION: Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) has become standard of care for patients with peritoneal metastases of colorectal origin with a low/moderate abdominal disease load. In case of a peritoneal cancer index (PCI) score >20, CRS-HIPEC is not considered to be beneficial. Patients with a PCI >20 are currently offered palliative systemic chemotherapy. Previous studies have shown that systemic chemotherapy is less effective against peritoneal metastases than it is against haematogenous spread of colorectal cancer. It is suggested that patients with peritoneal metastases may benefit from the addition of intraperitoneal chemotherapy to systemic chemotherapy. Aim of this study is to establish the maximum tolerated dose of intraperitoneal irinotecan, added to standard of care systemic therapy for colorectal cancer. Secondary endpoints are to determine the safety and feasibility of this treatment and to establish the pharmacokinetic profile of intraperitoneally administered irinotecan. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This phase I, '3+3' dose-escalation, study is performed in two Dutch tertiary referral centres. The study population consists of adult patients with extensive peritoneal metastases of colorectal origin who have a good performance status and no extra-abdominal metastases. According to standard work-up for CRS-HIPEC, patients will undergo a diagnostic laparoscopy to score the PCI. In case of a PCI >20, a peritoneal access port will be placed in the abdomen of the patient. Through this port we will administer intraperitoneal irinotecan, in combination with standard systemic treatment consisting of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin with oxaliplatin and the targeted agent bevacizumab. Therapy consists of a maximum of 12 cycles 2-weekly. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study protocol is approved by a research medical ethics committee (Rotterdam, Netherlands) and the Dutch Competent Authority (CCMO, The Hague, Netherlands). The results of this trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL6988 and NL2018-000479-33; Pre-results.

A cost analysis of upfront DPYD genotype-guided dose individualisation in fluoropyrimidine-based anticancer therapy.

BACKGROUND: Fluoropyrimidine therapy including capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil can result in severe treatment-related toxicity in up to 30% of patients. Toxicity is often related to reduced activity of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase, the main metabolic fluoropyrimidine enzyme, primarily caused by genetic DPYD polymorphisms. In a large prospective study, it was concluded that upfront DPYD-guided dose individualisation is able to improve safety of fluoropyrimidine-based therapy. In our current analysis, we evaluated whether this strategy is cost saving. METHODS: A cost-minimisation analysis from a health-care payer perspective was performed as part of the prospective clinical trial (NCT02324452) in which patients prior to start of fluoropyrimidine-based therapy were screened for the DPYD variants DPYD*2A, c.2846A>T, c.1679T>G and c.1236G>A and received an initial dose reduction of 25% (c.2846A>T, c.1236G>A) or 50% (DPYD*2A, c.1679T>G). Data on treatment, toxicity, hospitalisation and other toxicity-related interventions were collected. The model compared prospective screening for these DPYD variants with no DPYD screening. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed. RESULTS: Expected total costs of the screening strategy were €2599 per patient compared with €2650 for non-screening, resulting in a net cost saving of €51 per patient. Results of the probabilistic sensitivity and one-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the screening strategy was very likely to be cost saving or worst case cost-neutral. CONCLUSIONS: Upfront DPYD-guided dose individualisation, improving patient safety, is cost saving or cost-neutral but is not expected to yield additional costs. These results endorse implementing DPYD screening before start of fluoropyrimidine treatment as standard of care.

Individualization of Irinotecan Treatment: A Review of Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Pharmacogenetics.

Since its clinical introduction in 1998, the topoisomerase I inhibitor irinotecan has been widely used in the treatment of solid tumors, including colorectal, pancreatic, and lung cancer. Irinotecan therapy is characterized by several dose-limiting toxicities and large interindividual pharmacokinetic variability. Irinotecan has a highly complex metabolism, including hydrolyzation by carboxylesterases to its active metabolite SN-38, which is 100- to 1000-fold more active compared with irinotecan itself. Several phase I and II enzymes, including cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 and uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase (UGT) 1A, are involved in the formation of inactive metabolites, making its metabolism prone to environmental and genetic influences. Genetic variants in the DNA of these enzymes and transporters could predict a part of the drug-related toxicity and efficacy of treatment, which has been shown in retrospective and prospective trials and meta-analyses. Patient characteristics, lifestyle and comedication also influence irinotecan pharmacokinetics. Other factors, including dietary restriction, are currently being studied. Meanwhile, a more tailored approach to prevent excessive toxicity and optimize efficacy is warranted. This review provides an updated overview on today's literature on irinotecan pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacogenetics.

Prospective Analysis in GIST Patients on the Role of Alpha-1 Acid Glycoprotein in Imatinib Exposure.

BACKGROUND: For imatinib, a relationship between systemic exposure and clinical outcome has been suggested. Importantly, imatinib concentrations are not stable and decrease over time, for which several mechanisms have been suggested. In this study, we investigated if a decrease in alpha-1 acid glycoprotein (AGP) is the main cause of the lowering in imatinib exposure over time. METHODS: We prospectively measured imatinib trough concentration (C min) values in 28 patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumours, at 1, 3 and 12 months after the start of imatinib treatment. At the same time points, AGP levels were measured. RESULTS: Overall, imatinib C min and AGP levels were correlated (r 2 = 0.656; P < 0.001). However, AGP levels did not fluctuate significantly over time, nor did the change in AGP levels correlate with the change in the imatinib C min. CONCLUSION: We showed that systemic AGP levels are not likely to be a key player in the decrease in systemic imatinib exposure over time. As long as intra-individual changes in imatinib exposure remain unexplained, researchers should standardize the sampling times for imatinib in order to be able to assess the clinical applicability of therapeutic drug monitoring.