The Use of Microdosing for In vivo Phenotyping of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes: Where Do We Stand? A Narrative Review.

Cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes play a central role in the elimination of approximately 80% of all clinically used drugs. Differences in CYP enzyme activity between individuals can contribute to interindividual variability in exposure and, therefore, treatment outcome. In vivo CYP enzyme activity could be determined with phenotyping. Currently, (sub)therapeutic doses are used for in vivo phenotyping, which can lead to side effects. The use of microdoses (100 µg) for in vivo phenotyping for CYP enzymes could overcome the limitations associated with the use of (sub)therapeutic doses of substrates. The aim of this review is to provide a critical overview of the application of microdosing for in vivo phenotyping of CYP enzymes. A literature search was performed to find drug-drug interaction studies of CYP enzyme substrates that used microdoses of the respective substrates. A substrate was deemed sensitive to changes in CYP enzyme activity when the pharmacokinetics of the substrate significantly changed during inhibition and induction of the enzyme. On the basis of the currently available evidence, the use of microdosing for in vivo phenotyping for subtypes CYP1A2, CYP2C9, CYP2D6, and CYP2E1 is not recommended. Microdosing can be used for the in vivo phenotyping of CYP2C19 and CYP3A. The recommended microdose phenotyping test for CYP2C19 is measuring the omeprazole area-under-the-concentration-time curve over 24 h (AUC0-24) after administration of a single 100 µg dose. CYP3A activity could be best determined with a 0.1-75 µg dose of midazolam, and subsequently measuring AUC extrapolated to infinity (AUC∞) or clearance. Moreover, there are two metrics available for midazolam using a limited sampling strategy: AUC over 10 h (AUC0-10) and AUC from 2 to 4 h (AUC2-4).

Is Higher Docetaxel Clearance in Prostate Cancer Patients Explained by Higher CYP3A? An In Vivo Phenotyping Study with Midazolam.

Patients with prostate cancer (PCa) have a lower docetaxel exposure for both intravenous (1.8-fold) and oral administration (2.4-fold) than patients with other solid cancers, which could influence efficacy and toxicity. An altered metabolism by cytochrome P450 3A (CYP3A) due to castration status might explain the observed difference in docetaxel pharmacokinetics. In this in vivo phenotyping, pharmacokinetic study, CYP3A activity defined by midazolam clearance (CL) was compared between patients with PCa and male patients with other solid tumors. All patients with solid tumors who did not use CYP3A-modulating drugs were eligible for participation. Patients received 2 mg midazolam orally and 1 mg midazolam intravenously on 2 consecutive days. Plasma concentrations were measured with a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method. Genotyping was performed for CYP3A4 and CYP3A5. Nine patients were included in each group. Oral midazolam CL was 1.26-fold higher in patients with PCa compared to patients with other solid tumors (geometric mean [coefficient of variation], 94.1 [33.5%] L/h vs 74.4 [39.1%] L/h, respectively; P = .08). Intravenous midazolam CL did not significantly differ between the 2 groups (P = .93). Moreover, the metabolic ratio of midazolam to 1'-hydroxy midazolam did not differ between the 2 groups for both oral administration (P = .67) and intravenous administration (P = .26). CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 genotypes did not influence midazolam pharmacokinetics. The observed difference in docetaxel pharmacokinetics between both patient groups therefore appears to be explained neither by a difference in midazolam CL nor by a difference in metabolic conversion rate of midazolam.

Pharmacokinetic boosting of olaparib: A randomised, cross-over study (PROACTIVE-study).

BACKGROUND: Pharmacokinetic (PK) boosting is the intentional use of a drug-drug interaction to enhance systemic drug exposure. PK boosting of olaparib, a CYP3A-substrate, has the potential to reduce PK variability and financial burden. The aim of this study was to investigate equivalence of a boosted, reduced dose of olaparib compared to the non-boosted standard dose. METHODS: This cross-over, multicentre trial compared olaparib 300 mg twice daily (BID) with olaparib 100 mg BID boosted with the strong CYP3A-inhibitor cobicistat 150 mg BID. Patients were randomised to the standard therapy followed by the boosted therapy, or vice versa. After seven days of each therapy, dense PK sampling was performed for noncompartmental PK analysis. Equivalence was defined as a 90% Confidence Interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of the boosted versus standard therapy area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC0-12 h) within no-effect boundaries. These boundaries were set at 0.57-1.25, based on previous pharmacokinetic studies with olaparib capsules and tablets. RESULTS: Of 15 included patients, 12 were eligible for PK analysis. The GMR of the AUC0-12 h was 1.45 (90% CI 1.27-1.65). No grade ≥3 adverse events were reported during the study. CONCLUSIONS: Boosting a 100 mg BID olaparib dose with cobicistat increases olaparib exposure 1.45-fold, compared to the standard dose of 300 mg BID. Equivalence of the boosted olaparib was thus not established. Boosting remains a promising strategy to reduce the olaparib dose as cobicistat increases olaparib exposure Adequate tolerability of the boosted therapy with higher exposure should be established.

