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.

Results of the first international quality control programme for oral targeted oncolytics.

AIMS: With the rising number of oral targeted oncolytics and growing awareness of the benefits of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) within the field of oncology, it is expected that the requests for quantifying concentrations of these drugs will increase. It is important to (cross-)validate available assays and ensure its quality, as results may lead to altered dosing recommendations. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the performance of laboratories measuring concentrations of targeted oral oncolytics in a one-time international quality control (QC) programme. METHODS: Participating laboratories received a set of plasma samples containing low, medium and high concentrations of imatinib, sunitinib, desethylsunitinib, pazopanib, cabozantinib, olaparib, enzalutamide, desmethylenzalutamide and abiraterone, with the request to report their results back within five weeks after shipment. Accuracy was defined acceptable if measurements where within 85%-115% from the weighed-in reference concentrations. Besides descriptive statistics, an exploratory ANOVA was performed. RESULTS: Seventeen laboratories from six countries reported 243 results. Overall, 80.7% of all measurements were within the predefined range of acceptable accuracy. Laboratories performed best in quantifying imatinib and poorest in quantifying desethylsunitinib (median absolute inaccuracy respectively 4.0% (interquartile range (IQR) 1.8%-6.5%) and 15.5% (IQR 8.8%-34.9%)). The poorest performance of desethylsunitinib might be caused by using the stable-isotope-labelled sunitinib instead of desethylsunitinib as an internal standard, or due to the light-induced cis(Z)/trans(E) isomerization of (desethyl)sunitinib. Overall, drug substance and performing laboratory seemed to influence the absolute inaccuracy (F = 16.4; p < 0.001 and F = 35.5; p < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Considering this is the first evaluation of an international QC programme for oral targeted oncolytics, an impressive high percentage of measurements were within the predefined range of accuracy. Cross-validation of assays that are used for dose optimization of oncolytics will secure the performance and will protect patients from incorrect advices.

The QT interval prolongation potential of anticancer and supportive drugs: a comprehensive overview.

Patients with cancer are prone to prolongation of the corrected QT interval (QTc) due to the use of anticancer drugs with QTc-prolonging potential in combination with electrolyte imbalances caused by, for example, gastrointestinal side-effects. However, most anticancer drugs were approved with little information on their QTc-prolonging potential and the added risk of torsade de pointes. The absence of this information on the drug label poses a considerable challenge to clinicians regarding the measures that need to be taken to safely start anticancer treatment. In this Review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the evidence for the QTc-prolonging properties of 205 anticancer drugs and 14 antiemetic drugs available from drug labels, assessment reports, and published studies. We classify the drugs as low-risk, moderate-risk, or high-risk for QTc prolongation. We also discuss the clinical relevance of these findings and include practical recommendations to guide clinicians to select the drugs with the least QTc-prolonging properties and to adequately monitor susceptible patients.

Exposure-toxicity relationship of cabozantinib in patients with renal cell cancer and salivary gland cancer.

Cabozantinib is registered in fixed 60 mg dose. However, 46% to 62% of patients in the registration studies needed a dose reduction due to toxicity. Improved clinical efficacy has been observed in renal cell carcinoma patients (RCC) with a cabozantinib exposure greater than 750 µg/L. In our study we explored the cabozantinib exposure in patients with different tumour types. We included RCC patients from routine care and salivary gland carcinoma (SGC) patients from a phase II study with ≥1 measured Cmin at steady-state. The geometric mean (GM) Cmin at the starting dose, at 40 mg and at best tolerated dose (BTD) were compared between both tumour types. Forty-seven patients were included. All SGC patients (n = 22) started with 60 mg, while 52% of RCC patients started with 40 mg. GM Cmin at the start dose was 1456 µg/L (95% CI: 1185-1789) vs 682 µg/L (95% CI: 572-812) (P < .001) for SGC and RCC patients, respectively. When dose-normalised to 40 mg, SGC patients had a significantly higher cabozantinib exposure compared to RCC patients (Cmin 971 µg/L [95% CI: 790-1193] vs 669 µg/L [95% CI: 568-788]) (P = .005). Dose reductions due to toxicity were needed in 91% and 60% of SGC and RCC patients, respectively. Median BTD was between 20 to 30 mg for SGC and 40 mg for RCC patients. GM Cmin at BTD were comparable between the SGC and the RCC group, 694 µg/L (95% CI: 584-824) vs 583 µg/L (95% CI: 496-671) (P = .1). The observed cabozantinib exposure at BTD of approximately 600 µg/L is below the previously proposed target. Surprisingly, a comparable exposure at BTD was reached at different dosages of cabozantinib for SGC patients compared to RCC patients Further research is warranted to identify the optimal exposure and starting dose to balance efficacy and toxicity.

