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.

Feasibility of therapeutic drug monitoring of sorafenib in patients with liver or thyroid cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Sorafenib is a tyrosine-kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, thyroid carcinoma, and desmoid fibromatosis. As high inter-individual variability exists in exposure, there is a scientific rationale to pursue therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). We investigated the feasibility of TDM in patients on sorafenib and tried to identify sub-groups in whom pharmacokinetically (PK) guided-dosing might be of added value. METHODS: We included patients who started on sorafenib (between October 2017 and June 2020) at the recommended dose of 400 mg BID or with a step-up dosing schedule. Plasma trough levels (Ctrough) were measured at pre-specified time-points. Increasing the dose was advised if Ctrough was below the target of 3750 ng/mL and toxicity was manageable. RESULTS: A total of 150 samples from 36 patients were collected. Thirty patients (83 %) had a Ctrough below the prespecified target concentration at a certain time point during treatment. Toxicity from sorafenib hampered dosing according to target Ctrough in almost half of the patients. In 11 patients, dosing was adjusted based on Ctrough. In three patients, this resulted in an adequate Ctrough without additional toxicity four weeks after the dose increase. In the remaining eight patients, dose adjustment based on Ctrough did not result in a Ctrough above the target or caused excessive toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: TDM for sorafenib is not of added value in daily clinical practice. In most cases, toxicity restricts the possibility of dose escalations.