WEE1 inhibitor adavosertib in combination with carboplatin in advanced TP53 mutated ovarian cancer: A biomarker-enriched phase II study.

OBJECTIVE: In the first part of this phase II study (NCT01164995), the combination of carboplatin and adavosertib (AZD1775) was shown to be safe and effective in patients with TP53 mutated platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). Here, we present the results of an additional safety and efficacy cohort and explore predictive biomarkers for resistance and response to this combination treatment. METHODS: This is a phase II, open-label, non-randomized study. Patients with TP53 mutated PROC received carboplatin AUC 5 mg/ ml·min intravenously and adavosertib 225 mg BID orally for 2.5 days in a 21-day cycle. The primary objective is to determine the efficacy and safety of carboplatin and adavosertib. Secondary objectives include progression-free survival (PFS), changes in circulating tumor cells (CTC) and exploration of genomic alterations. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients with a median age of 63 years (39-77 years) were enrolled and received treatment. Twenty-nine patients were evaluable for efficacy. Bone marrow toxicity, nausea and vomiting were the most common adverse events. Twelve patients showed partial response (PR) as best response, resulting in an objective ORR of 41% in the evaluable patients (95% CI: 23%-61%). The median PFS was 5.6 months (95% CI: 3.8-10.3). In patients with tumors harboring CCNE1 amplification, treatment efficacy was slightly but not significantly better. CONCLUSIONS: Adavosertib 225 mg BID for 2.5 days and carboplatin AUC 5 could be safely combined and showed anti-tumor efficacy in patients with PROC. However, bone marrow toxicity remains a point of concern, since this is the most common reason for dose reductions and dose delays.

Beyond Skin Rash: Alpelisib-Induced Anaphylactic Reactions.

Alpelisib is a specific oral PI3K inhibitor used combined with fulvestrant for the treatment of patients with HR+/HER2-/PIK3CA-mutated metastatic breast cancer. Adverse drug reactions with alpelisib are common, including hyperglycemia and rash. Here we describe extraordinary and life-threatening reactions beyond skin rash in two patients with progressive PIK3CA-mutated metastatic cancer in whom alpelisib was initiated. Case-A (vaginal cancer): After 10 days on treatment, she developed dry eyes, generalized rash and itching. Alpelisib was interrupted and symptomatic treatment initiated. Because of an initial tumor response, a rechallenge was done. Ninety minutes after a reduced dose of alpelisib, she developed an anaphylactic reaction with angioedema, hypotension, and skin rash. Case-B (breast cancer): After 11 days on treatment, she developed skin rash and alpelisib was interrupted. At re-initiation, she felt tingles in her face and ears and some skin erythema. Given the mild rash, a second rechallenge with premedication was performed. Ninety minutes after a reduced dose of alpelisib, she developed a type-1 allergic reaction with angioedema, tingles, and skin rash. In both cases, a type-1 allergic reaction was diagnosed and symptomatic treatment was initiated, alpelisib was permanently discontinued and the patients fully recovered the next week(s). This report underlines the critical importance to consider type-I allergic reactions in the differential diagnosis in cases of rash associated with alpelisib. Even if a reaction develops after days on treatment, a type-I allergic reaction cannot be excluded. A rechallenge can be dangerous and should always be well contemplated or even avoided.

