Search

Importance: In patients with colorectal cancer and unresectable liver-only metastases (CRLM), treatment with folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) plus irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) and bevacizumab vs FOLFOX/folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus bevacizumab increased progression-free survival, response, and R0/R1 resection/ablation rates, as well as toxic effects in RAS/BRAFV600E-variant and/or right-sided tumors. FOLFOX/FOLFIRI-panitumumab vs FOLFOX/FOLFIRI-bevacizumab increased response at the cost of more toxic effects in RAS/BRAFV600E wild-type, left-sided tumors., Objective: To present long-term outcomes of treatment with FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab vs FOLFOX/FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab and FOLFOX/FOLFIRI plus panitumumab vs FOLFOX/FOLFIRI + bevacizumab., Design, Setting, and Participants: The randomized phase 3 CAIRO5 trial included patients with initially unresectable CRLM in 46 Dutch centers and 1 Belgian center between November 2014 and January 2022. A liver expert panel repeatedly evaluated resectability., Intervention: Patients with RAS/BRAFV600E-variant and/or right-sided tumors randomly received FOLFOX/FOLFIRI-bevacizumab (group 1) or FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab (group 2), and those with RAS/BRAFV600E wild-type, left-sided tumors received FOLFOX/FOLFIRI-bevacizumab (group 3) or FOLFOX/FOLFIRI-panitumumab (group 4). Adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) after complete local treatment was recommended but not standard., Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival (OS) was analyzed as a secondary outcome. Other outcomes were post hoc analyses., Results: A total of 530 patients (327 male [62%] and 203 female individuals [38%]; median age, 62 [IQR, 54-69] years) were randomized: 148 in group 1, 146 in group 2, 118 in group 3, and 118 in group 4. The median OS in group 1 was 23.6 (95% CI, 20.1-27.5) vs 24.1 (95% CI, 21.0-30.9) months in group 2 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.70-1.17; P = .44), and 39.9 (95% CI, 30.7-44.6) in group 3 vs 38.3 (95% CI, 35.3-51.3) months in group 4 (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.68-1.32; P = .75). OS was longest after complete local treatment without early (≤6 months) recurrence (64.3 months; 95% CI, 57.6 to not reached) and salvage local treatment options after early recurrence (58.9; 95% CI, 47.3 to not reached), followed by patients without salvage local treatment after early recurrence (30.5; 95% CI, 24.4-33.4) and with incomplete local treatment (28.7; 95% CI, 25.9-38.3), and worst in patients with continued unresectability (18.3; 95% CI, 15.7-20.0). After confounder adjustment, ACT was associated with longer OS (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.44-0.98) and relapse-free survival (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48-0.88) and less early recurrence without salvage local treatment (odds ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.25-0.85)., Conclusions and Relevance: These results support using FOLFOX/FOLFIRI-bevacizumab for patients with initially unresectable CRLM irrespective of RAS/BRAFV600E status and tumor sidedness. Patients with complete local liver treatment with salvage local treatment in case of early recurrence had the longest OS. ACT might be considered for these patients., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02162563.

