Florent Puisset

Aims: Dose‐banding (DB) consists in approximating the theoretical dose of anticancer drugs calculated according to the body surface area (Dose‐BSA) of patients. This concept is supported by pharmacokinetic but not by clinical data. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcome of DB defined as dose‐fitting up to ±10%.Methods: This was a retrospective study conducted in patients receiving weekly paclitaxel in neoadjuvant (NAT) and metastatic (M+) settings. Three groups of patients were considered according to type of paclitaxel dosing: Dose‐BSA, DB approximated down (DB‐Low) and DB approximated up (DB‐High). Efficacy was evaluated by the rate of pathological complete response for patients in NAT setting and by the median of progression‐free survival plus overall survival for those in M+ setting. Toxicity and efficacy were compared in the 3 groups.Results: A total of 224 and 209 patients were assessable in the M+ and NAT settings, respectively. A toxic event was observed for 31.7 and 27.3% in M+ and NAT, respectively. The rate of pathological complete response was 41.6% in NAT. The median progression‐free survival was 5.2 (4.1–5.8) months and overall survival was 16.3 (14.6–18.4) months for patients in M+. Efficacy and toxicity were not different in DB‐Low and DB‐High groups compared to Dose‐BSA group.Conclusion: DB with approximated doses up to ±10% does not seem to influence clinical outcome of patients treated with weekly paclitaxel. This is the first study to include clinical observations, which lends support to DB as a safe and effective dosing method.

Seven tyrosine kinase inhibitor compounds with anti-angiogenic properties remain key drugs to treat advanced renal cell carcinoma. There is a strong rationale to develop therapeutic drug monitoring for these drugs. General considerations of such monitoring of the several groups of anticancer drugs are given, with a focus on oral therapy. Pharmacokinetics and the factors of inter- and intraindividual variabilities of these tyrosine kinase inhibitors are described together with an exhaustive presentation of their pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships. The latter was observed in studies where every patient was treated with the same dose, and the results of several prospective studies based on dose individualization support the practice of increasing individual dosage in case of low observed plasma drug concentrations. Finally, the benefits and limits of therapeutic drug monitoring as a routine practice are discussed.

Background: Recently, the combination of venetoclax plus a hypomethylating agent (HMA; azacitidine ordecitabine) or low‐dose cytarabine (LDAC) showed promise in Phase III trials in previously untreated AML. In France at the time of this study, venetoclax was not yet approved for AML and there were therefore no formal usage recommendations. Here we report the first study in a French cohort that assessed venetoclax in combination with existing treatments for AML under real‐life conditions.Method: This retrospective, real‐life study collected data on venetoclax use and management in a French cohort with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.Result: Of 118 patients, 81 were in second line/beyond (71.6% also hypomethylating agent [HMA]; 23.5% lowdose cytarabine [LDAC]) and 37 in first line. For venetoclax initiation, 57.3% underwent ramp up and 74.6% were hospitalized. Median venetoclax duration was 2.5 months (range 0.03‐16.2). With all treatment lines and regimens, most common grade 3/4 adverse events were hematologic (overall 96.4% of patients) and infections (57.1%). Dosage adjustments for drug interactions and safety varied between centers. In second‐line/beyond, median progression‐free survival was 4.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.7‐12.8) with venetoclax‐HMA and 3.4 months (1.3‐8.9) with venetoclax‐LDAC; overall response rate was 51.9% and 41.2%, respectively. Thus, we showed that venetoclax‐based treatment yields promising findings in patients with AML, but to address treatment complexity, practice harmonization is needed.