Efficacy, safety and biomarker analysis of durvalumab in patients with mismatch-repair deficient or microsatellite instability-high solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: In this study we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab across various mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) or microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) tumours in the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP). This is a clinical study in which patients are treated with drugs outside their labeled indication, based on their tumour molecular profile. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with dMMR/MSI-H solid tumours who had exhausted all standard of care options were eligible. Patients were treated with durvalumab. The primary endpoints were clinical benefit ((CB): objective response (OR) or stable disease ≥16 weeks) and safety. Patients were enrolled using a Simon like 2-stage model, with 8 patients in stage 1, up to 24 patients in stage 2 if at least 1/8 patients had CB in stage 1. At baseline, fresh frozen biopsies were obtained for biomarker analyses. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients with 10 different cancer types were included. Two patients (2/26, 8%) were considered as non-evaluable for the primary endpoint. CB was observed in 13 patients (13/26, 50%) with an OR in 7 patients (7/26, 27%). The remaining 11 patients (11/26, 42%) had progressive disease. Median progression-free survival and median overall survival were 5 months (95% CI, 2-not reached) and 14 months (95% CI, 5-not reached), respectively. No unexpected toxicity was observed. We found a significantly higher structural variant (SV) burden in patients without CB. Additionally, we observed a significant enrichment of JAK1 frameshift mutations and a significantly lower IFN-γ expression in patients without CB. CONCLUSION: Durvalumab was generally well-tolerated and provided durable responses in pre-treated patients with dMMR/MSI-H solid tumours. High SV burden, JAK1 frameshift mutations and low IFN-γ expression were associated with a lack of CB; this provides a rationale for larger studies to validate these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration: NCT02925234. First registration date: 05/10/2016.

First-in-human phase I study of the OX40 agonist GSK3174998 with or without pembrolizumab in patients with selected advanced solid tumors (ENGAGE-1).

BACKGROUND: The phase I first-in-human study ENGAGE-1 evaluated the humanized IgG1 OX40 agonistic monoclonal antibody GSK3174998 alone (Part 1 (P1)) or in combination with pembrolizumab (Part 2 (P2)) in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: GSK3174998 (0.003-10 mg/kg) ± pembrolizumab (200 mg) was administered intravenously every 3 weeks using a continuous reassessment method for dose escalation. Primary objectives were safety and tolerability; secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, pharmacodynamics, and clinical activity. RESULTS: 138 patients were enrolled (45 (P1) and 96 (P2, including 3 crossovers)). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 51% (P1) and 64% (P2) of patients, fatigue being the most common (11% and 24%, respectively). No dose-toxicity relationship was observed, and maximum-tolerated dose was not reached. Dose-limiting toxicities (P2) included Grade 3 (G3) pleural effusion and G1 myocarditis with G3 increased troponin. GSK3174998 ≥0.3 mg/kg demonstrated pharmacokinetic linearity and >80% receptor occupancy on circulating T cells; 0.3 mg/kg was selected for further evaluation. Limited clinical activity was observed for GSK3174998 (P1: disease control rate (DCR) ≥24 weeks 9%) and was not greater than that expected for pembrolizumab alone (P2: overall response rate 8%, DCR ≥24 weeks 28%). Multiplexed immunofluorescence data from paired biopsies suggested that increased infiltration of natural killer (NK)/natural killer T (NKT) cells and decreased regulatory T cells (Tregs) in the tumor microenvironment may contribute to clinical responses: CD16+CD56-CD134+ NK /NKT cells and CD3+CD4+FOXP3+CD134+ Tregs exhibited the largest magnitude of change on treatment, whereas CD3+CD8+granzyme B+PD-1+CD134+ cytotoxic T cells were the least variable. Tumor gene expression profiling revealed an upregulation of inflammatory responses, T-cell proliferation, and NK cell function on treatment with some inflammatory cytokines upregulated in peripheral blood. However, target engagement, evidenced by pharmacologic activity in peripheral blood and tumor tissue, did not correlate with clinical efficacy. The low number of responses precluded identifying a robust biomarker signature predictive of response. CONCLUSIONS: GSK3174998±pembrolizumab was well tolerated over the dose range tested and demonstrated target engagement. Limited clinical activity does not support further development of GSK3174998±pembrolizumab in advanced cancers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02528357.

