
==== Front
Br J Cancer
Br J Cancer
British Journal of Cancer
0007-0920
1532-1827
Nature Publishing Group UK London

38971952
2789
10.1038/s41416-024-02789-2
Article
Reasons for non-feasibility of therapeutic drug monitoring of oral targeted therapies in oncology – an analysis of the closed cohorts of a multicentre prospective study
http://orcid.org/0009-0008-8492-8039
van der Kleij Maud B. A. m.vd.kleij@nki.nl

12
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8080-9093
Guchelaar Niels A. D. 2
Meertens Marinda 3
Westerdijk Kim 4
Giraud Eline L. 5
Bleckman Roos F. 6
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5085-3787
Groenland Stefanie L. 1
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8937-3425
van Eerden Ruben A. G. 2
Imholz Alex L. T. 7
Vulink Annelie J. E. 8
Otten Hans-Martin 9
Fiebrich-Westra Helle-Brit 10
Lubberman Floor J. E. 11
Desar Ingrid M. E. 4
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3219-253X
Moes Dirk-Jan A. R. 12
Touw Daan J. 13
Koolen Stijn L. W. 214
Gelderblom Hans 15
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1678-7816
Reyners An K. L. 6
van Erp Nielka P. 5
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5667-5697
Mathijssen Ron H. J. 2
Huitema Alwin D. R. 31617
Dutch Pharmacology Oncology Group (DPOG)
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2989-2279
Steeghs Neeltje 118
1 https://ror.org/03xqtf034 grid.430814.a 0000 0001 0674 1393 Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Division of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2 https://ror.org/03r4m3349 grid.508717.c 0000 0004 0637 3764 Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
3 https://ror.org/03xqtf034 grid.430814.a 0000 0001 0674 1393 Department of Pharmacy & Pharmacology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
4 https://ror.org/05wg1m734 grid.10417.33 0000 0004 0444 9382 Department of Medical Oncology, Research Institute for Medical Innovation, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
5 https://ror.org/05wg1m734 grid.10417.33 0000 0004 0444 9382 Department of Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology, Research Institute for Medical Innovation, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
6 grid.4830.f 0000 0004 0407 1981 Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
7 grid.413649.d 0000 0004 0396 5908 Department of Medical Oncology, Deventer Hospital, Deventer, The Netherlands
8 https://ror.org/00wkhef66 grid.415868.6 0000 0004 0624 5690 Department of Medical Oncology, Reinier de Graaf Hospital, Delft, The Netherlands
9 grid.414725.1 0000 0004 0368 8146 Department of Medical Oncology, Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, The Netherlands
10 https://ror.org/046a2wj10 grid.452600.5 0000 0001 0547 5927 Department of Medical Oncology, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands
11 grid.415351.7 0000 0004 0398 026X Department of Pharmacy, Gelderse Vallei Hospital, Ede, The Netherlands
12 grid.10419.3d 0000000089452978 Department of Clinical Pharmacy & Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
13 grid.4830.f 0000 0004 0407 1981 Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
14 https://ror.org/018906e22 grid.5645.2 0000 0004 0459 992X Department of Pharmacy, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
15 grid.10419.3d 0000000089452978 Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
16 grid.7692.a 0000000090126352 Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Utrecht University Medical Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands
17 grid.487647.e Department of Pharmacology, Princess Máxima Centre for Paediatric Oncology, Utrecht, The Netherlands
18 grid.5477.1 0000000120346234 Department of Medical Oncology, Utrecht University Medical Centre, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
6 7 2024
6 7 2024
21 9 2024
131 5 843851
15 4 2024
25 6 2024
1 7 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Background

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) – performing dose adjustments based on measured drug levels and established pharmacokinetic (PK) targets – could optimise treatment with drugs that show large interpatient variability in exposure. We evaluated the feasibility of TDM for multiple oral targeted therapies. Here we report on drugs for which routine TDM is not feasible.

Methods

We evaluated drug cohorts from the Dutch Pharmacology Oncology Group – TDM study. Based on PK levels taken at pre-specified time points, PK-guided interventions were performed. Feasibility of TDM was evaluated, and based on the success and practicability of TDM, cohorts could be closed.

Results

For 10 out of 24 cohorts TDM was not feasible and inclusion was closed. A high incidence of adverse events resulted in closing the cabozantinib, dabrafenib/trametinib, everolimus, regorafenib and vismodegib cohort. The enzalutamide and erlotinib cohorts were closed because almost all PK levels were above target. Other, non-pharmacological reasons led to closing the palbociclib, olaparib and tamoxifen cohort.

Conclusions

Although TDM could help personalising treatment for many drugs, the above-mentioned reasons can influence its feasibility, usefulness and clinical applicability. Therefore, routine TDM is not advised for cabozantinib, dabrafenib/trametinib, enzalutamide, erlotinib, everolimus, regorafenib and vismodegib. Nonetheless, TDM remains valuable for individual clinical decisions.

Subject terms

Targeted therapies
Cancer therapy
https://doi.org/10.13039/501100001254 Ipsen Fund Unrestricted grant, no grant number van der Kleij Maud B. A. https://doi.org/10.13039/100004330 GlaxoSmithKline (GlaxoSmithKline plc.) Unrestricted grant, no grant number van der Kleij Maud B. A. https://doi.org/10.13039/100004336 Novartis Unrestricted grant, no grant number van der Kleij Maud B. A. https://doi.org/10.13039/100004319 Pfizer (Pfizer Inc.) Unrestricted grant, no grant number van der Kleij Maud B. A. https://doi.org/10.13039/100004337 Roche (F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd) Unrestricted grant, no grant number van der Kleij Maud B. A. issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Limited 2024
==== Body
pmcBackground

Currently available information on pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) data suggests that oral targeted therapies usually demonstrate large interpatient variability in drug exposure [1]. As patients are often treated with a fixed standard dose, this could lead to unnecessary underdosing and overdosing of patients, potentially resulting in reduced efficacy and avoidable toxicity. One approach to personalise treatment with oral targeted therapies could be through therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). TDM consists of measuring PK levels and adjusting the dose based on these PK levels and pre-specified targets (PK-guided interventions). There are several drug specific criteria that make drugs suitable TDM candidates. Alongside considerable interpatient variability in exposure, a reliable bio-analytical method for measuring PK levels should be available, drugs should have a narrow therapeutic window and there should be no superior biomarker for assessing drug effect. Additionally, therapy should be long ongoing, so there is time for dose adjustments, and there should be feasible dose adjustment options, which is often so when drugs have dose-proportional pharmacokinetics. Lastly, TDM is mostly useful when an exposure-response relationship with an accompanying target has been established. Many oral targeted therapies fit these criteria [2].

In oncological drug development, dose selection has traditionally been based primarily on determining the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) [3]. For the increasingly more available oral targeted therapies, dosing at the MTD might not necessarily enhance efficacy because of target saturation, and the optimal biological dose is often lower than the MTD [4, 5]. Consequently, the Food & Drug Administration proposed Project Optimus, an initiative to revise dose selection of anticancer drugs, guided by PK/PD data instead of toxicity [4, 5]. Because these PK/PD data were previously often not available during the dose finding phase, dose- and exposure-response data for many currently registered oral targeted therapies were initially lacking. In recent years, further studies have delineated the existence of exposure-response relationships at the standard dose for these drugs [6], and Project Optimus is now contributing to an increased availability of PK/PD data of newly developed drugs [5].

Given the enhanced availability of PK/PD data, multiple studies have demonstrated the feasibility of the use of routine TDM for obtaining adequate PK levels for multiple oral targeted therapies, such as abiraterone, tamoxifen, imatinib, pazopanib and sunitinib [6–15]. We have investigated the feasibility of TDM for over twenty drugs, and demonstrated that overall TDM is feasible, however this feasibility was not clear for all separate drugs [16]. For the VEGFR-inhibitor (vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor) sorafenib for example, we showed that TDM was not feasible due to high incidence of treatment related adverse events (trAEs) [17].

The aim of the current study was to report why TDM was not feasible or applicable for some of the oral targeted therapies. With our findings, we aim to provide recommendations for overcoming these challenges and suggest potential directions for future research on feasibility of TDM in oncology.

