AIM: To evaluate dosing and intervention strategies for the phase II programme of a VEGF receptor inhibitor using PK-PD modelling and simulation, with the aim of maximizing (i) the number of patients on treatment and (ii) the average dose level during treatment. METHODS: A previously developed PK-PD model for lenvatinib (E7080) was updated and parameters were re-estimated (141 patients, once daily and twice daily regimens). Treatment of lenvatinib was simulated for 16 weeks, initiated at 25 mg once daily. Outcome measures included the number of patients on treatment and overall drug exposure. A hypertension intervention design proposed for phase II studies was evaluated, including antihypertensive treatment and dose de-escalation. Additionally, a within-patient dose escalation was investigated, titrating up to 50 mg once daily unless unacceptable toxicity occurred. RESULTS: Using the proposed antihypertension intervention design, 82% of patients could remain on treatment, and the mean dose administered was 21.5 mg day⁻¹. The adverse event (AE) guided dose titration increased the average dose by 4.6 mg day⁻¹, while only marginally increasing the percentage of patients dropping out due to toxicity (from 18% to 20.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed hypertension intervention design is expected to be effective in maintaining patients on treatment with lenvatinib. The AE-guided dose titration with blood pressure as a biomarker yielded a higher overall dose level, without relevant increases in toxicity. Since increased exposure to lenvatinib seems correlated with increased treatment efficacy, the adaptive treatment design may thus be a valid approach to improve treatment outcome.
AIM: To evaluate dosing and intervention strategies for the phase II programme of a VEGF receptor inhibitor using PK-PD modelling and simulation, with the aim of maximizing (i) the number of patients on treatment and (ii) the average dose level during treatment. METHODS: A previously developed PK-PD model for lenvatinib (E7080) was updated and parameters were re-estimated (141 patients, once daily and twice daily regimens). Treatment of lenvatinib was simulated for 16 weeks, initiated at 25 mg once daily. Outcome measures included the number of patients on treatment and overall drug exposure. A hypertension intervention design proposed for phase II studies was evaluated, including antihypertensive treatment and dose de-escalation. Additionally, a within-patient dose escalation was investigated, titrating up to 50 mg once daily unless unacceptable toxicity occurred. RESULTS: Using the proposed antihypertension intervention design, 82% of patients could remain on treatment, and the mean dose administered was 21.5 mg day⁻¹. The adverse event (AE) guided dose titration increased the average dose by 4.6 mg day⁻¹, while only marginally increasing the percentage of patients dropping out due to toxicity (from 18% to 20.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed hypertension intervention design is expected to be effective in maintaining patients on treatment with lenvatinib. The AE-guided dose titration with blood pressure as a biomarker yielded a higher overall dose level, without relevant increases in toxicity. Since increased exposure to lenvatinib seems correlated with increased treatment efficacy, the adaptive treatment design may thus be a valid approach to improve treatment outcome.
Authors: Li Liu; Yichen Cao; Charles Chen; Xiaomei Zhang; Angela McNabola; Dean Wilkie; Scott Wilhelm; Mark Lynch; Christopher Carter Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2006-12-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: V A Pollack; D M Savage; D A Baker; K E Tsaparikos; D E Sloan; J D Moyer; E G Barbacci; L R Pustilnik; T A Smolarek; J A Davis; M P Vaidya; L D Arnold; J L Doty; K K Iwata; M J Morin Journal: J Pharmacol Exp Ther Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 4.030
Authors: Yong S Chang; Jalila Adnane; Pamela A Trail; Joan Levy; Arris Henderson; Dahai Xue; Elizabeth Bortolon; Marina Ichetovkin; Charles Chen; Angela McNabola; Dean Wilkie; Christopher A Carter; Ian C A Taylor; Mark Lynch; Scott Wilhelm Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2006-12-08 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Walter Fiedler; Hubert Serve; Hartmut Döhner; Michael Schwittay; Oliver G Ottmann; Anne-Marie O'Farrell; Carlo L Bello; Randy Allred; William C Manning; Julie M Cherrington; Sharianne G Louie; Weiru Hong; Nicoletta M Brega; Giorgio Massimini; Paul Scigalla; Wolfgang E Berdel; Dieter K Hossfeld Journal: Blood Date: 2004-09-30 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Richard A Larson; Brian J Druker; Francois Guilhot; Stephen G O'Brien; Gilles J Riviere; Tillmann Krahnke; Insa Gathmann; Yanfeng Wang Journal: Blood Date: 2008-02-06 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: N Widmer; L A Decosterd; S Leyvraz; M A Duchosal; A Rosselet; M Debiec-Rychter; C Csajka; J Biollaz; T Buclin Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2008-05-06 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: David S Hong; Razelle Kurzrock; Jennifer J Wheler; Aung Naing; Gerald S Falchook; Siqing Fu; Kevin B Kim; Michael A Davies; Ly M Nguyen; Goldy C George; Lucy Xu; Robert Shumaker; Min Ren; Jennifer Mink; Cynthia Bedell; Corina Andresen; Pallavi Sachdev; James P O'Brien; John Nemunaitis Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-07-13 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: G Barosi; A Tefferi; C Besses; G Birgegard; F Cervantes; G Finazzi; H Gisslinger; M Griesshammer; C Harrison; R Hehlmann; S Hermouet; J-J Kiladjian; N Kröger; R Mesa; M F Mc Mullin; A Pardanani; F Passamonti; J Samuelsson; A M Vannucchi; A Reiter; R T Silver; S Verstovsek; G Tognoni; T Barbui Journal: Leukemia Date: 2014-08-25 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: A H M de Vries Schultink; A A Suleiman; J H M Schellens; J H Beijnen; A D R Huitema Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 2.953