Clinical development of WEE1 inhibitors in gynecological cancers: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The anti-tumor activity of WEE1 inhibitors (WEE1i) in gynecological malignancies has recently been demonstrated in clinical trials and its rationale is based on biological/molecular features of gynecological cancers. With this systematic review, we aim to outline the clinical development and current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of these targeted agents in in this patient group. METHODS: Systematic literature review of trials including patients with gynecological cancers treated with a WEE1i. The primary objective was to summarize the efficacy of WEE1i in gynecological malignancies regarding objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary objectives included toxicity profile, Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics, drug-drug interactions and exploratory objectives such as biomarkers for response. RESULTS: 26 records were included for data extraction. Almost all trials used the first-in-class WEE1i adavosertib; one conference abstract reported about Zn-c3. The majority of the trials included diverse solid tumors (n = 16). Six records reported efficacy results of WEE1i in gynecological malignancies (n = 6). Objective response rates of adavosertib monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy ranged between 23% and 43% in these trials. Median PFS ranged from 3.0 to 9.9 months. The most common adverse events were bone marrow suppression, gastrointestinal toxicities and fatigue. Mainly alterations in cell cycle regulator genes TP53 and CCNE1 were potential predictors of response. CONCLUSION: This report summarizes encouraging clinical development of WEE1i in gynecological cancers and considers its application in future studies. Biomarker-driven patient selection might be essential to increase the response rates.

A Phase I, Open-Label, Dose Confirmation, Escalation, and Expansion Trial of BI 1810631 as Monotherapy in Patients With Advanced or Metastatic Solid Tumors With HER2 Aberrations.

BACKGROUND: BI 1810631 is a human HER2-selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor that covalently binds to both wild-type and mutated HER2 receptors, including exon 20 insertion mutations, whilst sparing EGFR signaling. This phase Ia/Ib, open-label, non-randomized study will determine the safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics, and preliminary efficacy of BI 1810631 in patients with HER2 aberration-positive solid tumors (NCT04886804). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In phase Ia, patients with histologically/cytologically confirmed HER2 aberration-positive advanced/metastatic solid tumors will receive BI 1810631 orally twice daily (BID) or once daily (QD) at escalating doses. Starting dose level is 15 mg BID; QD schedule will begin after one dose level above estimated therapeutic dose of BI 1810631 is determined safe by the Dose Escalation Committee. Dose escalation will continue until MTD/recommended phase II dose and preferred phase Ib schedule for each schedule is determined. In phase Ib, patients with HER2 tyrosine kinase domain (TKD) mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have previously received ≥1 line of systemic therapy will be enrolled initially, with possible inclusion of additional NSCLC cohorts in the future, including untreated patients. The primary endpoints will be MTD based on number of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs)/number of patients with DLTs (phase Ia) and objective response (phase Ib). Secondary endpoints include PK parameters (phase Ia/Ib); duration of response, disease control, duration of disease control, and progression-free survival (phase Ib). CONCLUSIONS: BI 1810631 could be an effective and tolerable EGFR-sparing oral treatment for patients with HER2 mutation-positive NSCLC, including exon 20 insertion mutations. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04886804.

The Molecular Tumor Board Portal supports clinical decisions and automated reporting for precision oncology.

There is a growing need for systems that efficiently support the work of medical teams at the precision-oncology point of care. Here, we present the implementation of the Molecular Tumor Board Portal (MTBP), an academic clinical decision support system developed under the umbrella of Cancer Core Europe that creates a unified legal, scientific and technological platform to share and harness next-generation sequencing data. Automating the interpretation and reporting of sequencing results decrease the need for time-consuming manual procedures that are prone to errors. The adoption of an expert-agreed process to systematically link tumor molecular profiles with clinical actions promotes consistent decision-making and structured data capture across the connected centers. The use of information-rich patient reports with interactive content facilitates collaborative discussion of complex cases during virtual molecular tumor board meetings. Overall, streamlined digital systems like the MTBP are crucial to better address the challenges brought by precision oncology and accelerate the use of emerging biomarkers.

Phase I Study of Afatinib and Selumetinib in Patients with KRAS-Mutated Colorectal, Non-Small Cell Lung, and Pancreatic Cancer.

LESSONS LEARNED: Afatinib and selumetinib can be combined in continuous and intermittent dosing schedules, albeit at lower doses than approved for monotherapy. Maximum tolerated dose for continuous and intermittent schedules is afatinib 20 mg once daily and selumetinib 25 mg b.i.d. Because the anticancer activity was limited, further development of this combination is not recommended until better biomarkers for response and resistance are defined. BACKGROUND: Antitumor effects of MEK inhibitors are limited in KRAS-mutated tumors because of feedback activation of upstream epidermal growth factor receptors, which reactivates the MAPK and the phosphoinositide 3-kinase-AKT pathway. Therefore, this phase I trial was initiated with the pan-HER inhibitor afatinib plus the MEK inhibitor selumetinib in patients with KRAS mutant, PIK3CA wild-type tumors. METHODS: Afatinib and selumetinib were administered according to a 3+3 design in continuous and intermittent schedules. The primary objective was safety, and the secondary objective was clinical efficacy. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were enrolled with colorectal cancer (n = 19), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (n = 6), and pancreatic cancer (n = 1). Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in six patients, including grade 3 diarrhea, dehydration, decreased appetite, nausea, vomiting, and mucositis. The recommended phase II dose (RP2D) was 20 mg afatinib once daily (QD) and 25 mg selumetinib b.i.d. (21 days on/7 days off) for continuous afatinib dosing and for intermittent dosing with both drugs 5 days on/2 days off. Efficacy was limited with disease stabilization for 221 days in a patient with NSCLC as best response. CONCLUSION: Afatinib and selumetinib can be combined in continuous and intermittent schedules in patients with KRAS mutant tumors. Although target engagement was observed, the clinical efficacy was limited.

Mutational profiles associated with resistance in patients with BRAFV600E mutant colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab and encorafenib +/- binimetinib or alpelisib.

BACKGROUND: Treatment strategies inhibiting BRAF in combination with EGFR have been developed in patients with BRAFV600E mutant metastatic colorectal cancer, but intrinsic and secondary resistance remains a challenge. We aimed to investigate which genetic alterations cause intrinsic non-response and/or acquired resistance in these patients receiving therapies consisting of a backbone of BRAF and EGFR inhibition. METHODS: This was a cohort study on genetic alterations in patients with BRAFV600E mutant advanced colorectal cancer treated with inhibitors of the MAPK pathway. We examined tumour tissue for genetic alterations at baseline, during treatment and at progression. RESULTS: In total, 37 patients were included in this cohort. Genetic alterations in EGFR and in PIK3CA are associated with non-response. A greater fraction of non-responders (75%) versus responders (46%) had at least one genetic alteration in other genes than TP53, APC or BRAF. Secondary resistance mutations (n = 16 patients) were observed most frequently in the PI3K pathway (n = 6) and in receptor tyrosine kinases (n = 4), leading to increased upstream signalling. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic alterations in the PI3K and upstream receptor tyrosine kinases were mostly associated with intrinsic and acquired resistance. By understanding these alterations, simultaneous or alternating treatments with targeted inhibitors might improve response duration.

Phase I study of lapatinib plus trametinib in patients with KRAS-mutant colorectal, non-small cell lung, and pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: KRAS oncogene mutations cause sustained signaling through the MAPK pathway. Concurrent inhibition of MEK, EGFR, and HER2 resulted in complete inhibition of tumor growth in KRAS-mutant (KRASm) and PIK3CA wild-type tumors, in vitro and in vivo. In this phase I study, patients with advanced KRASm and PIK3CA wild-type colorectal cancer (CRC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and pancreatic cancer, were treated with combined lapatinib and trametinib to assess the recommended phase 2 regimen (RP2R). METHODS: Patients received escalating doses of continuous or intermittent once daily (QD) orally administered lapatinib and trametinib, starting at 750 mg and 1 mg continuously, respectively. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients (16 CRC, 15 NSCLC, three pancreatic cancers) were enrolled across six dose levels and eight patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities, including grade 3 diarrhea (n = 2), rash (n = 2), nausea (n = 1), multiple grade 2 toxicities (n = 1), and aspartate aminotransferase elevation (n = 1), resulting in the inability to receive 75% of planned doses (n = 2) or treatment delay (n = 2). The RP2R with continuous dosing was 750 mg lapatinib QD plus 1 mg trametinib QD and with intermittent dosing 750 mg lapatinib QD and trametinib 1.5 mg QD 5 days on/2 days off. Regression of target lesions was seen in 6 of the 24 patients evaluable for response, with one confirmed partial response in NSCLC. Pharmacokinetic results were as expected. CONCLUSION: Lapatinib and trametinib could be combined in an intermittent dosing schedule in patients with manageable toxicity. Preliminary signs of anti-tumor activity in NSCLC have been observed and pharmacodynamic target engagement was demonstrated.