Methods

DPOG-TDM study

This analysis is part of a larger project: the Dutch Pharmacology Oncology Group (DPOG)-TDM study (https://trialsearch.who.int/, trial number NTR6866). This is a dynamic prospective study in twelve hospitals in the Netherlands. This study was performed on behalf of the DPOG, a consortium consisting of hospital pharmacists and medical oncologists from five Dutch university hospitals/ tertiary care cancer centres (Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Leiden University Medical Centre, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek (NKI-AVL), Radboud University Medical Centre and University Medical Centre Groningen) performing research on clinical pharmacology in oncology. Patients starting with one of the included oral targeted therapies on the standard dose could be enrolled. The protocol has been published elsewhere [18]. The DPOG-TDM study was approved by the Institutional Research Board of the NKI-AVL and by each individual participating hospital. All patients provided written informed consent. Patients were included between June 2017 and October 2022. The study included a maximum of three stages per drug cohort (Fig. 1). The aim of the first stage was to evaluate the feasibility of PK-guided interventions per cohort. These evaluations were done when approximately 30 patients were included within each cohort, or sooner if indicated. Whenever the feasibility of PK-guided interventions was considered promising, the cohort proceeded to the second stage, with the aim to confirm feasibility in a larger cohort (n = 100) and to evaluate preliminary efficacy results. After evaluation, the cohort was either closed or continued into the implementation phase (third stage). Feasibility of TDM was evaluated based on possibility to perform PK-guided interventions and their successfulness. PK-guided interventions were considered successful if the median Cmin after the intervention was above target and if no dose limiting trAEs were observed within the first month following intervention.Fig. 1 Overview of stages.

The study included a maximum of three stages per drug cohort. After the first stage, feasibility was evaluated. If considered promising, the cohort proceeded to the second stage, to confirm feasibility in a larger cohort and to evaluate preliminary efficacy. After evaluation, the cohorts were either closed or continued to the implementation stage.

Patient selection

Patients from cohorts which were closed during or after either the first or second stage were included in this analysis (as per January 2024). This includes patients from the cabozantinib, dabrafenib/trametinib, enzalutamide, erlotinib, everolimus, olaparib, palbociclib, regorafenib, tamoxifen and vismodegib cohort. The lack of feasibility of TDM of the sorafenib cohort has been discussed elsewhere, so patients from the sorafenib cohort were therefore not included in this analysis [17]. Collected data included patient and tumour characteristics, PK levels, recommended and performed PK-guided interventions and reasons if not performed, treatment outcomes, details on treatment discontinuation and survival and clinically relevant trAEs (according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grading system). Clinically relevant trAEs were defined as AEs ultimately leading to treatment discontinuation, dose reductions, treatment interruptions or restricting dose interventions.

PK-guided interventions

PK levels were taken at four, eight and twelve weeks after start of treatment, and every twelve weeks thereafter. Because of their long elimination half-lives, tamoxifen and vismodegib PK levels were drawn every twelve weeks from start of treatment; for palbociclib PK levels were taken at three, seven and eleven weeks because of the three weeks on, one week off dosing scheme. Date and time of the last drug ingestion was noted. PK levels were measured using validated assays [19]. PK levels were drawn either pre-dose (minimal plasma concentration, Cmin level), or at random time after dose, but after the time to maximum exposure (Tmax). If drawn at random time after dose, PK levels were extrapolated to a Cmin using log-linear extrapolation [20, 21]. For tamoxifen, there was no need for extrapolation because of the long half-life of the active metabolite endoxifen, where the target was based on. For olaparib, we used the ratio of the average population concentration and the measured concentration multiplied with the average population value Cmin to predict the Cmin, as it follows multicompartmental kinetics [20–22]. If there was a PK level below target (specified in Table 1), a PK-guided intervention was recommended. Possible PK-guided interventions were specific per drug and included dose escalation, emphasis on drug compliance, and adjustment of interacting medication [18]. PK-guided interventions were only carried out if both the physician and patient agreed with the intervention and if deemed feasible (based on i.e. tolerability). In the dabrafenib/trametinib cohort PK-guided interventions were recommended based on the trametinib levels due to the exposure-response relationship for trametinib and the lack of an exposure-response relationship for dabrafenib at the approved dose [6]. For cabozantinib the standard dose in our study was 40 mg once daily (OD), and the target was based on this dose [23].Table 1 Targets used for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring.

Drug	TDM target (ng/mL unless otherwise stated)	Based on	
Cabozantinib	≥ 750	Average exposure of 40 mg OD at steady state [23]	
Dabrafenib/ trametinib	≥ 10.6	Cut-off value from exposure-response analysis based on mean Cmin of standard dose at steady state from previous research [41, 42]	
Enzalutamide	≥ 5 mg/L	Mean Cmin of lowest dose at steady state in phase 1-2 study [35]	
Erlotinib	≥ 500	Preclinical results on EGFR inhibition [24]	
Everolimus	≥ 10	Cut-off value from exposure-response analysis [43]	
Olaparib	≥ 1290	Mean Cmin of 400 mg BID capsule formulation at steady state [44]	
Palbociclib	≥ 61	Mean Cmin of standard dose at steady state [45]	
Regorafenib	≥ 1400	Mean Cmin of standard dose [46]	
Tamoxifen	≥ 5.97	Threshold for at risk subgroup, corresponding closely to lowest quantile in study sample [47]	
Vismodegib	≥ 11.4	Mean Cmin of standard dose at steady state [48]	
Targets are all Cmin, except tamoxifen: steady state concentration of the active metabolite endoxifen. Target for dabrafenib/trametinib cohort is based on trametinib exposure. TDM Therapeutic drug monitoring; OD Once daily, Cmin Minimum plasma concentration, EGFR Epidermal growth factor receptor, BID Twice daily.

Statistics

As this is a descriptive analysis, no formal hypothesis testing was performed. PK levels were analysed and extrapolated using R, version 4.2.2 (R Project, Vienna, Austria). Median exposure was calculated by calculating the median exposure for every individual patient, and ultimately calculating the median of these medians, as this result was least influenced by outliers.

Results

As per January 1st 2024, 24 drug cohorts have been opened in the DPOG-TDM study, of which 16 cohorts have been evaluated for stage progression. Next to the sorafenib cohort, 10 other cohorts were closed after evaluation.

Patient characteristics

In these 10 closed cohorts, 270 patients were evaluable for analysis (Fig. 2). Baseline characteristics of these patients per cohort are described in Table 2. The largest cohort was the dabrafenib/trametinib cohort, which included 65 evaluable patients, followed by enzalutamide (n = 42), palbociclib (n = 32), olaparib (n = 35), everolimus (n = 25), cabozantinib (n = 25), tamoxifen (n = 22), vismodegib (n = 12), regorafenib (n = 9) and erlotinib (n = 3).Fig. 2 Flow chart for patient selection.

N = number of patients. In the whole DPOG-TDM study, 1006 patients were selected. Patients in still open cohorts were not evaluable for this analysis. For the remaining patients in the closed cohorts, other reasons for exclusion are described.

Table 2 Baseline characteristics.

