A multicenter phase II study of personalized FOLFIRI-cetuximab for safe dose intensification

UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing of irinotecan: time to prioritize patient safety

Tweetable abstract Pretreatment UGT1A1 genotyping and a 70% irinotecan dose intensity in poor metabolizers is safe, feasible, cost-effective and essential for safe irinotecan treatment in cancer patients. It is time to update guidelines to swiftly enable the implementation of UGT1A1 genotype-guided irinotecan dosing in routine oncology care.

The past, present, and future of chemotherapy with a focus on individualization of drug dosing

While there have been rapid advances in developing new and more targeted drugs to treat cancer, much less progress has been made in individualizing dosing. Even though the introduction of immunotherapies such as CAR T-cells and checkpoint inhibitors, as well as personalized therapies that target specific mutations, have transformed clinical treatment of cancers, chemotherapy remains a mainstay in oncology. Chemotherapies are typically dosed on either a body surface area (BSA) or weight basis, which fails to account for pharmacokinetic differences between patients. Drug absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion rates can vary between patients, resulting in considerable differences in exposure to the active drugs. These differences result in suboptimal dosing, which can reduce efficacy and increase side-effects. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), genotype guided dosing, and chronomodulation have been developed to address this challenge; however, despite improving clinical outcomes, they are rarely implemented in clinical practice for chemotherapies. Thus, there is a need to develop interventions that allow for individualized drug dosing of chemotherapies, which can help maximize the number of patients that reach the most efficacious level of drug in the blood while mitigating the risks of underdosing or overdosing. In this review, we discuss the history of the development of chemotherapies, their mechanisms of action and how they are dosed. We discuss substantial intraindividual and interindividual variability in chemotherapy pharmacokinetics. We then propose potential engineering solutions that could enable individualized dosing of chemotherapies, such as closed-loop drug delivery systems and bioresponsive biomaterials.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of toxicity and treatment outcomes with pharmacogenetic-guided dosing compared to standard of care BSA-based fluoropyrimidine dosing

BACKGROUND

Serious and potentially life-threatening toxicities can occur following 5-fluorouracil/capecitabine exposure. Patients carrying Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase (DPYD) variant alleles associated with decreased enzymatic function are at a greater risk of early/severe 5-fluorouracil/capecitabine toxicity. The objective of this systematic review/meta-analysis was to evaluate treatment outcomes between Pharmacogenetics Guided Dosing (PGD) versus non-PGD and within PGD (DPYD variant allele carriers versus wild type).

METHODS

A systematic review/meta-analysis of original publications indexed in Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley) library from inception to 7-Dec-2020. Eligible studies evaluated at least one pre-defined treatment outcome measures (toxicity/hospitalisations/survival/overall response/quality of life).

RESULTS

Of 1090 identified publications, 17 met predefined eligibility criteria. The meta-analysis observed reduced incidence of grade 3/4 overall toxicity (Risk Ratio [RR] 0.32 [95% Cl 0.27-0.39], p < 0.00001) and grade 3/4 diarrhoea (RR 0.38 [95% Cl 0.24-0.61], p < 0.0001) among PGD versus non-PGD cohorts. Within PGD cohorts, there was no statistical differences for overall response rates (complete/partial) (RR 1.31 [95% Cl 0.93-1.85], p = 0.12). Similar results were found with stable disease (RR 1.27 [95% Cl 0.66-2.44], p = 0.47).

CONCLUSION

PGD improves patient outcomes in terms of grade 3/4 toxicity, in particular overall toxicity and diarrhoea, without impacting on treatment response.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

The study is registered with PROSPERO, registration number CRD42020223768.

Implementing Pre-Therapeutic UGT1A1 Genotyping in Clinical Practice: A Real-Life Study

Current guidelines recommend pre-therapeutic UGT1A1 genotyping to guide irinotecan dosing, but the usefulness of this approach remains to be clarified. In 247 patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancers undergoing irinotecan-based chemotherapy, we prospectively performed UGT1A1*28 genotyping and we analyzed the incidence of severe neutropenia according to genotype-guided dose reductions. Overall, 28 (11.3%) and 92 (37.2%) patients were homozygous or heterozygous UGT1A1*28 carriers, respectively. Grade ≥ 3 neutropenia was reported in 39% of homozygous patients receiving an upfront dose reduction of irinotecan (median 40%, range 22–58%), in 20% of heterozygous or wild-type patients receiving full dose (OR_{vs*28/*28 genotype} = 0.38; 95% CI: 0.14–1.03; p = 0.058), and in 15.3% of those receiving a reduced dose for clinical reasons (OR _{vs*28/*28 genotype} = 0.28, 95% IC: 0.12–0.67; p = 0.004). Occurrence of severe neutropenia was inversely associated with dose reduction in UGT1A1*28 homozygous carriers (OR_{x10 unit} = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.27–1.40, p = 0.249) and UGT1A1 heterozygous or wild-type patients (OR_{x10 unit} = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.59–1.28, p = 0.478). Incidence of severe neutropenia was related to irinotecan doses and UGT1A1 polymorphisms. Upfront irinotecan dose reductions do not reduce the burden of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia in UGT1A1*28 homozygous carriers.

UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing of irinotecan: A prospective safety and cost analysis in poor metaboliser patients

AIM

To determine the safety, feasibility, pharmacokinetics, and cost of UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing of irinotecan.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this prospective, multicentre, non-randomised study, patients intended for treatment with irinotecan were pre-therapeutically genotyped for UGT1A1∗28 and UGT1A1∗93. Homozygous variant carriers (UGT1A1 poor metabolisers; PMs) received an initial 30% dose reduction. The primary endpoint was incidence of febrile neutropenia in the first two cycles of treatment. Toxicity in UGT1A1 PMs was compared to a historical cohort of UGT1A1 PMs treated with full dose therapy, and to UGT1A1 non-PMs treated with full dose therapy in the current study. Secondary endpoints were pharmacokinetics, feasibility, and costs.

RESULTS

Of the 350 evaluable patients, 31 (8.9%) patients were UGT1A1 PM and received a median 30% dose reduction. The incidence of febrile neutropenia in this group was 6.5% compared to 24% in historical UGT1A1 PMs (P = 0.04) and was comparable to the incidence in UGT1A1 non-PMs treated with full dose therapy. Systemic exposure of SN-38 of reduced dosing in UGT1A1 PMs was still slightly higher compared to a standard-dosed irinotecan patient cohort (difference: +32%). Cost analysis showed that genotype-guided dosing was cost-saving with a cost reduction of €183 per patient.

CONCLUSION

UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing significantly reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia in UGT1A1 PM patients treated with irinotecan, results in a therapeutically effective systemic drug exposure, and is cost-saving. Therefore, UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing of irinotecan should be considered standard of care in order to improve individual patient safety.

Treating patients with dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency with fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy since the onset of routine prospective testing-The experience of a large oncology center in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

Fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy is used across many tumor types and settings. The incidence of severe adverse events (SAEs) is around 20%. Mortality is 0.5%-1%. Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) plays a key role in fluoropyrimidine inactivation. Key DPYD mutations are linked to a high risk of SAEs. Pretreatment DPD screening was mandated by EMA guidelines in April 2020 and widely adopted thereafter. Uncertainty remains regarding optimal dosing practice.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined records of all 23 patients with DPYD mutation who started chemotherapy between April and November 2020. Our center tests for the mutations considered clinically actionable by Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium and uses the Gene Activity Score (GAS) to guide dose reduction.

RESULTS

Most patients started on a 50% dose. One started on 100% and experienced mild diarrhea after cycle 2; DPD was tested belatedly, subsequent cycles were reduced to 50% and he remained well. Three patients receiving chemo-radiotherapy started on 76% dose; 50% was felt to be subtherapeutic. One of them had no toxicities; another had grade 2 nausea and a hospital attendance with non-neutropenic fever; the third was admitted for 6 weeks with pancolitis. Seven patients did not have toxicities above grade 1 and no hospital attendances. Five patients had further dose reductions. None had dose escalation.

CONCLUSION

As our experience shows, patients with DPD deficiency are heterogeneous. Worryingly, SAEs occur despite dose reduction according to GAS. Others had minimal toxicity and may be under-dosed by GAS. There are clearly many factors at play other than the 4 DPYD variants. The DPD result must be available and inform first cycle dosing. Dose should be cautiously titrated up if tolerated; this was not done at our center due to clinician caution. Further research is needed to guide this. Patients should be reviewed frequently, counselled regarding their DPD status, and empowered to seek advice promptly when they feel unwell.

Pre-therapeutic UGT1A1 genotyping to reduce the risk of irinotecan-induced severe toxicity: Ready for prime time

BACKGROUND

Pre-therapeutic UGT1A1 genotyping is not yet routinely performed in most hospitals in patients starting irinotecan chemotherapy. The aim of this position paper was to evaluate the available evidence and to assess the potential value of genotyping of UGT1A1∗28 and UGT1A1*6 in patients before starting treatment with irinotecan to reduce the risk of severe toxicity.

