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

Unraveling the heterogeneity of sarcoma survivors’ health-related quality of life regarding primary sarcoma location: Results from the Survsarc study

Simple SummarySarcomas are a rare group of heterogenous tumors that can develop anywhere in the body. Currently, studies on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) focus on sarcomas of the arm and leg or have too small sample sizes to examine the heterogeneity between different sarcoma locations, leading to limited insight into HRQoL of survivors with specific sarcoma locations. The aim of this study was to assess differences in HRQoL and examine treatment-specific HRQoL issues per sarcoma location. We found, in a population of 1099 sarcoma survivors, different patterns of HRQoL according to primary sarcoma location and a high number of additional, unique treatment-specific HRQoL issues per location, which were not captured with the general HRQoL questionnaire used in cancer patients. This indicates that the currently used HRQoL measures are too generic to capture all sarcoma-related issues, emphasizing the necessity for a comprehensive sarcoma-specific HRQoL measurement strategy.Sarcoma patients experience physical and psychological symptoms, depending on age of onset, subtype, treatment, stage, and location of the sarcoma, which can adversely affect patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to unravel the heterogeneity of sarcoma survivors' HRQoL regarding primary sarcoma location. A cross-sectional study was conducted among Dutch sarcoma survivors (N = 1099) aged &gt;= 18, diagnosed 2-10 years ago. Primary sarcoma locations were head and neck, chest, abdominal including retroperitoneal, pelvis including urogenital organs, axial skeleton, extremities (upper and lower), breast, skin and other locations. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30 was used to measure HRQoL accompanied by treatment-specific HRQoL questions. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were collected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Axial skeleton sarcomas had the lowest functioning levels and highest symptoms compared to other locations. Skin sarcomas had the highest functioning levels and lowest symptoms on most scales. Bone sarcomas scored worse on several HRQoL domains compared to soft tissue sarcomas. High prevalence of treatment-specific HRQoL issues were found per location. In conclusion, sarcomas can present everywhere, which is reflected by different HRQoL outcomes according to primary sarcoma location. The currently used HRQoL measure lacks treatment-specific questions and is too generic to capture all sarcoma-related issues, emphasizing the necessity for a comprehensive sarcoma-specific HRQoL measurement strategy.</p

Priorities and preferences of advanced soft tissue sarcoma patients starting palliative chemotherapy:baseline results from the HOLISTIC study

INTRODUCTION: Palliative chemotherapy is the principal treatment of patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas (STS); however prognosis is limited (median overall survival 12-19 months). In this setting, patient values and priorities are central to personalised treatment decisions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The prospective HOLISTIC study was conducted in the UK and the Netherlands assessing health-related quality of life in STS patients receiving palliative chemotherapy. Participants completed a questionnaire before starting chemotherapy, including attitudes towards quality of life (QoL) versus length of life (LoL), decisional control preferences, and decisional conflict. Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests were used to evaluate associations between patient characteristics and preferences. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-seven patients with advanced STS participated (UK: n = 72, the Netherlands: n = 65). Median age was 62 (27-79) years. Preference for extended LoL (n = 66, 48%) was slightly more common than preference for QoL (n = 56, 41%); 12 patients (9%) valued LoL and QoL equally (missing: n = 3). Younger patients (age <40 years) prioritised LoL, whereas two-thirds of older patients (aged ≥65 years) felt that QoL was equally or more important than LoL (P = 0.020). Decisional conflict was most common in patients who prioritised QoL (P = 0.024). Most patients preferred an active (n = 45, 33%) or collaborative (n = 59, 44%) role in treatment decisions. Gender, performance status, and country were significantly associated with preferred role. Concordance between preferred and actual role in chemotherapy decision was high (n = 104, 76%). CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneous priorities and preferences among advanced STS patients support personalised decisions about palliative treatment. Considering individual differences during treatment discussions may enhance communication and optimise patient-centred care