	All patients	Cabozantinib	Dabrafenib/ trametinib	Enzalutamide	Erlotinib	Everolimus	Olaparib	Palbociclib	Regorafenib	Tamoxifen	Vismodegib	
Total patients	270	25	65	42	3	25	35	32	9	22	12	
Age at baseline (years)	63 [54–71]	64 [58–71]	56 [51–65]	71.5 [68–75]	58 [51-66.5]	63 [56–69]	63 [57.5-70]	56.5 [52–64]	57 [48–73]	55.5 [48–69]	71 [62–74]	
Gender	
 Male	119 (44.1%)	15 (60%)	36 (55.4%)	42 (100%)	1 (33.3%)	9 (36%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	9 (100%)	1 (4.5%)	6 (50%)	
 Female	151 (55.9%)	10 (40%)	29 (44.6%)	0 (0%)	2 (66.7%)	16 (64%)	35 (100%)	32 (100%)	0 (0%)	21 (95.5%)	6 (50%)	
Tumour type	
 Basal cell carcinoma	12 (4.4%)										12 (100%)	
 Breast cancer	64 (23.7%)					10 (40%)		32 (100%)		22 (100%)		
 Gastro intestinal stromal tumour	7 (2.6%)								7 (77.8%)			
 Hepatocellular carcinoma	2 (0.7%)								2 (22.2%)			
 Melanoma	65 (24.1%)		65 (100%)									
 Neuroendocrine tumour	11 (4.1%)					11 (44%)						
 Non-small-cell lung cancer	3 (1.1%)				3 (100%)							
 Ovarian cancer	35 (13%)						35 (100%)					
 Prostate cancer	42 (15.6%)			42 (100%)								
 Renal Cell carcinoma	27 (10%)	25 (100%)				2 (8%)						
 Soft-tissue sarcoma	1 (0.4%)					1 (4%)						
 Other	1 (0.4%)					1 (4%)						
Number of previous lines of systemic treatment	
 0	103 (38.1%)	7 (28%)	33 (50.8%)	26 (61.9%)	1 (33.3%)	5 (20%)	1 (2.85%)	5 (15.6%)		16 (72.7%)	9 (75%)	
 1	81 (30.1%)	7 (28%)	25 (38.5%)	7 (16.7%)	1 (33.3%)	5 (20%)	17 (48.6%)	9 (28.1%)	2 (22.2%)	5 (22.7%)	3 (25%)	
 2	58 (21.5%)	9 (36%)	7 (10.8%)	5 (11.9%)	1 (33.3%)	7 (28%)	13 (37.1%)	10 (31.3%)	5 (55.6%)	1 (4.6%)		
 3	18 (6.7%)	1 (4%)		2 (4.75%)		6 (24%)	3 (8.6%)	5 (15.6%)	1 (11.1%)			
 ≥ 4	10 (3.7%)	1 (4%)		2 (4.75%)		2 (8%)	1 (2.85%)	3 (9.4%)	1 (11.1%)			
PK levels total	1338	111	324	240	13	88	232	129	30	138	33	
PK levels per patient	3 [2–6]	3 [2–6]	3 [2–6]	5 [3–7]	3 [2.5–5.5]	3 [1–4]	6 [3-9.5]	3 [2–5]	2 [1–3]	3 [2–9]	1.5 [1–3]	
Median Cmin (ng/mL, unless otherwise stated)		696 [629–897]	15.7 [13.2–19.5]	11.0 mg/L [10.0–12.8]	1543 [1319-1874]	11.1 [9.40–17.0]	1507 [1155–2243]	60.1 [46.8–75.0]	1330 [867.6–1600]	9.77 [7.11–12.0]	8.75 [7.28–11.2]	
Data are expressed as number (%) or median [IQR]. Due to rounding, total percentages could be deviating from 100%. The bold values are the values for all patients combined. PK Pharmacokinetic, Cmin Minimum plasma concentration

PK levels and PK-guided interventions

In total, 1338 PK levels were drawn, with a median of three per patient [Interquartile range (IQR) 2-6]. Almost half of the patients (47%) had at least one PK level below target. An overview of PK levels and interventions can be found in Table 3.Table 3 Overview of interventions per drug.

	All patients	Main reason for closing the cohort	
	≥ 1 low Cmin	All adequate PK levels	
	Intervention	No intervention		Treatment continued	Dose reduction due to toxicity	Treatment discontinued due to toxicity	Treatment interruption due to toxicity	
	Successful	Not successful		Toxicity	Physician adherence	Discon- tinued	Logistics	Borderline low PK levels	
	Still low PK levels	Toxicity		
All drugs	270	127 (47)	47 (37)	30 (63.8)	17 (26.2)	9 (52.9)	8 (47.1)	80 (63)	46 (57.5)	15 (18.8)	8 (10)	6 (7.5)	5 (6.3)	143 (53)	103 (72)	16 (11.2)	12 (8.4)	12 (8.4)	
Cabozantinib	25	20 (80)	5 (25)	2 (40)	3 (60)	1 (33.3)	2 (66.7)	15 (75)	14 (93.3)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (6.7)	0 (0)	5 (20)	4 (80)	0 (0)	1 (20)	0 (0)	Toxicity	
Dabrafenib/ trametinib	65	18 (27.7)	6 (33.3)	4 (66.7)	2 (33.3)	1 (50)	1 (50)	12 (66.7)	3 (25)	3 (25)	3 (25)	1 (8.3)	2 (16.7)	47 (72.3)	33 (70.2)	2 (4.3)	0 (0)	12 (25.5)	Toxicity	
Enzalutamide	42	2 (4.8)	1 (50)	1 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (50)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)	40 (95.2)	32 (80)	6 (15)	2 (5)	0 (0)	PK levels above target	
Erlotinib	3	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	3 (100)	3 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	PK levels above target	
Everolimus	25	13 (52)	4 (30.8)	2 (50)	2 (50)	1 (50)	1 (50)	9 (69.2)	7 (77.8)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (11.1)	1 (11.1)	12 (48)	2 (16.7)	3 (25)	7 (58.3)	0 (0)	Toxicity	
Olaparib	35	27 (77.1)	17 (63)	12 (70.6)	5 (29.4)	4 (80)	1 (20)	10 (37)	5 (50)	1 (10)	1 (10)	2 (20)	1 (10)	8 (22.9)	6 (75)	2 (25)	0 (0)	0 (0)	Other	
Palbociclib	32	22 (68.7)	7 (31.8)	4 (57.1)	3 (42.9)	1 (33.3)	2 (66.7)	15 (68.2)	9 (60)	4 (26.7)	0 (0)	1 (6.7)	1 (6.7)	10 (31.3)	8 (80)	2 (20)	0 (0)	0 (0)	Other	
Regorafenib	9	6 (66.7)	1 (16.7)	0 (0)	1 (100)	1 (100)	0 (0)	5 (83.3)	1 (20)	3 (60)	1 (20)	0 (0)	0 (0)	3 (33.3)	2 (66.7)	1 (33.3)	0 (0)	0 (0)	Toxicity	
Tamoxifen	22	7 (31.8)	5 (71.4)	4 (80)	1 (20)	0 (0)	1 (100)	2 (28.6)	2 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	15 (68.2)	13 (86.7)	0 (0)	2 (13.3)	0 (0)	Other	
Vismodegib	12	12 (100)	1 (8.3)	1 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	11 (91.7)	5 (45.5)	4 (36.4)	2 (18.2)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	Toxicity	
Data are expressed as number (%). Due to rounding, total percentages could be deviating from 100%. Cmin: minimum plasma concentration; PK Pharmacokinetic.

Patients had ≥ 1 low Cmin or all adequate PK levels. If patients had ≥ 1 low Cmin they did or did not have an intervention. If they had an intervention, it was described as successful when median Cmin after intervention was above target and there was no dose-limiting toxicity within one month, or otherwise as a not successful intervention. If not a successful intervention, it was stated why. If no intervention was performed, the reason why was also stated. If patients had all adequate PK levels, it was stated if patients continued with the standard dose or if toxicity led to dose reduction, treatment discontinuation or treatment interruption. Lastly, the main reason for closing the cohort was stated.

Reasons for closing cohorts

Cohorts were closed for two pharmacological reasons: 1. High incidence of toxicity (five cohorts) and 2. Almost all PK levels were above the predefined targets (two cohorts). Three cohorts were closed for other, non-pharmacological reasons.

Pharmacological reasons

Toxicity

The most common reason for closing a cohort was a high incidence of clinically relevant trAEs, whereby TDM following our protocol was not feasible.

For cabozantinib, 25 patients had a total of 111 available PK levels. Median exposure was 696 ng/mL and 20 patients had ≥1 PK level below target of 750 ng/mL. PK-guided interventions were only possible in five patients. Of these, the intervention was successful in two patients. Out of the three patients in which the intervention was not successful, two had to swiftly switch back to standard dose because of trAEs at the higher dose and one still had low PK levels. Of the remaining 15 patients with a PK level below target, 14 did not have an intervention because of trAEs at the standard dose. Out of all 25 patients, 19 experienced clinically relevant trAEs throughout the study, of which one started experiencing toxicity after an intervention. Many patients experienced multiple trAEs, with diarrhoea (n = 8), hand-foot syndrome (HFS) (n = 6) and fatigue (n = 4) being most common. Five patients had grade ≥3 trAE (mostly diarrhoea, n = 3). Because PK-guided interventions were often not possible due to the high trAE incidence, TDM for cabozantinib following our protocol was determined not feasible and the cohort was closed.

