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.

Early diagnosis and treatment has proven to be of utmost importance in the outcome of sepsis patients. We compared the accuracy of the neutrophil-lymphocyte count ratio (NLCR) to conventional inflammatory markers in patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). We performed a retrospective cohort study consisting of 276 ICU patients with sepsis and 388 ICU patients without sepsis. We compared the NLCR as well as C-reactive protein (CRP) level, procalcitonin (PCT) level, white blood cell (WBC) count, neutrophil count and lymphocyte count on ICU admission between sepsis and non-sepsis ICU patients. To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity, we constructed receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. Significant differences in NLCR values were observed between sepsis and non-sepsis patients (15.3 [10.8–38.2] (median [interquartile range] vs. 9.3 [6.2–14.5]; P<0.001), as well as for CRP level, PCT level and lymphocyte count. The area under the ROC curve (AUROC) of the NLCR was 0.66 (95%CI = 0.62–0.71). AUROC was significantly higher for CRP and PCT level with AUROC’s of 0.89 (95%CI 0.87–0.92) and 0.88 (95%CI 0.86–0.91) respectively. The NLCR is less suitable than conventional inflammatory markers CRP and PCT to detect the presence of sepsis in ICU patients. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01274819.

Aim: Sunitinib is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Because of the large interpatient pharmacokinetic variability and established exposure‐response and exposure‐toxicity relationships in clinical trial patients, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) seems promising for optimizing sunitinib exposure. We aimed to investigate the relationship between sunitinib exposure and treatment outcome in a real‐world patient cohort.Methods: We performed a retrospective observational cohort study in 53 patients with metastatic RCC and 18 patients with metastatic GIST treated with sunitinib and receiving TDM‐guided dosing. Time on treatment – as a surrogate for progression‐free survival – in patients who achieved adequate sunitinib exposure was compared with patients who did not. Additionaly, the median sunitinib exposure was compared in patients with or without sunitinib‐induced toxicity leading to dose reduction.Results: The median time on treatment in patients with RCC who achieved adequate sunitinib exposure (n = 39) was 32 weeks, compared to 15 weeks in patients who did not achieve adequate sunitinib exposure (n = 12) (P = 0.244). In 29 patients (41%) with toxicity leading to dose reduction, sunitinib sum plasma trough concentration (C_trough) until dose reduction was significantly higher compared to patients without toxicity leading to dose reduction (median 60 ng/mL vs 44 ng/mL; P < 0.001) and reduced to comparable levels after dose reduction (44 ng/mL; P = 0.488).Conclusion: In our real‐world patient cohort, patients with sunitinib‐induced toxicity requiring dose reduction had significantly higher sunitinib exposure compared to patients without toxicity. The threshold for toxicity, however, was lower compared to that previously described in clinical trials.

Purpose: Pazopanib is known to cause liver toxicity. A relationship between pazopanib exposure and alanine transaminase elevations has been described in clinical trials. This study investigated the relation between pazopanib exposure and liver toxicity in real-world patients and evaluated the management of pazopanib-induced liver toxicity in routine care. Methods: A retrospective observational cohort study was performed in patients treated with pazopanib in whom pazopanib exposure was measured. The percentage of patients with and without liver toxicity during treatment with pazopanib was calculated as well as the average pazopanib exposure in both groups. Furthermore, the management of patients with liver toxicity was evaluated. Results: Liver toxicity was observed in 25 out of the 133 patients included (19%). Pazopanib exposure was comparable in patients with or without liver toxicity (27.7 mg/L versus 28.1 mg/L). Seven patients permanently discontinued pazopanib after the occurrence of liver toxicity. Of the remaining 18 patients, continuation or restart of pazopanib after liver toxicity was successful in 16 patients and half of these patients were able to safely continue pazopanib at the same dose as prior to liver toxicity for the remaining duration of treatment. Conclusion: Our study did not demonstrate a clear relationship between pazopanib exposure and the occurrence of pazopanib-induced liver toxicity. Half of the patients were able to safely continue or restart pazopanib treatment after liver toxicity and received the same dose as prior to drug withdrawal. Successful interventions to address pazopanib-induced toxicity in the clinic led to an algorithm for the management of pazopanib-induced liver toxicity.

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.