A Phase Ib dose-escalation study to evaluate safety and tolerability of the addition of the aminopeptidase inhibitor tosedostat (CHR-2797) to paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumours

Contains fulltext : 89517timmer-bonte.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)BACKGROUND: This Phase Ib dose-escalating study investigated safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), pharmacokinetics (PK) and clinical antitumour activity of tosedostat (CHR-2797), an orally bioavailable aminopeptidase inhibitor, in combination with paclitaxel. METHODS: A total of 22 patients received paclitaxel (135-175 mg m(-2)) intravenously, administered once every three weeks for up to six cycles, with oral tosedostat (90-240 mg) daily. RESULTS: One DLT (grade 3 dyspnoea) was observed in one patient with tosedostat 180 mg combined with paclitaxel 175 mg m(-2). A high number of paclitaxel infusion reactions was noted during the second administration (59%) and this prompted interruption of tosedostat dosing for 5 days around every second and subsequent paclitaxel infusion. No formal MTD was determined because of the high frequency of paclitaxel infusion reactions that may have been influenced by tosedostat. Most frequently observed drug-related adverse events were alopecia, fatigue (95% each), peripheral sensory neuropathy (59%), paclitaxel hypersensitivity (59%) and rash (55%). One patient died because of eosinophilic myocarditis, possibly related to study medication. There was no PK interaction between tosedostat and paclitaxel. In all, 3 patients had a partial response and 12 patients had stable disease lasting >3 months. CONCLUSION: The combination of tosedostat with paclitaxel was well tolerated except for the high incidence of paclitaxel-related infusion reactions

Symptoms reported by gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) patients on imatinib treatment: combining questionnaire and forum data

Algorithms and the Foundations of Software technolog

A phase I dose-escalation study to evaluate safety and tolerability of sorafenib combined with sirolimus in patients with advanced solid cancer

Contains fulltext : 87630.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)BACKGROUND: The combination of sorafenib (vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 inhibitor) and sirolimus (mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor) might work synergistically. METHODS: A phase I dose-escalation study with sorafenib twice a day (b.i.d.) and sirolimus once daily (q.d.) was performed to determine the recommended dose of the combination in patients with solid tumours. Secondary objectives were to determine the safety profile and maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and to evaluate the pharmacokinetics (PK) of the combination. RESULTS: Dose-limiting toxicities were transaminitis and cutaneous toxicity. The most frequently reported adverse events were elevated transaminases, hypophosphatemia, fatigue, anorexia, diarrhoea, nausea, rash and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia. Sirolimus did not change the PK of sorafenib; in contrast, sorafenib reduced the AUC(0-96) and C(max) of sirolimus. No objective responses were observed; eight patients showed stable disease for a median of 16.3 weeks (range 8-24). The MTD of the combination was sorafenib 200 mg b.i.d. with sirolimus 1 mg q.d. CONCLUSION: The combination of sorafenib and sirolimus showed enhanced toxicity, which could not be explained by the PK of both drugs. The relative low doses at the MTD, in combination with the PK results, do not warrant further development of this combination

Unraveling the heterogeneity of sarcoma survivors’ health-related quality of life regarding primary sarcoma location: Results from the Survsarc study

Sarcoma patients experience physical and psychological symptoms, depending on age of onset, subtype, treatment, stage, and location of the sarcoma, which can adversely affect patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to unravel the heterogeneity of sarcoma survivors’ HRQoL regarding primary sarcoma location. A cross-sectional study was conducted among Dutch sarcoma survivors (N = 1099) aged ≥18, diagnosed 2–10 years ago. Primary sarcoma locations were head and neck, chest, abdominal including retroperitoneal, pelvis including urogenital organs, axial skeleton, extremities (upper and lower), breast, skin and other locations. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer—Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30 was used to measure HRQoL accompanied by treatment-specific HRQoL questions. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were collected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Axial skeleton sarcomas had the lowest functioning levels and highest symptoms compared to other locations. Skin sarcomas had the highest functioning levels and lowest symptoms on most scales. Bone sarcomas scored worse on several HRQoL domains compared to soft tissue sarcomas. High prevalence of treatment-specific HRQoL issues were found per location. In conclusion, sarcomas can present everywhere, which is reflected by different HRQoL outcomes according to primary sarcoma location. The currently used HRQoL mea