In the dabrafenib/trametinib cohort, 324 PK levels were available from 65 patients with a median trametinib exposure of 15.7 ng/mL. Eighteen patients had ≥ 1 PK level below target (trametinib Cmin of 10.6 ng/mL). An intervention was recommended in six patients, which was successful in four. Reasons not to perform an intervention in the other 12 patients were various, with the main reasons being toxicity (n = 3) and physician adherence (n = 3). Of all 65 patients, 47 patients had all adequate PK, of which 33 patients continued treatment and the other 14 patients experienced clinically relevant trAEs. In total, 22 patients experienced clinically relevant trAEs during the study, and most often this was fever (n = 14). TDM was considered not feasible because of this toxicity incidence, and the cohort was closed.

In the everolimus cohort, 25 patients had 88 available PK levels, with a median Cmin of 11.1 ng/mL. Out of 25 patients, 13 patients had ≥ 1 PK level below target (Cmin of 10 ng/mL). An intervention was possible in four patients, of which two were successful. In nine patients it was impossible to perform PK-guided interventions, mostly because of toxicity (n = 7). Out of all 25 patients, 21 patients experienced clinically relevant trAEs, of which many of them experienced more than one. Most frequent trAEs included fatigue (n = 6), pneumonitis (n = 4), nausea/vomiting (n = 3) and diarrhoea (n = 3). Five patients experienced grade ≥ 3 trAEs. This noticeably high toxicity incidence was why the cohort was closed.

For regorafenib, nine patients starting on the standard dose had a total of 30 available PK levels with a median Cmin of 1330 ng/mL. Six patients had ≥ 1 PK level below target (Cmin of 1400 ng/mL), and an intervention was possible in only one patient, which was unsuccessful. In the five patients without an intervention, this was most often due to physician adherence (n = 3). In total, six patients experienced clinically relevant trAEs, of which two patients experienced HFS grade 3. Remarkably,﻿ 10 patients were enrolled while not fulfilling eligibility criteria and thus not taken into account in the feasibility analysis. In detail, all started on a lower dose of 80 mg OD (n = 4) or 120 mg OD (n = 6). From these 10 patients, 46 PK levels were measured, with a median Cmin of 2095 ng/mL. Six patients had all adequate PK and four patients had a PK level below target (although based on the mean Cmin of the approved dose of 160 mg OD). An intervention was possible in one patient, although unsuccessful due to toxicity. Toxicity was also the reason the other three patients with low PK levels could not undergo dose escalation. Out of the 10 patients, eight experienced clinically relevant trAEs. The high incidence of toxicity in both the standard-dose and lower-dose group made us decide to close the cohort, because TDM was deemed not feasible.

For vismodegib, 12 patients had a total of 33 PK levels available. All patients had at least one PK level below target (Cmin of 11.4 ng/mL), with a median Cmin of 8.75 ng/mL per patient. Dose escalation was successful in one patient, although later in treatment this dose was reduced again because of trAEs. The other 11 patients did not undergo a PK-guided intervention, because of trAEs (n = 5), physician adherence (n = 4) or because treatment was discontinued before dose-escalation was possible (n = 2). Half of the patients experienced clinically relevant trAEs, most often myalgia (n = 3). Because of this high level of toxicity, TDM was assumed not feasible, and the cohort was closed.

Almost all PK levels above the predefined target

The cohorts of enzalutamide and erlotinib were closed because almost all PK levels were (already) above the predefined target and therefore it was determined that PK-guided interventions were not of added value with the set target.

In the enzalutamide cohort, 42 patients were included with a total of 240 PK levels. Median Cmin was 11.0 mg/L. Only two patients had a PK-level below target (Cmin of 5 mg/L). A PK-guided intervention was successful in one of these patients, the other patient discontinued treatment before dose escalation was possible. Because almost all patients had PK levels above target, combined with the lacking evidence of an exposure-response relationship [6], we decided that TDM following our protocol was not of additional value, and the cohort was closed.

For the erlotinib cohort, the target of 500 ng/mL was based on preclinical data [6, 24]. After including three patients, with 13 PK levels, it became clear that this target was a three-fold lower than the median concentration (median Cmin of 1543 ng/mL). All patients had adequate PK and continued with the standard dose. The absence of proof of an exposure-response relationship, combined with additional research demonstrating that 500 ng/mL is far below the median Cmin [25, 26], and our results that all patients had far higher exposure than the target, made us decide to close the cohort.

Non-pharmacological reasons

The olaparib, palbociclib and tamoxifen cohorts were closed because of other, non-pharmacological reasons.

In the olaparib cohort, 35 patients had a total of 232 PK levels, with a median Cmin of 1507 ng/mL and a target of 1290 ng/mL. Out of 35 patients, 27 patients had ≥1 PK level below target. An intervention was possible in 17 patients, of which 12 were successful. For 5 out of 10 patients for whom an intervention was not possible, this was because of toxicity. Although primary feasibility results were positive, a logistical issue occurred. The set target was based on the average mean Cmin of the - no longer approved - capsule formulation, and evidence showed different exposure levels for the currently used tablet formulation [27]. Combined with the lacking evidence of an exposure-response relationship at the approved dose, we decided to close the cohort [6, 28].

In the palbociclib cohort 32 patients were included, with a median Cmin of 60.1 ng/mL over 129 PK levels, of which 22 had ≥ 1 PK level below target (Cmin of 61 ng/mL). Of these, seven had an intervention, of which four were successful. No intervention was carried out in 15 patients, primarily because of toxicity (n = 9). During the study, it became clear that the protocol was often not followed (59% of patients). It was impractical for patients to visit the hospital in two consecutive weeks, because of the need for Cmin level measurements in week three of therapy and evaluation of toxicity in the rest week (week four). Taken together with the shortcoming evidence for an exposure-response relationship at the approved dose [6], we decided that TDM for palbociclib following our study protocol was not feasible in clinical practice.

In the tamoxifen cohort, 22 included patients with a total of 138 PK levels had a median Cmin of 9.77 ng/mL, with a target of 5.97 ng/mL. Out of these 22 patients, seven patients had 1≥ low PK level, and an intervention was possible in five patients, of which four were successful. The other 15 patients had all adequate PK. During our study, other studies demonstrated good feasibility of TDM of tamoxifen in a far larger groups (n = 122 and n = 145, respectively) [9, 10]. Because we would not be able to meet the power of these studies, we decided that continuing inclusions in this cohort would not be of added value.

Discussion

In this study, we aimed to report why routine TDM was not feasible for some oral targeted therapies in a multicentre prospective study. From 10 different drug cohorts with 270 patients, we closed seven cohorts because of two pharmacological reasons: high toxicity incidence and because almost all PK levels above target, and three cohorts because of other, non-pharmacological reasons. Although certain drugs might seem suitable candidates for TDM on forehand, the course of our study showed that there are several factors to consider when determining the feasibility of TDM and the applicability in clinical practice.

