Lena Klopp-Schulze1, Markus Joerger2, Sebastian G Wicha1,3, Rob Ter Heine4, Chantal Csajka5, Zinnia P Parra-Guillen1, Charlotte Kloft6. 1. Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Biochemistry, Institute of Pharmacy, Freie Universitaet Berlin, Kelchstr. 31, 12169, Berlin, Germany. 2. Department of Medical Oncology and Haematology, Cantonal Hospital, St. Gallen, Switzerland. 3. Institute of Pharmacy, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. 4. Department of Pharmacy, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 5. Division of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Service of Biomedicine, University Hospital Center and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. 6. Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Biochemistry, Institute of Pharmacy, Freie Universitaet Berlin, Kelchstr. 31, 12169, Berlin, Germany. charlotte.kloft@fu-berlin.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A better understanding of the highly variable pharmacokinetics (PK) of tamoxifen and its active metabolite endoxifen in breast cancer patients is crucial to support individualised treatment. This study used a modelling and simulation approach to quantitatively assess the influence of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 activity and other relevant factors on tamoxifen and endoxifen PK to identify subgroups at risk for subtherapeutic endoxifen concentrations. METHODS: Simulations were performed using two previously published PK models jointly describing tamoxifen and endoxifen with CYP2D6 and CYP3A4/5 enzyme activities implemented as covariates. Steady-state predictions were compared between models and with the literature values. Factors potentially causing between-model discrepancies were explored. A previously published threshold (6 ng/mL) was used to identify patients with subtherapeutic endoxifen concentrations and to perform a dose adaptation study. RESULTS: Steady-state predictions of tamoxifen and endoxifen were considerably different between the models. The factors, differences in sampling time, adherence and bioavailability, were not able to fully capture between-model variability. Endoxifen steady-state fluctuations within a dosing interval were minimal (<6%). Poor (97%) and intermediate (54%) CYP2D6 metabolisers failed to achieve therapeutic endoxifen concentrations, suggesting adapted doses of tamoxifen 80 and 40 mg, respectively, achieving therapeutic endoxifen concentrations in 89.7% of patients (standard dosing 45.2%). However, interindividual variability remained. CONCLUSIONS: To achieve therapeutic endoxifen concentrations early in treatment, it is advisable to initiate treatment by CYP2D6 genotype/phenotype-guided dosing, followed by therapeutic drug monitoring at steady-state. We strongly advocate to adequately measure, report and prospectively investigate influential factors (i.e. adherence, bioavailability, time to PK steady-state) in clinical trials.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A better understanding of the highly variable pharmacokinetics (PK) of tamoxifen and its active metabolite endoxifen in breast cancerpatients is crucial to support individualised treatment. This study used a modelling and simulation approach to quantitatively assess the influence of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 activity and other relevant factors on tamoxifen and endoxifen PK to identify subgroups at risk for subtherapeutic endoxifen concentrations. METHODS: Simulations were performed using two previously published PK models jointly describing tamoxifen and endoxifen with CYP2D6 and CYP3A4/5 enzyme activities implemented as covariates. Steady-state predictions were compared between models and with the literature values. Factors potentially causing between-model discrepancies were explored. A previously published threshold (6 ng/mL) was used to identify patients with subtherapeutic endoxifen concentrations and to perform a dose adaptation study. RESULTS: Steady-state predictions of tamoxifen and endoxifen were considerably different between the models. The factors, differences in sampling time, adherence and bioavailability, were not able to fully capture between-model variability. Endoxifen steady-state fluctuations within a dosing interval were minimal (<6%). Poor (97%) and intermediate (54%) CYP2D6 metabolisers failed to achieve therapeutic endoxifen concentrations, suggesting adapted doses of tamoxifen 80 and 40 mg, respectively, achieving therapeutic endoxifen concentrations in 89.7% of patients (standard dosing 45.2%). However, interindividual variability remained. CONCLUSIONS: To achieve therapeutic endoxifen concentrations early in treatment, it is advisable to initiate treatment by CYP2D6 genotype/phenotype-guided dosing, followed by therapeutic drug monitoring at steady-state. We strongly advocate to adequately measure, report and prospectively investigate influential factors (i.e. adherence, bioavailability, time to PK steady-state) in clinical trials.
Authors: Paul R Hutson; Richard R Love; Thomas C Havighurst; Eric Rogers; James F Cleary Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2005-12-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Silvana Borges; Zeruesenay Desta; Lang Li; Todd C Skaar; Bryan A Ward; Anne Nguyen; Yan Jin; Anna Maria Storniolo; D Michele Nikoloff; Lin Wu; Grant Hillman; Daniel F Hayes; Vered Stearns; David A Flockhart Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Meredith M Regan; Brian Leyland-Jones; Mark Bouzyk; Olivia Pagani; Weining Tang; Roswitha Kammler; Patrizia Dell'orto; Maria Olivia Biasi; Beat Thürlimann; Maria B Lyng; Henrik J Ditzel; Patrick Neven; Marc Debled; Rudolf Maibach; Karen N Price; Richard D Gelber; Alan S Coates; Aron Goldhirsch; James M Rae; Giuseppe Viale Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2012-03-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: L Madlensky; L Natarajan; S Tchu; M Pu; J Mortimer; S W Flatt; D M Nikoloff; G Hillman; M R Fontecha; H J Lawrence; B A Parker; A H B Wu; J P Pierce Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2011-03-23 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: James M Rae; Suzy Drury; Daniel F Hayes; Vered Stearns; Jacklyn N Thibert; Ben P Haynes; Janine Salter; Ivana Sestak; Jack Cuzick; Mitch Dowsett Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2012-03-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Philipp Y Maximov; Daphne J Fernandes; Russell E McDaniel; Cynthia B Myers; Ramona F Curpan; V Craig Jordan Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2014-05-22 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Emily J Koubek; Andrew T Ralya; Thomas R Larson; Renee M McGovern; Sarah A Buhrow; Joseph M Covey; Alex A Adjei; Naoko Takebe; Matthew M Ames; Matthew P Goetz; Joel M Reid Journal: J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2022-04-19 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Anna Mueller-Schoell; Lena Klopp-Schulze; Robin Michelet; Madelé van Dyk; Thomas E Mürdter; Matthias Schwab; Markus Joerger; Wilhelm Huisinga; Gerd Mikus; Charlotte Kloft Journal: Pharmaceuticals (Basel) Date: 2021-02-03
Authors: C Louwrens Braal; Agnes Jager; Esther Oomen-de Hoop; Justin D Westenberg; Koen M W T Lommen; Peter de Bruijn; Mijntje B Vastbinder; Quirine C van Rossum-Schornagel; Martine F Thijs-Visser; Robbert J van Alphen; Liesbeth E M Struik; Hanneke J M Zuetenhorst; Ron H J Mathijssen; Stijn L W Koolen Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2021-11-17 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: Anna Mueller-Schoell; Robin Michelet; Lena Klopp-Schulze; Madelé van Dyk; Thomas E Mürdter; Matthias Schwab; Markus Joerger; Wilhelm Huisinga; Gerd Mikus; Charlotte Kloft Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Lena Klopp-Schulze; Anna Mueller-Schoell; Patrick Neven; Stijn L W Koolen; Ron H J Mathijssen; Markus Joerger; Charlotte Kloft Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2020-03-31 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: Dzenefa Alihodzic; Astrid Broeker; Michael Baehr; Stefan Kluge; Claudia Langebrake; Sebastian Georg Wicha Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2020-03-03 Impact factor: 5.810