Background and Objectives: Trifluridine/tipiracil, registered for the treatment of patients with metastatic gastric and colorectal cancer, is a substrate and inhibitor for the organic cation transporter 2 (OCT2) and the multidrug and toxin extrusion protein 1 (MATE1), which raises the potential for drug-drug interactions with other OCT2/MATE1 modulators. Therefore, we prospectively examined the effect of an OCT2/MATE1 inhibitor (cimetidine) and substrate (metformin) on the pharmacokinetics of trifluridine., Methods: In this three-phase crossover study, patients with metastatic colorectal or gastric cancer were sequentially treated with trifluridine/tipiracil alone (phase A), trifluridine/tipiracil concomitant with metformin (phase B) and trifluridine/tipiracil concomitant with cimetidine (phase C). The primary endpoint was the relative difference in exposure of trifluridine assessed by the area under the curve from timepoint zero to infinity. A > 30% change in exposure was considered clinically relevant. A p-value of < 0.025 was considered significant because of a Bonferroni correction., Results: Eighteen patients were included in the analysis. Metformin did not significantly alter the exposure to trifluridine (- 12.6%; 97.5% confidence interval - 25.0, 1.8; p = 0.045). Cimetidine did alter the exposure to trifluridine significantly (+ 18.0%; 97.5% confidence interval 4.5, 33.3; p = 0.004), but this increase did not meet our threshold for clinical relevance. Metformin trough concentrations were not influenced by trifluridine/tipiracil., Conclusions: Our result suggests that the OCT2/MATE1 modulators cimetidine and metformin can be co-administered with trifluridine/tipiracil without clinically relevant effects on drug exposure., Clinical Trial Registration: NL8067 (registered 04-10-2019)., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Patients with initially unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases might qualify for local treatment with curative intent after reducing the tumour size by induction systemic treatment. We aimed to compare the currently most active induction regimens., Methods: In this open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 study (CAIRO5), patients aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed colorectal cancer, known RAS/BRAF V600E mutation status, WHO performance status of 0-1, and initially unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases were enrolled at 46 Dutch and one Belgian secondary and tertiary centres. Resectability or unresectability of colorectal cancer liver metastases was assessed centrally by an expert panel of liver surgeons and radiologists, at baseline and every 2 months thereafter by predefined criteria. Randomisation was done centrally with the minimisation technique via a masked web-based allocation procedure. Patients with right-sided primary tumour site or RAS or BRAF V600E mutated tumours were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (group A) or FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab (group B). Patients with left-sided and RAS and BRAF V600E wild-type tumours were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (group C) or FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus panitumumab (group D), every 14 days for up to 12 cycles. Patients were stratified by resectability of colorectal cancer liver metastases, serum lactate dehydrogenase concentration, choice of irinotecan versus oxaliplatin, and BRAF V600E mutation status (for groups A and B). Bevacizumab was administered intravenously at 5 mg/kg. Panitumumab was administered intravenously at 6 mg/kg. FOLFIRI consisted of intravenous infusion of irinotecan at 180 mg/m 2 with folinic acid at 400 mg/m 2 , followed by bolus fluorouracil at 400 mg/m 2 intravenously, followed by continuous infusion of fluorouracil at 2400 mg/m 2 . FOLFOX consisted of oxaliplatin at 85 mg/m 2 intravenously together with the same schedule of folinic acid and fluorouracil as in FOLFIRI. FOLFOXIRI consisted of irinotecan at 165 mg/m 2 intravenously, followed by intravenous infusion of oxaliplatin at 85 mg/m 2 with folinic acid at 400 mg/m 2 , followed by continuous infusion of fluorouracil at 3200 mg/m 2 . Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was progression-free survival, analysed on a modified intention-to-treat basis, excluding patients who withdrew consent before starting study treatment or violated major entry criteria (no metastatic colorectal cancer, or previous liver surgery for colorectal cancer liver metastases). The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02162563, and accrual is complete., Findings: Between Nov 13, 2014, and Jan 31, 2022, 530 patients (327 [62%] male and 203 [38%] female; median age 62 years [IQR 54-69]) were randomly assigned: 148 (28%) patients to group A, 146 (28%) patients to group B, 118 (22%) patients to group C, and 118 (22%) patients to group D. Groups C and D were prematurely closed for futility. 