We closed most cohorts because of non-feasibility due to high toxicity incidence. For drugs with lacking evidence for an exposure-response relationship at the standard dose, such as vismodegib but also sorafenib [17], the decision to close the cohort was clear, as following TDM could put the patients at risk for serious toxicity without additional benefit. For oral targeted therapies with possible or inconclusive evidence for an exposure-response relationship at the standard dose – i.e. cabozantinib, everolimus, trametinib and regorafenib [6] - the non-feasibility due to toxicity raised the question whether the used targets were too high to be achievable - as toxicity was often present in patients with exposure lower than the target -, whether the therapeutic window of these drug was too small for TDM, or whether the standard dosing was too high to begin with. For example for cabozantinib, the 750 ng/mL target was based on the average exposure of the 40 mg dose at steady state derived from a population PK model. Not only did 20 out of 25 patients have ≥ 1 PK level below target, median exposure of all patients was below this target as well (696 ng/mL), with only 32% of patients having a median Cmin above target. Results from two other trials, including patients using mostly 40 mg or 60 mg OD also showed a median exposure below 750 ng/mL (n = 59, Cmin = 572 ng/mL; n = 76, Cmin = 500 ng/mL) [29, 30], suggesting that the cabozantinib target in our study was too high to be feasible. For the cohorts that where closed due to toxicity, titrating the dose based on toxicity could be a useful alternative to TDM. This is already done for axitinib, a VEGFR-inhibitor (like cabozantinib and regorafenib) used in patients with renal cell carcinoma. A significantly higher proportion of patients taking axitinib following dose titration based on treatment induced hypertension achieved an objective response rate than patients following standard dosing. This was supported by exposure data, as patients who were not eligible for dose titration already therapeutic exposure on the standard dose [31–33]. In clinical practice many patients already start with cabozantinib at 40 mg OD and not the approved 60 mg OD, and are titrated to higher dosages when possible. So, dose titration supported by exposure information could be a way of getting patients at their individual MTD with most optimal treatment outcomes. Furthermore, finding better PD biomarkers is urgently needed to enable to give the patient a dose with optimal efficacy and no unnecessary toxicity and could help personalising treatment.

For the two cohorts that were closed because almost all patients had PK levels above the predefined target, the targets were based on available evidence on target saturation. For erlotinib, preclinical pharmacodynamic studies in animals suggest that concentrations above 500 ng/mL provide sufficient and almost complete EGFR (epidarmal growth factor receptor) inhibition [24]. In the phase 1 trial, most patients achieved this concentration when treated with at least 150 mg OD. The mean Cmin of both patients receiving 150 mg OD and 100 mg OD were far above this 500 ng/mL target (1200 ng/mL and 820 ng/mL, respectively). Following the MTD strategy, 150 mg OD was advised as standard dose, but it was also stated that the effects of the dose and concentration on EGFR inhibition should be further elucidated [24]. Overall, there are indications that the standard dose of 150 mg OD is higher than needed for target saturation. For enzalutamide, the phase 1-2 trial advised 160 mg OD as standard dose, following the MTD strategy [34, 35]. It was suggested that androgen receptor binding was higher in patients treated with 150 mg OD with a Cmin of 11.4 mg/L than in patients treated with 60 mg OD with a Cmin of 5.0 mg/L, following positron emission tomography scans, but this difference was only minimal [35, 36]. This could indicate that there is already target saturation at Cmin levels of > 5.0 mg/L, and this could be reached with a lower dose than 150 mg OD, for example (based on available tablets) with 120 mg OD. This is also suggested by a 2024 study on 120 mg OD vs 150 mg OD dosing of enzalutamide where all patients (independent of dose) had exposure > 5 mg/L [37]. So for both erlotinib and enzalutamide it could be that patients are currently prescribed a higher dose than needed for maximal efficacy outcomes with a possible unnecessary increased risk for adverse events and also, additional costs.

When the DPOG-TDM study was opened, all oral targeted therapies which were prescribed and for which available validated assays were available were included. Additional research now has described the presence of a quantified exposure-response relationships as a necessary criterion for a drug to be suitable for TDM [2]. In addition to the previously described reasons for closing the palbociclib and olaparib cohort, the lacking evidence of a well quantified exposure-response relationship supported our decision [6]. If new evidence on these exposure-response relationships would become available, we would revisit our decision to close these cohorts. Since our study is dynamic, and not only can cohorts be closed, but also opened, we agreed that from now on we will only include drugs that have a well quantified exposure-response relationship at the standard dose, so the need and usefulness of TDM would be more obvious from the start [6]. Reflecting on the other closed cohorts, it is hereby important not to only have evidence for an exposure-response relationship, but also for an attainable and clear target. This is also our advice for other future research on routine TDM.

Although routine TDM was not feasible or useful for the described oral targeted therapies, TDM on indication could still be a useful tool in clinical decisions in individual cases. Patients using oral targeted therapies frequently use concomitant drugs that could influence exposure, such as Cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) inducers and inhibitors. Sometimes these can be easily switched, but other times (e.g. patients with brain metastases with properly controlled epilepsy with anti-epileptic drugs) this is more difficult, and TDM could be used to provide information on exposure levels. TDM could also be useful in other situations that potentially influence drug exposure, such as gastro-intestinal surgery and the need for nasogastric tubes for the intake of food and drugs, and could be a tool to monitor patient drug adherence. For some drugs, it is known that patient specific characteristics as Body Mass Index can influence drug exposure, so TDM could be an useful tool to monitor exposure [38, 39]. If patients experience trAEs and need a dose reduction, TDM could also be helpful to titrate the dose to an acceptable and effective level [40]. Lastly, when patients experience AEs, high exposure could support the decision to lower the dose, because adequate exposure can still be guarded using TDM. In contrast, low exposure might support the decision to change treatment, because not only does the patient then experience AEs, also optimal efficacy might not be reached. Overall, drug exposure might be useful to take into account in clinical decisions.

Conclusions

Therapeutic drug monitoring is a tool used to personalise treatment with oral targeted therapies. It has been proven valuable for many drugs, but we found some factors that influence the feasibility, usefulness and clinical applicability of TDM. Future research on routine TDM should focus on drugs with a well quantified exposure-response relationship and a clear exposure target, as these are crucial for the necessity of routine TDM. With this experience, we do not advise routine TDM to aim for an exposure target for cabozantinib, dabrafenib/trametinib, enzalutamide, erlotinib, everolimus, regorafenib and vismodegib, although TDM could still be used to guide clinical decisions in individual cases.

Author contributions

MBAvdK included patients; collected data; analysed the data; wrote the manuscript and designed the tables and figures. NADG, MM, KW, ELG, RFB, and RAGvE included patients; collected data and consulted on the manuscript. SLG was involved in designing the study, included patients, collected data, and consulted on the manuscript. ALTI, AJEV, HMO, H-BFW, FJEL, DJT, and AKLR included patients and consulted on the manuscript. IMED, DJARM, SLWK, HG, NPvE, RHJM, ADRH, and NS were all involved in the designing and conceptualization of the study and consulted on the manuscript. NS supervised the project.

Funding

The DPOG-TDM study was supported by unrestricted research grants from Ipsen; GSK; Novartis; Pfizer and Roche (no grant number). They had no involvement in any other aspect of this study.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Competing interests

MBAvdK, NADG, MM, KW, ELG, RFB, SLG, RAGvE, ALTI, AJEV, HMO, H-BFW, FJEL, IMED, DJARM, DJT, SLWK and ADRH declare that they do not have any financial or personal conflicting interests. HG reports institutional research funding from Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, AmMax Bio, Debiopharm, Cytovation; all outside the submitted work. AKLR reports institutional research funding from Merck and Tesaro; all outside the submitted work. NPvE reports research funding paid to the institute from Astellas, Ipsen; all outside the submitted work. RHJM reports research funding paid to the institute from Astellas, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cristal Therapeutics, Deuter Oncology, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pamgene, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Servier; all outside the submitted work. NS reports research grants paid to the institute from Abbvie, Actuate Therapeutics, Amgen, Array, Ascendis Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, BridgeBio, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cantargia, CellCentric, Cogent Biosciences, Cresecendo Biologics, Cytovation, Deciphera, Dragonfly, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, IDRx, Immunocore, Incyte, InteRNA, Janssen, Kinnate Biopharma, Kling Biotherapeutics, Luszana, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merus, Molecular Partners, Navire Pharma, Novartis, Numab Therapeutics, Pfizer, Relay Pharmaceuticals, Revolution Medicin, Roche, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Taiho, Takeda; all outside the submitted work. NS provided consultation or attended advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim, Cogent Biosciences, Ellipses Pharma, Incyte, Luszana.