Pharmacokinetic (PK) parameter estimation is a critical and complex step in the model‐informed precision dosing (MIPD) approach. The mapbayr package was developed to perform maximum a posteriori Bayesian estimation (MAP‐BE) in R from any population PK model coded in mrgsolve. The performances of mapbayr were assessed using two approaches. First, “test” models with different features were coded, for example, first‐order and zero‐order absorption, lag time, time‐varying covariates, Michaelis–Menten elimination, combined and exponential residual error, parent drug and metabolite, and small or large inter‐individual variability (IIV). A total of 4000 PK profiles (combining single/multiple dosing and rich/sparse sampling) were simulated from each test model, and MAP‐BE of parameters was performed in both mapbayr and NONMEM. Second, a similar procedure was conducted with seven “real” previously published models to compare mapbayr and NONMEM on a PK outcome used in MIPD. For the test models, 98% of mapbayr estimations were identical to those given by NONMEM. Some discordances could be observed when dose‐related parameters were estimated or when models with large IIV were used. The exploration of objective function values suggested that mapbayr might outdo NONMEM in specific cases. For the real models, a concordance close to 100% on PK outcomes was observed. The mapbayr package provides a reliable solution to perform MAP‐BE of PK parameters in R. It also includes functions dedicated to data formatting and reporting and enables the creation of standalone Shiny web applications dedicated to MIPD, whatever the model or the clinical protocol and without additional software other than R.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of ibrutinib is based on the area under the curve of concentration vs. time (AUC_IBRU) instead of trough concentration (C_min,ss) because of a limited accumulation in plasma. Our objective was to identify a limited sampling strategy (LSS) to estimate AUC_IBRU associated with Bayesian estimation. The actual AUC_IBRU of 85 patients was determined by the Bayesian analysis of the full pharmacokinetic profile of ibrutinib concentrations (pre-dose T0 and 0.5, 1, 2, 4 and 6 h post-dose) and experimental AUC_IBRU were derived considering combinations of one to four sampling times. The T0–1–2–4 design was the most accurate LSS (root-mean-square error RMSE = 11.0%), and three-point strategies removing the 1 h or 2 h points (RMSE = 22.7% and 14.5%, respectively) also showed good accuracy. The correlation between the actual AUC_IBRU and C_min,ss was poor (r² = 0.25). The joint analysis of dihydrodiol-ibrutinib metabolite concentrations did not improve the predictive performance of AUC_IBRU. These results were confirmed in a prospective validation cohort (n = 27 patients). At least three samples, within the pre-dose and 4 h post-dose period, are necessary to estimate ibrutinib exposure accurately.

Purpose. Infusion of cytotoxic drugs carries the risk of occupational exposure of healthcare workers. Since disconnecting an infusion line is a source of contamination, flushing of tubing after infusion of cytotoxic agents is recommended, but the optimal volume of rinsing solution is unknown. The objective of this study was to assess whether postinfusion line flushing completely eliminates cytotoxics. Methods. Infusions were simulated with 3 cytotoxics (gemcitabine, cytarabine, and paclitaxel) diluted in 5% dextrose injection or 0.9% sodium chloride injection in 250-mL infusion bags. Infusion lines were flushed using 5% dextrose injection or 0.9% sodium chloride solution at 2 different flow rates. The remaining concentration of cytotoxics in the infusion line was measured by a validated high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method after passage of every 10 mL of flushing volume until a total of 100 mL had been flushed through. Results. All cytotoxics remained detectable even after line flushing with 80 mL of flushing solution (a volume 3-fold greater than the dead space volume within the infusion set). Gemcitabine and cytarabine were still quantifiable via HPLC even after flushing with 100 mL of solution. Efficacy of flushing was influenced by the lipophilicity of drugs but not by either the flushing solvent used or the flushing flow rate. After 2-fold dead space volume flushing, the estimated amount of drug remaining in the infusion set was within 0.19% to 0.56% of the prescribed dose for all 3 cytotoxics evaluated. Conclusion. Complete elimination of cytotoxics from an infusion line is an unrealistic objective. Two-fold dead space volume flushing could be considered optimal in terms of administered dose but not from an environmental contamination point of view. Even when flushed, the infusion set should still be considered a source of cytotoxic contamination.