Results of the first international quality control programme for oral targeted oncolytics.

AIMS: With the rising number of oral targeted oncolytics and growing awareness of the benefits of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) within the field of oncology, it is expected that the requests for quantifying concentrations of these drugs will increase. It is important to (cross-)validate available assays and ensure its quality, as results may lead to altered dosing recommendations. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the performance of laboratories measuring concentrations of targeted oral oncolytics in a one-time international quality control (QC) programme. METHODS: Participating laboratories received a set of plasma samples containing low, medium and high concentrations of imatinib, sunitinib, desethylsunitinib, pazopanib, cabozantinib, olaparib, enzalutamide, desmethylenzalutamide and abiraterone, with the request to report their results back within five weeks after shipment. Accuracy was defined acceptable if measurements where within 85%-115% from the weighed-in reference concentrations. Besides descriptive statistics, an exploratory ANOVA was performed. RESULTS: Seventeen laboratories from six countries reported 243 results. Overall, 80.7% of all measurements were within the predefined range of acceptable accuracy. Laboratories performed best in quantifying imatinib and poorest in quantifying desethylsunitinib (median absolute inaccuracy respectively 4.0% (interquartile range (IQR) 1.8%-6.5%) and 15.5% (IQR 8.8%-34.9%)). The poorest performance of desethylsunitinib might be caused by using the stable-isotope-labelled sunitinib instead of desethylsunitinib as an internal standard, or due to the light-induced cis(Z)/trans(E) isomerization of (desethyl)sunitinib. Overall, drug substance and performing laboratory seemed to influence the absolute inaccuracy (F = 16.4; p < 0.001 and F = 35.5; p < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Considering this is the first evaluation of an international QC programme for oral targeted oncolytics, an impressive high percentage of measurements were within the predefined range of accuracy. Cross-validation of assays that are used for dose optimization of oncolytics will secure the performance and will protect patients from incorrect advices.

Busulfan Interlaboratory Proficiency Testing Program Revealed Worldwide Errors in Drug Quantitation and Dose Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The clinical outcomes of busulfan-based conditioning regimens for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) have been improved by personalizing the doses to target narrow busulfan plasma exposure. An interlaboratory proficiency test program for the quantitation, pharmacokinetic modeling, and busulfan dosing in plasma was developed. Previous proficiency rounds (ie, the first 2) found that 67%-85% and 71%-88% of the dose recommendations were inaccurate, respectively. METHODS: A proficiency test scheme was developed by the Dutch Foundation for Quality Assessment in Medical Laboratories (SKML) and consisted of 2 rounds per year, with each round containing 2 busulfan samples. In this study, 5 subsequent proficiency tests were evaluated. In each round, the participating laboratories reported their results for 2 proficiency samples (ie, low and high busulfan concentrations) and a theoretical case assessing their pharmacokinetic modeling and dose recommendations. Descriptive statistics were performed, with ±15% for busulfan concentrations and ±10% for busulfan plasma exposure. The dose recommendations were deemed accurate. RESULTS: Since January 2020, 41 laboratories have participated in at least 1 round of this proficiency test. Over the 5 rounds, an average of 78% of the busulfan concentrations were accurate. Area under the concentration-time curve calculations were accurate in 75%-80% of the cases, whereas only 60%-69% of the dose recommendations were accurate. Compared with the first 2 proficiency test rounds (PMID 33675302, October, 2021), the busulfan quantitation results were similar, but the dose recommendations worsened. Some laboratories repeatedly submit results that deviated by more than 15% from the reference values. CONCLUSIONS: The proficiency test showed persistent inaccuracies in busulfan quantitation, pharmacokinetic modeling, and dose recommendations. Additional educational efforts have yet to be implemented; regulatory efforts seem to be needed. The use of specialized busulfan pharmacokinetic laboratories or a sufficient performance in busulfan proficiency tests should be required for HCT centers that prescribe busulfan.

Quality Control of Busulfan Plasma Quantitation, Modeling, and Dosing: An Interlaboratory Proficiency Testing Program.

BACKGROUND: Personalizing busulfan doses to target a narrow plasma exposure has improved the efficacy and lowered the toxicity of busulfan-based conditioning regimens used in hematopoietic cell transplant. Regional regulations guide interlaboratory proficiency testing for busulfan concentration quantification and monitoring. To date, there have been no comparisons of the busulfan pharmacokinetic modeling and dose recommendation protocols used in these laboratories. Here, in collaboration with the Dutch Association for Quality Assessment in Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology, a novel interlaboratory proficiency program for the quantitation in plasma, pharmacokinetic modeling, and dosing of busulfan was designed. The methods and results of the first 2 rounds of this proficiency testing are described herein. METHODS: A novel method was developed to stabilize busulfan in N,N-dimethylacetamide, which allowed shipping of the proficiency samples without dry ice. In each round, participating laboratories reported their results for 2 proficiency samples (one low and one high busulfan concentrations) and a theoretical case assessing their pharmacokinetic modeling and dose recommendations. All participants were blinded to the answers; descriptive statistics were used to evaluate their overall performance. The guidelines suggested that answers within ±15% for busulfan concentrations and ±10% for busulfan plasma exposure and dose recommendation were to be considered accurate. RESULTS: Of the 4 proficiency samples evaluated, between 67% and 85% of the busulfan quantitation results were accurate (ie, within 85%-115% of the reference value). The majority (88% round #1; 71% round #2) of the dose recommendation answers were correct. CONCLUSIONS: A proficiency testing program by which laboratories are alerted to inaccuracies in their quantitation, pharmacokinetic modeling, and dose recommendations for busulfan in hematopoietic cell transplant recipients was developed. These rounds of proficiency testing suggests that additional educational efforts and proficiency rounds are needed to ensure appropriate busulfan dosing.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of tacrolimus and mycophenolic acid in outpatient renal transplant recipients using a volumetric dried blood spot sampling device.