Sample bias in web-based patient-generated health data of Dutch patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor: survey study

BACKGROUND\nOBJECTIVE\nMETHODS\nRESULTS\nCONCLUSIONS\nIncreasingly, social media is being recognized as a potential resource for patient-generated health data, for example, for pharmacovigilance. Although the representativeness of the web-based patient population is often noted as a concern, studies in this field are limited.\nThis study aimed to investigate the sample bias of patient-centered social media in Dutch patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST).\nA population-based survey was conducted in the Netherlands among 328 patients with GIST diagnosed 2-13 years ago to investigate their digital communication use with fellow patients. A logistic regression analysis was used to analyze clinical and demographic differences between forum users and nonusers.\nOverall, 17.9% (59/328) of survey respondents reported having contact with fellow patients via social media. Moreover, 78% (46/59) of forum users made use of GIST patient forums. We found no statistically significant differences for age, sex, socioeconomic status, and time since diagnosis between forum users (n=46) and nonusers (n=273). Patient forum users did differ significantly in (self-reported) treatment phase from nonusers (P=.001). Of the 46 forum users, only 2 (4%) were cured and not being monitored; 3 (7%) were on adjuvant, curative treatment; 19 (41%) were being monitored after adjuvant treatment; and 22 (48%) were on palliative treatment. In contrast, of the 273 patients who did not use disease-specific forums to communicate with fellow patients, 56 (20.5%) were cured and not being monitored, 31 (11.3%) were on curative treatment, 139 (50.9%) were being monitored after treatment, and 42 (15.3%) were on palliative treatment. The odds of being on a patient forum were 2.8 times as high for a patient who is being monitored compared with a patient that is considered cured. The odds of being on a patient forum were 1.9 times as high for patients who were on curative (adjuvant) treatment and 10 times as high for patients who were in the palliative phase compared with patients who were considered cured. Forum users also reported a lower level of social functioning (84.8 out of 100) than nonusers (93.8 out of 100; P=.008).\nForum users showed no particular bias on the most important demographic variables of age, sex, socioeconomic status, and time since diagnosis. This may reflect the narrowing digital divide. Overrepresentation and underrepresentation of patients with GIST in different treatment phases on social media should be taken into account when sourcing patient forums for patient-generated health data. A further investigation of the sample bias in other web-based patient populations is warranted.Algorithms and the Foundations of Software technolog

Incorporating the patient voice in sarcoma research: How can we assess health-related quality of life in this heterogeneous group of patients? a study protocol

Sarcomas comprise 1% of adult tumors and are very heterogeneous. Long-lasting and cumulative treatment side-effects detract from the (progression-free) survival benefit of treatment. Therefore, it is important to assess treatment effectiveness in terms of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as well. However, questionnaires capturing the unique issues of sarcoma patients are currently lacking. Given the heterogeneity of the disease, the development of such an instrument may be challenging. The study aims to (1) develop an exhaustive list of all HRQoL issues relevant to sarcoma patients and determine content validity; (2) determine a strategy for HRQoL measurement in sarcoma patients. We will conduct an international, multicenter, mixed-methods study (registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04071704) among bone or soft tissue sarcoma patients ≥18 years, using EORTC Quality of Life Group questionnaire development guidelines. First, an exhaustive list of HRQoL issues will be generated, derived from literature and patient (n = 154) and healthcare professional (HCP) interviews (n = 30). Subsequently, another group of sarcoma patients (n = 475) and HCPs (n = 30) will be asked to rate and prioritize the issues. Responses will be analyzed by priority, prevalence and range of responses for each item. The outcome will be a framework for tailored HRQoL measurement in sarcoma patients, taking into account sociodemographic and clinical variables