Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Melanoma: A Review of Pharmacokinetics and Exposure–Response Relationships
- 409 Downloads
Immune checkpoint inhibitors are a new class of monoclonal antibodies that amplify T-cell-mediated immune responses against cancer cells. The introduction of these new drugs, first anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (anti-CTLA4) and then anti-programmed death-1 (anti-PD1), was a major improvement in the treatment of advanced or metastatic melanoma, a highly immunogenic tumour. The development strategy for immune checkpoint immunotherapies differed from that traditionally used for cytotoxic therapies in oncology. The choices of doses at which to conduct clinical trials, and subsequently the choice of doses at which to use these new therapies, were not based on the identification of a maximum tolerated dose from dose-escalation studies; thus, pharmacokinetic and pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic modelling was essential. The studies conducted have shown that the pharmacokinetics of ipilimumab were linear and not time-dependent. In addition, there was a correlation between the trough concentrations of ipilimumab and its therapeutic efficacy. On the contrary, the anti-PD1 immunotherapies nivolumab and pembrolizumab had time-dependent pharmacokinetics. Their therapeutic efficacy was not related to their trough concentration, but there was a correlation between the clearance of anti-PD1 and the survival of melanoma patients. This review highlights the complexity of interpreting the exposure–response relationships of these agents. Further studies are needed to assess the value of therapeutic drug monitoring of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of melanoma.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
Cyril Leven, Maël Padelli, Jean-Luc Carré and Eric Bellissant have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this review. Laurent Misery has been a consultant for Sanofi, however there was no relationship with the studied drugs.
No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this review.
- 5.Hua C, Boussemart L, Mateus C, Routier E, Boutros C, Cazenave H, et al. Association of vitiligo with tumor response in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with pembrolizumab. JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152:45–51.Google Scholar
- 9.Wherry EJ. T cell exhaustion. Nat Immunol. 2011;131:492–9.Google Scholar
- 16.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. Ipilimumab (Yervoy). Highlights of prescribing information; 2018. https://packageinserts.bms.com/pi/pi_yervoy.pdf. Cited 18 Apr 2019.
- 17.Merck & Co., Inc. Pembrolizumab (Keytruda). Highlights of prescribing information; 2019. https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/k/keytruda/keytruda_pi.pdf. Cited 18 Apr 2019.
- 18.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. Nivolumab (Opdivo). Highlights of prescribing information; 2019. https://packageinserts.bms.com/pi/pi_opdivo.pdf. Cited 18 Apr 2019.
- 20.European Medicines Agency. Yervoy—European Public Assessment Report; 2011. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Public_assessment_report/human/002213/WC500109302.pdf. Cited 27 Sep 2018.
- 22.European Medicines Agency. Keytruda—European Public Assessment Report; 2015. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Public_assessment_report/human/003820/WC500190992.pdf. Cited 27 Sep 2018.
- 24.European Medicines Agency. Opdivo—European Public Assessment Report; 2015. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Public_assessment_report/human/003985/WC500189767.pdf. Cited 27 Sep 2018.
- 29.Cicchetti A, Coretti S, Mascia D, Mazzanti N, Refolo P, Rolli FR, et al. Assessing social and economic impact of subcutaneous mAbs in oncology. Glob Reg Health Technol Assess Ital North Eur Span. 2018;2018:1–9.Google Scholar
- 34.Ahamadi M, Freshwater T, Prohn M, Li C, de Alwis D, de Greef R, et al. Model-based characterization of the pharmacokinetics of pembrolizumab: a humanized anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody in advanced solid tumors. CPT Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol. 2017;6:49–57.Google Scholar
- 35.Elassaiss-Schaap J, Rossenu S, Lindauer A, Kang S, de Greef R, Sachs J, et al. Using model-based “learn and confirm” to reveal the pharmacokinetics–pharmacodynamics relationship of pembrolizumab in the KEYNOTE-001 trial. CPT Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol. 2017;6:21–8.Google Scholar
- 37.Bajaj G, Wang X, Agrawal S, Gupta M, Roy A, Feng Y. Model-based population pharmacokinetic analysis of nivolumab in patients with solid tumors. CPT Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol. 2017;6:58–66.Google Scholar
- 45.Lindauer A, Valiathan C, Mehta K, Sriram V, de Greef R, Elassaiss-Schaap J, et al. Translational pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling of tumor growth inhibition supports dose-range selection of the anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab. CPT Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol. 2017;6:11–20.Google Scholar
- 46.Elassaiss-Schaap J. Allometric scaling in oncology disease progression from xenograft tumor growth to human non-small-cell lung cancer. In: 19th Annual Meeting of the Population Approach Group in Europe, 8–11 June 2010, Berlin.Google Scholar
- 47.Chatterjee M, Elassaiss-Schaap J, Lindauer A, Turner D, Sostelly A, Freshwater T, et al. Population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling of tumor size dynamics in pembrolizumab-treated advanced melanoma. CPT Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol. 2017;6:29–39.Google Scholar
- 56.Wang X, Feng Y, Bajaj G, Gupta M, Agrawal S, Yang A, et al. Quantitative characterization of the exposure–response relationship for cancer immunotherapy: a case study of nivolumab in patients with advanced melanoma. CPT Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol. 2017;6:40–8.Google Scholar
- 61.Lala M, Li M, Sinha V, de Alwis D, Chartash E, Jain L. A six-weekly (Q6W) dosing schedule for pembrolizumab based on an exposure–response (E–R) evaluation using modeling and simulation. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(15 Suppl):3062.Google Scholar
- 67.Kaufman H, Schwartz LH, William WN, Sznol M, del Aguila M, Whittington C, et al. Evaluation of clinical endpoints as surrogates for overall survival in patients treated with immunotherapies. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:e14557.Google Scholar