Population exposure-efficacy and exposure-safety analyses for rucaparib in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma from Study 10 and ARIEL2

Exposure-response relationship of niraparib in maintenance therapy for recurrent ovarian cancer: ancillary analysis of the French GINECO-NiQoLe study

BACKGROUND

Interindividual variability in pharmacokinetics may influence clinical outcomes of niraparib in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC). We aimed to investigate the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) relationship of niraparib in 49 patients with ROC from the multicenter phase IV NiQoLe study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Steady-state trough concentrations (Cmin,ss) on days 8 (D8) and 90 (D90) after treatment initiation were analyzed in the PK-PD analysis in regard to early dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) during the first 3 months of treatment, self-reported adverse events [Patient-Reported Outcome version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)], and progression-free survival (PFS). Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify risk factors of toxicity and predictors of PFS, respectively.

RESULTS

The starting dose was 200 mg/day in 39 patients (80%). Nineteen patients (39%) experienced early DLT. In multivariable analysis, the fourth quartile (Q4) of Cmin,ss at D8 (≥686 ng/ml) was identified as an independent risk factor for early DLT [odds ratio (OR) 27.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.99-392.53, P = 0.014] in contrast to the starting dose (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.04-4.76, P = 0.50). High Cmin,ss at D8 was also associated with grade ≥2 self-reported adverse events, including nausea (P = 0.03) and fatigue (P = 0.02). In univariate analysis, PFS was associated neither with the 200-mg starting dose [hazard ratio (HR) 1.25, 95% CI 0.59-2.62, P = 0.57] nor with Cmin,ss at D8 (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.90-1.19, P = 0.65). No difference in PFS was observed between Q4 and Q1-Q3 for Cmin,ss at D8 [174 days (95% CI 120 days-not reached) versus 242 days (95% CI 183-490 days), respectively; HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.57-2.36, P = 0.69]. Median PFS in patients who had a dose reduction was consistent with that of patients who remained at the starting dose [197 days (95% CI 166 days-not reached) versus 207 days (95% CI 176-469 days), respectively; log-rank P value = 0.29].

CONCLUSIONS

Increased plasma exposure at D8 (Cmin,ss ≥686 ng/ml) was associated with a higher risk of early DLT onset and patient-reported outcomes adverse events, without gain of efficacy in regard to PFS. Early plasma drug monitoring may be useful to prevent niraparib toxicity in patients with ROC treated in the maintenance phase.

Niraparib maintenance therapy using an individualised starting dose in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (NORA): final overall survival analysis of a phase 3 randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Background

Niraparib significantly prolonged progression-free survival versus placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC), regardless of germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAm) status, in NORA. This analysis reports final data on overall survival (OS).

Methods

This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial enrolled patients across 30 centres in China between 26 September 2017 and 2 February 2019 (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03705156). Eligible patients had histologically confirmed, recurrent, (predominantly) high-grade serous epithelial ovarian cancer, fallopian tube carcinoma, or primary peritoneal carcinoma (no histological restrictions for those with gBRCAm) and had received ≥2 prior lines of platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomised (2:1) to receive niraparib or placebo, with stratification by gBRCAm status, time to recurrence following penultimate platinum-based chemotherapy, and response to last platinum-based chemotherapy. Following a protocol amendment, the starting dose was individualised: 200 mg/day for patients with bodyweight <77 kg and/or platelet count <150 × 103/μL at baseline and 300 mg/day otherwise. OS was a secondary endpoint.

Findings

Totally, 265 patients were randomised to receive niraparib (n = 177) or placebo (n = 88), and 249 (94.0%) received an individualised starting dose. As of 14 August 2023, median follow-up for OS was 57.9 months (IQR, 54.8-61.6). Median OS (95% CI) with niraparib versus placebo was 51.5 (41.4-58.9) versus 47.6 (33.3-not evaluable [NE]) months, with hazard ratio [HR] of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.60-1.23), in the overall population; 56.0 (36.1-NE) versus 47.6 (31.6-NE) months, with HR of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.46-1.58), in patients with gBRCAm; and 46.5 (41.0-NE) versus 46.9 (31.8-NE) months, with HR of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.56-1.35), in those without. No new safety signals were identified, and myelodysplastic syndromes/acute myeloid leukaemia occurred in three (1.7%) niraparib-treated patients.

