Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Kinase Inhibitors in Oncology

Although kinase inhibitors (KI) frequently portray large interpatient variability, a ‘one size fits all’ regimen is still often used. In the meantime, relationships between exposure-response and exposure-toxicity have been established for several KIs, so this regimen could lead to unnecessary toxicity and suboptimal efficacy. Dose adjustments based on measured systemic pharmacokinetic levels—i.e., therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)—could therefore improve treatment efficacy and reduce the incidence of toxicities. Therefore, the aim of this comprehensive review is to give an overview of the available evidence for TDM for the 77 FDA/EMA kinase inhibitors currently approved (as of July 1st, 2023) used in hematology and oncology. We elaborate on exposure-response and exposure-toxicity relationships for these kinase inhibitors and provide practical recommendations for TDM and discuss corresponding pharmacokinetic targets when possible.</p

The value of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA) testing for the diagnosis of ANCA-associated vasculitis, a systematic review and meta-analysis

The testing of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA) takes an important place in the diagnostic workup to ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV). Nowadays, it is recommended to screen for the presence of PR3 and MPO specific antibodies first using immunoassay, without the need for ANCA measurement by indirect immunofluorescence (IIF). A literature search was performed to assess the diagnostic test value of ANCA IIF and PR3- and MPO-antibody immunoassay to diagnose AAV. This meta-analysis shows that the c-ANCA testing by IIF has a pooled sensitivity of 75.2% and a pooled specificity of 98.4%. For PR3-antibody immunoassay, the pooled sensitivity depended on the immunoassay method used, and ranged from 79.8% to 86.6%, whereas the pooled specificity ranged from 96.8% to 98.3%. For both p-ANCA IIF and MPO-antibody immunoassay (all methods) sensitivity varied considerably showing pooled values of respectively 46.3% and 58.1%, whereas respective pooled specificity was 91.4% and 95.6%. These findings support the 2017 international consensus that primary anti-PR3 and anti-MPO screening by immunoassay, based on superior immunoassay sensitivity without the need for IIF ANCA testing, improves the diagnostic workup of AAV

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.</p

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.</p

Characteristics of COVID-19 infection and antibody formation in patients known at a tertiary immunology department

Background: Knowledge about COVID-19 infections is expanding, although knowledge about the disease course and antibody formation in patients with an auto-immune disease or immunodeficiency is not fully unraveled yet. It could be hypothesized that immunodeficient patients, due to immunosuppressive drugs or their disease, have a more severe disease course due to their immunocompromised state. However, it could also be hypothesized that some of the immunosuppressive drugs protect against a hyperinflammatory state. Methods: We collected data on the incidence of COVID-19, disease course and SARS-CoV-2 antibody formation in COVID-19 positive patients in a cohort of patients (n ​= ​4497) known at the Clinical Immunology outpatient clinic in a tertiary care hospital in the Netherlands. Results: In the first six months of the pandemic, 16 patients were identified with COVID-19, 14 by nasal swab PCR, and 2 pa

Intraperitoneal paclitaxel for patients with primary malignant peritoneal mesothelioma: a phase I/II dose escalation and safety study-INTERACT MESO

Introduction Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare, aggressive tumour arising primarily from the peritoneum. The only potentially curative treatment is cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). However, the majority of patients are not eligible to undergo this treatment. The benefit of systemic treatment for these patients is limited at the cost of considerable morbidity. Hence, there is a need for appropriate palliative treatment options for patients with MPM. As MPM rarely disseminates outside the abdominal cavity, these patients might benefit from local treatment. A higher, more effective dose of chemotherapy can directly be delivered at the site of the disease. Systemic uptake will be limited, likely resulting in less toxicity. The aim of the INTERACT MESO trial is to determine the maximum tolerable dose of intraperitoneal paclitaxel monotherapy in patients with MPM. Secondary endpoints are to assess safety and toxicity, feasibility and the pharmacokinetic profile of this treatment. Methods and analysis The INTERACT MESO trial is a prospective, open-label, single-centre, phase I study with a classic three-plus-three dose escalation design. The study population consists of adult patients with primary MPM, without extra-abdominal disease, who are not eligible to undergo CRS-HIPEC. According to standard of care work-up for CRS-HIPEC, patients will undergo diagnostic laparoscopy to determine the feasibility of CRS-HIPEC. In case CRS-HIPEC is not considered feasible, a peritoneal port-a-cath (PAC) system will be placed. Through this PAC, 8-16 weekly cycles of intraperitoneal chemotherapy will be administered. Ethics and dissemination The Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (CCMO, The Hague, The Netherlands) and the Medical Research Ethics Committee (METC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands) have granted permission to carry out this study protocol. The results of this trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Trial registration number NL9718. EudraCT: 2021-003637-11