521 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat population (147 in group A, 144 in group B, 114 in group C, and 116 in group D). The median follow-up at the time of this analysis was 51·1 months (95% CI 47·7-53·1) in groups A and B and 49·9 months (44·5-52·5) in in groups C and D. Median progression-free survival was 9·0 months (95% CI 7·7-10·5) in group A versus 10·6 months (9·9-12·1) in group B (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·76 [95% CI 0·60-0·98]; p=0·032), and 10·8 months (95% CI 9·9-12·6) in group C versus 10·4 months (9·8-13·0) in group D (stratified HR 1·11 [95% CI 0·84-1·48]; p=0·46). The most frequent grade 3-4 events in groups A and B were neutropenia (19 [13%] patients in group A vs 57 [40%] in group B; p<0·0001), hypertension (21 [14%] vs 20 [14%]; p=1·00), and diarrhoea (five [3%] vs 28 [19%]; p<0·0001), and in groups C and D were neutropenia (29 [25%] vs 24 [21%]; p=0·44), skin toxicity (one [1%] vs 29 [25%]; p<0·0001), hypertension (20 [18%] vs eight [7%]; p=0·016), and diarrhoea (five [4%] vs 18 [16%]; p=0·0072). Serious adverse events occurred in 46 (31%) patients in group A, 75 (52%) patients in group B, 41 (36%) patients in group C, and 49 (42%) patients in group D. Seven treatment-related deaths were reported in group B (two due to multiorgan failure, and one each due to sepsis, pneumonia, portal vein thrombosis, septic shock and liver failure, and sudden death), one in group C (multiorgan failure), and three in group D (cardiac arrest, pulmonary embolism, and abdominal sepsis)., Interpretation: In patients with initially unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases, FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab was the preferred treatment in patients with a right-sided or RAS or BRAF V600E mutated primary tumour. In patients with a left-sided and RAS and BRAF V600E wild-type tumour, the addition of panitumumab to FOLFOX or FOLFIRI showed no clinical benefit over bevacizumab, but was associated with more toxicity., Funding: Roche and Amgen., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests CJAP reports fees for an advisory role for Nordic Pharma, paid to their institution. KB reports fees for an advisory role for Amgen, paid to their institution. JWBdG reports personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Endoxifen is the most important active metabolite of tamoxifen. Several retrospective studies have suggested a minimal or threshold endoxifen systemic concentration of 14-16 nM is required for a lower recurrence rate. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of reaching a predefined endoxifen level of ≥ 16 nM (5.97 ng/mL) over time using therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)., Methods: This prospective open-label intervention study enrolled patients who started treatment with a standard dose of tamoxifen 20 mg once daily for early breast cancer. An outpatient visit was combined with a TDM sample at 3, 4.5, and 6 months after initiation of the tamoxifen treatment. The tamoxifen dose was escalated to a maximum of 40 mg if patients had an endoxifen concentration < 16 nM. The primary endpoint of the study was the percentage of patients with an endoxifen level ≥ 16 nM at 6 months after the start of therapy compared with historical data, in other words, 80% of patients with endoxifen levels ≥ 16 nM with standard therapy., Results: In total, 145 patients were included. After 6 months, 89% of the patients had endoxifen levels ≥ 16 nM, compared with a literature-based 80% of patients with endoxifen levels ≥ 16 nM at baseline (95% confidence interval 82-94; P = 0.007). In patients with an affected CYP2D6 allele, it was not always feasible to reach the predefined endoxifen level of ≥ 16 nM. No increase in tamoxifen-related adverse events was reported after dose escalation., Conclusion: This study demonstrated that it is feasible to increase the percentage of patients with endoxifen levels ≥ 16 nM using TDM. TDM is a safe strategy that offers the possibility of nearly halving the number of patients with endoxifen levels < 16 nM., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy conferred a modest progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). However, no overall survival (OS) benefit has been reported. Also, its combination with carboplatin-cyclophosphamide (CC) has never been investigated., Methods: The Triple-B study is a multicenter, randomized phase IIb trial that aims to prospectively validate predictive biomarkers, including baseline plasma vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 (pVEGFR-2), for bevacizumab benefit. mTNBC patients were randomized between CC and paclitaxel (P) without or with bevacizumab (CC ± B or P ± B). Here we report on a preplanned safety and preliminary efficacy analysis after the first 12 patients had been treated with CC+B and on the predictive value of pVEGFR-2., Results: In 58 patients, the median follow-up was 22.1 months. Toxicity was manageable and consistent with what was known for each agent separately. There was a trend toward a prolonged PFS with bevacizumab compared to chemotherapy only (7.0 vs. 5.2 months; adjusted HR = 0.60; 95% CI 0.33-1.08; p = 0.09), but there was no effect on OS. In this small study, pVEGFR-2 concentration did not predict a bevacizumab PFS benefit. Both the intention-to-treat analysis and the per-protocol analysis did not yield a significant treatment-by-biomarker test for interaction ( p interaction = 0.69)., Conclusions: CC and CC+B are safe first-line regimens for mTNBC and the side effects are consistent with those known for each individual agent. pVEGFR-2 concentration did not predict a bevacizumab PFS benefit., Competing Interests: S.C.L. is an advisory board member for