Interpretation

Niraparib maintenance therapy with an individualised starting dose demonstrated a favourable OS trend versus placebo in PSROC patients, regardless of gBRCAm status.

Funding

Zai Lab (Shanghai) Co., Ltd; National Major Scientific and Technological Special Project for "Significant New Drugs Development" in 2018, China [grant number 2018ZX09736019].

Effects of food and ethnicity on the pharmacokinetics of venadaparib, a next-generation PARP inhibitor, in healthy Korean, Caucasian, and Chinese male subjects

AIM

Venadaparib is a next-generation poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor under development for treating gastric cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of food and ethnicity on the pharmacokinetics (PKs) and safety of venadaparib after a single oral administration in healthy Korean, Caucasian, and Chinese male subjects.

METHODS

In this randomized, open-label, single-dose, two-sequence, two-period, and crossover study, Korean and Caucasian subjects received venadaparib 80 mg in each period (fasted or fed state) with a seven-day washout. In an open-label, single-dose study, Chinese subjects received venadaparib 80 mg only in the fasted state. Serial blood samples were collected up to 72 h post-dosing.

RESULTS

Twelve subjects from each ethnic group completed the study. The geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals) of the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to the last measurable time point (AUClast) of venadaparib for the fed to fasted state were 0.82 (0.7457-0.9094) and 1.02 (0.9088-1.1339) in Koreans, and 0.77 (0.6871-0.8609) and 0.96 (0.9017-1.0186) in Caucasians, respectively. No statistically significant differences were observed in Cmax (P-value = 0.45) or AUClast (P-value = 0.30) among the three ethnic groups. A single venadaparib dose was well-tolerated.

CONCLUSION

The overall systemic exposure of venadaparib was not affected by the high-fat meal, despite delayed absorption with a decreased Cmax in the fed state. The PK profiles were comparable among the Korean, Caucasian, and Chinese subjects. A single venadaparib 80 mg dose was safe and well-tolerated in both fasted and fed states.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Kinase Inhibitors in Oncology

Although kinase inhibitors (KI) frequently portray large interpatient variability, a 'one size fits all' regimen is still often used. In the meantime, relationships between exposure-response and exposure-toxicity have been established for several KIs, so this regimen could lead to unnecessary toxicity and suboptimal efficacy. Dose adjustments based on measured systemic pharmacokinetic levels-i.e., therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)-could therefore improve treatment efficacy and reduce the incidence of toxicities. Therefore, the aim of this comprehensive review is to give an overview of the available evidence for TDM for the 77 FDA/EMA kinase inhibitors currently approved (as of July 1st, 2023) used in hematology and oncology. We elaborate on exposure-response and exposure-toxicity relationships for these kinase inhibitors and provide practical recommendations for TDM and discuss corresponding pharmacokinetic targets when possible.

PARP inhibitors: risk factors for toxicity and matching patients to the proper poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) therapy

The past 5 years have seen several fundamental advances in ovarian cancer, with important new insights towards novel therapeutic opportunities within the DNA repair pathway. With the incorporation of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) into maintenance treatment regimens, the management of short- and long-term adverse events are key clinical priorities. Currently, three different PARPi are clinically beneficial and have been approved for primary and recurrent ovarian cancer: olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib. The duration of treatment with PARPi in patients with ovarian cancer varies; patients can receive treatment for up to 2 or 3 years in first-line setting, or continue treatment until unacceptable toxicity or progression occurs in recurrent disease. Despite their similar mechanisms of action, these three inhibitors have specific toxicity profiles, which may lead to dose interruptions or discontinuation of treatment. This review summarizes the current indications for PARPi, including their role in recurrent and first-line maintenance treatment for advanced ovarian cancer. We also outline dose modifications leading to treatment disruption and potential changes in quality of life after prolonged treatment. Finally, we highlight the patient groups most likely to benefit from each of the three different PARPi.

