Drug delivery in a tumour cord model: a computational simulation

YesThe tumour vasculature and microenvironment is complex and heterogeneous, contributing to reduced delivery of cancer drugs to the tumour. We have developed an in silico model of drug transport in a tumour cord to explore the effect of different drug regimes over a 72 h period and how changes in pharmacokinetic parameters affect tumour exposure to the cytotoxic drug doxorubicin. We used the model to describe the radial and axial distribution of drug in the tumour cord as a function of changes in the transport rate across the cell membrane, blood vessel and intercellular permeability, flow rate, and the binding and unbinding ratio of drug within the cancer cells. We explored how changes in these parameters may affect cellular exposure to drug. The model demonstrates the extent to which distance from the supplying vessel influences drug levels and the effect of dosing schedule in relation to saturation of drug-binding sites. It also shows the likely impact on drug distribution of the aberrant vasculature seen within tumours. The model can be adapted for other drugs and extended to include other parameters. The analysis confirms that computational models can play a role in understanding novel cancer therapies to optimize drug administration and delivery

Is TIMP-1 immunoreactivity alone or in combination with other markers a predictor of benefit from anthracyclines in the BR9601 adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy trial?

INTRODUCTION: Predictive cancer biomarkers to guide the right treatment to the right patient at the right time are strongly needed. The purpose of the present study was to validate prior results that tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 1 (TIMP-1) alone or in combination with either HER2 or TOP2A copy number can be used to predict benefit from epirubicin (E) containing chemotherapy compared with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil (CMF) treatment. METHODS: For the purpose of this study, formalin fixed paraffin embedded tumor tissue from women recruited into the BR9601 clinical trial, which randomized patients to E-CMF versus CMF, were analyzed for TIMP-1 immunoreactivity. Using previously collected data for HER2 amplification and TOP2A gene aberrations, we defined patients as "anthracycline non-responsive", that is, 2T (TIMP-1 immunoreactive and TOP2A normal) and HT (TIMP-1 immunoreactive and HER2 negative) and anthracycline responsive (all other cases). RESULTS: In total, 288 tumors were available for TIMP-1 analysis with (183/274) 66.8%, and (181/274) 66.0% being classed as 2T and HT responsive, respectively. TIMP-1 was neither associated with patient prognosis (relapse free survival or overall survival) nor with a differential effect of E-CMF and CMF. Also, TIMP-1 did not add to the predictive value of HER2, TOP2A gene aberrations, or to Ki67 immunoreactivity. CONCLUSION: This study could not confirm the predictive value of TIMP-1 immunoreactivity in patients randomized to receive E-CMF versus CMF as adjuvant treatment for primary breast cancer

A nested cohort study of 6,248 early breast cancer patients treated in neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy trials investigating the prognostic value of chemotherapy-related toxicities.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between chemotherapy-related toxicities and prognosis is unclear. Previous studies have examined the association of myelosuppression parameters or neuropathy with survival and reported conflicting results. This study aims to investigate 13 common chemotherapy toxicities and their association with relapse-free survival and breast cancer-specific survival. METHODS: Chemotherapy-related toxicities were collected prospectively for 6,248 women with early-stage breast cancer from four randomised controlled trials (NEAT; BR9601; tAnGo; Neo-tAnGo). Cox proportional-hazards modelling was used to analyse the association between chemotherapy-related toxicities and both breast cancer-specific survival and relapse-free survival. Models included important prognostic factors and stratified by variables violating the proportional hazards assumption. RESULTS: Multivariable analysis identified severe neutropenia (grades ≥3) as an independent predictor of relapse-free survival (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.76-0.97; P = 0.02). A similar trend was seen for breast cancer-specific survival (HR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75-1.01; P = 0.06). Normal/low BMI patients experienced more severe neutropenia (P = 0.008) than patients with higher BMI. Patients with fatigue (grades ≥3) showed a trend towards reduced survival (breast cancer-specific survival: HR = 1.17; 95% CI, 0.99-1.37; P = 0.06). In the NEAT/BR9601 sub-group analysis by treatment component, this effect was statistically significant (HR = 1.61; 95% CI, 1.13-2.30; P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: This large study shows a significant association between chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and increased survival. It also identifies a strong relationship between low/normal BMI and increased incidence of severe neutropenia. It provides evidence to support the development of neutropenia-adapted clinical trials to investigate optimal dose calculation and its impact on clinical outcome. This is important in populations where obesity may lead to sub-optimal chemotherapy doses

The Relationship between Common Genetic Markers of Breast Cancer Risk and Chemotherapy-Induced Toxicity: A Case-Control Study.