Phase 1 study of the pan-HER inhibitor dacomitinib plus the MEK1/2 inhibitor PD-0325901 in patients with KRAS-mutation-positive colorectal, non-small-cell lung and pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Mutations in KRAS result in a constitutively activated MAPK pathway. In KRAS-mutant tumours existing treatment options, e.g. MEK inhibition, have limited efficacy due to resistance through feedback activation of epidermal growth factor receptors (HER). METHODS: In this Phase 1 study, the pan-HER inhibitor dacomitinib was combined with the MEK1/2 inhibitor PD-0325901 in patients with KRAS-mutant colorectal, pancreatic and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients received escalating oral doses of once daily dacomitinib and twice daily PD-0325901 to determine the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D). (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02039336). RESULTS: Eight out of 41 evaluable patients (27 colorectal cancer, 11 NSCLC and 3 pancreatic cancer) among 8 dose levels experienced dose-limiting toxicities. The RP2D with continuous dacomitinib dosing was 15 mg of dacomitinib plus 6 mg of PD-0325901 (21 days on/7 days off), but major toxicity, including rash (85%), diarrhoea (88%) and nausea (63%), precluded long-term treatment. Therefore, other intermittent schedules were explored, which only slightly improved toxicity. Tumour regression was seen in eight patients with the longest treatment duration (median 102 days) in NSCLC. CONCLUSIONS: Although preliminary signs of antitumour activity in NSCLC were seen, we do not recommend further exploration of this combination in KRAS-mutant patients due to its negative safety profile.

Design, validation and performance of aspartate aminotransferase- and lactate dehydrogenase-reporting algorithms for haemolysed specimens including correction within quality specifications.

BACKGROUND: In vitro haemolysis is a major operational challenge for medical laboratories. A new experimental design was used to investigate under what conditions algorithms could be designed to report either quantitative or qualitative aspartate aminotransferase and lactate dehydrogenase results outside the manufacturer's haemolysis specifications. Quantitative corrections were required to meet prespecified quality specifications. METHODS: Twenty-five patient samples were used to design reporting algorithms and another 41 patient samples were used to validate the algorithms. Aspartate aminotransferase, lactate dehydrogenase and haemolysis index were determined using a Cobas 6000 analyser (Roche diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany). Correction factors were determined, and the accuracy of the correction was investigated. Reporting algorithms were designed based on (i) the manufacturer's cut-off for the haemolysis index, (ii) corrections within the total allowable error specification and (iii) qualitative reporting based on obtained results. The impact of the reporting algorithms was retrospectively determined by recalculating six months of aspartate aminotransferase and lactate dehydrogenase results. RESULTS: No correction for aspartate aminotransferase/lactate dehydrogenase was possible for results below the upper reference interval limit, while results equal to or greater than the upper reference interval limit could, up to mild haemolysis, be corrected within the total error criterion. All samples generated from the validated patient cohort fulfilled the set criteria. The algorithms allowed reporting 88.5% and 85.9% of otherwise unreported aspartate aminotransferase and lactate dehydrogenase results, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: An approach is presented that allows to generate and validate reporting algorithms for aspartate aminotransferase and lactate dehydrogenase compatible with prespecified quality specifications. The designed algorithms resulted in a significant reduction of otherwise unreported aspartate aminotransferase and lactate dehydrogenase results.

TAS-102 for Treatment of Advanced Colorectal Cancers That Are No Longer Responding to Other Therapies.

TAS-102 is a novel oral formulation of trifluridine (TFT) and tipiracil hydrochloride (TPI), a thymidine phosphorylase inhibitor. TFT was originally synthesized in the 1960s and is a nucleoside analogue that impedes DNA synthesis by inhibition of thymidylate synthase. TFT's main mechanism of action, however, seems to be its incorporation into DNA, which distinguishes TFT from current well-known antimetabolites like 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). The rapid degradation of TFT brought initial clinical development to a halt, but TFT reentered clinical trials when addition of a TPI was found to improve the bioavailability of TFT. The combined TFT-TPI formulation was tested in patients with treatment-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer in the randomized phase III RECOURSE study. Compared with placebo, TAS-102 was associated with an overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) benefit and a 32% reduction in risk of death [median OS, 7.1 (95% CI, 6.5-7.8) vs. 5.3 months (95% CI, 4.6-6.0); median PFS, 2.0 (95% CI, 1.9-2.1) vs. 1.7 months (95% CI, 1.7-1.8); HR for death, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.58-0.81, P < 0.001)]. Based on the results of this pivotal trial and supported by results from an earlier phase II study, TAS-102 recently gained FDA approval. This article reviews the development of TAS-102 and its therapeutic value for the proposed indication. Clin Cancer Res; 22(12); 2835-9. ©2016 AACR.