The influence of single-nucleotide polymorphisms on overall survival and toxicity in cabazitaxel-treated patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Purpose: Cabazitaxel, used in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), is associated with adverse events which may require dose reductions or discontinuation of treatment. We investigated the potential association of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes encoding drug transporters and drug-metabolizing enzymes with cabazitaxel toxicity, overall survival (OS) and pharmacokinetics (PK). Methods: A total of 128 cabazitaxel-treated mCRPC patients, of whom prospectively collected data on toxicity and OS were available and 24 mCRPC patients with available cabazitaxel PK measurements, were genotyped using genomic DNA obtained from EDTA blood. The SLCO1B1 (388A > G; *1B; rs2306283 and 521 T > C; *5; rs4149056 and haplotype SLCO1B1*15), SLCO1B3 (334 T > G; rs4149117), CYP3A4 (*22; rs35599367), CYP3A5 (*3; rs776746), ABCB1 (3435C > T; rs1045642), and TUBB1 (57 + 87A > C; rs463312) SNPs were tested for their association with clinical and PK parameters by univariate/multivariate logistic regression, log-rank test, or Kruskal–Wallis test. Results: The SLCO1B1*15 haplotype was significantly associated with a lower incidence of leukopenia and neutropenia (p = 0.020 and p = 0.028, respectively). Patients harboring a homozygous variant for SLCO1B1*1B experienced higher rate ≥ grade 3 (p = 0.042). None of the SNPs were associated with pharmacokinetics or OS. Conclusions: In this study, SLCO1B1 (SLCO1B1*15 and SLCO1B1*1B) was associated with cabazitaxel-induced adverse events in mCRPC patients. As the associations were opposite to previous studies in other drugs and contradicted an underlying pharmacokinetic rationale, these findings are likely to be false-positive and would ideally be validated with even larger (pharmacokinetic) cohorts

Prognostic factors in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with cabazitaxel

Background: Treatment selection for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) has become increasingly challenging with the introduction of novel therapies at earlier disease stages. The purpose of this study was to identify prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) and PSA response in patients with mCRPC treated with cabazitaxel. Results: 224 mCRPC patients were included in the current analysis. In multivariable analysis, WHO performance status, baseline hemoglobin, alkaline phosphatase and albumin were all significantly associated with OS. Hemoglobin and alkaline phosphatase were significantly associated with PSA response. Conclusions: This study identified prognostic factors for OS and PSA response of men with mCRPC treated with cabazitaxel. In an increasingly complicated treatment landscape with several treatment options available our findings might serve to estimate the chance of survival of men qualifying for treatment with second-line chemotherapy in daily practice. Furthermore, these data can be used to risk-stratify patients in clinical trials. Methods: We performed a post-hoc analysis of a randomized phase II trial of mCRPC patients treated with cabazitaxel. Cox and logistic regression models were used to investigate the influence of clinical and biochemical variables on OS and PSA response. Nomograms were developed to estimate the chance of PSA response and OS

Influence of enzalutamide on cabazitaxel pharmacokinetics: A Drug–Drug interaction study in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients

Purpose: In ongoing clinical research on metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treatment, the potential enhanced efficacy of the combination of taxanes with AR-targeted agents, that is, enzalutamide and abiraterone, is currently being explored. Because enzalutamide induces the CYP3A4 enzyme and taxanes are metabolized by this enzyme, a potential drug–drug interaction needs to be investigated. Experimental Design: Therefore, we performed a pharmacokinetic cross-over study in mCRPC patients who were scheduled for treatment with cabazitaxel Q3W (25 mg/m2). Patients were studied for three consecutive cabazitaxel cycles. Enzalutamide (160 mg once daily) was administered concomitantly after the first cabazitaxel cycle, during 6 weeks. Primary endpoint was the difference in mean area under the curve (AUC) between the first (cabazitaxel monotherapy) and third cabazitaxel cycle, when enzalutamide was added. Results: A potential clinically relevant 22% (95% CI, 9%–34%; P ¼ 0.005) reduction in cabazitaxel exposure was found with concomitant enzalutamide use. The geometric mean AUC0–24h of cabazitaxel was 181 ngh/mL (95% CI, 150–219 ngh/mL) in cycle 3 and 234 ngh/mL (95% CI, 209–261 ngh/mL) in cycle 1. This combination did not result in excessive toxicity, whereas PSA response was promising. Conclusions: We found a significant decrease in cabazitaxel exposure when combined with enzalutamide. In an era of clinical trials on combination strategies for mCRPC, it is important to be aware of clinically relevant drug–drug interactions. Because recent study results support the use of a lower standard cabazitaxel dose of 20 mg/m2, the clinical relevance of this interaction may be substantial, because the addition of enzalutamide may result in subtherapeutic cabazitaxel exposure

An open-label, multicenter, phase Ib study investigating the effect of apalutamide on ventricular repolarization in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer

Purpose: Phase Ib study evaluating the effect of apalutamide, at therapeutic exposure, on ventricular repolarization by applying time-matched pharmacokinetics and electrocardiography (ECG) in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer. Safety of daily apalutamide was also assessed. Methods: Patients received 240 mg oral apalutamide daily. Time-matched ECGs were collected via continuous 12-lead Holter recording before apalutamide (Day − 1) and on Days 1 and 57 (Cycle 3 Day 1). Pharmacokinetics of apalutamide were assessed on Days 1 and 57 at matched time points of ECG collection. QT interval was corrected for heart rate using Fridericia correction (QTcF). The primary endpoint was the maximum mean change in QTcF (ΔQTcF) from baseline to Cycle 3 Day 1 (steady state). Secondary endpoints were the effect of apalutamide on other ECG parameters, pharmacokinetics of apalutamide and its active metabolite, relationship between plasma concentrations of apalutamide and QTcF, and safety. Results: Forty-five men were enrolled; 82% received treatment for ≥ 3 months. At steady state, the maximum ΔQTcF was 12.4 ms and the upper bound of its associated 90% CI was 16.0 ms. No clinically meaningful effects of apalutamide were reported for heart rate or other ECG parameters. A concentration-dependent increase in QTcF was observed for apalutamide. Most adverse events (AEs) (73%) were grade 1–2 in severity. No patients discontinued due to QTc prolongation or AEs. Conclusion: The effect of apalutamide on QTc prolongation was modest and does not produce a clinically meaningful effect on ventricular repolarization. The AE profile was consistent with other studies of apalutamide

Effects of prednisone on docetaxel pharmacokinetics in men with metastatic prostate cancer: A randomized drug-drug interaction study

Aims: Docetaxel has been approved for the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer in combination with prednisone. Since prednisone is known to induce the cytochrome P450 iso-enzyme CYP3A4, which is the main metabolizing enzyme of docetaxel in the liver, a potential drug–drug interaction may occur. In this prospective randomized pharmacokinetic cross-over study we investigated docetaxel exposure with concomitant prednisone, compared to docetaxel monotherapy in men with metastatic prostate cancer. Methods: Patients scheduled to receive at least 6 cycles of docetaxel (75 mg/m2) and who gave written informed consent were randomized to receive either the 1st 3 cycles, or the last 3 consecutive cycles with prednisone (twice daily 5 mg). Pharmacokinetic blood sampling was performed during cycle 3 and cycle 6. Primary endpoint was difference in docetaxel exposure, calculated as area under the curve (AUC0-inf) and analysed by means of a linear mixed model. Given the cross-over design the study was powered on 18 patients to answer the primary, pharmacokinetic, endpoint. Results: Eighteen evaluable patients were included in the trial. Docetaxel concentration with concomitant prednisone (AUC0-inf 2784 ng*h/mL, 95% confidence interval 2436–3183 ng*h/mL) was similar to the concentration of docetaxel monotherapy (AUC0-inf 2647 ng*h/mL, 95% confidence interval 2377–2949 ng*h/mL). Exploratory analysis showed no toxicity differences between docetaxel monotherapy and docetaxel cycles with prednisone. Conclusion: No significant difference in docetaxel concentrations was observed. In addition, we found similar toxicity profiles in absence and presence of prednisone. Therefore, from a pharmacokinetic point of view, docetaxel may be administrated with or without prednisone.</p

Influence of Enzalutamide on Cabazitaxel Pharmacokinetics: a Drug-Drug Interaction Study in Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC) Patients

Abstract Purpose: In ongoing clinical research on metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treatment, the potential enhanced efficacy of the combination of taxanes with AR-targeted agents, that is, enzalutamide and abiraterone, is currently being explored. Because enzalutamide induces the CYP3A4 enzyme and taxanes are metabolized by this enzyme, a potential drug–drug interaction needs to be investigated. Experimental Design: Therefore, we performed a pharmacokinetic cross-over study in mCRPC patients who were scheduled for treatment with cabazitaxel Q3W (25 mg/m2). Patients were studied for three consecutive cabazitaxel cycles. Enzalutamide (160 mg once daily) was administered concomitantly after the first cabazitaxel cycle, during 6 weeks. Primary endpoint was the difference in mean area under the curve (AUC) between the first (cabazitaxel monotherapy) and third cabazitaxel cycle, when enzalutamide was added. Results: A potential clinically relevant 22% (95% CI, 9%–34%; P = 0.005) reduction in cabazitaxel exposure was found with concomitant enzalutamide use. The geometric mean AUC0–24h of cabazitaxel was 181 ng*h/mL (95% CI, 150–219 ng*h/mL) in cycle 3 and 234 ng*h/mL (95% CI, 209–261 ng*h/mL) in cycle 1. This combination did not result in excessive toxicity, whereas PSA response was promising. Conclusions: We found a significant decrease in cabazitaxel exposure when combined with enzalutamide. In an era of clinical trials on combination strategies for mCRPC, it is important to be aware of clinically relevant drug–drug interactions. Because recent study results support the use of a lower standard cabazitaxel dose of 20 mg/m2, the clinical relevance of this interaction may be substantial, because the addition of enzalutamide may result in subtherapeutic cabazitaxel exposure. Clin Cancer Res; 24(3); 541–6. ©2017 AACR.</jats:p