Ninety-four common genetic variants are confirmed to be associated with breast cancer. This study tested the hypothesis that breast cancer susceptibility variants may also be associated with chemotherapy-induced toxicity through shared mechanistic pathways such as DNA damage response, an association that, to our knowledge, has not been previously investigated. The study included breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy from the Pharmacogenetic SNPs (PGSNPS) study. For each patient, a breast cancer polygenic risk score was created from the 94 breast cancer risk variants, all of which were genotyped or successfully imputed in PGSNPS. Logistic regression was performed to test the association with two clinically important toxicities: taxane- related neuropathy (n = 1279) and chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (n = 1676). This study was well powered (≥96%) to detect associations between polygenic risk score and chemotherapy toxicity. Patients with high breast cancer risk scores experienced less neutropenia compared to those with low risk scores (adjusted p-value = 0.06). Exploratory functional pathway analysis was performed and no functional pathways driving this trend were identified. Polygenic risk was not associated with taxane neuropathy (adjusted p-value = 0.48). These results suggest that breast cancer patients with high genetic risk of breast cancer, conferred by common variants, can safely receive standard chemotherapy without increased risk of taxane-related sensory neuropathy or chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and may experience less neutropenia. As neutropenia has previously been associated with improved survival and may reflect drug efficacy, these patients may be less likely to benefit from standard chemotherapy treatment.This work was supported by 1) PGSNPS: project and fellowship grants received by Jean Abraham from Cancer Research UK, C507/A6306 and C10097/A7484, http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/; 2) Neo-tAnGo funding: Cancer Research UK Research Grant (C57/A4180) and an additional unrestricted educational grant from Eli Lilly Limited who also provided free Gemzar®/gemcitabine; Bristol Myers Squibb Ltd provided free Taxol®/paclitaxel from January 2005 to June 2006 [EudraCT No: 2004-002356-34, ISRCTN 78234870, ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00070278]; 3) tAnGo funding: Unrestricted educational grants and free drug from Eli Lilly (GemzarTM) and Bristol Myers Squibb (TaxolTM); and 4) NEAT/BR9601 funding: Project grant from Cancer Research UK (formerly Cancer Research Campaign) 1996-2003: Unrestricted educational grant Pfizer (formerly Pharmacia). HME, JEA, and CC acknowledge funding from the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre. JEA acknowledges funding from Addenbrookes Charitable Trust. LD acknowledges funding from Medical Research Council.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from the Public Library of Science via http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.015898

Concurrent capecitabine and upper abdominal radiation therapy is well tolerated

We retrospectively evaluated acute toxicity in 88 patients that were treated with capecitabine and concurrent radiotherapy to the upper abdomen. These patients included 28 (32%) with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, 18 (20%) with cholangiocarcinoma, 11 (13%) with ampullary carcinoma, 11 (13%) with other primary tumors, 14 (16%) with liver metastases, and 6 (7%) with metastases at other sites. The median dose of radiotherapy was 45 Gy (range 30–72 Gy). The median dose of capecitabine was 850 mg/m(2 )twice daily, with 77% receiving 800–900 mg/m(2 )twice daily. The highest grade of acute toxicity was Common Terminology Criteria (CTC) grade 0 in 5 (6%), grade 1 in 60 (68%), grade 2 in 18 (20%), and grade 3 in 5 (6%) patients. No patient had CTC grade 4 toxicity. The most common grade 2 toxicities were nausea, hand-foot syndrome, fatigue, anorexia and diarrhea. The grade 3 toxicities included nausea, vomiting and fatigue. Three patients (3%) required hospitalization due to grade 3 acute toxicity. Capecitabine was interrupted, discontinued or given at an adjusted dose in 13 (15%) patients because of acute toxicity. Therefore, capecitabine and concurrent radiotherapy to the upper abdomen appears to be well tolerated. Capecitabine may serve as an alternative to bolus or infusional 5-FU during chemoradiation for upper gastrointestinal malignancies

Sex and adverse events of adjuvant chemotherapy in colon cancer: an analysis of 34,640 patients in the ACCENT database