Exposure-response analyses of cabozantinib in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer.

AIM: In the registration trial, cabozantinib exposure ≥ 750 ng/mL correlated to improved tumor size reduction, response rate and progression free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). Because patients in routine care often differ from patients in clinical trials, we explored the cabozantinib exposure-response relationship in patients with mRCC treated in routine care. METHODS: Cabozantinib trough concentrations (Cmin) were collected and average exposure was calculated per individual. Exposure-response analyses were performed using the earlier identified target of Cmin > 750 ng/mL and median Cmin. In addition, the effect of dose reductions on response was explored. PFS was used as measure of response. RESULTS: In total, 59 patients were included:10% were classified as favourable, 61% as intermediate and 29% as poor IMDC risk group, respectively. Median number of prior treatment lines was 2 (0-5). Starting dose was 60 mg in 46%, 40 mg in 42% and 20 mg in 12% of patients. Dose reductions were needed in 58% of patients. Median Cmin was 572 ng/mL (IQR: 496-701). Only 17% of patients had an average Cmin ≥ 750 ng/mL. Median PFS was 52 weeks (95% CI: 40-64). No improved PFS was observed for patients with Cmin ≥ 750 ng/mL or ≥ 572 ng/ml. A longer PFS was observed for patients with a dose reduction vs. those without (65 vs. 31 weeks, p = .001). After incorporating known covariates (IMDC risk group and prior treatment lines (< 2 vs. ≥ 2)) in the multivariable analysis, the need for dose reduction remained significantly associated with improved PFS (HR 0.32, 95% CI:0.14-0.70, p = .004). CONCLUSION: In these explorative analyses, no clear relationship between increased cabozantinib exposure and improved PFS was observed. Average cabozantinib exposure was below the previously proposed target in 83% of patients. Future studies should focus on validating the cabozantinib exposure required for long term efficacy.

The effect of chemotherapy on the exposure-response relation of abiraterone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

AIMS: To assess whether the exposure-response relation for abiraterone is different in pre-chemotherapy patients compared to post-chemotherapy patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: Data were collected from three clinical studies in mCRPC patients treated with abiraterone acetate. Cox regression analysis was used to determine the relation between abiraterone exposure and survival (progression-free survival [PFS] and overall survival [OS]). An interaction term was used to test whether chemotherapy pretreatment was an effect modifier. To investigate the effect of the previously defined exposure threshold of 8.4 ng/mL on survival, Kaplan-Meier analysis was used. RESULTS: In total, 98 mCRPC patients were included, of which 78 were pre-chemotherapy and 20 were post-chemotherapy patients. Chemotherapy pretreatment in mCRPC setting appears to be an effect modifier. In pre-chemotherapy patients, no significant association between abiraterone exposure and survival was observed (HR 0.68 [95% CI 0.42-1.10], P = .12 and HR 0.85 [95% CI 0.46-1.60], P = .61, PFS and OS, respectively) and no longer survival was seen for patients with an abiraterone exposure above the predefined threshold. In contrast, a significant association was seen in post-chemotherapy patients (HR 0.30 [95% CI 0.12-0.74], P = .01 and HR 0.38 [95% CI 0.18-0.82] P = .01, PFS and OS, respectively), with an increased survival when exposed above this threshold. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy pretreatment in mCRPC setting modifies the abiraterone exposure-response relation. No relation between abiraterone exposure and survival was seen for pre-chemotherapy patients. Therefore, potentially lower doses can be used in this setting to prevent overtreatment and reduce financial toxicity.

Lean Body Mass and Total Body Weight Versus Body Surface Area as a Determinant of Docetaxel Pharmacokinetics and Toxicity.

