Optimizing oncology therapeutics through quantitative translational and clinical pharmacology: Challenges and opportunities

Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics

Volumn 97, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 37-54

  Venkatakrishnan, K ^a   Friberg, L E ^b   Ouellet, D ^c   Mettet Al, J T ^d   Stein, A ^e   Troconiz I F ^f   Bruno, R ^g   Mehrotra, N ^h   Gobburu, J ⁱ   Mould, D R ^j  

^a TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED   (Japan)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United States)

^d ASTRAZENECA   (United Kingdom)

^e NOVARTIS INSTITUTES FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF NAVARRA   (Spain)

^g A Certara Company   (France)

^h CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH   (United States)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF PHARMACY   (United States)

^j Projections Research Inc   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

4 (8 CYCLOPENTYL 7 ETHYL 5,6,7,8 TETRAHYDRO 5 METHYL 6 OXO 2 PTERIDINYLAMINO) 3 METHOXY N (1 METHYL 4 PIPERIDINYL)BENZAMIDE; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; BIOLOGICAL MARKER; CABOZANTINIB; CAPECITABINE; EVEROLIMUS; LENVATINIB; PEMETREXED; PRALATREXATE; SUNITINIB; TREBANANIB;

ARTICLE; BONE MARROW SUPPRESSION; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER COMBINATION CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER THERAPY; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG EXPOSURE; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG SCREENING; FEBRILE NEUTROPENIA; GASTROINTESTINAL STROMAL TUMOR; HUMAN; KIDNEY CARCINOMA; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); NONHUMAN; ONCOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHARMACOLOGICAL SCIENCE; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PRIORITY JOURNAL; QT PROLONGATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; TRANSLATIONAL PHARMACOLOGY; TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH; TUMOR VOLUME; ANIMAL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRUG DESIGN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MOLECULARLY TARGETED THERAPY; NEOPLASMS; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ANIMALS; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; MOLECULAR TARGETED THERAPY; NEOPLASMS; PHARMACOLOGY, CLINICAL; TRANSLATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH;

EID: 84927172955     PISSN: 00099236     EISSN: 15326535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cpt.7     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. Kaitin, K.I. & DiMasi, J.A. Pharmaceutical innovation in the 21st century: new drug approvals in the first decade, 2000-2009. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 89, 183-188 (2011).
2. Hay, M. et al. Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 40-51 (2014).
3. Cartwright, M.E. et al. Proof of concept: a PhRMA position paper with recommendations for best practice. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 87, 278-285 (2010).
4. Lalonde, R.L. et al. Model-based drug development. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 82, 21-32 (2007).
5. Milligan, P.A. et al. Model-based drug development: a rational approach to efficiently accelerate drug development. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 93, 502-514 (2013).
6. Sharma, M.R., Maitland, M.L. & Ratain, M.J. Models of excellence: improving oncology drug development. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 92, 548-550 (2012).
7. FDA, Clinical Pharmacology and Biopharmaceutics Review(s) of Cabozantinib. 2012. 8. FDA, Clinical Pharmacology and Biopharmaceutics Review(s) of Omacetaxine. 2012.
8. FDA, Cabozantinib Approval Letter. 2012.
9. FDA, Omacetaxine Approval Letter. 2012.
10. Rubio-Viqueira, B. & Hidalgo, M. Direct in vivo xenograft tumor model for predicting chemotherapeutic drug response in cancer patients. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 85, 217-221 (2009).
11. Stroh, M. et al. Translation of anticancer efficacy from nonclinical models to the clinic. CPTPharmacometrics Syst. Pharmacol. 3, e128 (2014).
12. Rocchetti, M. et al. Predicting the active doses in humans from animal studies: a novel approach in oncology. Eur. J. Cancer 43,1862-1868 (2007).
13. Wong, H. et al. Antitumor activity of targeted and cytotoxic agents in murine subcutaneous tumor models correlates with clinical response. Clin. Cancer Res. 18, 3846-3855 (2012).
14. Simeoni, M. et al. Predictive pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of tumor growth kinetics in xenograft models after administration of anticancer agents. Cancer Res. 64,1094-1101 (2004).
15. Wong, H. et al. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis of vis-modegib in preclinical models of mutational and ligand-dependent Hedgehog pathway activation. Clin. Cancer Res. 17, 4682-4692 (2011).
16. Palani, S. et al. Preclinical pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic/effi-cacy relationships for alisertib, an investigational small-molecule inhibitor of Aurora A kinase. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 72, 1255-1264 (2013).
17. Tate, S.C. et al. Semimechanistic pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling of the antitumor activity of LY2835219, a new cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor, in mice bearing human tumor xenografts. Clin. Cancer Res. 20, 3763-3774 (2014).
18. Huck, J. et al. Translational exposure-efficacy modeling to optimize the dose and schedule of taxanes combined with the investigational Aurora A kinase inhibitor MLN8237 (alisertib). Mol. Cancer Ther. 13, 2170-2183 (2014).
19. Choo, E.F. et al. PK-PD modeling of combination efficacy effect from administration of the MEK inhibitor GDC-0973 and PI3K inhibitor GDC-0941 in A2058 xenografts. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 71, 133-143 (2013).
20. Zhang, X.Y., Birtwistle, M.R. & Gallo, J.M. A general network phar-macodynamic model-based design pipeline for customized cancer therapy applied to the VEGFR pathway. CPTPharmacometrics Syst. Pharmacol. 3, e92 (2014).
21. Hendriks, B.S. et al. Multiscale kinetic modeling of liposomal Doxorubicin delivery quantifies the role of tumor and drug-specific parameters in local delivery to tumors. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst. Pharmacol. 1, e15 (2012).
22. Shah, D.K., Haddish-Berhane, N. & Betts, A. Bench to bedside translation of antibody drug conjugates using a multiscale mechanistic PK/PD model: a case study with brentuximab-vedotin. J. Pharmacokinet. Pharmacodyn. 39, 643-659 (2012).
23. Baker, S.D. & Hu, S. Pharmacokinetic considerations for new targeted therapies. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 85, 208-211 (2009).
24. Chmielecki, J. et al. Optimization of dosing for EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer with evolutionary cancer modeling. Sci. Transl. Med. 3, 90ra59 (2011).
25. Foo, J. et al. Effects of pharmacokinetic processes and varied dosing schedules on the dynamics of acquired resistance to erlotinib in EGFR-mutant lung cancer. J. Thorac. Oncol. 7, 1583-1593 (2012).
26. Baker, S.D. et al. Role of body surface area in dosing of investigational anticancer agents in adults, 1991-2001. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 94, 1883-1888 (2002).
27. Bins, S., Ratain, M.J. & Mathijssen, R.H. Conventional dosing of anticancer agents: precisely wrong or just inaccurate? Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 95, 361-364 (2014).
28. Chatelut, E. & Puisset, F. The scientific basis of body surface area-based dosing. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 95, 359-361 (2014).
29. Budha, N.R. et al. Drug absorption interactions between oral targeted anticancer agents and PPIs: is pH-dependent solubility the Achilles heel of targeted therapy? Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 92, 203-213 (2012).
30. Sparreboom, A. & Verweij, J. Advances in cancer therapeutics. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 85, 113-117 (2009).
31. Lu, D. et al. Drug interaction potential of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) combined with pertuzumab in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Curr. Drug. Metab. 13, 911-922 (2012).
32. Venkatakrishnan, K., Pickard, M.D. & von Moltke, L.L. A quantitative framework and strategies for management and evaluation of metabolic drug-drug interactions in oncology drug development: new molecular entities as object drugs. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 49, 703-727 (2010).
33. Zhao, P. et al. Applications of physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling and simulation during regulatory review. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 89, 259-267 (2011).
34. Cheeti, S. et al. A physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) approach to evaluate pharmacokinetics in patients with cancer. Bio-pharm. Drug. Dispos. 34, 141-154 (2013).
35. FDA, Clinical Pharmacology and Biopharmaceutics Review of Ibruti- nib. 2013.
36. Yap, T.A. & Workman, P. Exploiting the cancer genome: strategies for the discovery and clinical development of targeted molecular therapeutics. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 52, 549-573 (2012).
37. Eisenhauer, E.A. et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur. J. Cancer 45, 228-247 (2009).
38. Giessen, C. et al. Progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for median overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer: literature-based analysis from 50 randomized first-line trials. Clin. Cancer Res. 19, 225-235 (2013).
39. Sidhu, R., Rong, A. & Dahlberg, S. Evaluation of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for survival in chemotherapy and targeted agent metastatic colorectal cancer trials. Clin. Cancer Res. 19, 969-976 (2013).
40. Burzykowski, T. et al. Evaluation of tumor response, disease control, progression-free survival and time to progression as potential surrogate end points in metastatic breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 1987-1992 (2008).
41. Sherrill, B. et al. Relationship between effects on time-to-disease progression and overall survival in studies of metastatic breast cancer. Br. J. Cancer 99, 1572-1578 (2008).
42. Broglio, K.R. & Berry, D.A. Detecting an overall survival benefit that is derived from progression-free survival. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 101, 1642-1649 (2009).
43. Houk, B.E. et al. Relationship between exposure to sunitinib and efficacy and tolerability endpoints in patients with cancer: results of a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic meta-analysis. Cancer Che-mother. Pharmacol. 66, 357-371 (2010).
44. Wang, J. et al. Exposure-response relationship of T-DM1: insight into dose optimization for patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 95, 558-564 (2014).
45. Yang, J. et al. The combination of exposure-response and case-control analyses in regulatory decision making. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 53, 160-166 (2013).
46. Lu, J.F. et al. Exposure-response relationship of AMG 386 in combination with weekly paclitaxel in recurrent ovarian cancer and its implication for dose selection. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 69, 1135-1144 (2012).
47. Bruno, R. & Claret, L. On the use of change in tumor size to predict survival in clinical oncology studies: toward a new paradigm to design and evaluate phase II studies. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 86, 136-138 (2009).
48. Karrison, T.G. et al. Design of phase II cancer trials using a continuous endpoint of change in tumor size: application to a study of sora-fenib and erlotinib in non small-cell lung cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 99, 1455-1461 (2007).
49. Bernard, A. et al. Mathematical modeling of tumor growth and tumor growth inhibition in oncology drug development. Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol. 8, 1057-1069 (2012).
50. Ribba, B. et al. A review of mixed-effects models of tumor growth and effects of anticancer drug treatment used in population analysis. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst. Pharmacol. 3, e113 (2014).
51. Ribba, B. et al. A tumor growth inhibition model for low-grade glioma treated with chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 18, 5071-5080 (2012).
52. Maitland, M.L. et al. Estimation of renal cell carcinoma treatment effects from disease progression modeling. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 93, 345-351 (2013).
53. Stein, W.D. et al. Tumor growth rates derived from data for patients in a clinical trial correlate strongly with patient survival: a novel strategy for evaluation of clinical trial data. Oncologist. 13, 1046-1054 (2008).
54. Stein, W.D. et al. Tumor regression and growth rates determined in five intramural NCI prostate cancer trials: the growth rate constant as an indicator of therapeutic efficacy. Clin. Cancer Res. 17, 907-917 (2011).
55. Wang, Y. et al. Elucidation of relationship between tumor size and survival in non-small-cell lung cancer patients can aid early decision making in clinical drug development. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 86, 167-174 (2009).
56. Kaiser, L.D. Tumor burden modeling vs. progression-free survival for phase II decision making. Clin. Cancer Res. 19, 314-319 (2013).
57. Sharma, M.R. et al. Resampling phase III data to assess phase II trial designs and endpoints. Clin. Cancer Res. 18, 2309-2315 (2012).
58. Stein, W.D. et al. Analyzing the pivotal trial that compared sunitinib and IFN-alpha in renal cell carcinoma, using a method that assesses tumor regression and growth. Clin. Cancer Res. 18, 2374-2381 (2012).
59. Frances, N. et al. Tumor growth modeling from clinical trials reveals synergistic anticancer effect of the capecitabine and docetaxel combination in metastatic breast cancer. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 68, 1413-1419 (2011).
60. De Buck, S.S. et al. Population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of BYL719, a phosphoinositide 3-kinase antagonist, in adult patients with advanced solid malignancies. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 78, 543-555 (2014).
61. Falchook, G.S. et al. Dose selection, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of BRAF-inhibitor Dabrafenib (GSK2118436). Clin. Cancer Res. 20, 4449-4458 (2014).
62. Stein, A. et al. Dynamic tumor modeling of the dose-response relationship for everolimus in metastatic renal cell carcinoma using data from the phase III RECORD-1 trial. BMC Cancer 12, 311 (2012).
63. Chiu, J. & Ouellet, D. Exposure-response analysis of the effect of trametinib, a MEK inhibitor, on tumor size in patients with V600 BRAF mutation positive melanoma. American Conference on Phar-macometrics 2013 Meeting, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 2013.
64. Ferte, C. et al. Tumor growth rate provides useful information to evaluate sorafenib and everolimus treatment in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients: an integrated analysis of the TARGET and RECORD phase III trial data. Eur. Urol. 65, 713-720 (2014).
65. Claret, L. et al. Evaluation of tumor-size response metrics to predict overall survival in Western and Chinese patients with first-line metastatic colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 31, 2110-2114 (2013).
66. Maitland, M.L., Schwartz, L.H. & Ratain, M.J. Time to tumor growth: a model end point and new metric system for oncology clinical trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 31, 2070-2072 (2013).
67. Ouellet, D. et al. The use of tumor growth parameters as early clinical endpoints in oncology: a retrospective analysis across GSK Compounds. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 95, Abstract OII-B-4 (2014).
68. Bender, B.C., Schindler, E. & Friberg, L.E. Population pharmacokinetic pharmacodynamic modelling in oncology: a tool for predicting clinical response. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. [Epub ahead of print] (2013).
69. Bruno, R., Mercier, F. & Claret, L. Evaluation of tumor size response metrics to predict survival in oncology clinical trials. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 95, 386-393 (2014).
70. Claret, L. et al. Model-based prediction of phase III overall survival in colorectal cancer on the basis of phase II tumor dynamics. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, 4103-4108 (2009).
71. Claret, L. et al. Exploratory modeling and simulation to support development of motesanib in Asian patients with non-small cell lung cancer based on MONET1 study results. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 95, 446-451 (2014).
72. Stein, A. et al. Survival prediction in everolimus-treated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma incorporating tumor burden response in the RECORD-1 trial. Eur. Urol. 64, 994-1002 (2013).
73. Suzuki, C. et al. The initial change in tumor size predicts response and survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with combination chemotherapy. Ann. Oncol. 23, 948-954 (2012).
74. Hansson, E.K. et al. PKPD modeling of VEGF, sVEGFR-2, sVEGFR-3 and sKIT as predictors of tumor dynamics and overall survival following sunitinib treatment in GIST. CPTPharmacometrics Syst. Pharmacol. 2, e84 (2013).