Cergentis, IBM, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi and received institutional research support funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Roche, Sanofi, and TESARO. H.M.O. is an advisory board member for Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis and received institutional research support funding from Roche. M.K. is an advisory board member for BMS and received institutional research support funding from Roche and BMS. All of the other authors declare no potential conflict of interests., (Copyright © 2021 by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Purpose: Antidepressants like the serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs) are often used concomitantly with tamoxifen (e.g. for treatment of depression). This may lead to an additional prolongation of the QTc-interval, with an increased risk of cardiac side effects. Therefore we investigated whether there is a drug-drug interaction between tamoxifen and SRIs resulting in a prolonged QTc-interval., Methods: Electrocardiograms (ECGs) of 100 patients were collected at steady state tamoxifen treatment, with or without concomitant SRI co-medication. QTc-interval was manually measured and calculated using the Fridericia formula. Primary outcome was difference in QTc-interval between tamoxifen monotherapy and tamoxifen concomitantly with an SRI., Results: The mean QTc-interval was 12.4 ms longer when tamoxifen was given concomitantly with an SRI (95% CI:1.8-23.1 ms; P = 0.023). Prolongation of the QTc-interval was particularly pronounced for paroxetine (17.2 ms; 95%CI:1.4-33.0 ms; P = 0.04), escitalopram (12.5 ms; 95%CI:4.4-20.6 ms; P < 0.01) and citalopram (20.7 ms; 95%CI:0.7-40.7 ms; P = 0.047), where other agents like venlafaxine did not seem to prolong the QTc-interval. None of the patients had a QTc-interval of >500 ms., Conclusions: Concomitant use of tamoxifen and SRIs resulted in a significantly higher mean QTc-interval, which was especially the case for paroxetine, escitalopram and citalopram. When concomitant administration with an SRI is warranted venlafaxine is preferred.

Aims: Docetaxel has been approved for the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer in combination with prednisone. Since prednisone is known to induce the cytochrome P450 iso-enzyme CYP3A4, which is the main metabolizing enzyme of docetaxel in the liver, a potential drug-drug interaction may occur. In this prospective randomized pharmacokinetic cross-over study we investigated docetaxel exposure with concomitant prednisone, compared to docetaxel monotherapy in men with metastatic prostate cancer., Methods: Patients scheduled to receive at least 6 cycles of docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 ) and who gave written informed consent were randomized to receive either the 1 st 3 cycles, or the last 3 consecutive cycles with prednisone (twice daily 5 mg). Pharmacokinetic blood sampling was performed during cycle 3 and cycle 6. Primary endpoint was difference in docetaxel exposure, calculated as area under the curve (AUC 0-inf ) and analysed by means of a linear mixed model. Given the cross-over design the study was powered on 18 patients to answer the primary, pharmacokinetic, endpoint., Results: Eighteen evaluable patients were included in the trial. Docetaxel concentration with concomitant prednisone (AUC 0-inf 2784 ng*h/mL, 95% confidence interval 2436-3183 ng*h/mL) was similar to the concentration of docetaxel monotherapy (AUC 0-inf 2647 ng*h/mL, 95% confidence interval 2377-2949 ng*h/mL). Exploratory analysis showed no toxicity differences between docetaxel monotherapy and docetaxel cycles with prednisone., Conclusion: No significant difference in docetaxel concentrations was observed. In addition, we found similar toxicity profiles in absence and presence of prednisone. Therefore, from a pharmacokinetic point of view, docetaxel may be administrated with or without prednisone., (© 2019 The British Pharmacological Society.)

Tamoxifen is a prodrug that is primarily metabolized into the pharmacologically active metabolite endoxifen and eventually into inactive metabolites. The herb curcumin may increase endoxifen exposure by affecting phase II metabolism. We compared endoxifen and tamoxifen exposure in breast cancer patients with or without curcumin, and with addition of the bio-enhancer piperine. Tamoxifen (20⁻30mg per day (q.d.)) was either given alone, or combined with curcumin (1200 mg three times daily (t.i.d.)) +/- piperine (10 mg t.i.d.). The primary endpoint of this study was the difference in geometric means for the area under the curve (AUC) of endoxifen. Genotyping was performed to determine CYP2D6 and CYP3A4 phenotypes. The endoxifen AUC 0⁻24h decreased with 7.7% (95%CI: -15.4 to 0.7%; p = 0.07) with curcumin and 12.4% (95%CI: -21.9 to -1.9%; p = 0.02) with curcumin and piperine, compared to tamoxifen alone. Tamoxifen AUC 0⁻24h showed similar results. For patients with an extensive CYP2D6 metabolism phenotype (EM), effects were more pronounced than for intermediate CYP2D6 metabolizers (IMs). In conclusion, the exposure to tamoxifen and endoxifen was significantly decreased by concomitant use of curcumin (+/- piperine). Therefore, co-treatment with curcumin could lower endoxifen concentrations below the threshold for efficacy (potentially 20⁻40% of the patients), especially in EM patients.