Ethical approval

The DPOG-TDM study was approved by the Institiutional Review Board of the Netherlands Cancer Institute (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) and by each individual participating hospital. All patients provided written informed consent. The study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

A list of authors and their affiliations appears at the end of the paper.
==== Refs
References

1. Yu H Steeghs N Nijenhuis CM Schellens JH Beijnen JH Huitema ADR Practical guidelines for therapeutic drug monitoring of anticancer tyrosine kinase inhibitors: focus on the pharmacokinetic targets Clin Pharmacokinet 2014 53 305 25 10.1007/s40262-014-0137-2 24566736
Yu H, Steeghs N, Nijenhuis CM, Schellens JH, Beijnen JH, Huitema ADR. Practical guidelines for therapeutic drug monitoring of anticancer tyrosine kinase inhibitors: focus on the pharmacokinetic targets. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2014;53:305–25.24566736 10.1007/s40262-014-0137-2
2. Groenland SL Mathijssen RHJ Beijnen JH Huitema ADR Steeghs N Individualized dosing of oral targeted therapies in oncology is crucial in the era of precision medicine Eur J Clin Pharm 2019 75 1309 18 10.1007/s00228-019-02704-2
Groenland SL, Mathijssen RHJ, Beijnen JH, Huitema ADR, Steeghs N. Individualized dosing of oral targeted therapies in oncology is crucial in the era of precision medicine. Eur J Clin Pharm. 2019;75:1309–18.10.1007/s00228-019-02704-2
3. Maliepaard M Carree W van Bussel MTJ Dose selection and tolerability of anticancer agents evaluated by the European Medicines Agency in the period 2015-2020 ESMO Open 2021 6 100301 10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100301 34752995
Maliepaard M, Carree W, van Bussel MTJ. Dose selection and tolerability of anticancer agents evaluated by the European Medicines Agency in the period 2015-2020. ESMO Open. 2021;6:100301.34752995 10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100301
4. Shah M Rahman A Theoret MR Pazdur R The Drug-Dosing Conundrum in Oncology - When Less Is More N. Engl J Med 2021 385 1445 7 10.1056/NEJMp2109826 34623789
Shah M, Rahman A, Theoret MR, Pazdur R. The Drug-Dosing Conundrum in Oncology - When Less Is More. N. Engl J Med. 2021;385:1445–7.34623789 10.1056/NEJMp2109826
5. Murphy R Halford S Symeonides SN Project Optimus, an FDA initiative: Considerations for cancer drug development internationally, from an academic perspective Front Oncol 2023 13 1144056 10.3389/fonc.2023.1144056 36937434
Murphy R, Halford S, Symeonides SN. Project Optimus, an FDA initiative: Considerations for cancer drug development internationally, from an academic perspective. Front Oncol. 2023;13:1144056.36937434 10.3389/fonc.2023.1144056
6. van der Kleij MBA Guchelaar NAD Mathijssen RHJ Versluis J Huitema ADR Koolen SLW Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Kinase Inhibitors in Oncology Clin Pharmacokinet 2023 62 1333 64 10.1007/s40262-023-01293-9 37584840
van der Kleij MBA, Guchelaar NAD, Mathijssen RHJ, Versluis J, Huitema ADR, Koolen SLW, et al. Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Kinase Inhibitors in Oncology. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2023;62:1333–64.37584840 10.1007/s40262-023-01293-9
7. Gandhi KA Joshi A Mehta P Gurjar M Rane P Sharma J Feasibility of therapeutic drug monitoring of sunitinib and its implications on response and toxicity in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer Cancer Chemother Pharm 2022 89 751 9 10.1007/s00280-022-04432-4
Gandhi KA, Joshi A, Mehta P, Gurjar M, Rane P, Sharma J, et al. Feasibility of therapeutic drug monitoring of sunitinib and its implications on response and toxicity in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharm. 2022;89:751–9.10.1007/s00280-022-04432-4
8. Gotta V Widmer N Decosterd LA Chalandon Y Heim D Gregor M Clinical usefulness of therapeutic concentration monitoring for imatinib dosage individualization: results from a randomized controlled trial Cancer Chemother Pharm 2014 74 1307 19 10.1007/s00280-014-2599-1
Gotta V, Widmer N, Decosterd LA, Chalandon Y, Heim D, Gregor M, et al. Clinical usefulness of therapeutic concentration monitoring for imatinib dosage individualization: results from a randomized controlled trial. Cancer Chemother Pharm. 2014;74:1307–19.10.1007/s00280-014-2599-1
9. Braal CL Jager A Hoop EO Westenberg JD Lommen K de Bruijn P Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Endoxifen for Tamoxifen Precision Dosing: Feasible in Patients with Hormone-Sensitive Breast Cancer Clin Pharmacokinet 2022 61 527 37 10.1007/s40262-021-01077-z 34786650
Braal CL, Jager A, Hoop EO, Westenberg JD, Lommen K, de Bruijn P, et al. Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Endoxifen for Tamoxifen Precision Dosing: Feasible in Patients with Hormone-Sensitive Breast Cancer. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2022;61:527–37.34786650 10.1007/s40262-021-01077-z
10. Fox P Balleine RL Lee C Gao B Balakrishnar B Menzies AM Dose Escalation of Tamoxifen in Patients with Low Endoxifen Level: Evidence for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring-The TADE Study Clin Cancer Res 2016 22 3164 71 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-1470 26847054
Fox P, Balleine RL, Lee C, Gao B, Balakrishnar B, Menzies AM, et al. Dose Escalation of Tamoxifen in Patients with Low Endoxifen Level: Evidence for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring-The TADE Study. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22:3164–71.26847054 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-1470
11. IJzerman NS Groenland SL Koenen AM Kerst M van der Graaf WTA Rosing H Therapeutic drug monitoring of imatinib in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumours - Results from daily clinical practice Eur J Cancer 2020 136 140 8 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.05.025 32688207
IJzerman NS, Groenland SL, Koenen AM, Kerst M, van der Graaf WTA, Rosing H, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring of imatinib in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumours - Results from daily clinical practice. Eur J Cancer. 2020;136:140–8.32688207 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.05.025
12. Lankheet NA Kloth JS Gadellaa-van Hooijdonk CG Cirkel GA Mathijssen RH Lolkema MP Pharmacokinetically guided sunitinib dosing: a feasibility study in patients with advanced solid tumours Br J Cancer 2014 110 2441 9 10.1038/bjc.2014.194 24736581
Lankheet NA, Kloth JS, Gadellaa-van Hooijdonk CG, Cirkel GA, Mathijssen RH, Lolkema MP, et al. Pharmacokinetically guided sunitinib dosing: a feasibility study in patients with advanced solid tumours. Br J Cancer. 2014;110:2441–9.24736581 10.1038/bjc.2014.194
13. Lankheet NAG Desar IME Mulder SF Burger DM Kweekel DM van Herpen CML Optimizing the dose in cancer patients treated with imatinib, sunitinib and pazopanib Br J Clin Pharm 2017 83 2195 204 10.1111/bcp.13327
Lankheet NAG, Desar IME, Mulder SF, Burger DM, Kweekel DM, van Herpen CML, et al. Optimizing the dose in cancer patients treated with imatinib, sunitinib and pazopanib. Br J Clin Pharm. 2017;83:2195–204.10.1111/bcp.13327
14. Verheijen RB Bins S Mathijssen RH Lolkema MP van Doorn L Schellens JH Individualized Pazopanib Dosing: A Prospective Feasibility Study in Cancer Patients Clin Cancer Res 2016 22 5738 46 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-1255 27470967
Verheijen RB, Bins S, Mathijssen RH, Lolkema MP, van Doorn L, Schellens JH, et al. Individualized Pazopanib Dosing: A Prospective Feasibility Study in Cancer Patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22:5738–46.27470967 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-1255
15. Groenland SL van Nuland M Bergman AM de Feijter JM Dezentje VO Rosing H Concomitant intake of abiraterone acetate and food to increase pharmacokinetic exposure: real life data from a therapeutic drug monitoring programme Eur J Cancer 2020 130 32 38 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.02.012 32172196
