Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
UNKNOWN
40 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2017-05-16
2018-12-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Therapeutic-drug-monitoring (TDM) is used to adjust the prescribed daily dose, to maintain effective everolimus whole blood concentrations, with the lowest possible risk of AEs. While everolimus TDM has been common in transplantation medicine, it has not been implemented in oncology.
The importance of TDM in oncology is supported by previous research which showed that a 2-fold increased everolimus whole blood trough concentration was associated with a short-term risk of grade ≥ 3 pneumonitis, stomatitis and metabolic events. Moreover, an exposure-toxicity relationship of everolimus in patients with thyroid cancer was observed, since initial everolimus concentrations could be associated with early toxicity (\< 12 weeks, e.g. stomatitis). However, the association between initial everolimus measurements and long-term AEs (≥12 weeks, e.g. pneumonitis, anorexia and anemia) of any grade and the need for everolimus dose reductions could not be made. Since levels ±\>18 µg/L were associated with toxicity, the investigators assume that the upper therapeutic window of everolimus in the oncologic setting will be ±18 µg/L. Similarly, a tendency to improved PFS and overall survival was observed when Cmin in steady state was above 14.1 μg/L. This seems to be the lower limit of the therapeutic window.
Before consensus about the feasibility of everolimus TDM in the oncologic setting can be achieved, a number of questions (the knowledge gaps) need to be answered: 1. It is unknown whether everolimus whole blood trough levels (over time) predict long-term AEs. 2. The optimal concentration range for everolimus, with the treatment of mBC, mRCC, or (p)NET is unknown, especially the upper limit associated with toxicity. 3. It is unknown what everolimus concentration level is associated with the need for everolimus dose reductions.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Prediction of Everolimus-induced Interstitial Lung Disease
NCT01978171
Analysis of Tumor Tissue and Circulating Genetic Material in the Blood to Obtain Further Insight in the Effectiveness of Everolimus When Combined With Exemestane
NCT02109913
Study of Safety and Efficacy of Alpelisib With Everolimus or Alpelisib With Everolimus and Exemestane in Advanced Breast Cancer Patients, Renal Cell Cancer and Pancreatic Tumors
NCT02077933
Everolimus in Treating Patients WIth Recurrent or Metastatic Breast Cancer
NCT00255788
Everolimus (RAD001) and Carboplatin in Pretreated Metastatic Breast Cancer
NCT00930475
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Metastatic (Hormone-Receptor \[HR\]-positive, HER2-negative) breast cancer (BC), advanced or unresectable neuroendocrine tumours of pancreatic (pNET), gastrointestinal or lung origin and metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are diseases with poor outcome. Everolimus is part of palliative treatment and increases patients' median progression-free survival (PFS) with 4.6 months in metastatic BC (mBC), 7 months in pNET and 3 months in mRCC. However, serious adverse events (AEs) occur frequently; stomatitis up to 67%, non-infectious pneumonitis (NIP) up to 15%. This reduces effectiveness of everolimus, because AEs are managed with dose reductions, treatment interruptions or even complete discontinuation of everolimus.
Everolimus shows a large inter-individual pharmacokinetic variation in whole blood concentrations, due to variability in oral drug availability, patient non-compliance (e.g. due to drug-related toxicity, forgetting and/or overuse), drug-drug interactions with co-medication and many other factors. Furthermore, variation in the population pharmacokinetics of everolimus is caused by everolimus' hematocrit effect. This effect is present at high everolimus concentrations in combination with low hematocrit values, which is likely to be the case in the oncologic population. High incidences of anemia in oncologic patients treated with everolimus have been described, respectively being 32.1% (CI=17.5-51.3%) for all-grade (grades 1-4) toxicities and 6.9% (95% CI=4.1-11.3%) for high-grade (grades 3-4) toxicities. Therefore, studies have recommended to correct the everolimus whole blood concentrations for hematocrit determination.
The very different whole blood concentrations between individuals can result in supratherapeutic or subtherapeutic exposure levels and consequently in over- or undertreatment, respectively. Despite the inter-patient variability in systemic exposure, everolimus is currently prescribed at a fixed dose. Given the narrow therapeutic index and a positive exposure-efficacy relationship, there is a rationale for pharmacokinetically guided dosing also known as therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of everolimus. Such an approach could theoretically contribute to a tailor-made everolimus treatment with improved therapeutic efficacy and decreased risk for toxicity. Since daily everolimus dosing demonstrates dose proportionality and linear pharmacokinetics, this seems to be easily applicable. Furthermore, requirements for dose reduction at physicians discretion can be supported when it is known at what everolimus trough level a dose reduction is recommended.