METHODS

The literature was selected and assessed based on five pre-specified criteria: 1) the level of evidence for associations between UGT1A1 polymorphisms and irinotecan-induced severe toxicity, 2) clinical validity and utility of pre-therapeutic genotyping of UGT1A1, 3) safety and tolerability of irinotecan in carriers of UGT1A1 polymorphisms, 4) availability of specific dose recommendations for irinotecan in carriers of UGT1A1 polymorphisms, 5) evidence of cost benefits of pre-therapeutic genotyping of UGT1A1.

RESULTS

On all five criteria, study results were favourable for pre-therapeutic genotyping of UGT1A1. A high level of evidence (level I) was found for a higher incidence of irinotecan-induced severe toxicity in homozygous carriers of UGT1A1*28 or UGT1A1*6. The clinical validity and utility of this genetic test proved to be acceptable. Dose-finding studies showed a lower maximum tolerated dose in homozygous variant allele carriers, and most of the drug labels and guidelines recommend a dose reduction of 25-30% in these patients. In addition, pre-therapeutic genotyping of UGT1A1 is likely to save costs.

CONCLUSION

Pre-therapeutic genotyping of UGT1A1 in patients initiating treatment with irinotecan improves patient safety, is likely to be cost-saving, and should, therefore, become standard of care.

A Genotyping/Phenotyping Approach with Careful Clinical Monitoring to Manage the Fluoropyrimidines-Based Therapy: Clinical Cases and Systematic Review of the Literature

Fluoropyrimidines (FP) are mainly metabolised by dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), encoded by the DPYD gene. FP pharmacogenetics, including four DPYD polymorphisms (DPYD-PGx), is recommended to tailor the FP-based chemotherapy. These polymorphisms increase the risk of severe toxicity; thus, the DPYD-PGx should be performed prior to starting FP. Other factors influence FP safety, therefore phenotyping methods, such as the measurement of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) clearance and DPD activity, could complement the DPYD-PGx. We describe a case series of patients in whom we performed DPYD-PGx (by real-time PCR), 5-FU clearance and a dihydrouracil/uracil ratio (as the phenotyping analysis) and a continuous clinical monitoring. Patients who had already experienced severe toxicity were then identified as carriers of DPYD variants. The plasmatic dihydrouracil/uracil ratio (by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)) ranged between 1.77 and 7.38. 5-FU clearance (by ultra-HPLC with tandem mass spectrometry) was measured in 3/11 patients. In one of them, it reduced after the 5-FU dosage was halved; in the other case, it remained high despite a drastic dosage reduction. Moreover, we performed a systematic review on genotyping/phenotyping combinations used as predictive factors of FP safety. Measuring the plasmatic 5-FU clearance and/or dihydrouracil/uracil (UH2/U) ratio could improve the predictive potential of DPYD-PGx. The upfront DPYD-PGx combined with clinical monitoring and feasible phenotyping method is essential to optimising FP-based chemotherapy.

Towards Rational Cancer Therapeutics: Optimizing Dosing, Delivery, Scheduling, and Combinations

The current trend to personalize anticancer therapies mostly relies on selecting the best drug or combination of drugs to achieve optimal efficacy in patients. In addition to the comprehensive genetic and molecular knowledge of each tumor before choosing the drugs to be given, there is probably much room left for improvement by further personalizing the very modes by which the drugs are given, once they have been carefully selected. In particular, shifting from standard dosing to tailored dosing should help in maintaining drug exposure levels in the right therapeutic window, thus ensuring that the efficacy/toxicity balance is optimal. This paper covers the current knowledge regarding pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships of anticancer agents, from decades-old cytotoxics to the latest immune checkpoint inhibitors, the most frequent sources for long-neglected interpatient variability impacting on drug exposure levels, and what could be done to achieve real personalized medicine in oncology such as implementing therapeutic drug monitoring with adaptive dosing strategies or using model-driven modalities for personalized dosing and scheduling.

Germline genetic variants with implications for disease risk and therapeutic outcomes

Genetic testing has multiple clinical applications including disease risk assessment, diagnosis, and pharmacogenomics. Pharmacogenomics can be utilized to predict whether a pharmacologic therapy will be effective or to identify patients at risk for treatment-related toxicity. Although genetic tests are typically ordered for a distinct clinical purpose, the genetic variants that are found may have additional implications for either disease or pharmacology. This review will address multiple examples of germline genetic variants that are informative for both disease and pharmacogenomics. The discussed relationships are diverse. Some of the agents are targeted for the disease-causing genetic variant, while others, although not targeted therapies, have implications for the disease they are used to treat. It is also possible that the disease implications of a genetic variant are unrelated to the pharmacogenomic implications. Some of these examples are considered clinically actionable pharmacogenes, with evidence-based, pharmacologic treatment recommendations, while others are still investigative as areas for additional research. It is important that clinicians are aware of both the disease and pharmacogenomic associations of these germline genetic variants to ensure patients are receiving comprehensive personalized care.