Although kinase inhibitors (KI) frequently portray large interpatient variability, a ‘one size fits all’ regimen is still often used. In the meantime, relationships between exposure-response and exposure-toxicity have been established for several KIs, so this regimen could lead to unnecessary toxicity and suboptimal efficacy. Dose adjustments based on measured systemic pharmacokinetic levels—i.e., therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)—could therefore improve treatment efficacy and reduce the incidence of toxicities. Therefore, the aim of this comprehensive review is to give an overview of the available evidence for TDM for the 77 FDA/EMA kinase inhibitors currently approved (as of July 1st, 2023) used in hematology and oncology. We elaborate on exposure-response and exposure-toxicity relationships for these kinase inhibitors and provide practical recommendations for TDM and discuss corresponding pharmacokinetic targets when possible.

Malignancies of the peritoneal cavity are associated with a dismal prognosis. Systemic chemotherapy is the gold standard for patients with unresectable peritoneal disease, but its intraperitoneal effect is hampered by the peritoneal-plasma barrier. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy, which is administered repeatedly into the peritoneal cavity through a peritoneal implanted port, could provide a novel treatment modality for this patient population. This review provides a systematic overview of intraperitoneal used drugs, the performed clinical studies so far, and the complications of the peritoneal implemental ports. Several anticancer drugs have been studied for intraperitoneal application, with the taxanes paclitaxel and docetaxel as the most commonly used drug. Repeated intraperitoneal chemotherapy, mostly in combination with systemic chemotherapy, has shown promising results in Phase I and Phase II studies for several tumor types, such as gastric cancer, ovarian cancer, colorectal cancer, and pancreatic cancer. Two Phase III studies for intraperitoneal chemotherapy in gastric cancer have been performed so far, but the results regarding the superiority over standard systemic chemotherapy alone, are contradictory. Pressurized intraperitoneal administration, known as PIPAC, is an alternative way of administering intraperitoneal chemotherapy, and the first prospective studies have shown a tolerable safety profile. Although intraperitoneal chemotherapy might be a standard treatment option for patients with unresectable peritoneal disease, more Phase II and Phase III studies focusing on tolerability profiles, survival rates, and quality of life are warranted in order to establish optimal treatment schedules and to establish a potential role for intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the approach to unresectable peritoneal disease.

Background: Gastric cancer with peritoneal metastases is associated with a dismal prognosis. Normothermic catheter-based intraperitoneal chemotherapy and normothermic pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) are methods to deliver chemotherapy intraperitoneally leading to higher intraperitoneal concentrations of cytotoxic drugs compared to intravenous administration. We reviewed the effectiveness and safety of different methods of palliative intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Methods: Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science and Cochrane were searched for articles studying the use of repeated administration of palliative intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastases, published up to January 2024. The primary outcome was overall survival. Results: Twenty-three studies were included, representing a total of 999 patients. The pooled median overall survival was 14.5 months. The pooled hazard ratio of the two RCTs using intraperitoneal paclitaxel and docetaxel favoured the intraperitoneal chemotherapy arm. The median overall survival of intraperitoneal paclitaxel, intraperitoneal docetaxel and PIPAC with cisplatin and doxorubicin were respectively 18.4 months, 13.2 months and 9.0 months. All treatment methods had a relatively safe toxicity profile. Conversion surgery after completion of intraperitoneal therapy was performed in 16% of the patients. Conclusions: Repeated intraperitoneal chemotherapy, regardless of method of administration, is safe for patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastases. Conversion surgery after completion of the intraperitoneal chemotherapy is possible in a subset of patients.

The peritoneum is a common metastatic site in gastric cancer. The prognosis of synchronous peritoneal metastases compared to other metastatic sites in gastric cancer remains understudied. This study aims to evaluate the impact of peritoneal metastases on survival in patients with metastatic gastric cancer. Patients with gastric cancer and synchronous metastases between 2015 and 2020 were identified from the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were categorized based on the site of metastases. Median overall survival (OS) was calculated for each metastatic site group. Multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between patient, tumour, and treatment characteristics, including the impact of systemic therapy, on OS. A total of 4072 patients were included, of whom 1835 (45.1%) had peritoneal metastases. Of these, 58.1% had isolated peritoneal metastases. For patients with metastatic gastric cancer treated with systemic therapy, the median OS was 9.0 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 8.6–9.5), compared to 1.7 months (95% CI: 1.7–1.9) for treatment-naïve patients, who received only palliative care. The survival for patients with isolated peritoneal metastases (4.4 months, 95% CI: 4.0–4.8 months) was similar to those with isolated non-peritoneal metastases (4.6 months, 95% CI: 4.2–5.1 months, adjusted HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.86–1.03, p = 0.185). Systemic therapy was associated with comparable survival in patients with peritoneal metastases and those with metastases at other sites. This study demonstrates that there is no statistically significant difference in survival between patients with isolated peritoneal metastases and those with isolated non-peritoneal metastases in gastric cancer. Our findings emphasize the unique prognostic landscape for peritoneal metastases in gastric cancer, underscoring the need for disease-specific evaluations, rather than relying on assumptions derived from other cancer types. None.

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. 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 (C_trough) were measured at pre-specified time-points. Increasing the dose was advised if C_trough was below the target of 3750 ng/mL and toxicity was manageable. A total of 150 samples from 36 patients were collected. Thirty patients (83 %) had a C_trough below the prespecified target concentration at a certain time point during treatment. Toxicity from sorafenib hampered dosing according to target C_trough in almost half of the patients. In 11 patients, dosing was adjusted based on C_trough. In three patients, this resulted in an adequate C_trough without additional toxicity four weeks after the dose increase. In the remaining eight patients, dose adjustment based on C_trough did not result in a C_trough above the target or caused excessive toxicity. TDM for sorafenib is not of added value in daily clinical practice. In most cases, toxicity restricts the possibility of dose escalations.

Staging laparoscopy is a common diagnostic tool in gastric cancer, but its performance varies widely. The aim of this study was to gain Dutch nationwide consensus regarding the indications for and execution of staging laparoscopy in patients with gastric cancer. All surgeons in the Netherlands specialized in gastric cancer surgery (n = 52) were asked to participate in a Delphi consensus study. The study involved an initial questionnaire with a 3-point Likert scale, an online consensus meeting, and a second questionnaire using a 2-point Likert scale (agree/disagree). Consensus was defined as 70% or more agreement among participants. In total, 45 experts completed both questionnaires (87% response rate). Consensus was reached on the indication to perform staging laparoscopy in cT3-4 or cN + or diffuse-type gastric cancer, including Siewert type III oesophagogastric junctional cancer. The experts agreed that if preoperative scans suggest infiltration of surrounding organs (cT4), the tumour's resectability should explicitly be investigated. Consensus was also reached for a systematic peritoneal cavity inspection according to Sugarbaker's Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) score. All regions should be inspected routinely, although the omental bursa may be inspected on indication. Aspiration of ascites or peritoneal washing should be performed for cytology. The experts agreed that restaging laparoscopy should be performed before resection in case of progressive disease on preoperative imaging. Without progression, global inspection was considered sufficient. The results of this Dutch nationwide Delphi consensus study exposed the variability of performing staging laparoscopy in patients with gastric cancer and provided the concept for a standardized protocol.