Marine Deppenweiler1, Sabrina Falkowski2, Franck Saint-Marcoux3, Caroline Monchaud3, Nicolas Picard3, Marie-Laure Laroche1, Nicole Tubiana-Mathieu2, Laurence Venat-Bouvet2, Pierre Marquet3, Jean-Baptiste Woillard4. 1. Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmacovigilance, University Hospital of Limoges, France. 2. Department of Oncology, University Hospital of Limoges, France. 3. Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmacovigilance, University Hospital of Limoges, France; UMR 850 INSERM, University of Limoges, France. 4. Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmacovigilance, University Hospital of Limoges, France; UMR 850 INSERM, University of Limoges, France. Electronic address: jean-baptiste.woillard@unilim.fr.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of everolimus is not performed in oncology and no trough level (C0) target has been yet defined. The aim of this study was to determine everolimus C0 target for toxicity and efficacy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical, biological and radiologic data from 54 patients were collected. Toxicity event was defined by termination, temporary interruption and/or dose reduction of everolimus while efficacy was defined as progression-free survival. C0 values were dichotomized by ROC curve analysis and the association between exposure and outcome was determined using Cox models for repeated events (toxicity) or Cox model censured at the first event (progression free survival). RESULTS: Among the 42 patients (77.8%) with breast cancer, 10 (18.5%) kidney cancer and 2 (3.7%) neuroendocrine cancer, adverse events were reported in 75.9% of the patients (everolimus termination in 25.9% patients). C0 everolimus higher than 26.3ng/mL (Sen=0.38,Spe=0.88) were associated with a 4-fold increased risk of toxicity (HR=4.12, IC95%=[1.48-11.5], p=0.0067) whereas C0 lower than 11.9ng/mL were associated with a 3-fold increased risk of progression (HR=3.2, IC95%=[1.33-7.81],p=0.001). DISCUSSION: Further studies are required to evaluate the everolimus C0 threshold proposed for toxicity (26.3ng/mL) and for progression (11.9ng/mL) especially with a large number of patients and more homogeneous types of cancer. However, these results are in favour of TDM for everolimus in oncology.
INTRODUCTION: Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of everolimus is not performed in oncology and no trough level (C0) target has been yet defined. The aim of this study was to determine everolimus C0 target for toxicity and efficacy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical, biological and radiologic data from 54 patients were collected. Toxicity event was defined by termination, temporary interruption and/or dose reduction of everolimus while efficacy was defined as progression-free survival. C0 values were dichotomized by ROC curve analysis and the association between exposure and outcome was determined using Cox models for repeated events (toxicity) or Cox model censured at the first event (progression free survival). RESULTS: Among the 42 patients (77.8%) with breast cancer, 10 (18.5%) kidney cancer and 2 (3.7%) neuroendocrine cancer, adverse events were reported in 75.9% of the patients (everolimus termination in 25.9% patients). C0 everolimus higher than 26.3ng/mL (Sen=0.38,Spe=0.88) were associated with a 4-fold increased risk of toxicity (HR=4.12, IC95%=[1.48-11.5], p=0.0067) whereas C0 lower than 11.9ng/mL were associated with a 3-fold increased risk of progression (HR=3.2, IC95%=[1.33-7.81],p=0.001). DISCUSSION: Further studies are required to evaluate the everolimus C0 threshold proposed for toxicity (26.3ng/mL) and for progression (11.9ng/mL) especially with a large number of patients and more homogeneous types of cancer. However, these results are in favour of TDM for everolimus in oncology.
Authors: R Ter Heine; N P van Erp; H J Guchelaar; J W de Fijter; M E J Reinders; C M van Herpen; D M Burger; D J A R Moes Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2018-05-06 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Annelieke E C A B Willemsen; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei; Maaike de Boer; Jolien Tol; Yvonne Kamm; Paul C de Jong; Marianne A Jonker; Allert H Vos; Willem Grootjans; Johannes W B de Groot; Sasja F Mulder; Erik H J G Aarntzen; Winald R Gerritsen; Carla M L van Herpen; Nielka P van Erp Journal: Target Oncol Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 4.493
Authors: A E C A B Willemsen; L M Knapen; Y M de Beer; R J M Brüggemann; S Croes; C M L van Herpen; N P van Erp Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2017-12-08 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Timothy W Synold; Melissa Plets; Catherine M Tangen; Elisabeth I Heath; Ganesh S Palapattu; Philip C Mack; Mark N Stein; Maxwell V Meng; Primo Lara; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Ian Murchie Thompson; Christopher W Ryan Journal: Kidney Cancer Date: 2019-08-07
Authors: Tom C Zwart; Dirk Jan A R Moes; Paul J M van der Boog; Nielka P van Erp; Johan W de Fijter; Henk-Jan Guchelaar; Ron J Keizer; Rob Ter Heine Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: Anna Mueller-Schoell; Stefanie L Groenland; Oliver Scherf-Clavel; Madelé van Dyk; Wilhelm Huisinga; Robin Michelet; Ulrich Jaehde; Neeltje Steeghs; Alwin D R Huitema; Charlotte Kloft Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2020-11-09 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Annelieke E C A B Willemsen; Jolien Tol; Nielka P van Erp; Marianne A Jonker; Maaike de Boer; Bob Meek; Paul C de Jong; Coline van Moorsel; Winald R Gerritsen; Jan C Grutters; Carla M L van Herpen Journal: Target Oncol Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 4.493