Two novel oral drugs that target androgen signaling have recently become available for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Abiraterone acetate inhibits the synthesis of the natural ligands of the androgen receptor, whereas enzalutamide directly inhibits the androgen receptor by several mechanisms. Abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide appear to be equally effective for patients with mCRPC pre- and postchemotherapy. Rational decision making for either one of these drugs is therefore potentially driven by individual patient characteristics. In this review, an overview of the pharmacokinetic characteristics is given for both drugs and potential and proven drug–drug interactions are presented. Additionally, the effect of patient-related factors on drug disposition are summarized and the limited data on the exposure–response relationships are described. The most important pharmacological feature of enzalutamide that needs to be recognized is its capacity to induce several key enzymes in drug metabolism. The potency to cause drug–drug interactions needs to be addressed in patients who are treated with multiple drugs simultaneously. Abiraterone has a much smaller drug–drug interaction potential; however, it is poorly absorbed, which is affected by food intake, and a large interpatient variability in drug exposure is observed. Dose reductions of abiraterone or, alternatively, the selection of enzalutamide, should be considered in patients with hepatic dysfunction. Understanding the pharmacological characteristics and challenges of both drugs could facilitate decision making for either one of the drugs.
28 November 2019 in British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
O(on behalf of the Dutch Pharmacology and Oncology Group (DPOG)
on behalf of the Dutch Pharmacology and Oncology Group (DPOG)
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.
Purpose: Androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI) are standard of care for treatment-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), but rapid resistance is common. Early identification of resistance will improve management strategies. We investigated whether changes in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) fraction during ARPI treatment are linked with mCRPC clinical outcomes. Experimental Design: Plasma cell-free DNA was collected from 81 patients with mCRPC at baseline and after 4 weeks of first-line ARPI treatment during two prospective multicenter observational studies (NCT02426333; NCT02471469). ctDNA fraction was calculated from somatic mutations in targeted sequencing and genome copy-number profiles. Samples were classified into detected versus undetected ctDNA. Outcome measurements were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Nondurable treatment response was defined as PFS ≤6 months. Results: ctDNA was detected in 48/81 (59%) baseline and 29/81 (36%) 4-week samples. ctDNA fraction for samples with detected ctDNA was lower at 4 weeks versus baseline (median 5.0% versus 14.5%, P = 0.017). PFS and OS were shortest for patients with persistent ctDNA at 4 weeks (univariate HR, 4.79; 95% CI, 2.62–8.77 and univariate HR, 5.49; 95% CI, 2.76–10.91, respectively), independent of clinical prognostic factors. For patients exhibiting change from detected to undetected ctDNA by 4 weeks, there was no significant PFS difference versus patients with baseline undetected ctDNA. ctDNA change had a positive predictive value of 88% and negative predictive value of 92% for identifying nondurable responses. Conclusions: Early changes in ctDNA fraction are strongly linked to duration of first-line ARPI treatment benefit and survival in mCRPC and may inform early therapy switches or treatment intensification. See related commentary by Sartor, p. 2745
11 May 2016 in Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology
Background Everolimus is a mTOR inhibitor used for the treatment of different solid malignancies. Many patients treated with the registered fixed 10 mg dose once daily are in need of dose interruptions, reductions or treatment discontinuation due to severe adverse events. This study determined the correlation between systemic everolimus exposure and toxicity. Additionally, the effect of different covariates on everolimus pharmacokinetics (PK) was explored. Methods Forty-two patients with advanced thyroid carcinoma were treated with 10 mg everolimus once daily. Serial pharmacokinetic sampling was performed on days 1 and 15. Subsequently, a population PK model was developed using NONMEM to estimate individual PK values used for analysis of an exposure–toxicity relationship. Furthermore, this model was used to investigate the influence of patient characteristics and genetic polymorphisms in genes coding for enzymes relevant in everolimus PK. Results Patients who required a dose reduction (n = 18) due to toxicity at any time during treatment had significant higher everolimus exposures [mean AUC0–24 (SD) 600 (274) vs. 395 (129) µg h/L, P = 0.008] than patients without a dose reduction (n = 22). A significant association between everolimus exposure and stomatitis was found in the four-level ordered logistic regression analysis (P = 0.047). The presence of at least one TTT haplotype in the ABCB1 gene was associated with a 21 % decrease in everolimus exposure. Conclusion The current study showed that dose reductions and everolimus-induced stomatitis were strongly associated with systemic everolimus drug exposure in patients with cancer. Our findings confirm observations from another study in patients with cancer and show us that everolimus is a good candidate for individualized dosing in patients with cancer. ClinicalTrial.gov number NCT01118065.
24 May 2019 in Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics