Opportunities for Quantitative Translational Modeling in Oncology.
Animals
Antineoplastic Agents
/ adverse effects
Cell Line, Tumor
Clinical Trials as Topic
Dose-Response Relationship, Drug
Drug Development
Endpoint Determination
Humans
Medical Oncology
Models, Theoretical
Neoplasms, Experimental
/ drug therapy
Research Design
Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors
Translational Research, Biomedical
Tumor Burden
/ drug effects
Xenograft Model Antitumor Assays
Journal
Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics
ISSN: 1532-6535
Titre abrégé: Clin Pharmacol Ther
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372741
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2020
09 2020
Historique:
received:
24
04
2020
accepted:
04
06
2020
pubmed:
23
6
2020
medline:
26
5
2021
entrez:
23
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A 2-day meeting was held by members of the UK Quantitative Systems Pharmacology Network (<http://www.qsp-uk.net/>) in November 2018 on the topic of Translational Challenges in Oncology. Participants from a wide range of backgrounds were invited to discuss current and emerging modeling applications in nonclinical and clinical drug development, and to identify areas for improvement. This resulting perspective explores opportunities for impactful quantitative pharmacology approaches. Four key themes arose from the presentations and discussions that were held, leading to the following recommendations: Evaluate the predictivity and reproducibility of animal cancer models through precompetitive collaboration. Apply mechanism of action (MoA) based mechanistic models derived from nonclinical data to clinical trial data. Apply MoA reflective models across trial data sets to more robustly quantify the natural history of disease and response to differing interventions. Quantify more robustly the dose and concentration dependence of adverse events through mathematical modelling techniques and modified trial design.
Substances chimiques
Antineoplastic Agents
0
Types de publication
Congress
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
447-457Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.
Références
International Agency of Research on Cancer. World cancer factsheet (2012) <https://gicr.iarc.fr/public/docs/20120906-WorldCancerFactSheet.pdf>.
Cancer Research UK. World Cancer Statistics (2018) <https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/worldwide-cancer#heading-Zero>.
DiMasi, J.A., Grabowski, H.G. & Hansen, R.W. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: new estimates of R&D costs. J. Health Econ. 47, 20-33 (2016).
Evaluate. World Preview 2019, Outlook to 2024 (2019). <https://www.evaluate.com/sites/default/files/media/download-files/EvaluatePharma-World-Preview-2019%20-%20FINAL2_2.pdf>.
Palani, S. et al. Preclinical pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic/efficacy relationships for alisertib, an investigational small-molecule inhibitor of Aurora A kinase. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 72, 1255-1264 (2013).
Tate, S.C. et al. Semi-mechanistic pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling of the antitumor activity of LY2835219, a new cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor, in mice bearing human tumor xenografts. Clin. Cancer Res. 20, 3763-3774 (2014).
Wong, H. et al. Antitumor activity of targeted and cytotoxic agents in murine subcutaneous tumor models correlates with clinical response. Clin. Cancer Res. 18, 3846-3855 (2012).
Wong, H. et al. Bridging the gap between preclinical and clinical studies using pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling: an analysis of GDC-0973, a MEK inhibitor. Clin. Cancer Res. 18, 3090-3099 (2012).
Gao, H. et al. High-throughput screening using patient-derived tumor xenografts to predict clinical trial drug response. Nat. Med. 21, 1318-1325 (2015).
Mosely, S.I.S. et al. Rational selection of syngeneic preclinical tumor models for immunotherapeutic drug discovery. Cancer Immunol. Res. 5, 29-41 (2017).
Taylor, M.A. et al. Longitudinal immune characterization of syngeneic tumor models to enable model selection for immune oncology drug discovery. J. Immuno. Therapy Cancer 7, 328 (2019).
DuPage, M. & Jacks, T. Genetically engineered mouse models of cancer reveal new insights about the antitumor immune response. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 25, 192-199 (2013).
Westcott, P.M.K. et al. The mutational landscapes of genetic and chemical models of Kras-driven lung cancer. Nature 517, 489-492 (2015).
Ayers, G.D. et al. Volume of preclinical xenograft tumors is more accurately assessed by ultrasound imaging than manual caliper measurements. J. Ultrasound Med. 29, 891-901 (2010).
Delgado San Martin, J.A., Worthington, P. & Yates, JWT. Non-invasive 3D time-of-flight imaging technique for tumour volume assessment in subcutaneous models. Lab. Anim. 49, 168-171 (2015).
Euhus, D.M. et al. Tumor measurement in the nude mouse. J. Surg. Oncol. 31, 229-234 (1986).
Song, C. et al. Thermographic assessment of tumor growth in mouse xenografts. Int. J. Cancer 121, 1055-1058 (2007).
Parra-guillen, Z.P. et al. Systematic modeling and design evaluation of unperturbed tumor dynamics in xenografts. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 366, 96-104 (2018).
Martin, E.C., Aarons, L. & Yates, J.W.T. Accounting for dropout in xenografted tumour efficacy studies: integrated endpoint analysis, reduced bias and better use of animals. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 78, 131-141 (2016).
Martin, J.D.S. et al. An innovative non-invasive technique for subcutaneous tumour measurements. PLoS One 14, 1-14 (2019).
Eisenhauer, E.A. et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur. J. Cancer 45, 228-247 (2009).
Rocchetti, M. et al. Predicting the active doses in humans from animal studies: a novel approach in oncology. Eur. J. Cancer 43, 1862-1868 (2007).
Inaba, M. et al. Pharmacokinetic approach to rational therapeutic doses for human tumor-bearing nude mice. Jpn. J. Cancer Res. 79, 509-516 (1988).
Inaba, M. et al. Responsiveness of human gastric tumors implanted in nude mice to clinically equivalent doses of various antitumor agents. Jpn. J. Cancer Res. 79, 517-522 (1988).
Venditti, J.M. et al. Relationships between drug activity in NCI preclinical in vitro and in vivo models and early clinical trials. Br. J. Cancer 84, 1424-1431 (2002).
Spilker, M.E. et al. Found in translation: maximizing the clinical relevance of nonclinical oncology studies. Clin. Cancer Res. 23, 1080-1090 (2017).
Cardilin, T. et al. Evaluation and translation of combination therapies in oncology - a quantitative approach. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 834, 327-336 (2018).
Greef, R.D. et al. Pembrolizumab: role of modeling and simulation in bringing a novel immunotherapy to patients with melanoma. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst. Pharmacol. 6, 5-7 (2017).
Schnell, C.R. et al. Use of Fine Needle Aspirate Biopsy (FNAB) in Evaluating Drug Responses in Tumor Models: Better Data with Less Animal Use? (AACR, Philadelphia, PA, 2013).
Carroll, C.S.E. et al. Repeated fine-needle aspiration of solid tumours in mice allows the identification of multiple infiltrating immune cell types. J. Immunol. Methods 425, 102-107 (2015).
Rago, C. et al. Serial assessment of human tumor burdens in mice by the analysis of circulating DNA. Cancer Res. 67, 9364-9370 (2007).
Mair, R. et al. Measurement of plasma cell-free mitochondrial tumor DNA improves detection of glioblastoma in patient-derived orthotopic xenograft models. Cancer Res. 79, 220-230 (2019).
Smith, I.C. et al. Positron emission tomography using [18 F]-fluorodeoxy-D-glucose to predict the pathologic response of breast cancer to primary chemotherapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 18, 1676-1688 (2000).
Nahmias, C. et al. Time course of early response to chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer patients with 18F-FDG PET/CT. J. Nucl. Med. 48, 744-751 (2007).
Carr, J.A. et al. Shortwave infrared fluorescence imaging with the clinically approved near-infrared dye indocyanine green. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115, 4465-4470 (2018).
Witney, T.H. et al. Detecting treatment response in a model of human breast adenocarcinoma using hyperpolarised 1-13 Cpyruvate and 1,4-13 C 2 fumarate. Br. J. Cancer 103, 1400-1406 (2010).
Serrao, E.M. et al. Analysis of 13C and 14C labeling in pyruvate and lactate in tumor and blood of lymphoma-bearing mice injected with 13C- and 14C-labeled pyruvate. NMR Biomed. 31, 1-10 (2018).
European Medicines Agency (EMA).Guideline on strategies to identify and mitigate risks for first-in-human and early clinical trials with investigational medicinal products (2017) <https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-strategies-identify-mitigate-risks-first-human-early-clinical-trials-investigational_en.pdf>.
Braun, T.M. Generalizing the TITE-CRM to adapt for early- and late-onset toxicities. Stat. Med. 25, 2071-2083 (2006).
Ursino, M. et al. Dose-finding methods for phase I clinical trials using pharmacokinetics in small populations. Biom. J. 59, 804-825 (2017).
Sverdlov, O., Wong, W.K. & Ryeznik, Y. Adaptive clinical trial designs for phase I cancer studies. Stat. Surv. 8, 2-43 (2014).
Musuamba, F.T. et al. Advanced methods for dose and regimen finding during drug development: summary of the EMA/EFPIA workshop on dose finding (London 4-5 December 2014). CPT Pharma. Syst. Pharmacol. 6, 418-429 (2017).
Mathijssen, R.H.J., Sparreboom, A. & Verweij, J. Determining the optimal dose in the development of anticancer agents. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 11, 272-281 (2014).
Minasian, L. et al. Optimizing dosing of oncology drugs. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 96, 572-579 (2014).
Feng, Y. et al. Nivolumab exposure-response analyses of efficacy and safety in previously treated squamous or nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 23, 5394-5405 (2017).
US Food and Drug Administration. Clinical trial endpoints for the approval of cancer drugs and biologics <https://www.fda.gov/media/71195/download>.
Blumenthal, G.M. et al. Milestone analyses of immune checkpoint inhibitors, targeted therapy, and conventional therapy in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer trials. JAMA Oncology 3, e171029 (2017).
Mushti, S.L., Mulkey, F. & Sridhara, R. Evaluation of overall response rate and progression-free survival as potential surrogate endpoints for overall survival in immunotherapy trials. Clin. Cancer Res. 24, 2268-2275 (2018).
Wilkerson, J. & Fojo, T. Progression-free survival is simply a measure of a drug's effect while administered and is not a surrogate for overall survival. Cancer J. 15, 379-385 (2009).
Claret, L. et al. Model-based prediction of phase III overall survival in colorectal cancer on the basis of phase II tumor dynamics. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, 4103-4108 (2009).
Wang, Y. et al. Elucidation of relationship between tumor size and survival in non-small-cell lung cancer patients can aid early decision making in clinical drug development. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 86, 167-174 (2009).
Johnson, K. et al. Directional inconsistency between Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) time to progression and response speed and depth. Eur. J. Cancer 109, 196-203 (2019).
Jamal-Hanjani, M. et al. Tracking the evolution of non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 376, 2109-2121 (2017).
Watkins, C. et al. Adjusting overall survival for treatment switches: commonly used methods and practical application. Pharm. Stat. 12, 348-357 (2013).
Seymour, L. et al. iRECIST: guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics. Lancet Oncol. 18, e143-e152 (2017).
Mistry, H.B. et al. Resistance models to EGFR inhibition and chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer via analysis of tumour size dynamics. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 84, 51-60 (2019).
Mistry, H.B., Orrell, D. & Eftimie, R. Model based analysis of the heterogeneity in the tumour size dynamics differentiates vemurafenib, dabrafenib and trametinib in metastatic melanoma. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 81, 325-332 (2018).
Claret, L. et al. Comparison of tumor size assessments in tumor growth inhibition-overall survival models with second-line colorectal cancer data from the VELOUR study. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 82, 49-54 (2018).
Yu, J., Wang, N. & Kågedal, M. A new method to model and predict progression free survival based on tumor growth dynamics. CPT Pharma. Syst. Pharmacol. 9, 177-184 (2020).