Groenland SL, van Nuland M, Bergman AM, de Feijter JM, Dezentje VO, Rosing H, et al. Concomitant intake of abiraterone acetate and food to increase pharmacokinetic exposure: real life data from a therapeutic drug monitoring programme. Eur J Cancer. 2020;130:32–38.32172196 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.02.012
16. Groenland SL van Eerden RAG Westerdijk K Meertens M Koolen SLW Moes D Therapeutic drug monitoring-based precision dosing of oral targeted therapies in oncology: a prospective multicenter study Ann Oncol 2022 33 1071 82 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.06.010 35777707
Groenland SL, van Eerden RAG, Westerdijk K, Meertens M, Koolen SLW, Moes D, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring-based precision dosing of oral targeted therapies in oncology: a prospective multicenter study. Ann Oncol. 2022;33:1071–82.35777707 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.06.010
17. Guchelaar NAD van Eerden RAG Groenland SL van Doorn L Desar IME Eskens F Feasibility of therapeutic drug monitoring of sorafenib in patients with liver or thyroid cancer Biomed Pharmacother 2022 153 113393 10.1016/j.biopha.2022.113393 35834987
Guchelaar NAD, van Eerden RAG, Groenland SL, van Doorn L, Desar IME, Eskens F, et al. Feasibility of therapeutic drug monitoring of sorafenib in patients with liver or thyroid cancer. Biomed Pharmacother. 2022;153:113393.35834987 10.1016/j.biopha.2022.113393
18. Groenland SL van Eerden RAG Verheijen RB Koolen SLW Moes D Desar IME Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Oral Anticancer Drugs: The Dutch Pharmacology Oncology Group-Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Protocol for a Prospective Study Ther Drug Monit 2019 41 561 7 10.1097/FTD.0000000000000654 31568233
Groenland SL, van Eerden RAG, Verheijen RB, Koolen SLW, Moes D, Desar IME, et al. Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Oral Anticancer Drugs: The Dutch Pharmacology Oncology Group-Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Protocol for a Prospective Study. Ther Drug Monit. 2019;41:561–7.31568233 10.1097/FTD.0000000000000654
19. Herbrink M de Vries N Rosing H Huitema AD Nuijen B Schellens JH Quantification of 11 Therapeutic Kinase Inhibitors in Human Plasma for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Using Liquid Chromatography Coupled With Tandem Mass Spectrometry Ther Drug Monit 2016 38 649 56 10.1097/FTD.0000000000000349 27749781
Herbrink M, de Vries N, Rosing H, Huitema AD, Nuijen B, Schellens JH, et al. Quantification of 11 Therapeutic Kinase Inhibitors in Human Plasma for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Using Liquid Chromatography Coupled With Tandem Mass Spectrometry. Ther Drug Monit. 2016;38:649–56.27749781 10.1097/FTD.0000000000000349
20. Janssen JM Dorlo TPC Beijnen JH Huitema ADR Evaluation of Extrapolation Methods to Predict Trough Concentrations to Guide Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Oral Anticancer Drugs Ther Drug Monit 2020 42 532 9 10.1097/FTD.0000000000000767 32384536
Janssen JM, Dorlo TPC, Beijnen JH, Huitema ADR. Evaluation of Extrapolation Methods to Predict Trough Concentrations to Guide Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Oral Anticancer Drugs. Ther Drug Monit. 2020;42:532–9.32384536 10.1097/FTD.0000000000000767
21. Wang Y Chia YL Nedelman J Schran H Mahon FX Molimard M A therapeutic drug monitoring algorithm for refining the imatinib trough level obtained at different sampling times Ther Drug Monit 2009 31 579 84 10.1097/FTD.0b013e3181b2c8cf 19730279
Wang Y, Chia YL, Nedelman J, Schran H, Mahon FX, Molimard M. A therapeutic drug monitoring algorithm for refining the imatinib trough level obtained at different sampling times. Ther Drug Monit. 2009;31:579–84.19730279 10.1097/FTD.0b013e3181b2c8cf
22. Bruin MAC Sonke GS Beijnen JH Huitema ADR Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of PARP Inhibitors in Oncology Clin Pharmacokinet 2022 61 1649 75 10.1007/s40262-022-01167-6 36219340
Bruin MAC, Sonke GS, Beijnen JH, Huitema ADR. Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of PARP Inhibitors in Oncology. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2022;61:1649–75.36219340 10.1007/s40262-022-01167-6
23. Lacy S Nielsen J Yang B Miles D Nguyen L Hutmacher M Population exposure-response analysis of cabozantinib efficacy and safety endpoints in patients with renal cell carcinoma Cancer Chemother Pharm 2018 81 1061 70 10.1007/s00280-018-3579-7
Lacy S, Nielsen J, Yang B, Miles D, Nguyen L, Hutmacher M. Population exposure-response analysis of cabozantinib efficacy and safety endpoints in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Chemother Pharm. 2018;81:1061–70.10.1007/s00280-018-3579-7
24. Hidalgo M Siu LL Nemunaitis J Rizzo J Hammond LA Takimoto C Phase I and pharmacologic study of OSI-774, an epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid malignancies J Clin Oncol 2001 19 3267 79 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.13.3267 11432895
Hidalgo M, Siu LL, Nemunaitis J, Rizzo J, Hammond LA, Takimoto C, et al. Phase I and pharmacologic study of OSI-774, an epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid malignancies. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:3267–79.11432895 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.13.3267
25. Fiala O Hosek P Pesek M Finek J Racek J Stehlik P Serum Concentration of Erlotinib and its Correlation with Outcome and Toxicity in Patients with Advanced-stage NSCLC Anticancer Res 2017 37 6469 76 29061834
Fiala O, Hosek P, Pesek M, Finek J, Racek J, Stehlik P, et al. Serum Concentration of Erlotinib and its Correlation with Outcome and Toxicity in Patients with Advanced-stage NSCLC. Anticancer Res. 2017;37:6469–76.29061834
26. Kenmotsu H Imamura CK Kawamura T Oyakawa T Omori S Nakashima K Prospective evaluation of the relationship between response and exposure of total and unbound erlotinib in non-small cell lung cancer patients Cancer Chemother Pharm 2022 90 115 23 10.1007/s00280-022-04452-0
Kenmotsu H, Imamura CK, Kawamura T, Oyakawa T, Omori S, Nakashima K, et al. Prospective evaluation of the relationship between response and exposure of total and unbound erlotinib in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Cancer Chemother Pharm. 2022;90:115–23.10.1007/s00280-022-04452-0
27. Mateo J Moreno V Gupta A Kaye SB Dean E Middleton MR An Adaptive Study to Determine the Optimal Dose of the Tablet Formulation of the PARP Inhibitor Olaparib Target Oncol 2016 11 401 15 10.1007/s11523-016-0435-8 27169564
Mateo J, Moreno V, Gupta A, Kaye SB, Dean E, Middleton MR, et al. An Adaptive Study to Determine the Optimal Dose of the Tablet Formulation of the PARP Inhibitor Olaparib. Target Oncol. 2016;11:401–15.27169564 10.1007/s11523-016-0435-8
28. Mohmaed Ali MI Bruin MAC Dezentjé VO Beijnen JH Steeghs N Huitema ADR Exposure-Response Analyses of Olaparib in Real-Life Patients with Ovarian Cancer Pharm Res 2023 40 1239 47 10.1007/s11095-023-03497-x 36944815
Mohmaed Ali MI, Bruin MAC, Dezentjé VO, Beijnen JH, Steeghs N, Huitema ADR. Exposure-Response Analyses of Olaparib in Real-Life Patients with Ovarian Cancer. Pharm Res. 2023;40:1239–47.36944815 10.1007/s11095-023-03497-x
29. Krens SD van Erp NP Groenland SL Moes DJAR Mulder SF Desar IME Exposure–response analyses of cabozantinib in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer BMC Cancer 2022 22 228 10.1186/s12885-022-09338-1 35236333
Krens SD, van Erp NP, Groenland SL, Moes DJAR, Mulder SF, Desar IME, et al. Exposure–response analyses of cabozantinib in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer. BMC Cancer. 2022;22:228.35236333 10.1186/s12885-022-09338-1
30. Cerbone L Combarel D Geraud A Auclin E Foulon S Alves Costa Silva C Association of cabozantinib pharmacokinetics, progression and toxicity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients: results from a pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics study ESMO Open 2021 6 100312 10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100312 34864351
Cerbone L, Combarel D, Geraud A, Auclin E, Foulon S, Alves Costa Silva C, et al. Association of cabozantinib pharmacokinetics, progression and toxicity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients: results from a pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics study. ESMO Open. 2021;6:100312.34864351 10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100312
