Abstract 2642
Background
About 20% of breast cancer (BC) patients do not attain tamoxifen’s (TAM) active metabolite endoxifen (ENDX) target concentrations when receiving 20 mg TAM once daily (q.d.). Thus, individualised dosing of up to 120 mg TAM q.d. for ENDX target attainment (TA) has been proposed. Combining concentrations and antiestrogenic activities of ENDX and its 3 precursors, the antiestrogenic activity score (AAS) has been developed as alternative TA metric. We aimed to integrate experimental and clinical data from diverse sources in an innovative modelling approach to identify patient groups at risk of treatment failure and to assess whether ENDX- or AAS-guided dosing would be more favourable for TA applying in silico simulation.
Methods
In vitro data from enzyme kinetic experiments, pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters from previous clinical studies and in vivo data from three clinical trials were synthesised into a minimal nonlinear mixed-effects physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (NLME-PBPK) model. Using simulation, lowest doses needed for TA, applying either the ENDX (≥5.97 ng/mL) or the AAS (≥1798) threshold, were investigated in a representative virtual BC population with various CYP2D6 activity scores (AS) and age.
Results
The developed NLME-PBPK model captured individual TAM and 3 metabolite concentration profiles from 406 BC patients well. Bioactivation to ENDX was 4.5-fold higher in CYP2D6 normal (NM) than in poor metabolisers (PM). Patients with low CYP2D6 activity and young age showed highest risks for ENDX non-TA. Among all patients, 76% received the same dose irrespective of the TA metric used. For the remaining 23% with different dose selections, applying the AAS instead of the ENDX target, TA increased in NM and intermediate metabolisers (IM) (+21.7% and +6.9%, respectively), while TA decreased in PM (-11.7%).
Conclusions
Our modelling approach combined pharmacogenetic factors, physiological changes and variability on PK parameters in a quantitative manner and allowed to translate PK information on TAM and its three major metabolites into individualised dosing. While ENDX-guided dosing was preferable for PM in our simulation, AAS-guided dosing was superior for NM and IM.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
The authors.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
L. Klopp-Schulze: Full / Part-time employment: Merck Healthcare KGaA. S.L. Koolen: Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Pfizer; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Roche; Research grant / Funding (institution): Astellas; Research grant / Funding (institution): Cristal Therapeutics; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Ipsen. R.H.J. Mathijssen: Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Astellas; Research grant / Funding (institution): Bayer; Research grant / Funding (institution): Boehringer; Research grant / Funding (institution): Cristal Therapeutics; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Research grant / Funding (institution): Pamgene; Research grant / Funding (institution): Roche; Research grant / Funding (institution): Sanofi; Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: Servier. C. Kloft: Research grant / Funding (institution), Grants received outside the submitted work: DDMoRe; Research grant / Funding (institution), Grants received outside the submitted work: Industry consortium (AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Gruenenthal GmbH, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Merck KGaA and SANOFI); Research grant / Funding (institution), Grants received outside the submitted work: Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Research grant / Funding (institution), Grants received outside the submitted work: Diurnal Ltd. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
2786 - Development of a living organoid biobank derived from colorectal cancer patients: towards personalized medicine
Presenter: Federica Papaccio
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
3351 - Microsatellite Instability Detection in Colorectal Cancer: 44-Center Comparison between the Idylla MSI Assay and Routine Molecular and Immunohistochemistry Tests on Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded Tissue
Presenter: Xavier Matias-guiu
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
4901 - Expression profile of EPHB3 and its prognostic significance in colorectal cancer progression (Running head: Prognostic value of EPHB3 in colorectal cancers)
Presenter: Bogun Jang
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
5030 - A pan-ErbB family inhibitor, AF8c, promotes apoptosis by DR5/Nrf2 activation via ROS in colorectal cancer cells
Presenter: Soyeon Jeong
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
5053 - Frequent BRAF, GNAS and SMAD4 mutations identified in Colorectal Mucinous Carcinomas
Presenter: Sun Mi Lee
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
5220 - Impact of CCL4 knockout using CRISPR Cas-9 technology on colorectal tumor progression
Presenter: Roba Barakat
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
5330 - Independent clinical validation of a gene expression profile to predict benefit of 5-FU in metastatic colorectal cancer
Presenter: Ida Buhl
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
5515 - WRN mutated Colorectal Cancer (CRC) is characterized by a distinct molecular and immunological profile
Presenter: Andreas Seeber
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
5716 - Mutation analysis of B2M gene in colorectal cancer patients with microsatellite instability
Presenter: Ivana Kašubová
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
870 - Selective Wnt/β-catenin small-molecule inhibitor CWP232228 impairs tumor growth of colon cancer
Presenter: Jin Young Kim
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract