Joseph Ciccolini

Prof. Dr. Joseph Ciccolini

Aix Marseille University
+2
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

28Years (1999-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
28 February 2019 in Clinical Pharmacokinetics
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MCMaddalena Centanni
Maddalena Centanni
DMDirk Jan A. R. Moes
Dirk Jan A. R. Moes
ITIñaki F. Trocóniz
Iñaki F. Trocóniz
Joseph CiccoliniJoseph Ciccolini
Joseph Ciccolini
JHJohan G. C. Van Hasselt
Johan G. C. Van Hasselt
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have demonstrated significant clinical impact in improving overall survival of several malignancies associated with poor outcomes; however, only 20–40% of patients will show long-lasting survival. Further clarification of factors related to treatment response can support improvements in clinical outcome and guide the development of novel immune checkpoint therapies. In this article, we have provided an overview of the pharmacokinetic (PK) aspects related to current ICIs, which include target-mediated drug disposition and time-varying drug clearance. In response to the variation in treatment exposure of ICIs and the significant healthcare costs associated with these agents, arguments for both dose individualization and generalization are provided. We address important issues related to the efficacy and safety, the pharmacodynamics (PD), of ICIs, including exposure–response relationships related to clinical outcome. The unique PK and PD aspects of ICIs give rise to issues of confounding and suboptimal surrogate endpoints that complicate interpretation of exposure–response analysis. Biomarkers to identify patients benefiting from treatment with ICIs have been brought forward. However, validated biomarkers to monitor treatment response are currently lacking.

24 November 2015 in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
DBDominique Barbolosi
Dominique Barbolosi
Joseph CiccoliniJoseph Ciccolini
Joseph Ciccolini
BLBruno Lacarelle
Bruno Lacarelle
FBFabrice Barlési
Fabrice Barlési
NANicolas André
Nicolas André

23 March 2016 in Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Joseph CiccoliniJoseph Ciccolini
Joseph Ciccolini
CSCindy Serdjebi
Cindy Serdjebi
Godefridus J. PetersGodefridus J. Peters
Godefridus J. Peters
Elisa GiovannettiElisa Giovannetti
Elisa Giovannetti
Gemcitabine is an antimetabolite ranking among the most prescribed anticancer drugs worldwide. This nucleoside analog exerts its antiproliferative action after tumoral conversion into active triphosphorylated nucleotides interfering with DNA synthesis and targeting ribonucleotide reductase. Gemcitabine is a mainstay for treating pancreatic and lung cancers, alone or in combination with several cytotoxic drugs (nab-paclitaxel, cisplatin and oxaliplatin), and is an option in a variety of other solid or hematological cancers. Several determinants of response have been identified with gemcitabine, i.e., membrane transporters, activating and inactivating enzymes at the tumor level, or Hedgehog signaling pathway. More recent studies have investigated how germinal genetic polymorphisms affecting cytidine deaminase, the enzyme responsible for the liver disposition of gemcitabine, could act as well as a marker for clinical outcome (i.e., toxicity, efficacy) at the bedside. Besides, constant efforts have been made to develop alternative chemical derivatives or encapsulated forms of gemcitabine, as an attempt to improve its metabolism and pharmacokinetics profile. Overall, gemcitabine is a drug paradigmatic for constant searches of the scientific community to improve its administration through the development of personalized medicine in oncology.

17 October 2011 in Oncotarget
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
EPEddy Pasquier
Eddy Pasquier
Joseph CiccoliniJoseph Ciccolini
Joseph Ciccolini
MCManon Carre
Manon Carre
SGSarah Giacometti
Sarah Giacometti
RFRaphaelle Fanciullino
Raphaelle Fanciullino
NANicolas ANDRE
Nicolas ANDRE
Propranolol potentiates the anti-angiogenic effects and anti-tumor efficacy of chemotherapy agents: implication in breast cancer treatment

