Search

Precision medicine in oncology is the result of an increasing awareness of patient-specific clinical features coupled with the development of genomic-based diagnostics and targeted therapeutics. Companion diagnostics designed for specific drug-target pairs were the first to widely utilize clinically applicable tumor biomarkers (eg, HER2, EGFR), directing treatment for patients whose tumors exhibit a mutation susceptible to an FDA-approved targeted therapy (eg, trastuzumab, erlotinib). Clinically relevant germline mutations in drug-metabolizing enzymes and transporters (eg, TPMT, DPYD) have been shown to impact drug response, providing a rationale for individualized dosing to optimize treatment. The use of multigene expression-based assays to analyze an array of prognostic biomarkers has been shown to help direct treatment decisions, especially in breast cancer (eg, Oncotype DX). More recently, the use of next-generation sequencing to detect many potential "actionable" cancer molecular alterations is further shifting the 1 gene-1 drug paradigm toward a more comprehensive, multigene approach. Currently, many clinical trials (eg, NCI-MATCH, NCI-MPACT) are assessing novel diagnostic tools with a combination of different targeted therapeutics while also examining tumor biomarkers that were previously unexplored in a variety of cancer histologies. Results from ongoing trials such as the NCI-MATCH will help determine the clinical utility and future development of the precision-medicine approach., (© 2016, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Atezolizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody against programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD‐L1), was initially approved in 2016, around the same time that the sponsor published the minimum serum concentration to maintain the saturation of receptor occupancy (6 μg/mL). The initially approved dose regimen of 1200 mg every 3 weeks (q3w) was subsequently modified to 840 mg q2w or 1680 mg q4w through pharmacokinetic simulations. Yet, each standard regimen yields steady‐state trough concentrations (CMIN,SS) far exceeding (≈ 40‐fold) the stated target concentration. Additionally, the steady‐state area under the plasma drug concentration–time curve (AUCSS) at 1200 mg q3w was significantly (P =.027) correlated with the probability of adverse events of special interest (AESIs) in patients with non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and, coupled with excess exposure, this provides incentive to explore alternative dose regimens to lower the exposure burden while maintaining an effective CMIN,SS. In this study, we first identified 840 mg q6w as an extended‐interval regimen that could robustly maintain a serum concentration of 6 μg/mL (≥99% of virtual patients simulated, n = 1000), then applied this regimen to an approach that administers 2 "loading doses" of standard‐interval regimens for a future clinical trial aiming to personalize dose regimens. Each standard dose was simulated for 2 loading doses, then 840 mg q6w thereafter; all yielded cycle‐7 CMIN,SS values of >6 μg/mL in >99% of virtual patients. Further, the AUCSS from 840 mg q6w resulted in a flattening (P =.63) of the exposure–response relationship with adverse events of special interest (AESIs). We next aim to verify this in a clinical trial seeking to validate extended‐interval dosing in a personalized approach using therapeutic drug monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lessons Learned: Limited evidence suggests an acceptable pharmacokinetic profile when enzalutamide is administered via a liquid formulation extracted from the commercially available liquid‐filled soft‐gelatin capsules.Tolerability may limit use in clinical practice. Background: Enzalutamide is an established standard‐of‐care treatment for advanced prostate cancer with a commercially available formulation that may be inconvenient for some patients. We proposed a study to evaluate the bioequivalence of a liquid formulation to provide an alternative method of administration. Methods: This was a single‐dose, randomized, open‐label, two‐way crossover pilot bioequivalence study to compare two oral formulations of enzalutamide: four enzalutamide 40 mg liquid‐filled soft‐gelatin capsules (commercially available) administered whole versus enzalutamide 160 mg liquid (extracted from capsules) administered via oral syringe. To assess bioequivalence, patients were randomized to receive a single dose of one formulation, then cross over to receive the alternative formulation following a 42‐day washout period; serial plasma samples were collected over the course of 24 hours, followed by collections at 3, 8, and 42 days after the dose for both formulations. Bioequivalence of the formulations was assessed via comparisons of area under the plasma concentration–time curve (AUC) calculations per U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance. The study also assessed the safety and tolerability of the formulations. Results: The study failed to meet proposed accrual, with only one patient enrolled, thus limiting the bioequivalence evaluation. Based on the data from a single patient, the drug exposure (measured by AUC) of enzalutamide and N‐desmethyl enzalutamide (primary active metabolite) for the liquid formulation was 112% and 117%, respectively, compared with the capsule formulation. Although both formulations appeared well tolerated with no adverse events reported, the tolerability assessment questionnaire revealed an unpleasant taste of the liquid formulation. Conclusion: Preliminary evidence suggests a similar pharmacokinetic profile when administering liquid extracted from enzalutamide soft‐gelatin capsules compared with intact capsules in patients with prostate cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]