Background: Treatment selection for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) has become increasingly challenging with the introduction of novel therapies at earlier disease stages. The purpose of this study was to identify prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) and PSA response in patients with mCRPC treated with cabazitaxel., Results: 224 mCRPC patients were included in the current analysis. In multivariable analysis, WHO performance status, baseline hemoglobin, alkaline phosphatase and albumin were all significantly associated with OS. Hemoglobin and alkaline phosphatase were significantly associated with PSA response., Conclusions: This study identified prognostic factors for OS and PSA response of men with mCRPC treated with cabazitaxel. In an increasingly complicated treatment landscape with several treatment options available our findings might serve to estimate the chance of survival of men qualifying for treatment with second-line chemotherapy in daily practice. Furthermore, these data can be used to risk-stratify patients in clinical trials., Methods: We performed a post-hoc analysis of a randomized phase II trial of mCRPC patients treated with cabazitaxel. Cox and logistic regression models were used to investigate the influence of clinical and biochemical variables on OS and PSA response. Nomograms were developed to estimate the chance of PSA response and OS., Competing Interests: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST R.H.J. Mathijssen has received research funding from Sanofi R. de Wit has received advisory and speakers fees from Sanofi. A. Bergman has received a study grant and speakers fee from Sanofi Genzyme. R.J. van Soest has received honoraria from Sanofi and Janssen B.P.S. Belderbos, E. Oomen-De Hoop, A. Nieuweboer, P. Hamberg, N. van der Meer and S.Bins have no conflict of interests.

Background: Hand-foot syndrome (HFS) is a common side-effect of capecitabine. S-1 is an oral fluoropyrimidine with comparable efficacy to capecitabine in gastrointestinal cancers but associated with a lower incidence of HFS in Asian patients. This study compares the incidence of HFS between S-1 and capecitabine as first-line treatment in Western metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients., Patients and Methods: Patients with previously untreated mCRC and planned treatment with fluoropyrimidine monochemotherapy were randomized 1 : 1 to receive either capecitabine (1250 mg/m2 orally for patients <70 years; 1000 mg/m2 for patients ≥70 years, twice daily on days 1-14) or S-1 (30 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days 1-14) in 3-weekly cycles, with bevacizumab optional in both groups. The primary endpoint was the incidence of any grade HFS, as assessed by both physicians and patients (diaries). Secondary endpoints included grade 3 HFS, other toxicities, relative dose intensity, progression-free survival, response rate and overall survival., Results: A total of 161 patients were randomized in 27 centres. The incidence of any grade HFS as assessed by physicians was 73% in the capecitabine group (n = 80) and 45% in the S-1 group (n = 80) [odds ratio (95% confidence interval) 0.31 (0.16-0.60), P = 0.0005]. The incidence of grade 3 HFS was 21% and 4% (P = 0.003), respectively. Patient-assessed any grade HFS was 84% and 58%, respectively (P = 0.004). Grade 3 anorexia was more common in the S-1 group (3% versus 13%, P = 0.03). Median relative dose intensity was 88% in the capecitabine group and 95% in the S-1 group (P = 0.026). There were no statistically significant differences in median progression-free survival, response rate and overall survival rates., Conclusion: Treatment with S-1 in Western mCRC patients is associated with a significantly lower incidence of HFS compared with capecitabine, with comparable efficacy., Clinicaltrials.gov Registration Number: NCT01918852., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Purpose: Forty-seven percent of patients in the pivotal trial of cabazitaxel reported diarrhea of any grade. Aiming to reduce the incidence of diarrhea, we studied the effects of budesonide on the grade of cabazitaxel-induced diarrhea during the first two treatment cycles. Experimental Design: Between December 2011 and October 2015, 246 metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients were randomized to receive standard-of-care cabazitaxel 25 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks plus prednisone 10 mg/day (group CABA) or same dose/schedule of cabazitaxel with concomitant budesonide 9 mg daily during the first two treatment cycles (group BUD). The occurrence of diarrhea was reported by physicians and by patients in a diary. χ 2 tests were used to compare incidence numbers. An intention-to-treat principle was used. Results: In the phase II trial, 227 patients were evaluable. Grade 2-3 diarrhea occurred in 35 patients (15%) and grade 4 diarrhea was not reported. The incidence of grade 2-3 diarrhea was comparable in both treatment groups: 14 of 113 patients in group CABA (12%) versus 21 of 114 patients in group BUD (18%; P = 0.21). Seven patients were admitted to the hospital with diarrhea ( n = 5 group CABA vs. n = 2 group BUD). PSA response was seen in 30% of patients and was not affected by budesonide coadministration ( P = 0.29). Also, other toxicities were not affected by budesonide coadministration. Conclusions: The incidence of cabazitaxel-induced diarrhea was notably lower than reported in the TROPIC trial and appears manageable in routine clinical practice. Budesonide coadministration did not reduce the incidence or severity of cabazitaxel-induced diarrhea. Clin Cancer Res; 23(7); 1679-83. ©2016 AACR ., (©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background and Objective: The anti-oestrogen tamoxifen requires metabolic activation to endoxifen by cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes, predominantly CYP2D6. Potent CYP2D6-inhibiting antidepressants can seriously disrupt tamoxifen metabolism, probably influencing the efficacy of tamoxifen. For this reason, paroxetine and fluoxetine are recommended not to be used with tamoxifen in breast cancer patients. We investigated the effects of switching potent CYP2D6-inhibiting antidepressants to weak CYP2D6-inhibiting antidepressants on the plasma pharmacokinetics of tamoxifen., Methods: Ten breast cancer patients who were treated with tamoxifen in combination with a potent CYP2D6-inhibiting antidepressant (paroxetine or fluoxetine) for at least 4 weeks were enrolled. Under close supervision by a psychiatrist, patients were switched to treatment with escitalopram or venlafaxine (weak CYP2D6-inhibiting antidepressants). Before and after the switch, pharmacokinetic blood sampling was performed over 24 h. Pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated using noncompartmental analysis. Adverse effects were recorded during the study., Results: Endoxifen exposure was ~3-fold higher during escitalopram co-administration than during paroxetine or fluoxetine co-administration (median 387 nM·h [range 159-637 nM·h] versus 99.2 nM·h [range 70.0-210 nM·h]; P = 0.012; Wilcoxon signed-rank test). The ratio of endoxifen to N-desmethyltamoxifen and the ratio of 4-hydroxytamoxifen to tamoxifen increased by 3.3- and ~1.5-fold, reflecting increased CYP2D6 activity. Antidepressant switching did not result in psychiatric problems or antidepressant-related adverse effects., Conclusion: In this study, switching to the weak CYP2D6 inhibitor escitalopram was safe and feasible and resulted in clinically relevant rises in endoxifen concentrations. We therefore advise switching paroxetine and fluoxetine to escitalopram in patients using tamoxifen. However, switching should always be weighed in individual patients.

The anti-estrogen tamoxifen is characterized by a large variability in response, partly due to pharmacokinetic differences. We examined circadian variation in tamoxifen pharmacokinetics in mice and breast cancer patients. Pharmacokinetic analysis was performed in mice, dosed at six different times (24-h period). Tissue samples were used for mRNA expression analysis of drug-metabolizing enzymes. In patients, a cross-over study was performed. During three 24-h periods, after tamoxifen dosing at 8 a.m., 1 p.m., and 8 p.m., for at least 4 weeks, blood samples were collected for pharmacokinetic measurements. Differences in tamoxifen pharmacokinetics between administration times were assessed. The mRNA expression of drug-metabolizing enzymes showed circadian variation in mouse tissues. Tamoxifen exposure seemed to be highest after administration at midnight. In humans, marginal differences were observed in pharmacokinetic parameters between morning and evening administration. Tamoxifen C(max )and area under the curve (AUC)0-8 h were 20 % higher (P < 0.001), and tamoxifen t(max) was shorter (2.1 vs. 8.1 h; P = 0.001), indicating variation in absorption. Systemic exposure (AUC0-24 h) to endoxifen was 15 % higher (P < 0.001) following morning administration. The results suggest that dosing time is of marginal influence on tamoxifen pharmacokinetics. Our study was not designed to detect potential changes in clinical outcome or toxicity, based on a difference in the time of administration. Circadian rhythm may be one of the many determinants of the interpatient and intrapatient pharmacokinetic variability of tamoxifen.

