Search

Background: Sunitinib is an oral anticancer drug approved for the treatment of among others gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Previous analyses demonstrated an exposure-response relationship at the standard dose, and minimum target levels of drug exposure have been defined above which better treatment outcomes are observed. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) could be used as a tool to optimize the individual dose, aiming at sunitinib trough concentrations ≥37.5 ng/ml for continuous dosing. Nonetheless, data on the added value of TDM-guided dosing on clinical endpoints are currently lacking. Therefore, we evaluate the effect of TDM in patients with advanced and metastatic GIST treated with sunitinib in terms of efficacy and toxicity., Patients and Methods: A TDM-guided cohort was compared to a non-TDM-guided cohort in terms of median progression-free survival (mPFS) and overall survival (mOS). Also, mPFS between patients with and without dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) was compared. Patients in the prospective cohort were included in two studies on TDM-guided dosing (the DPOG-TDM study and TUNE study). The retrospective cohort consisted of patients from the Dutch GIST Registry who did not receive TDM-guided dosing., Results: In total, 51 and 106 patients were included in the TDM-guided cohort and non-TDM-guided cohort, respectively. No statistical difference in mPFS was observed between these two cohorts (39.4 versus 46.9 weeks, respectively; P = 0.52). Patients who experienced sunitinib-induced DLTs had longer mPFS compared to those who did not (51.9 versus 28.9 weeks, respectively; P = 0.002)., Conclusions: Our results do not support the routine use of TDM-guided dose optimization of sunitinib in patients with advanced/metastatic GIST to improve survival., Competing Interests: Disclosure RHJM reports research funding paid to the institute from Astellas, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cristal Therapeutics, Novartis, Pamgene, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and Servier, all outside the submitted work. WTAvdG reports institutional research fees paid to the institute from Lilly and advisory compensation from Springworks, PTC Therapeutics and Agenus, all outside the submitted work. NS reports research grants paid to the institute from Abbvie, Actuate Therapeutics, Amgen, Array, Ascendis Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, BridgeBio, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cantargia, CellCentric, Cogent Biosciences, Cresecendo Biologics, Cytovation, Deciphera, Dragonfly, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, IDRx, Immunocore, Incyte, InteRNA, Janssen, Kinnate Biopharma, Kling Biotherapeutics, Luszana, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merus, Molecular Partners, Navire Pharma, Novartis, Numab Therapeutics, Pfizer, Relay Pharmaceuticals, Revolution Medicin, Roche, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Taiho and Takeda, all outside the submitted work. NS provided consultation or attended advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim, Cogent Biosciences, Ellipses Pharma, Incyte and Luszana. NPvE reports research funding paid to the institute from Astellas and Ipsen, all outside the submitted work. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Palliative chemotherapy is the principal treatment of patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas (STS); however prognosis is limited (median overall survival 12-19 months). In this setting, patient values and priorities are central to personalised treatment decisions., Patients and Methods: The prospective HOLISTIC study was conducted in the UK and the Netherlands assessing health-related quality of life in STS patients receiving palliative chemotherapy. Participants completed a questionnaire before starting chemotherapy, including attitudes towards quality of life (QoL) versus length of life (LoL), decisional control preferences, and decisional conflict. Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used to evaluate associations between patient characteristics and preferences., Results: One hundred and thirty-seven patients with advanced STS participated (UK: n = 72, the Netherlands: n = 65). Median age was 62 (27-79) years. Preference for extended LoL (n = 66, 48%) was slightly more common than preference for QoL (n = 56, 41%); 12 patients (9%) valued LoL and QoL equally (missing: n = 3). Younger patients (age <40 years) prioritised LoL, whereas two-thirds of older patients (aged ≥65 years) felt that QoL was equally or more important than LoL (P = 0.020). Decisional conflict was most common in patients who prioritised QoL (P = 0.024). Most patients preferred an active (n = 45, 33%) or collaborative (n = 59, 44%) role in treatment decisions. Gender, performance status, and country were significantly associated with preferred role. Concordance between preferred and actual role in chemotherapy decision was high (n = 104, 76%)., Conclusions: Heterogeneous priorities and preferences among advanced STS patients support personalised decisions about palliative treatment. Considering individual differences during treatment discussions may enhance communication and optimise patient-centred care., Competing Interests: Disclosure RLJ is the recipient of grants/research support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, GlaxoSmithKline. RLJ is the recipient of consultation fees from Adaptimmune, Athenex, Blueprint, Clinigen, Eisai, Epizyme, Daichii, Deciphera, Immune Design, Lilly, Merck, Pharmamar, UptoDate. WvdG has received research grants from Novartis, has been on advisory board from Bayer and is consultant for SpringWorks. The other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)