AIM: This study examined whether anthropometric and body composition parameters such as body surface area (BSA), lean body mass (LBM), and total body weight (TBW) are correlated with docetaxel clearance and exposure by analyzing area under the curve. In addition, LBM, TBW, and a fixed dose were compared with BSA as dosing parameters for dose individualization of docetaxel. METHODS: Thirty-six patients receiving docetaxel chemotherapy for breast or metastatic castration-resistant prostate carcinoma were included. Before treatment, LBM was measured using a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scanner. Blood samples were collected up to 180 minutes after dosing to analyze docetaxel concentrations and determine individual pharmacokinetic parameters. RESULTS: No significant correlations were found between docetaxel clearance and the anthropometric and body composition variables (BSA, LBM, and TBW). The area under the curve was significantly but poorly correlated with BSA [r = 0.452 ( P = 0.016)] and TBW [r = 0.476 ( P = 0.011)]. The mean absolute percentage error and mean error of simulated dosing based on LBM and fixed dosing were not significantly different from those of BSA. For TBW, only mean absolute percentage error was significantly higher compared with dosing based on BSA (24.1 versus 17.1, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There was no clinically relevant correlation between docetaxel pharmacokinetics and the anthropometric and body composition variables BSA, LBM, and TBW. Therefore, dose individualization of docetaxel based on LBM, TBW, or fixed dosing cannot be recommended over BSA-based dosing.

The impact of a 1-hour time interval between pazopanib and subsequent intake of gastric acid suppressants on pazopanib exposure.

Co-treatment with gastric acid suppressants (GAS) in patients taking anticancer drugs that exhibit pH-dependant absorption may lead to decreased drug exposure and may hamper drug efficacy. In our study, we investigated whether a 1-hour time interval between subsequent intake of pazopanib and GAS could mitigate this negative effect on drug exposure. We performed an observational study in which we collected the first steady-state pazopanib trough concentration (Cmin ) levels from patients treated with pazopanib 800 mg once daily (OD) taken fasted or pazopanib 600 mg OD taken with food. All patients were advised to take GAS 1 hour after pazopanib. Patients were grouped based on the use of GAS and the geometric (GM) Cmin levels were compared between groups for each dose regimen. Additionally, the percentage of patients with exposure below the target threshold of 20.5 mg/L and the effect of the type of PPI was explored. The GM Cmin levels were lower in GAS users vs non-GAS users for both the 800 and 600 mg cohorts (23.7 mg/L [95% confidence interval [CI]: 21.1-26.7] vs 28.2 mg/L [95% CI: 25.9-30.5], P = .015 and 26.0 mg/L [95% CI: 22.4-30.3] vs 33.5 mg/L [95% CI: 30.3-37.1], P = .006). Subtherapeutic exposure was more prevalent in GAS users vs non-GAS users (33.3% vs 19.5% and 29.6% vs 14%). Sub-analysis showed lower GM pazopanib Cmin in patients who received omeprazole, while minimal difference was observed in those receiving pantoprazole compared to non-users. Our research showed that a 1-hour time interval between intake of pazopanib and GAS did not mitigate the negative effect of GAS on pazopanib exposure and may hamper pazopanib efficacy.

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.

Prognostic Value of Novel Liquid Biomarkers in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Treated with Enzalutamide: A Prospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Several treatment options were recently added for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, response to therapy is variable, and biomarkers that can guide treatment selection and response evaluation are lacking. Circulating RNAs are a promising source of biomarkers. We explored messenger RNAs (mRNAs), microRNAs (miRNAs), and long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) as potential biomarkers in liquid biopsies of patients with mCRPC treated with enzalutamide. METHODS: Forty patients were included in this prospective multicenter observational study. Whole blood was drawn at baseline and 1, 3, and 6 months after start of therapy. Four mRNAs, 6 miRNAs, and 5 lncRNAs were analyzed by quantitative PCR. RNA levels in 30 healthy individuals were used as controls. RNA expression data were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses, and the primary end point was progression-free survival. Clinical factors were included in the multivariable Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Levels of 2 miRNAs, miR-375 and miR-3687, and 1 lncRNA, N-acetylated alpha-linked acidic dipeptidase like 2 antisense RNA 2 (NAALADL2-AS2), were more than 2-fold higher in patients with mCRPC compared with healthy volunteers. Patients with higher levels of miR-375 or miR-3687 showed a shorter time to progression. Patients with higher levels of NAALADL2-AS2 showed a longer time to progression. In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, higher miR-375, miR-3687 and serum prostate-specific antigen concentrations were shown to be independent predictors for shorter time to progression. CONCLUSIONS: We identified miR-3687 as a novel prognostic marker for response in patients with CRPC treated with enzalutamide, and we confirmed the prognostic value of miR-375.