Netterberg, I. et al. A PK / PD analysis of circulating biomarkers and their relationship to tumor response in atezolizumab- treated non-small cell lung. Cancer Patients. 105, 486-495 (2019).
Ribba, B. et al. A review of mixed-effects models of tumor growth and effects of anticancer drug treatment used in population analysis. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst. Pharmacol. 3, e113 (2014).
Yin, A. et al. A review of mathematical models for tumor dynamics and treatment resistance evolution of solid tumors. CPT Pharma. Syst. Pharmacol. 8, 720-737 (2019).
Ouerdani, A. et al. Preclinical modeling of tumor growth and angiogenesis inhibition to describe pazopanib clinical effects in renal cell carcinoma. CPT Pharma. Syst. Pharmacol. 4, 660-668 (2015).
Yates, J.W.T. et al. Validation of a predictive modeling approach to demonstrate the relative efficacy of three different schedules of the AKT inhibitor AZD5363. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 76, 343-356 (2015).
Infante, J.R. et al. Phase I study of GDC-0425, a checkpoint kinase 1 inhibitor, in combination with gemcitabine in patients with refractory solid tumors. Clin. Cancer Res. 23, 2423-2432 (2017).
Shrimali, R.K. et al. Concurrent PD-1 blockade negates the effects of OX40 agonist antibody in combination immunotherapy through inducing T-cell apoptosis. Cancer Immunol. Res. 5, 755-766 (2017).
Melero, I. et al. Evolving synergistic combinations of targeted immunotherapies to combat cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 15, 457-472 (2015).
Loibl, S. et al. A randomised phase II study investigating durvalumab in addition to an anthracycline taxane-based neoadjuvant therapy in early triple-negative breast cancer: clinical results and biomarker analysis of GeparNuevo study. Ann. Oncol. 30, 1279-1288 (2019).
Baverel, P.G. et al. Population pharmacokinetics of durvalumab in cancer patients and association with longitudinal biomarkers of disease status. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 103, 631-642 (2018).
Bi, Y. et al. Model-informed drug development approach supporting approval of the 4-week (Q4W) dosing schedule for nivolumab (Opdivo) across multiple indications: A regulatory perspective. Ann. Oncol. 30, 644-651 (2019).
Turner, K.Model informed development of abemaciclib: collaboration, computation, and communication (2018) <https://www.fda.gov/media/112920/download>.
Wilkins, J.J. et al. Time-varying clearance and impact of disease state on the pharmacokinetics of avelumab in Merkel cell carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst. Pharmacol. 8, 415-427 (2019).
Leder, K. et al. Mathematical modeling of PDGF-driven glioblastoma reveals optimized radiation dosing schedules. Cell 156, 603-616 (2014).
Jones, B. Cell loss factors and the linear-quadratic model. Radiother. Oncol. 37, 136-139 (1995).
Joiner, M.C. & Van der Kogel, A. Basic Clinical Radiobiology, 4th edn. (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2009).
Park, C. et al. Universal survival curve and single fraction equivalent dose: useful tools in understanding potency of ablative radiotherapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 70, 847-852 (2008).
Aerts, H.J.W.L. et al. Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat. Commun. 5, 1859-1861 (2014).
Erickson, B.J. et al. Machine learning for medical imaging. Radiographics 37, 505-515 (2017).
Simeoni, M. et al. Predictive pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of tumor growth kinetics in xenograft models after administration of anticancer agents. Cancer Res. 64, 1094-1101 (2004).
Jumbe, N.L. et al. Modeling the efficacy of trastuzumab-DM1, an antibody drug conjugate, in mice. J. Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 37, 221-242 (2010).
Marusic, M. et al. Tumor growth in vivo and as multicellular spheroids compared by mathematical models. Bull. Math. Biol. 56, 617-631 (1994).
Bruno, R. et al. Progress and opportunities to advance clinical cancer therapeutics using tumor dynamic models. Clin. Cancer Res. 26, 1787-1795 (2020).
Tariq, I. et al. Modelling and Bayesian adaptive prediction of individual patients' tumour volume change during radiotherapy. Phys. Med. Biol. 61, 2145-2161 (2016).
