The tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib is used as first‐line therapy in patients with metastasized renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), given in fixed‐dose regimens despite its high variability in pharmacokinetics (PKs). Interindividual variability of drug exposure may be responsible for differences in response. Therefore, dosing strategies based on pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) models may be useful to optimize treatment. Plasma concentrations of sunitinib, its active metabolite SU12662, and the soluble vascular endothelial growth factor receptors sVEGFR‐2 and sVEGFR‐3, were measured in 26 patients with mRCC within the EuroTARGET project and 21 patients with metastasized colorectal cancer (mCRC) from the C‐II‐005 study. Based on these observations, PK/PD models with potential influence of genetic predictors were developed and linked to time‐to‐event (TTE) models. Baseline sVEGFR‐2 levels were associated with clinical outcome in patients with mRCC, whereas active drug PKs seemed to be more predictive in patients with mCRC. The models provide the basis of PK/PD‐guided strategies for the individualization of anti‐angiogenic therapies.
Background
Treatment of patients with solid tumors and KRAS mutations remains disappointing. One option is the combined inhibition of pathways involved in RAF‐MEK‐ERK and PI3K‐AKT‐mTOR.
Methods
Patients with relapsed solid tumors were treated with escalating doses of everolimus (E) 2.5‐10.0 mg/d in a 14‐day run‐in phase followed by combination therapy with sorafenib (S) 800 mg/d from day 15. KRAS mutational status was assessed retrospectively in the escalation phase. Extension phase included KRAS‐mutated non–small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC) only. Pharmacokinetic analyses were accompanied by pharmacodynamics assessment of E by FDG‐PET. Efficacy was assessed by CT scans every 6 weeks of combination.
Results
Of 31 evaluable patients, 15 had KRAS mutation, 4 patients were negative for KRAS mutation, and the KRAS status remained unknown in 12 patients. Dose‐limiting toxicity (DLT) was not reached. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was defined as 7.5 mg/d E + 800 mg/d S due to toxicities at previous dose level (10 mg/d E + 800 mg/d S) including leucopenia/thrombopenia III° and pneumonia III° occurring after the DLT interval. The metabolic response rate in FDG‐PET was 17% on day 5 and 20% on day 14. No patient reached partial response in CT scan. Median progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.25 and 5.85 months, respectively.
Conclusions
Treatment of patients with relapsed solid tumors with 7.5 mg/d E and 800 mg/d S is safe and feasible. Early metabolic response in FDG‐PET was not confirmed in CT scan several weeks later. The combination of S and E is obviously not sufficient to induce durable responses in patients with KRAS‐mutant solid tumors.
Background: A drug must reach the central nervous system (CNS) in order to directly cause CNS adverse effects (AEs). Our current study addressed the pharmacokinetic (PK) background of the assumption that CNS concentrations of hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) and ramiprilate may directly cause CNS AEs such as headache and drowsiness. Methods: In neurological patients, paired serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples were withdrawn simultaneously. Some of them were treated with HCT (n = 15, daily chronic doses 7.5–25 mg) or ramipril (n = 9, 2.5–10 mg). Total concentrations of HCT and ramiprilate were quantified in these samples. To this end, sensitive liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry methods were developed. Results: CSF reached 4.1% (interquartile ranges 2.5–5%) of total serum concentrations for HCT and 2.3% (1.7–5.7%) for ramiprilate, corresponding to about 11.3% and 5.5% of respective unbound serum concentrations. Conclusion: The PK/Pharmacodynamic characteristics of HCT and ramiprilate in the CNS are unknown. However, since the CSF levels of these agents, both free and bound, were much lower than the corresponding concentrations in serum, it is unlikely that the observed CNS AEs are mediated primarily via direct effects in the brain.
Background: Bisoprolol and metoprolol are moderately lipophilic, beta(1)-selective betablockers reported to cause adverse effects in the central nervous system (CNS), such as sleep disturbance, suggesting that both drugs may reach relevant concentrations in the brain. CNS beta(2)-receptor blockade has been suspected to be related to such effects. The higher molecular size of bisoprolol (325 Dalton) and the higher beta(1)-selectivity compared to metoprolol (267 Dalton) would suggest a lower rate of CNS effects. Methods: To address the pharmacokinetic background of this assumption, we quantified to which extent these beta(1)-blockers are able to enter the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in 9 (bisoprolol group) and 10 (metoprolol group) neurological patients who had received one of the drugs orally for therapeutic purposes prior to lumbar puncture. We quantified their total concentrations by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry in paired serum and CSF samples. Results: Median (interquartile range) in CSF reached 55% (47-64%) of total serum concentrations for bisoprolol and 43% (27-81%) for metoprolol, corresponding to 78% (67-92%) and 48% (30-91%) of respective unbound serum concentrations. Conclusion: The extent of penetration of bisoprolol and metoprolol into the CSF is similar and compatible with the assumption that both drugs may exert direct effects in the CNS.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.