Bioanalytical Methods for Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitor Quantification: A Review for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) is an exploratory practice aimed at improving the quality of treatment through personalized therapy. Currently, there are 4 European Medicines Agency-approved and US Food and Drug Administration-approved PARPis available clinically whose quantification requires validated analytical methods: olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib, and talazoparib. The purpose of this literature review was to highlight the pharmacological features of PARPis that could support their TDM practice and provide a detailed discussion of the available liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry methods for their quantification.

METHODS

Using several Medical Subject Heading terms, the literature was searched using several research engines, including SciFinder, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed, to find articles published before August 2022.

RESULTS

Exposure-efficacy and exposure-safety profiles, drug-drug interactions, and hepatic/renal impairment of PARPis provide the potential rationale to monitor their concentrations through TDM. Several bioanalytical methods for their quantification have been reported and compared, and a great deal of heterogeneity has been found among methods, regarding both their analytical and regulatory aspects.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to reducing toxicity and increasing the efficacy of PARPis therapy, TDM could be beneficial to thoroughly investigate the exposure-response relationships of PARPis and to establish pharmacokinetic thresholds for clinical decisions. Based on the comparison of published bioanalytical methods, their transferability and validation both play a key role in method selection. For future use in clinical TDM, we anticipate that bioanalytical methods should address every analytical need more thoroughly and should be validated with standardized guidelines.

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of PARP Inhibitors in Oncology

Olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib, and talazoparib are poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors approved for the treatment of ovarian, breast, pancreatic, and/or prostate cancer. Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors are potent inhibitors of the PARP enzymes with comparable half-maximal inhibitory concentrations in the nanomolar range. Olaparib and rucaparib are orally dosed twice a day, extensively metabolized by cytochrome P450 enzymes, and inhibitors of several enzymes and drug transporters with a high risk for drug-drug interactions. Niraparib and talazoparib are orally dosed once a day with a lower risk for niraparib and a minimal risk for talazoparib to cause drug-drug interactions. All four PARP inhibitors show moderate-to-high interindividual variability in plasma exposure. Higher exposure is associated with an increase in toxicity, mostly hematological toxicity. For talazoparib, exposure-efficacy relationships have been described, but for olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib this relationship remains inconclusive. Further studies are required to investigate exposure-response relationships to improve dosing of PARP inhibitors, in which therapeutic drug monitoring could play an important role. In this review, we give an overview of the pharmacokinetic properties of the four PARP inhibitors, including considerations for patients with renal dysfunction or hepatic impairment, the effect of food, and drug-drug interactions. Furthermore, we focus on the pharmacodynamics and summarize the available exposure-efficacy and exposure-toxicity relationships.

Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Rucaparib

Rucaparib is an oral small-molecule poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor indicated for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer in the maintenance and treatment settings and for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer associated with a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Rucaparib has a manageable safety profile; the most common adverse events reported were fatigue and nausea in both indications. Accumulation in plasma exposure occurred after repeated administration of the approved 600-mg twice-daily dosage. Steady state was achieved after continuous twice-daily dosing for a week. Rucaparib has moderate oral bioavailability and can be dosed with or without food. Although a high-fat meal weakly increased maximum concentration and area under the curve, the effect was not clinically significant. A mass balance analysis indicated almost a complete dose recovery of rucaparib over 12 days, with metabolism, renal, and hepatic excretion as the elimination routes. A population pharmacokinetic analysis of rucaparib revealed no effect of age, sex, race, or body weight. No starting dose adjustments were necessary for patients with mild-to-moderate hepatic or renal impairment; the effect of severe organ impairment on rucaparib exposure has not been evaluated. In patients, rucaparib moderately inhibited cytochrome P450 (CYP) 1A2 and weakly inhibited CYP3As, CYP2C9, and CYP2C19. Rucaparib weakly increased systemic exposures of oral contraceptives and oral rosuvastatin and marginally increased the exposure of oral digoxin (a P-glycoprotein substrate). In vitro studies suggested that rucaparib inhibits transporters MATE1, MATE2-K, OCT1, and OCT2. No clinically meaningful drug interactions with rucaparib as a perpetrator were observed. An exposure-response analysis revealed dose-dependent changes in selected clinical efficacy and safety endpoints. Overall, this article provides a comprehensive review of the clinical pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, drug-drug interactions, effects of intrinsic and extrinsic factors, and exposure-response relationships of rucaparib.