Population pharmacokinetics and exposure–response of trastuzumab emtansine in advanced breast cancer previously treated with ≥2 HER2-targeted regimens

British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

5 years ago

Population pharmacokinetics and exposure–response of trastuzumab emtansine in advanced breast cancer previously treated with ≥2 HER2-targeted regimens

Sandhya Girish, Jin Yan Jin, Chunze Li, Silke Hoersch, Angelica Quartino, Shweta Vadhavkar, Melanie Smitt, Shang-Chiung Chen, Xin Wang, Matthew Riggs, Daniel Polhamus, Alexander Strasak, Jonathan French

Aims We conducted population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) and exposure–response analyses for trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1), to assess the need for T-DM1 dose optimization in patients with low exposure by using TH3RESA [A Study of Trastuzumab Emtansine in Comparison With Treatment of Physician's Choice in Patients With human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive Breast Cancer Who Have Received at Least Two Prior Regimens of HER2-directed Therapy] study data (NCT01419197). The randomized phase III TH3RESA study investigated T-DM1 vs. treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients with heavily pretreated HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. Methods We compared a historical T-DM1 PopPK model with T-DM1 pharmacokinetics in TH3RESA and performed exposure–response analyses using model-predicted cycle 1 maximum concentration (Cmax), cycle 1 minimum concentration (Cmin) and area under the concentration–time curve at steady state (AUCss). Kaplan–Meier analyses [overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS)] and logistic regression [overall response rate (ORR), safety] were stratified by T-DM1 exposure metrics. Survival hazard ratios (HRs) in the lowest exposure quartile (Q1) of cycle 1 Cmin were compared with matched TPC-treated patients. Results T-DM1 concentrations in TH3RESA were described well by the historical PopPK model. Patients with higher cycle 1 Cmin and AUCss exhibited numerically longer median OS and PFS and higher ORR than patients with lower exposure. Exposure–response relationships were less evident for cycle 1 Cmax. No relationship between exposure and safety was identified. HRs for the comparison of T-DM1-treated patients in the Q1 subgroup with matched TPC-treated patients were 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63, 1.47] for OS and 0.92 (95% CI 0.64, 1.32) for PFS. Conclusions Exposure–response relationships for efficacy were inconsistent across exposure metrics. HRs for survival in patients in the lowest T-DM1 exposure quartile vs. matched TPC-treated patients suggest that, compared with TCP, the approved T-DM1 dose is unlikely to be detrimental to patients with low exposure.

Publisher URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi

DOI: 10.1111/bcp.13381