Purpose: Tamoxifen, a widely used agent for the prevention and treatment of breast cancer, is mainly metabolized by CYP2D6 and CYP3A to form its most abundant active metabolite, endoxifen. Interpatient variability in toxicity and efficacy of tamoxifen is substantial. Contradictory results on the value of CYP2D6 genotyping to reduce the variable efficacy have been reported. In this pharmacokinetic study, we investigated the value of dextromethorphan, a known probe drug for both CYP2D6 and CYP3A enzymatic activity, as a potential phenotyping probe for tamoxifen pharmacokinetics., Methods: In this prospective study, 40 women using tamoxifen for invasive breast cancer received a single dose of dextromethorphan 2 hours after tamoxifen intake. Dextromethorphan, tamoxifen, and their respective metabolites were quantified. Exposure parameters of all compounds were estimated, log transformed, and subsequently correlated., Results: A strong and highly significant correlation (r = -0.72; P < .001) was found between the exposures of dextromethorphan (0 to 6 hours) and endoxifen (0 to 24 hours). Also, the area under the plasma concentration-time curve of dextromethorphan (0 to 6 hours) and daily trough endoxifen concentration was strongly correlated (r = -0.70; P < .001). In a single patient using the potent CYP2D6 inhibitor paroxetine, the low endoxifen concentration was accurately predicted by dextromethorphan exposure., Conclusion: Dextromethorphan exposure after a single administration adequately predicted endoxifen exposure in individual patients with breast cancer taking tamoxifen. This test could contribute to the personalization and optimization of tamoxifen treatment, but it needs additional validation and simplification before being applicable in future dosing strategies.

The spliceosome is a ribonucleoprotein complex involved in RNA splicing, that is, the removal of non-coding introns from precursor messenger RNA. (Alternative) Splicing events may play an essential role in tumourigenesis. The recent discovery that the spliceosome is a target for novel compounds with anticancer activity opens up new therapeutic avenues.

CPT-11 belongs to the class of topoisomerase I inhibitors, and it acts as a prodrug of SN-38, which is approximately 100-1000-fold more cytotoxic than the parent drug. CPT-11 has shown a broad spectrum of antitumor activity in preclinical models as well as clinically, with responses observed in various disease types including colorectal, lung, cervical, and ovarian cancer. The pharmacokinetics and metabolism of CPT-11 are extremely complex and have been the subject of intensive investigation in recent years. Both CPT-11 and SN-38 are known in an active lactone form and an inactive carboxylate form, between which an equilibrium exists that depends on the pH and the presence of binding proteins. CPT-11 is subject to extensive metabolic conversion by various enzyme systems, including esterases to form SN-38, UGT1A1 mediating glucuronidation of SN-38, as well as CYP3A4, which forms several pharmacologically inactive oxidation products. Elimination routes of CPT-11 also depend on the presence of drug-transporting proteins, notably P-glycoprotein and canalicular multispecific organic anion transporter, present on the bile canalicular membrane. The various processes mediating drug elimination, either through metabolic breakdown or excretion, likely impact substantially on interindividual variability in drug handling. Strategies to individualize CPT-11 administration schedules based on patient differences in enzyme or protein expression or by coadministration of specific agents modulating side effects are under way and may ultimately lead to more selective chemotherapeutic use of this agent.