31. Groenland SL Verheijen RB Joerger M Mathijssen RHJ Sparreboom A Beijnen JH Precision Dosing of Targeted Therapies Is Ready for Prime Time Clin Cancer Res 2021 27 6644 52 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-4555 34548319
Groenland SL, Verheijen RB, Joerger M, Mathijssen RHJ, Sparreboom A, Beijnen JH, et al. Precision Dosing of Targeted Therapies Is Ready for Prime Time. Clin Cancer Res. 2021;27:6644–52.34548319 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-4555
32. EMA. (European Medicines Agency). Inlyta European public assessment report, https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/inlyta-epar-product-information_en.pdf (2021). Accessed 19 February 2024.
33. Rini BI Melichar B Ueda T Grünwald V Fishman MN Arranz JA Axitinib with or without dose titration for first-line metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: a randomised double-blind phase 2 trial Lancet Oncol 2013 14 1233 42 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70464-9 24140184
Rini BI, Melichar B, Ueda T, Grünwald V, Fishman MN, Arranz JA, et al. Axitinib with or without dose titration for first-line metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: a randomised double-blind phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:1233–42.24140184 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70464-9
34. Higano CS Beer TM Taplin ME Efstathiou E Hirmand M Forer D Long-term Safety and Antitumor Activity in the Phase 1-2 Study of Enzalutamide in Pre- and Post-docetaxel Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Eur Urol 2015 68 795 801 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.026 25698064
Higano CS, Beer TM, Taplin ME, Efstathiou E, Hirmand M, Forer D, et al. Long-term Safety and Antitumor Activity in the Phase 1-2 Study of Enzalutamide in Pre- and Post-docetaxel Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68:795–801.25698064 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.026
35. Scher HI Beer TM Higano CS Anand A Taplin ME Efstathiou E Antitumour activity of MDV3100 in castration-resistant prostate cancer: a phase 1-2 study Lancet 2010 375 1437 46 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60172-9 20398925
Scher HI, Beer TM, Higano CS, Anand A, Taplin ME, Efstathiou E, et al. Antitumour activity of MDV3100 in castration-resistant prostate cancer: a phase 1-2 study. Lancet. 2010;375:1437–46.20398925 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60172-9
36. Boerrigter E Havenith T van Erp NP Schnog JB Deep and ongoing response of castrate-resistant prostate cancer on very low-dose enzalutamide in an elderly chemotherapy-naïve patient: a case report Cancer Chemother Pharm 2021 88 165 8 10.1007/s00280-021-04269-3
Boerrigter E, Havenith T, van Erp NP, Schnog JB. Deep and ongoing response of castrate-resistant prostate cancer on very low-dose enzalutamide in an elderly chemotherapy-naïve patient: a case report. Cancer Chemother Pharm. 2021;88:165–8.10.1007/s00280-021-04269-3
37. Boerrigter E, Overbeek JK, Benoist GE, Somford DM, Hamberg P, Tol J, et al. A Prospective Randomised Trial to Determine the Effect of a Reduced Versus Standard Dose of Enzalutamide on Side Effects in Frail Patients with Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 10.1016/j.euo.2024.02.009 (2024).
38. Lin L van der Meer EKO Steeghs N Beijnen JH Huitema ADR Are novel oral oncolytics underdosed in obese patients? Cancer Chemother Pharm 2024 93 129 36 10.1007/s00280-023-04601-z
Lin L, van der Meer EKO, Steeghs N, Beijnen JH, Huitema ADR. Are novel oral oncolytics underdosed in obese patients? Cancer Chemother Pharm. 2024;93:129–36.10.1007/s00280-023-04601-z
39. Roncato R Peruzzi E Gerratana L Posocco B Nuzzo S Montico M Clinical impact of body mass index on palbociclib treatment outcomes and effect on exposure Biomed Pharmacother 2023 164 114906 10.1016/j.biopha.2023.114906 37295250
Roncato R, Peruzzi E, Gerratana L, Posocco B, Nuzzo S, Montico M, et al. Clinical impact of body mass index on palbociclib treatment outcomes and effect on exposure. Biomed Pharmacother. 2023;164:114906.37295250 10.1016/j.biopha.2023.114906
40. Groenland SL Katz D Huitema ADR Steeghs N Harnessing soft tissue sarcoma with low-dose pazopanib - a matter of blood levels BMC Cancer 2018 18 1200 10.1186/s12885-018-5043-9 30509247
Groenland SL, Katz D, Huitema ADR, Steeghs N. Harnessing soft tissue sarcoma with low-dose pazopanib - a matter of blood levels. BMC Cancer. 2018;18:1200.30509247 10.1186/s12885-018-5043-9
41. Ouellet D Kassir N Chiu J Mouksassi MS Leonowens C Cox D Population pharmacokinetics and exposure-response of trametinib, a MEK inhibitor, in patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma Cancer Chemother Pharm 2016 77 807 17 10.1007/s00280-016-2993-y
Ouellet D, Kassir N, Chiu J, Mouksassi MS, Leonowens C, Cox D, et al. Population pharmacokinetics and exposure-response of trametinib, a MEK inhibitor, in patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma. Cancer Chemother Pharm. 2016;77:807–17.10.1007/s00280-016-2993-y
42. Kim KB Kefford R Pavlick AC Infante JR Ribas A Sosman JA Phase II study of the MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor Trametinib in patients with metastatic BRAF-mutant cutaneous melanoma previously treated with or without a BRAF inhibitor J Clin Oncol 2013 31 482 9 10.1200/JCO.2012.43.5966 23248257
Kim KB, Kefford R, Pavlick AC, Infante JR, Ribas A, Sosman JA, et al. Phase II study of the MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor Trametinib in patients with metastatic BRAF-mutant cutaneous melanoma previously treated with or without a BRAF inhibitor. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:482–9.23248257 10.1200/JCO.2012.43.5966
43. Ravaud A Urva SR Grosch K Cheung WK Anak O Sellami DB Relationship between everolimus exposure and safety and efficacy: meta-analysis of clinical trials in oncology Eur J Cancer 2014 50 486 95 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.11.022 24332451
Ravaud A, Urva SR, Grosch K, Cheung WK, Anak O, Sellami DB. Relationship between everolimus exposure and safety and efficacy: meta-analysis of clinical trials in oncology. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50:486–95.24332451 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.11.022
44. Fong PC Boss DS Yap TA Tutt A Wu P Mergui-Roelvink M Inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase in tumors from BRCA mutation carriers N. Engl J Med 2009 361 123 34 10.1056/NEJMoa0900212 19553641
Fong PC, Boss DS, Yap TA, Tutt A, Wu P, Mergui-Roelvink M, et al. Inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase in tumors from BRCA mutation carriers. N. Engl J Med. 2009;361:123–34.19553641 10.1056/NEJMoa0900212
45. FDA. (Food and Drug Administration). Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Palbociclib Clinical Pharmacology and Biopharmaceutics Review, https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2015/207103orig1s000clinpharmr.pdf (2015). Accessed 9 November 2023.
46. FDA. (Food and Drug Administration). Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Regorafenib Clinical Pharmacology and Biopharmaceutics Review, https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2012/203085Orig1s000ClinPharmR.pdf (2012). Accessed 9 November 2023.
47. Madlensky L Natarajan L Tchu S Pu M Mortimer J Flatt SW Tamoxifen metabolite concentrations, CYP2D6 genotype, and breast cancer outcomes Clin Pharm Ther 2011 89 718 25 10.1038/clpt.2011.32
Madlensky L, Natarajan L, Tchu S, Pu M, Mortimer J, Flatt SW, et al. Tamoxifen metabolite concentrations, CYP2D6 genotype, and breast cancer outcomes. Clin Pharm Ther. 2011;89:718–25.10.1038/clpt.2011.32
48. FDA. (Food and Drug Administration). Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Vismodegib Clinical Pharmacology and Biopharmaceutics Review, https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2012/203388Orig1s000ClinPharmR.pdf (2012). Accessed 9 November 2023.
