Quantification of cobimetinib, cabozantinib, dabrafenib, niraparib, olaparib, vemurafenib, regorafenib and its metabolite regorafenib M2 in human plasma by UPLC-MS/MS

Contains fulltext : 218233.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)A sensitive and selective ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS) method for the simultaneous determination of seven oral oncolytics (two PARP inhibitors, i.e. olaparib and niraparib, and five tyrosine kinase inhibitors, i.e. cobimetinib, cabozantinib, dabrafenib, vemurafenib and regorafenib, plus its active metabolite regorafenib M2) in EDTA plasma was developed and validated. Stable isotope-labelled internal standards were used for each analyte. A simple protein precipitation method was performed with acetonitrile. The LC-MS/MS system consisted of an Acquity H-Class UPLC system, coupled to a Xevo TQ-S micro tandem mass spectrometer. The compounds were separated on a Waters CORTECS UPLC C18 column (2.1 x 50 mm, 1.6 mum particle size) and eluted with a gradient elution system. The ions were detected in the multiple reaction monitoring mode. The method was validated for cobimetinib, cabozantinib, dabrafenib, niraparib, olaparib, vemurafenib, regorafenib and regorafenib M2 over the ranges 6-1000, 100-5000, 10-4000, 200-2000, 200-20,000, 5000-100,000, 500-10,000 and 500-10,000 mug/L, respectively. Within-day accuracy values for all analytes ranged from 86.8 to 115.0% with a precision of <10.4%. Between-day accuracy values ranged between 89.7 and 111.9% with a between-day precision of <7.4%. The developed method was successfully used for guiding therapy with therapeutic drug monitoring in cancer patients and clinical research programs in our laboratory

Effect of gastrointestinal resection on sunitinib exposure in patients with GIST

Background: GIST patients often undergo GI-surgery. Previous studies have shown that imatinib and nilotinib exposures were decreased in GIST patients with prior major gastrectomy. We investigated whether major gastrectomy influences the exposure to sunitinib and its active metabolite SU12662. Methods: Pharmacokinetic data from 305 GIST patients included in 4 phase I-III trials were analyzed. Patients were subdivided into 6 groups according to their prior GI-surgery. Apparent clearance (CL/F) and dose-corrected steady-state plasma exposures (AUC24,ss) of sunitinib and SU12662 were estimated using a population PK approach. ANCOVA was performed to test for differences in AUC24,ss and CL/F between each surgery subgroup and controls. Results: Major gastrectomy did not influence sunitinib or SU12662 exposure. The geometric mean of sunitinib and SU12662 AUC24,ss was decreased by 21% and 28% in patients with both gastrectomy and small bowel resection (n = 8) compared to controls (n = 63) for sunitinib (931 ng*hr/mL (95%-CI; 676–1283) versus 1177 ng*hr/mL (95%-CI; 1097–1263); p < 0.05) and SU12662 (354 ng*hr/mL (95%-CI; 174–720) versus 492 ng*hr/mL (95%-CI; 435–555); p < 0.05). No significant differences in exposure were observed in each of the other subgroups versus controls. Conclusion: In contrast to previous results for imatinib and nilotinib, gastrectomy alone does not influence sunitinib or SU12662 exposure. This should be taken into account for the treatment of gastrectomized GIST patients with TKIs. In patients who had undergone both gastrectomy and small bowel resection, sunitinib and SU12662 exposures are significantly, although clinically not relevantly, decreased

Therapeutic drug monitoring to personalize dosing of imatinib, sunitinib, and pazopanib:A mixed methods study on barriers and facilitators

Background:Personalized dosing based on measurement of individual drug levels and adjusting the dose accordingly can improve efficacy and decrease unnecessary toxicity of oncological treatment. For imatinib, sunitinib, and pazopanib, this therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)-guided dosing is, however, not routinely used, despite accumulating evidence favoring individualized dosing. Therefore, we aimed to identify and quantify (potential) barriers and facilitators in TDM-guided dosing for imatinib, sunitinib, and pazopanib. Methods: We performed a mixed methods study among all stakeholders involved: patients, healthcare professionals (HCPs), pharmaceutical companies, and health insurance companies. During the first qualitative part of this study, we performed semi-structured individual interviews and one focus group interview to identify all (potential) barriers and facilitators, and during the second quantitative part of this study, we used a web-based survey to quantify these findings. The interviews addressed the six domains of the implementation of change model of Grol and Wensing: (1) the innovation itself; (2) the HCP; (3) the patient; (4) social context; (5) organizational context; and (6) finances, law, and governance. Results: In the qualitative study, we interviewed 20 patients, 18 HCPs and 10 representatives of pharmaceutical and health insurance companies and identified 72 barriers and 90 facilitators. In the quantitative study, the survey was responded by 66 HCPs and 58 patients. Important barriers were on the domain of the HCP, such as a lack of experience with TDM (36.4%), on the domain of the patient, such as lack of awareness of TDM (39.7%), and the processing time for measurement and interpretation of the TDM result (40.9%) (organizational domain). Important facilitators were education of HCPs (95.5%), education of patients (87.9%) and facilitating an overview of when and where TDM measurements are being performed (86.4%). Conclusion: We identified and quantified important barriers and facilitators for the implementation of TDM-guided dosing for imatinib, sunitinib, and pazopanib. Based on our results, the implementation strategy should mainly focus on educating both HCPs and patients and on the organizational aspect of TDM.</p

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

Exposure-toxicity relationship of cabozantinib in patients with renal cell cancer and salivary gland cancer

Cabozantinib is registered in fixed 60 mg dose. However, 46% to 62% of patients in the registration studies needed a dose reduction due to toxicity. Improved clinical efficacy has been observed in renal cell carcinoma patients (RCC) with a cabozantinib exposure greater than 750 μg/L. In our study we explored the cabozantinib exposure in patients with different tumour types. We included RCC patients from routine care and salivary gland carcinoma (SGC) patients from a phase II study with ≥1 measured C min at steady-state. The geometric mean (GM) C min at the starting dose, at 40 mg and at best tolerated dose (BTD) were compared between both tumour types. Forty-seven patients were included. All SGC patients (n = 22) started with 60 mg, while 52% of RCC patients started with 40 mg. GM C min at the start dose was 1456 μg/L (95% CI: 1185-1789) vs 682 μg/L (95% CI: 572-812) (P <.001) for SGC and RCC patients, respectively. When dose-normalised to 40 mg, SGC patients had a significantly higher cabozantinib exposure compared to RCC patients (C min 971 μg/L [95% CI: 790-1193] vs 669 μg/L [95% CI: 568-788]) (P =.005). Dose reductions due to toxicity were needed in 91% and 60% of SGC and RCC patients, respectively. Median BTD was between 20 to 30 mg for SGC and 40 mg for RCC patients. GM C min at BTD were comparable between the SGC and the RCC group, 694 μg/L (95% CI: 584-824) vs 583 μg/L (95% CI: 496-671) (P =.1). The observed cabozantinib exposure at BTD of approximately 600 μg/L is below the previously proposed target. Surprisingly, a comparable exposure at BTD was reached at different dosages of cabozantinib for SGC patients compared to RCC patients Further research is warranted to identify the optimal exposure and starting dose to balance efficacy and toxicity

Dose recommendations for anticancer drugs in patients with renal or hepatic impairment

Renal or hepatic impairment is a common comorbidity for patients with cancer either because of the disease itself, toxicity of previous anticancer treatments, or because of other factors affecting organ function, such as increased age. Because renal and hepatic function are among the main determinants of drug exposure, the pharmacokinetic profile might be altered for patients with cancer who have renal or hepatic impairment, necessitating dose adjustments. Most anticancer drugs are dosed near their maximum tolerated dose and are characterised by a narrow therapeutic index. Consequently, selecting an adequate dose for patients who have either hepatic or renal impairment, or both, is challenging and definitive recommendations on dose adjustments are scarce. In this Review, we discuss the effect of renal and hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics of anticancer drugs. To guide clinicians in selecting appropriate dose adjustments, information from available drug labels and from the published literature were combined to provide a practical set of recommendations for dose adjustments of 160 anticancer drugs for patients with hepatic and renal impairment

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

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 (C(min) ) 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) C(min) 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 C(min) 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 C(min) 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 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