Lewin, T. Modelling the Impact of Heterogeneity in Tumour Composition on the Response to Fractionated Radiotherapy (University of Oxford, Oxford, 2018).
Randall, E.C. et al. Integrated mapping of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in a patient-derived xenograft model of glioblastoma. Nat. Commun. 9, 4904 (2018).
Smith, N.R. et al. Tumor stromal architecture can define the intrinsic tumor response to VEGF-targeted therapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 19, 6943-6956 (2013).
Byrne, H.M. Dissecting cancer through mathematics: from the cell to the animal model. Nat. Rev. Cancer 10, 221-230 (2010).
Fu, F., Nowak, M.A. & Bonhoeffer, S. Spatial heterogeneity in drug concentrations can facilitate the emergence of resistance to cancer therapy. PLoS Comput. Biol. 11, e1004142 (2015).
Frieboes, H.B. et al. Prediction of drug response in breast cancer using integrative experimental/computational modeling. Cancer Res. 69, 4484-4492 (2009).
Delgado San Martin, J.A. et al. Tumour stromal morphology impacts nanomedicine cytotoxicity in patient-derived xenografts. Nanomed. Nanotechnol. Biol. Med. 11, 1-6 (2015).
Broders-Bondon, F. et al. Mechanotransduction in tumor progression: the dark side of the force. J. Cell Biol. 217, 1571-1587 (2018).
Grantab, R.H. & Tannock, I.F. Penetration of anticancer drugs through tumour tissue as a function of cellular packing density and interstitial fluid pressure and its modification by bortezomib. BMC Cancer 12, 214 (2012).
Shin, J.-W. & Mooney, D.J. Extracellular matrix stiffness causes systematic variations in proliferation and chemosensitivity in myeloid leukemias. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 12126-12131 (2016).
Singh, A.P. et al. A cell-level systems PK-PD model to characterize in vivo efficacy of ADCs. Pharmaceutics 11, 1-18 (2019).
Kosinsky, Y. et al. Radiation and PD-(L)1 treatment combinations: immune response and dose optimization via a predictive systems model. J. Immuno. Therapy Cancer 6, 17 (2018).
Hardiansyah, D. & Ng, C.M. Quantitative systems pharmacology model of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Clin. Transl. Sci. 12, 343-349 (2019).
Singh, A.P. et al. Development of a quantitative relationship between CAR-affinity, antigen abundance, tumor cell depletion and CAR-T cell expansion using a multiscale systems PK-PD model. mAbs 12, 1688616 (2020).
Kosinsky, Y. et al. Radiation and PD-(L)1 treatment combinations: immune response and dose optimization via a predictive systems model. J. Immunother. Cancer 6, 17 (2018).
Bell, G.I. Mathematical model of clonal selection and antibody production. Nature 228, 739-744 (1970).
Knight-Schrijver, V.R. et al. The promises of quantitative systems pharmacology modelling for drug development. Computat. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 14, 363-370 (2016).
Krishnaswami, S. et al. MID3: mission impossible or model-informed drug discovery and development? Point-counterpoint discussions on key challenges. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 107, 762-772 (2020).
Kilkenny, C. et al. Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals. PLoS One 4, e7824 (2009).
Voelkl, B. et al. Reproducibility of preclinical animal research improves with heterogeneity of study samples. PLoS Biol. 16, 1-13 (2018).
Yamazaki, S., Spilker, M.E. & Vicini, P. Expert opinion on drug metabolism & toxicology translational modeling and simulation approaches for molecularly targeted small molecule anticancer agents from bench to bedside molecule anticancer agents from bench to bedside. Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol. 12, 253-265 (2016).
Bartelink, I.H. et al. Tumor drug penetration measurements could be the neglected piece of the personalized cancer treatment puzzle. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 106, 148-163 (2019).
Pawaskar, D.K. et al. Synergistic interactions between sorafenib and everolimus in pancreatic cancer xenografts in mice. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 71, 1231-1240 (2013).