AIMS: Tacrolimus and mycophenolic acid dosing after renal transplantation is individualized through therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). Home-based dried blood spot (DBS) sampling has the potential to replace conventional TDM sampling at the clinic. A liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) assay was developed to quantify tacrolimus and mycophenolic acid in DBS and clinically validated for abbreviated area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) monitoring using an innovative volumetric DBS sampling device. METHODS: Clinical validation was performed by direct comparison of paired DBS and whole blood (WB) (tacrolimus) and plasma (mycophenolic acid) concentrations and AUCs. Agreement was evaluated using Passing-Bablok regression, Bland-Altman analysis and DBS-to-WB predictive performance. TDM dosing recommendations based on both methods were compared to assess clinical impact. RESULTS: Paired tacrolimus (n = 200) and mycophenolic acid (n = 192) DBS and WB samples were collected from 65 kidney(-pancreas) transplant recipients. Differences for tacrolimus and mycophenolic acid were within ±20% for 84.5% and 76.6% of concentrations and 90.5% and 90.7% of AUCs, respectively. Tacrolimus and mycophenolic acid dosing recommendation differences occurred on 44.4% and 4.7% of occasions. Tacrolimus DBS dosing recommendations were 0.35 ± 0.14 mg higher than for WB and 8 ± 3% of the initial dose. Mycophenolic acid DBS dosing recommendations were 23.3 ± 31.9 mg lower than for plasma and 2 ± 3.5% of the initial dose. CONCLUSIONS: Tacrolimus and mycophenolic acid TDM for outpatient renal transplant recipients, based on abbreviated AUC collected with a DBS sampling device, is comparable to conventional TDM based on WB sampling. Patient training and guidance on good blood-spotting practices is essential to ensure method feasibility.

Excision Repair Cross-Complementation group 1 (ERCC1) C118T SNP does not affect cellular response to oxaliplatin.

AIMS: ERCC1 is involved in the repair of oxaliplatin-induced DNA damage. Studies for the association of the C118T SNP with clinical response to treatment with platinum drugs have rendered inconsistent results. We investigated the ERCC1 C118T SNP with respect to overall and progression-free survival in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (ACC) treated with oxaliplatin and in vitro DNA repair capacity after oxaliplatin exposure. In addition we discuss discrepancies from other studies concerning ERCC1 C118T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Progression-free survival was determined in 145 ACC patients treated with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in a phase 3 trial. For the in vitro studies regarding ERCC1 functionality, we transfected an ERCC1 negative cell line with 118C or 118T ERCC1. Cellular sensitivity and DNA repair capacity after exposure to oxaliplatin was examined by Sulphorodamine B growth inhibition assay, COMET assay and Rad51 foci staining. RESULTS: We found no association between ERCC1 C118T and progression-free or overall survival. In addition, transfection of either 118C or 118T restores DNA-repair capacity of UV20 cells to the same level and chemosensitivity to oxaliplatin was similar in ERCC1 118C and 118T transfected cells. CONCLUSION: This study shows that the ERCC1 C118T variants are not associated with survival in ACC patients treated with oxaliplatin or the in vitro sensitivity and DNA-repair capacity in 118C and 118T transfected cell lines. Therefore, ERCC1 C118T genotyping seems of no value in individualizing oxaliplatin based chemotherapy in ACC.

Glutathione-S-transferase pi (GSTP1) codon 105 polymorphism is not associated with oxaliplatin efficacy or toxicity in advanced colorectal cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Oxaliplatin is detoxified by conjugation to glutathione via the enzyme Glutathione-S-transferase pi (GSTP1). The aim of this study is to investigate the association of GSTP1 Ile105Val genetic polymorphism with oxaliplatin efficacy and toxicity in advanced colorectal cancer (ACC) patients. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A total of 91 ACC patients received capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) as a part of a multicentre phase-III study of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group. Tumour response was evaluated according to RECIST, toxicity was graded using CTC, and GSTP1 Ile105Val was determined by pyrosequencing. RESULTS: Overall survival after CAPOX was similar for patients with the Ile/Ile (11.5 mo), Ile/Val (11.6 mo) and Val/Val (12.6 mo) genotypes (p=0.602). Likewise, there were no statistically significant differences in progression-free survival (p=0.252). Overall grades 3-4 toxicity was not related to genotype (p=0.313). There were no differences in any grade or grades 3-4 neurotoxicity amongst the patients who received > or =500 mg/m(2) of oxaliplatin (p-values of 0.376 and 0.772, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that the GSTP1 genotype is not predictive for progression-free survival or overall survival in ACC patients treated with CAPOX. Moreover, overall neurotoxicity and neurotoxicity in patients receiving 500 mg/m(2) of oxaliplatin was not associated with GSTP1 genotype.