Therapeutic-drug-monitoring (TDM) (i.e. measurement of everolimus whole blood levels after venipuncture) is used to adjust the prescribed daily dose, to maintain effective everolimus whole blood concentrations, with the lowest possible risk of AEs. In addition, TDM is a useful tool for early detection of non-adherence, and might also be used to monitor the effects of drug-drug interactions and food effects. While TDM, according to international consensus, has been common in transplantation medicine for 10 years, it has not been implemented in oncology. The importance of TDM in oncology is, however, supported by previous research that showed a 2-fold increased trough concentration (Cmin) of everolimus whole blood with a short-term risk of grade ≥ 3 pulmonary events (relative risk \[RR\] 1.9; 95% CI 1.1-3.3\], stomatitis events (RR 1.5; 95% CI 1.1-2.1) and metabolic events (RR 1.3 95% 1.0-1.7). Moreover, an exposure-toxicity relationship of everolimus in patients with thyroid cancer was observed, since initial everolimus concentrations could be associated with early toxicity (\< 12 weeks), i.e. stomatitis. However, the association between initial everolimus measurements and long-term AEs (≥ 12 weeks, e.g. pneumonitis, anorexia and anemia) of any grade and the need for everolimus dose reductions could not be made. Since a trough concentration of approximately 18 µg/L was associated with toxicity, the investigators assume that the upper therapeutic window of everolimus in the oncologic setting will be ±18 µg/L. Therefore, an upper threshold of \>18 µg/L was considered for this study.Similarly, a tendency to improved PFS and overall survival (OS) was noted when CminSS was above 14.1 μg/L. This might be the lower limit of the therapeutic window.
However, the following knowledge gaps exist: 1. It is unknown whether everolimus trough whole blood levels (over time) predict for long-term AEs (≥12 weeks, e.g. pneumonitis, anorexia and anemia). 2. The optimal concentration range for everolimus, for the treatment of mBC, mRCC, or (p)NET is unknown, especially the upper limit associated with toxicity. 3. It is unknown what everolimus concentration level is associated with the need for everolimus dose reductions.
In order to quantitate the outcome toxicity, the number of dose reductions can be investigated as this is the sum of all different toxicities experienced by patients and these are also the toxicities that lead to clinical action by the treating physician. Furthermore, especially all NCI-CTCAE v4.0 grade ≥2 are important, and special attention should be focused on AEs that are highly prevalent, objectively measurable, clinically relevant and/or untreatable. These AEs will be leading to dose reductions or discontinuation of therapy.
Dose individualization based on the measured drug concentration could theoretically result in less toxicity and more efficacy. Further studies are required to determine the clinical utility of TDM for everolimus in oncology settings. Determination of everolimus concentrations at the onset of severe AEs (dose interruptions or reductions) and disease progression may enable better understanding of pathophysiology, permitting dose reduction at the right moment rather than drug withdrawal in patients with high everolimus concentrations. The clinical impact of this approach can be large, since everolimus treatment optimization is better than unnecessary switching to the next line of palliative treatment in these oncologic patients. This is supported by the study by Generali et al., finding the combination of everolimus plus exemestaan as first- or second-line therapy for mBC patients more efficacious than several chemotherapy regimens that were reported in the literature. Furthermore, it is important to realise that the initial concentration (\< 12 weeks) does not reflect a change in steady-state trough concentration over time (≥12 weeks) due to various reasons. Some of them being drug-drug interactions, high-fat food effects, a change in haematocrit, non-adherence, dose-reductions and interruptions of the everolimus treatment.
Follow up of the everolimus concentration over time implies frequent pharmacokinetic sampling (blood draws). Nowadays everolimus exposure is determined by everolimus concentration measurement in whole blood. Therefore, a venipuncture is always necessary. This is invasive and requires patients to come to the hospital. It would be convenient for patients to have their everolimus concentration determined by dried blood spot (DBS) analysis. With DBS only a single drop of blood from the finger is necessary, which can be done at home and send by regular mail for analysis. Previous studies have showed the feasibility of the DBS approach in the oncologic setting. The physician may benefit from the ease of the DBS sampling method providing results timely before the patient visits the clinic for their (routine) check-up.
Previous methods for the measurement of everolimus by means of DBS have been developed. In the past, emphasis has been put on the development and analytical validation of the assay while the clinical validation was of minor importance. Some information has been gathered in transplantation medicine. However, in patients with cancer, the correlation between everolimus DBS concentrations and whole blood concentration is unknown. Furthermore, information regarding the important everolimus hematocrit effect in DBS at high concentration levels common in the oncology population is lacking. Therefore, the secondary objective is to determine the everolimus concentration collected with DBS from a finger prick and DBS paper spiked with a drop of venipunctured whole blood containing everolimus.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
COHORT
PROSPECTIVE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Everolimus (afinitor)
Patients using everolimus as therapy for cancer: Advanced (Hormone-Receptor \[HR\]-positive, HER2-negative) breast cancer (BC), advanced or unresectable neuroendocrine tumours of pancreatic (pNET), gastrointestinal or lung origin and metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)
No interventions assigned to this group
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Aged 18 or above
* Able and willing to sign the informed consent
Exclusion Criteria
* Alactasia
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Maastricht University Medical Center
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
S. Croes, PharmD, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Maastricht University Medical Centre+
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Maastricht University Medical Centre
Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
NL58486.068.16
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.