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy is a standard treatment option for patients with stage III and high-risk stage II colon cancer. Sex is one of several factors responsible for the wide inter-patient variability in drug responses. Amalgamated data on the effect of sex on the toxicity of current standard adjuvant treatment for colorectal cancer are missing. METHODS: The objective of our study was to compare incidence and severity of major toxicities of fluoropyrimidine- (5FU or capecitabine) based adjuvant chemotherapy, with or without oxaliplatin, between male and female patients after curative surgery for colon cancer. Adult patients enrolled in 27 relevant randomized trials included in the ACCENT (Adjuvant Colon Cancer End Points) database, a large, multi-group, international data repository containing individual patient data, were included. Comparisons were conducted using logistic regression models (stratified by study and treatment arm) within each type of adjuvant chemotherapy (5FU, FOLFOX, capecitabine, CAPOX, and FOLFIRI). The following major toxicities were compared (grade III or IV and grade I-IV, according to National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria [NCI-CTC] criteria, regardless of attribution): nausea, vomiting, nausea or vomiting, stomatitis, diarrhea, leukopenia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, and neuropathy (in patients treated with oxaliplatin). RESULTS: Data from 34 640 patients were analyzed. Statistically significant and clinically relevant differences in the occurrence of grade III or IV nonhematological {especially nausea (5FU: odds ratio [OR] = 2.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.90 to 2.87, P < .001; FOLFOX: OR = 2.34, 95% CI = 1.76 to 3.11, P < .001), vomiting (5FU: OR = 2.38, 95% CI = 1.86 to 3.04, P < .001; FOLFOX: OR = 2.00, 95% CI = 1.50 to 2.66, P < .001; CAPOX: OR = 2.32, 95% CI = 1.55 to 3.46, P < .001), and diarrhea (5FU: OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.21 to 1.51, P < .001; FOLFOX: OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.35 to 1.90, P < .001; FOLFIRI: OR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.25 to 1.97, P < .001)} as well as hematological toxicities (neutropenia [5FU: OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.37 to 1.76, P < .001; FOLFOX: OR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.71 to 2.25, P < .001; FOLFIRI: OR = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.66 to 2.43, P < .001; capecitabine: OR = 4.07, 95% CI = 1.84 to 8.99, P < .001] and leukopenia [5FU: OR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.40 to 2.17, P < .001; FOLFIRI: OR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.28 to 2.40, P < .001]) were observed, with women being consistently at increased risk. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis confirms that women with colon cancer receiving adjuvant fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy are at increased risk of toxicity. Given the known sex differences in fluoropyrimidine pharmacokinetics, sex-specific dosing of fluoropyrimidines warrants further investigation

Safety, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines given as fourth-dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 and a third dose of BNT162b2 (COV-BOOST): a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19. METHODS: The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 μg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 μg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (anti-spike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6-77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3-214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030-27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996-43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41-1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996-30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826-64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90-2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37-14·32) and 15·90 (12·92-19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24-16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90-9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group). INTERPRETATION: Fourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Task Force and National Institute for Health Research

Persistence of immunogenicity after seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 or BNT162b2 in the UK: three month analyses of the COV-BOOST trial

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the persistence of immunogenicity three months after third dose boosters. METHODS: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines used as a third booster dose. The analysis was conducted using all randomised participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naïve during the study. RESULTS: Among the 2883 participants randomised, there were 2422 SARS-CoV-2 naïve participants until D84 visit included in the analysis with median age of 70 (IQR: 30-94) years. In the participants who had two initial doses of ChAd, schedules using mRNA vaccines as third dose have the highest anti-spike IgG at D84 (e.g. geometric mean concentration of 8674 ELU/ml (95% CI: 7461-10085) following ChAd/ChAd/BNT). However, in people who had two initial doses of BNT there was no significant difference at D84 in people given ChAd versus BNT (geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 0.95 (95%CI: 0.78, 1.15). Also, people given Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) as a third dose had significantly higher anti-spike IgG at D84 than BNT (GMR of 1.20, 95%CI: 1.01,1.43). Responses at D84 between people who received BNT (15 μg) or BNT (30 μg) after ChAd/ChAd or BNT/BNT were similar, with anti-spike IgG GMRs of half-BNT (15 μg) versus BNT (30 μg) ranging between 0.74-0.86. The decay rate of cellular responses were similar between all the vaccine schedules and doses. CONCLUSIONS: 84 days after a third dose of COVID-19 vaccine the decay rates of humoral response were different between vaccines. Adenoviral vector vaccine anti-spike IgG concentration at D84 following BNT/BNT initial doses were higher than for a three dose (BNT/BNT/BNT) schedule. Half dose BNT immune responses were similar to full dose responses. While high antibody tires are desirable in situations of high transmission of new variants of concern, the maintenance of immune responses that confer long-lasting protection against severe disease or death is also of critical importance. Policymakers may also consider adenoviral vector, fractional dose of mRNA, or other non-mRNA vaccines as third doses