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.

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 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.

Analytical challenges in quantifying abiraterone with LC-MS/MS in human plasma.

A method was developed and validated to quantify abiraterone in human plasma. During assay development, several analytical challenges were encountered: limited stability in patient samples, adsorption to glass, coelution with metabolites and carry-over issues. Limited stability (2 h) was found for abiraterone in fresh plasma as well as whole blood at ambient temperature. When kept at 2-8°C, abiraterone in plasma was stable for 24 h and in whole blood for 8 h. Adsorption of abiraterone to glass materials was addressed by using polypropylene throughout the method. Carry-over was reduced to acceptable limits by incorporating a third mobile phase into the gradient. The chromatographic separation of abiraterone with its multiple metabolites was addressed by using a longer analytical column and adjusting the gradient. Abiraterone was extracted by protein precipitation, separated on a C18 column with gradient elution and analyzed with tandem quadrupole mass spectrometry in positive ion mode. A stable deuterated isotope was used as the internal standard. The assay ranges from 1 to 500 ng/mL. Within- and-between-day precisions and accuracies were below 13.4% and within 95-102%. This bioanalytical method was successfully validated and applied to determine plasma concentrations of abiraterone in clinical studies and in regular patient care for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Folate, folic acid, and chemotherapy-induced toxicities: A systematic literature review.

Folate metabolism is a target for various chemotherapeutic drugs. Folate and its synthetic variant folic acid are B-vitamins. To what extent these vitamins impact treatment tolerance in patients with cancer remains unclear. A systematic literature review was conducted on intake and status of folate and folic acid in relation to chemotherapy-induced toxicities in children and adults with cancer. A total of 6231 publications were identified, of which 40 publications met the inclusion criteria. In 12 out of 22 studies focusing on antifolates, a deficient folate status and lower folate and folic acid intake were associated with a higher risk of toxicities. In 8 out of 14 studies focusing on fluoropyrimidine treatments, a higher folate status and intake were associated with a higher risk of toxicities. These findings might explain interindividual differences in treatment tolerance and highlight the importance of evaluating nutritional status in oncology care.

A prospective phase I multicentre randomized cross-over pharmacokinetic study to determine the effect of food on abiraterone pharmacokinetics.

PURPOSE: Abiraterone acetate is used at a fixed oral dose of 1000 mg once daily (OD) taken fasted. By administering abiraterone acetate with food, a reduced dose can potentially be given while maintaining equivalent abiraterone exposure. Moreover, administering abiraterone acetate with a breakfast is considered more patient friendly. The aim of this study was to establish the bio-equivalent lower dose of abiraterone when taken with a continental breakfast (CB) compared to the standard intake of 1000 mg OD fasted. METHODS: In this phase I, randomized cross-over, multi-center study, abiraterone pharmacokinetics (PK) were evaluated in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who were treated for 14 days with 1000 mg abiraterone acetate taken fasted, followed by 14 days of treatment with 500 mg taken with a CB. RESULTS: 14 patients were enrolled into the study, of whom 12 were eligible for PK analysis. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) (fed/fasted) was 0.88 (90% CI 0.73-1.07) for area-under-the-curve (AUC0-24h), 1.03 (90% CI 0.79-1.34) for Cmax and 0.81 (90% CI 0.60-1.10) for Ctrough, respectively. High inter-patient variability (> 50%) was found for all PK parameters under both intake conditions. Patients seemed to be slightly more satisfied about the intake of 500 mg abiraterone acetate when taken with a CB compared to 1000 mg fasted. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, a bioequivalent lower dose of abiraterone taken with food could not be established in our study. Although based on the absence of a exposure-toxicity relationship, the strict bioequivalence margins as defined by the FDA guidelines could be applied more flexible for abiraterone. Information on the effect of food on abiraterone pharmacokinetics as presented in our study can be used for patients with difficulties taken their medication fasted.

The Effect of Using Pazopanib With Food vs. Fasted on Pharmacokinetics, Patient Safety, and Preference (DIET Study).

Pazopanib is taken fasted in a fixed oral daily dose of 800 mg. We hypothesized that ingesting pazopanib with food may improve patients' comfort and reduce gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events. Therefore, we investigated the bioequivalent dose of pazopanib when taken with food compared with 800 mg pazopanib taken fasted. In addition, we investigated the differences in GI toxicity, patient satisfaction, and patient's preference for either intake. The intake of 600 mg pazopanib with food resulted in a bioequivalent exposure and was preferred over a standard pazopanib dose without food. No differences were seen in GI toxicities under both intake regimens. Patients seem to be more positive about their feelings about side effects and satisfaction with their therapy when pazopanib was taken with food. Forty-one of the patients (68%) preferred the intake with a continental breakfast.

Effect of food and acid-reducing agents on the absorption of oral targeted therapies in solid tumors.

Oral targeted therapies represent an increasingly important group of drugs within modern oncology. With the shift from intravenously to orally administered drugs, drug absorption is a newly introduced factor in drug disposition. The process of absorption can have a large effect on inter- and intrasubject variability in drug exposure and thereby potentially treatment benefit or the severity of toxicities. The intake of oral targeted therapies with food and concomitant use of acid-reducing agents (ARAs) can significantly affect drug absorption. The size and direction of the effect of food and ARAs on drug absorption varies among drugs as a result of different chemical characteristics. Therefore, an awareness and understanding of these effects for each drug is essential to optimize patient outcomes.