75. Hansson, E.K. et al. PKPD modeling of predictors for adverse effects and overall survival in sunitinib-treated patients with GIST. CPTPhar-macometrics Syst. Pharmacol. 2, e85 (2013).
76. Henin, E. et al. A dynamic model of hand-and-foot syndrome in patients receiving capecitabine. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 85, 418-425 (2009).
77. Xie, R. et al. Clinical pharmacokinetics of irinotecan and its metabolites in relation with diarrhea. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 72, 265-275 (2002).
78. Keizer, R.J. et al. Model-based treatment optimization of a novel VEGFR inhibitor. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 74, 315-326 (2012).
79. Friberg, L.E. et al. Model of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppres-sion with parameter consistency across drugs. J. Clin. Oncol. 20, 4713-4721 (2002).
80. Friberg, L.E., Sandstrom, M. & Karlsson, M.O. Scaling the time-course of myelosuppression from rats to patients with a semi-physiological model. Invest. New Drugs 28, 744-753 (2010).
81. Zandvliet, A.S. et al. Two-stage model-based clinical trial design to optimize phase I development of novel anticancer agents. Invest. New Drugs 28, 61-75 (2010).
82. Soto, E. et al. Predictive ability of a semimechanistic model for neutropenia in the development of novel anti-cancer agents: two case studies. Invest. New Drugs 29, 984-995 (2011).
83. Hansson, E.K. & Friberg, L.E. The shape of the myelosuppression time profile is related to the probability of developing neutropenic fever in patients with docetaxel-induced grade IV neutropenia. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 69, 881-890 (2012).
84. Pastor, M.L. et al. Model-based approach to describe G-CSF effects in carboplatin-treated cancer patients. Pharm. Res. 30, 2795-2807 (2013).
85. Cameron, D.A. et al. Moderate neutropenia with adjuvant CMF confers improved survival in early breast cancer. Br. J. Cancer 89, 1837-1842 (2003).
86. Poikonen, P. et al. Leucocyte nadir as a marker for chemotherapy efficacy in node-positive breast cancer treated with adjuvant CMF. Br. J. Cancer 80, 1763-1766 (1999).
87. Wallin, J.E., Friberg, L.E. & Karlsson, M.O. A tool for neutrophil guided dose adaptation in chemotherapy. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 93, 283-291 (2009).
88. Wallin, J.E., Friberg, L.E. & Karlsson, M.O. Model-based neutrophil-guided dose adaptation in chemotherapy: evaluation of predicted outcome with different types and amounts of information. Basic Clin. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 106, 234-242 (2010).
89. Hansson, E.K. et al. Limited inter-occasion variability in relation to inter-individual variability in chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 65, 839-848 (2010).
90. Rock, E.P. et al. Assessing proarrhythmic potential of drugs when optimal studies are infeasible. Am. Heart J. 157, 827-836, 836 e1 (2009).
91. Sarapa, N. & Britto, M.R. Challenges of characterizing proarrhythmic risk due to QTc prolongation induced by nonadjuvant anticancer agents. Expert Opin. Drug Saf. 7, 305-318 (2008).
92. Tanaka, C. et al. Identifying optimal biologic doses of everolimus (RAD001) in patients with cancer based on the modeling of preclinical and clinical pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 1596-1602 (2008).
93. Tabernero, J. et al. Dose-and schedule-dependent inhibition of the mammalian target of rapamycin pathway with everolimus: a phase I tumor pharmacodynamic study in patients with advanced solid tumors. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 1603-1610 (2008).
94. Mould, D.R. et al. A population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of pralatrexate in patients with hematologic malignancies. Blood 110, abstract 1370 (2007).
95. O'Connor, O.A. et al. Phase II-I-II study of two different doses and schedules of pralatrexate, a high-affinity substrate for the reduced folate carrier, in patients with relapsed or refractory lymphoma reveals marked activity in T-cell malignancies. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, 4357-4364 (2009).
96. Mould, D.R. et al. A population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of pralatrexate in patients with relapsed or refractory non-Hodgkin's or Hodgkin's lymphoma. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 86, 190-196 (2009).
97. Soto, E. et al. Prediction of neutropenia-related effects of a new combination therapy with the anticancer drugs BI2536 (a Plk1 inhibitor) and pemetrexed. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 88, 660-667 (2010).
98. Latz, J.E. et al. A semimechanistic-physiologic population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model for neutropenia following peme-trexed therapy. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 57, 412-426 (2006).
99. Soto, E. et al. Semimechanistic population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model for neutropenia following therapy with the Plk-1 inhibitor BI 2536 and its application in clinical development. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 66, 785-795 (2010).