31 August 2016 in Cancer Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RSRaphael Serre
Raphael Serre
SBSebastien Benzekry
Sebastien Benzekry
LPLaetitia Padovani
Laetitia Padovani
CMChristophe Meille
Christophe Meille
NANicolas André
Nicolas André
DBDominique Barbolosi
Dominique Barbolosi
Combining radiotherapy with immune checkpoint blockade may offer considerable therapeutic impact if the immunosuppressive nature of the tumor microenvironment (TME) can be relieved. In this study, we used mathematical models, which can illustrate the potential synergism between immune checkpoint inhibitors and radiotherapy. A discrete-time pharmacodynamic model of the combination of radiotherapy with inhibitors of the PD1–PDL1 axis and/or the CTLA4 pathway is described. This mathematical framework describes how a growing tumor first elicits and then inhibits an antitumor immune response. This antitumor immune response is described by a primary and a secondary (or memory) response. The primary immune response appears first and is inhibited by the PD1–PDL1 axis, whereas the secondary immune response happens next and is inhibited by the CTLA4 pathway. The effects of irradiation are described by a modified version of the linear-quadratic model. This modeling offers an explanation for the reported biphasic relationship between the size of a tumor and its immunogenicity, as measured by the abscopal effect (an off-target immune response). Furthermore, it explains why discontinuing immunotherapy may result in either tumor recurrence or a durably sustained response. Finally, it describes how synchronizing immunotherapy and radiotherapy can produce synergies. The ability of the model to forecast pharmacodynamic endpoints was validated retrospectively by checking that it could describe data from experimental studies, which investigated the combination of radiotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors. In summary, a model such as this could be further used as a simulation tool to facilitate decision making about optimal scheduling of immunotherapy with radiotherapy and perhaps other types of anticancer therapies. Cancer Res; 76(17); 4931–40. ©2016 AACR.

25 February 2020 in PLOS Computational Biology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CVCristina Vaghi
Cristina Vaghi
ARAnne Rodallec
Anne Rodallec
RFRaphaëlle Fanciullino
Raphaëlle Fanciullino
Joseph CiccoliniJoseph Ciccolini
Joseph Ciccolini
Jonathan MochelJonathan Mochel
Jonathan Mochel
SBSebastien Benzekry
Sebastien Benzekry
Tumor growth curves are classically modeled by means of ordinary differential equations. In analyzing the Gompertz model several studies have reported a striking correlation between the two parameters of the model, which could be used to reduce the dimensionality and improve predictive power. We analyzed tumor growth kinetics within the statistical framework of nonlinear mixed-effects (population approach). This allowed the simultaneous modeling of tumor dynamics and inter-animal variability. Experimental data comprised three animal models of breast and lung cancers, with 833 measurements in 94 animals. Candidate models of tumor growth included the exponential, logistic and Gompertz models. The exponential and—more notably—logistic models failed to describe the experimental data whereas the Gompertz model generated very good fits. The previously reported population-level correlation between the Gompertz parameters was further confirmed in our analysis (R2> 0.92 in all groups). Combining this structural correlation with rigorous population parameter estimation, we propose a reduced Gompertz function consisting of a single individual parameter (and one population parameter). Leveraging the population approach using Bayesian inference, we estimated times of tumor initiation using three late measurement timepoints. The reduced Gompertz model was found to exhibit the best results, with drastic improvements when using Bayesian inference as compared to likelihood maximization alone, for both accuracy and precision. Specifically, mean accuracy (prediction error) was 12.2% versus 78% and mean precision (width of the 95% prediction interval) was 15.6 days versus 210 days, for the breast cancer cell line. These results demonstrate the superior predictive power of the reduced Gompertz model, especially when combined with Bayesian estimation. They offer possible clinical perspectives for personalized prediction of the age of a tumor from limited data at diagnosis. The code and data used in our analysis are publicly available at https://github.com/cristinavaghi/plumky. Mathematical models for tumor growth kinetics have been widely used since several decades but mostly fitted to individual or average growth curves. Here we compared three classical models (exponential, logistic and Gompertz) using a population approach, which accounts for inter-animal variability. The exponential and the logistic models failed to fit the experimental data while the Gompertz model showed excellent descriptive power. Moreover, the strong correlation between the two parameters of the Gompertz equation motivated a simplification of the model, the reduced Gompertz model, with a single individual parameter and equal descriptive power. Combining the mixed-effects approach with Bayesian inference, we predicted the age of individual tumors with only few late measurements. Thanks to its simplicity, the reduced Gompertz model showed superior predictive power. Although our method remains to be extended to clinical data, these results are promising for the personalized estimation of the age of a tumor from limited measurements at diagnosis.