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.

Simple and Rapid Quantification of the Multi-Enzyme Targeting Antifolate Pemetrexed in Human Plasma.

BACKGROUND: Pemetrexed is an antifolate cytostatic drug that targets multiple enzymes involved in folate biosynthesis and is indicated for treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer and malignant pleural mesothelioma. As evidence for an exposure-response/toxicity relationship is accumulating, dose individualization using therapeutic drug monitoring may be a feasible strategy to optimize treatment. The purpose of this study was to develop a simple, sensitive, high-performance liquid chromatography method with UV detection for quantification of pemetrexed levels in human plasma. METHOD: The method involves a simple protein precipitation, followed by ultra-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection at a wavelength of 254 nm. Pemetrexed was separated using a mobile phase with a linear gradient and a run time of only 7 minutes. RESULTS: The assay has been validated over the concentration range 0.25-500 mg/L of pemetrexed. Accuracy for this assay ranged from -4.50% to 1.78%, and the within- and between-run coefficients of variation were <3.57%. Pemetrexed in plasma was proven to be stable for 8 months at -40°C. CONCLUSIONS: The bioanalytical method we developed proved to be simple, accurate, precise, and fast. This analytical method is successfully in use for therapeutic drug monitoring and will be used for pharmacokinetic studies.

Quantification of cobimetinib, cabozantinib, dabrafenib, niraparib, olaparib, vemurafenib, regorafenib and its metabolite regorafenib M2 in human plasma by UPLC-MS/MS.

A sensitive and selective ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS) method for the simultaneous determination of seven oral oncolytics (two PARP inhibitors, i.e. olaparib and niraparib, and five tyrosine kinase inhibitors, i.e. cobimetinib, cabozantinib, dabrafenib, vemurafenib and regorafenib, plus its active metabolite regorafenib M2) in EDTA plasma was developed and validated. Stable isotope-labelled internal standards were used for each analyte. A simple protein precipitation method was performed with acetonitrile. The LC-MS/MS system consisted of an Acquity H-Class UPLC system, coupled to a Xevo TQ-S micro tandem mass spectrometer. The compounds were separated on a Waters CORTECS UPLC C18 column (2.1 × 50 mm, 1.6 µm particle size) and eluted with a gradient elution system. The ions were detected in the multiple reaction monitoring mode. The method was validated for cobimetinib, cabozantinib, dabrafenib, niraparib, olaparib, vemurafenib, regorafenib and regorafenib M2 over the ranges 6-1000, 100-5000, 10-4000, 200-2000, 200-20,000, 5000-100,000, 500-10,000 and 500-10,000 µg/L, respectively. Within-day accuracy values for all analytes ranged from 86.8 to 115.0% with a precision of <10.4%. Between-day accuracy values ranged between 89.7 and 111.9% with a between-day precision of <7.4%. The developed method was successfully used for guiding therapy with therapeutic drug monitoring in cancer patients and clinical research programs in our laboratory.

Dose recommendations for anticancer drugs in patients with renal or hepatic impairment.

Renal or hepatic impairment is a common comorbidity for patients with cancer either because of the disease itself, toxicity of previous anticancer treatments, or because of other factors affecting organ function, such as increased age. Because renal and hepatic function are among the main determinants of drug exposure, the pharmacokinetic profile might be altered for patients with cancer who have renal or hepatic impairment, necessitating dose adjustments. Most anticancer drugs are dosed near their maximum tolerated dose and are characterised by a narrow therapeutic index. Consequently, selecting an adequate dose for patients who have either hepatic or renal impairment, or both, is challenging and definitive recommendations on dose adjustments are scarce. In this Review, we discuss the effect of renal and hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics of anticancer drugs. To guide clinicians in selecting appropriate dose adjustments, information from available drug labels and from the published literature were combined to provide a practical set of recommendations for dose adjustments of 160 anticancer drugs for patients with hepatic and renal impairment.

Optimizing the dose in patients treated with imatinib as first line treatment for gastrointestinal stromal tumours: A cost-effectiveness study.

AIMS: Patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) are treated in first line with the oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor, imatinib, until progressive disease. With this fixed dosing regimen, only approximately 40% of patients reach adequate plasma levels within the therapeutic index. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is a solution to reach plasma levels within the therapeutic index. However, introducing TDM will also increase costs, due to prolonged imatinib use and laboratory costs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TDM in patients with metastatic/unresectable GIST treated with imatinib as a first line treatment, compared with fixed dosing. METHODS: A survival model was created to simulate progression, mortality and treatment costs over a 5-year time horizon, comparing fixed dosing vs TDM-guided dosing. The outcomes measured were treatments costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years. RESULTS: Total costs over the 5-year time horizon were estimated to be €106 994.85 and €150 477.08 for fixed dosing vs TDM-guided dosing, respectively. A quality-adjusted life year gain of 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.66-0.90) was estimated with TDM-guided dosing compared to fixed dosing. An average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €58 785.70 per quality-adjusted life year gained was found, mainly caused by longer use and higher dosages of imatinib. CONCLUSION: Based on the currently available data, this analysis suggests that TDM-guided dosing may be a cost-effective intervention for patients with metastatic/unresectable GIST treated with imatinib which will be improved when imatinib losses its patency.

The effect of gastrectomy on regorafenib exposure and progression-free survival in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours.

AIMS: We investigated whether major gastrectomy influences the plasma exposure of regorafenib and treatment outcome. METHODS: Efficacy and pharmacokinetic data from 133 gastrointestinal stromal tumour patients included in a phase III trial were analysed. Patients were subdivided into 2 groups according to the extent of the gastrectomy (no/nonsignificant gastrectomy and major gastrectomy). Progression-free survival (PFS) on regorafenib was measured and regorafenib and its pharmacological active metabolites plasma exposure were measured. RESULTS: A total of 133 patient were included, of whom 27 underwent major gastrectomy. In patients with no/nonsignificant gastrectomy the median PFS was 145 (interquartile range 43-281) days. The PFS in patients with a major gastrectomy was 172 (interquartile range 57-280) days. Regorafenib pharmacokinetic samples were collected in 80 patients of which 19 patients with a major gastrectomy and 61 patients with no/nonsignificant gastric surgery. The average ± standard deviation total concentration of regorafenib including the metabolites M-2 and M-5 was 6.9 ± 1.53 µmol/L and 6.7 ± 1.56 µmol/L in patient with major gastrectomy and no/nonsignificant gastrectomy respectively. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that major gastrectomy did not influence plasma exposure of regorafenib and metabolites. In addition, no difference in PFS between the subgroups was seen.

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy with oxaliplatin for peritoneal carcinomatosis: a clinical pharmacological perspective on a surgical procedure.

Cytoreductive surgery combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has become the standard of care in the treatment of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin. The use of oxaliplatin for HIPEC has gained popularity. Although the HIPEC procedure is adopted throughout the world, major differences exist between treatment protocols regarding the carrier solution, perfusate volume, use of an open or closed technique, duration of the perfusion and application of additional flushing. These differences can influence the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of oxaliplatin and might thereby have an impact on the efficacy and/or safety of the treatment. Clinicians should be aware of the clinical importance of oxaliplatin pharmacology when performing HIPEC surgery. This review adds new insights into the complex field of the pharmacology of HIPEC and highlights an important worldwide problem: the lack of standardization of the HIPEC procedure.