Purpose: To investigate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of irinotecan and cisplatin administered once every 3 weeks in a dose-escalating study in patients with solid tumors., Patients and Methods: Fifty-two cancer patients were treated with irinotecan administered as a 90-minute infusion at doses ranging from 175 to 300 mg/m(2) followed by cisplatin administered as a 3-hour intravenous infusion at doses ranging from 60 to 80 mg/m(2). After reaching the maximum-tolerated dose, the sequence of drug administration was revised. For pharmacokinetic analysis, serial plasma samples were obtained on days 1 through 3 of the first cycle. Forty-five patients were assessable for irinotecan pharmacokinetics, and 46 were assessable for cisplatin pharmacokinetics., Results: Irinotecan and cisplatin demonstrated linear pharmacokinetics comparable to that observed with single-agent administration, which suggests an absence of pharmacokinetic interaction. SN-38G constituted the major plasma metabolite of irinotecan, whereas 7-ethyl-10-[4-N-(1-piperidino)1-amino]-carbonyloxycamptothecine (NPC) was only a minor metabolite in plasma, possibly indicating a rapid conversion of NPC to SN-38. The terminal elimination phases of SN-38 and SN-38G were similar and relatively delayed when compared with the elimination of irinotecan. Maximal DNA adduct formation did not significantly differ from that observed with single-agent administration. The percentage decrease in WBC was significantly related to the areas under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUCs) of the lactone form of irinotecan (P =.0245) and SN-38 (P =. 0123). The severity of diarrhea was not significantly related to the AUCs of irinotecan and SN-38, nor to the systemic glucuronidation rate of SN-38., Conclusion: There was no apparent pharmacokinetic interaction between irinotecan and cisplatin in this study. Reversion of the administration sequence of the drugs did not seem to have any influence on the pharmacokinetics. The incidence and severity of delayed-type diarrhea was not related to any of the studied parameters.

The clinical pharmacokinetics of the antineoplastic agent irinotecan (CPT-11) are associated with substantial interpatient variability. The degree to which this variability in CPT-11 exposure impacts upon the response and toxicity of the drug has not yet been properly determined. In general, the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) is an appropriate indicator of exposure, but requires collection of up to 17 timed blood samples. This presents difficulties if large-scale population samplings are required. The present study involved the development and validation of a strategy to estimate the AUCs of the lactone and total (i.e. lactone plus carboxylate) forms of CPT-11 and its active metabolite SN-38 from a limited number of blood samples in patients co-treated with cisplatin. Using data from 24 patients, univariate and multivariate regression analyses were employed to generate the models. The best predictive models for simultaneous estimation of CPT-11 and SN-38 AUCs were obtained with three time points at 0.5, 1.67 and 5.50 h after start of the 90 min i.v. infusion of CPT-11. The models were tested separately in another group of 24 patients receiving the same combination treatment. This validation set demonstrated that CPT-11 and SN-38 AUCs after standard dose administration could be predicted sufficiently unbiased and precisely with three timed samples to warrant clinical application.

The objective of this study was to determine the metabolic fate and disposition of the antitumor camptothecine derivative irinotecan (CPT-11). Ten patients with histological proof of malignant solid tumor received 200 mg/m2 CPT-11 as a 90-min i.v. infusion, followed by a 1.5-h i.v. infusion of cisplatin (60 or 80 mg/m2). Plasma, urine, and feces were collected for 56 h and analyzed by a specific reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatographic assay for the parent drug and all four metabolites positively identified to date: SN-38; its beta-glucuronide conjugate, SN-38 beta-glucoronide (SN-38G); 7-ethyl-10-[4-N-(5-aminopentanoic acid)-1-piperidino]-carbonyloxycamptothecine (APC); and 7-ethyl-10-[4-N-(1-piperidino)-1-amino]-carbonyloxycamptothecine (NPC). A three-exponential decline was observed in plasma for all compounds, with a clear predominance of the parent drug [25.6+/-5.71 microM x h (CPT-11) versus 15.8+/-3.51 microM x h (total metabolites)]. Total urinary excretion was 28.1+/-10.6% of the dose, with unchanged CPT-11 and SN-38G as the main excretion products. Whereas renal clearance of SN-38 was only a minor route of drug elimination, fecal concentrations of this compound were unexpectedly high (on average, 2.45% of the dose), suggestive of intestinal hydrolysis of SN-38G by bacterial beta-glucuronidase. CPT-11 and the other metabolites could also be identified from fecal extracts, with a very minor contribution overall of the cytochrome P-450-mediated compounds 7-ethyl-10-[4-N-(1-piperidino)-1-amino]-carbonyloxycamptothecine and 7-ethyl-10-[4-N-(5-aminopentanoic acid)-1-piperidino]-carbonyloxycamptothecine. Surprisingly, fecal excretion accounted for only 24.4+/-13.3% of the dose, leading to a total excretion of approximately 52%. These data indicate that half of the dose in urine and feces may constitute some further unknown nonextractable or nonfluorescent metabolites. The findings from this study should be of importance as a guide to further therapeutic evaluation of this drug.