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

Staging laparoscopy in gastric cancer patients:From a Dutch nationwide Delphi consensus towards a standardized protocol

Background: Staging laparoscopy is a common diagnostic tool in gastric cancer, but its performance varies widely. The aim of this study was to gain Dutch nationwide consensus regarding the indications for and execution of staging laparoscopy in patients with gastric cancer. Methods: All surgeons in the Netherlands specialized in gastric cancer surgery (n = 52) were asked to participate in a Delphi consensus study. The study involved an initial questionnaire with a 3-point Likert scale, an online consensus meeting, and a second questionnaire using a 2-point Likert scale (agree/disagree). Consensus was defined as 70% or more agreement among participants. Results: In total, 45 experts completed both questionnaires (87% response rate). Consensus was reached on the indication to perform staging laparoscopy in cT3-4 or cN + or diffuse-type gastric cancer, including Siewert type III oesophagogastric junctional cancer. The experts agreed that if preoperative scans suggest infiltration of surrounding organs (cT4), the tumour's resectability should explicitly be investigated. Consensus was also reached for a systematic peritoneal cavity inspection according to Sugarbaker's Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) score. All regions should be inspected routinely, although the omental bursa may be inspected on indication. Aspiration of ascites or peritoneal washing should be performed for cytology. The experts agreed that restaging laparoscopy should be performed before resection in case of progressive disease on preoperative imaging. Without progression, global inspection was considered sufficient. Conclusions: The results of this Dutch nationwide Delphi consensus study exposed the variability of performing staging laparoscopy in patients with gastric cancer and provided the concept for a standardized protocol.</p

Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Unresectable Peritoneal Surface Malignancies

Malignancies of the peritoneal cavity are associated with a dismal prognosis. Systemic chemotherapy is the gold standard for patients with unresectable peritoneal disease, but its intraperitoneal effect is hampered by the peritoneal-plasma barrier. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy, which is administered repeatedly into the peritoneal cavity through a peritoneal implanted port, could provide a novel treatment modality for this patient population. This review provides a systematic overview of intraperitoneal used drugs, the performed clinical studies so far, and the complications of the peritoneal implemental ports. Several anticancer drugs have been studied for intraperitoneal application, with the taxanes paclitaxel and docetaxel as the most commonly used drug. Repeated intraperitoneal chemotherapy, mostly in combination with systemic chemotherapy, has shown promising results in Phase I and Phase II studies for several tumor types, such as gastric cancer, ovarian cancer, colorectal cancer, and pancreatic cancer. Two Phase III studies for intraperitoneal chemotherapy in gastric cancer have been performed so far, but the results regarding the superiority over standard systemic chemotherapy alone, are contradictory. Pressurized intraperitoneal administration, known as PIPAC, is an alternative way of administering intraperitoneal chemotherapy, and the first prospective studies have shown a tolerable safety profile. Although intraperitoneal chemotherapy might be a standard treatment option for patients with unresectable peritoneal disease, more Phase II and Phase III studies focusing on tolerability profiles, survival rates, and quality of life are warranted in order to establish optimal treatment schedules and to establish a potential role for intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the approach to unresectable peritoneal disease