Exposure to Docetaxel in the Elderly Patient Population: a Population Pharmacokinetic Study.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel is commonly used in elderly patients, who are frequently diagnosed with prostate cancer. Although previous studies revealed no clinically relevant impact of older age on docetaxel pharmacokinetics (PK), this may be masked by indication. Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients were reported to have approximately two-times lower systemic exposure compared to patients with other solid tumors. This study assessed the impact of older age on docetaxel PK, also considering the effect of indication on docetaxel PK. METHODS: Prospectively collected docetaxel PK data from patients aged ≥70 was pooled with PK data from an earlier published multicenter study. A 3-compartment population PK model, including multiple covariates, was used to describe docetaxel plasma concentration-time data. We added the effect of prostate cancer (mCRPC and metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC)) on clearance to this model. Hereafter, we evaluated the additional impact of older age on docetaxel clearance, using a significance threshold of p < 0.005. RESULTS: Docetaxel plasma concentration-time data from 157 patients were analyzed. Median age in the total cohort was 67 years (range 31-87), with 49% of the total cohort aged ≥70. The impact of age on docetaxel clearance was statistically significant (p < 0.005). For a typical patient, a 10-year and 20-year increase of age led to a reduction in clearance of 17% and 34%, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this cohort study, age significantly and independently affected docetaxel clearance, showing lower docetaxel clearance in elderly patients. In our cohort, mCRPC and mHSPC patients both had higher clearance than patients with other solid tumors.

Does Older Age Lead to Higher Risk for Neutropenia in Patients Treated with Paclitaxel?

PURPOSE: There is ongoing concern regarding increased toxicity from paclitaxel in elderly patients, particularly of severe neutropenia. Yet, data so far is controversial and this concern is not supported by a clinically relevant age-dependent difference in pharmacokinetics (PK) of paclitaxel. This study assessed whether age is associated with increased risk for paclitaxel-induced neutropenia. METHODS: Paclitaxel plasma concentration-time data, pooled from multiple different studies, was combined with available respective neutrophil count data during the first treatment cycle. Paclitaxel pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) data was modeled using a non-linear mixed effects approach and a semiphysiological neutropenia model, where systemic paclitaxel exposure was linked to reduced proliferation of neutrophils. The impact of age was evaluated on relevant variables in the model, using a significance threshold of p < 0.005. RESULTS: Paclitaxel PK-PD data was evaluated from 300 patients, with a median age of 65 years (range 23-84 years), containing 116 patients ≥70 years (39%). First cycle neutrophil counts were adequately described by a threshold effect model of paclitaxel on the proliferation rate of neutrophils. Age as a continuous or dichotomous variable (≥70 versus <70 years) did not significantly impact sensitivity of the bone marrow to paclitaxel nor the average maturation time of neutrophils (both p > 0.005), causing a decline in the respective interindividual variability of <1%. CONCLUSION: Results from this large retrospective patient cohort do not suggest elderly patients to be at an increased risk of developing paclitaxel-associated neutropenia during the first treatment cycle. Reflexive dose reductions of paclitaxel in elderly patients are unlikely to improve the risk of severe neutropenia and may be deleterious.

Impact of Older Age on the Exposure of Paclitaxel: a Population Pharmacokinetic Study.

PURPOSE: Limited available data suggest that older patients are more prone to develop paclitaxel-induced toxicity than their younger peers. It remains unclear whether this is related to age-dependent pharmacokinetics (PK) of paclitaxel. Primary objective of this study was to determine the influence of older age on the PK of paclitaxel. METHODS: PK data of patients aged ≥70 years who received paclitaxel intravenously at the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI) and the Radboud University Medical Center between September 2012 and May 2017 were collected. These prospectively collected data were pooled with previously published databases from multiple clinical trials conducted at the NKI and Erasmus MC Cancer Institute. A previously developed 3-compartment population PK model with saturable distribution and elimination was used to describe paclitaxel plasma concentration-time data. Hereafter, influence of age on paclitaxel PK was assessed in a previously established full covariate model. RESULTS: In total, paclitaxel PK data from 684 patients were available, consisting of 166 patients ≥70 years (24%). Median age of the cohort was 61 years (range 18 to 84 years). The impact of age, either treated as a continuous or dichotomous covariate (<70 versus ≥70 years), on the elimination of paclitaxel was only marginal but statistically significant (both p < 0.001 with no clinically relevant decrease in interindividual variability). For a typical patient, maximal elimination capacity decreased by only 5% for a 10-year increment of age. CONCLUSION: In this extensive multi-center dataset, which included a considerable number of older patients, older age had no clinically relevant impact on paclitaxel PK.