Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CCR Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Breast Cancer
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immunotherapy: Facts and Hopes
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Clinical Cancer Research
Clinical Cancer Research
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CCR Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Breast Cancer
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immunotherapy: Facts and Hopes
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Clinical Trials: Targeted Therapy

Impact of Concomitant Administration of Gastric Acid–Suppressive Agents and Pazopanib on Outcomes in Soft-Tissue Sarcoma Patients Treated within the EORTC 62043/62072 Trials

Olivier Mir, Nathan Touati, Michela Lia, Saskia Litière, Axel Le Cesne, Stefan Sleijfer, Jean-Yves Blay, Michael Leahy, Robin Young, Ron H.J. Mathijssen, Nielka P. Van Erp, Hans Gelderblom, Winette T. Van der Graaf and Alessandro Gronchi
Olivier Mir
1Gustave Roussy, Sarcoma Group, Villejuif, France.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: olivier.mir@gustaveroussy.fr
Nathan Touati
2European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Brussels, Belgium.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michela Lia
2European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Brussels, Belgium.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Saskia Litière
2European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Brussels, Belgium.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Axel Le Cesne
1Gustave Roussy, Sarcoma Group, Villejuif, France.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stefan Sleijfer
3Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jean-Yves Blay
4Léon Bérard Cancer Center, Lyon, France.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Leahy
5The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robin Young
6Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ron H.J. Mathijssen
3Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nielka P. Van Erp
7Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hans Gelderblom
8Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Winette T. Van der Graaf
7Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
9The Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alessandro Gronchi
10Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-2748 Published March 2019
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Purpose: Pazopanib is active in soft-tissue sarcoma (STS). Because pazopanib absorption is pH-dependent, coadministration with gastric acid–suppressive (GAS) agents such as proton pump inhibitors could affect exposure of pazopanib, and thereby its therapeutic effects.

Patients and Methods: The EORTC 62043 and 62072 were single-arm phase II and placebo-controlled phase III studies, respectively, of pazopanib in advanced STS. We first compared the outcome of patients treated with pazopanib with or without GAS agents for ≥80% of treatment duration, and subsequently using various thresholds. The impact of concomitant GAS therapy was assessed on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using multivariate Cox models, exploring and comparing also the potential effect on placebo-treated patients.

Results: Of 333 eligible patients, 59 (17.7%) received concomitant GAS therapy for >80% of pazopanib treatment duration. Median PFS was shorter in GAS therapy users versus nonusers: 2.8 vs. 4.6 months, respectively [HR, 1.49; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11–1.99; P = 0.01]. Concomitant administration of GAS therapy was also associated with a shorter median OS: 8.0 vs. 12.6 months (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.31–2.49; P < 0.01). The longer the overlapping use of GAS agents and pazopanib, the worse the outcome with pazopanib. These effects were not observed in placebo-treated patients (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.51–1.34; P = 0.43 for PFS and HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.48–1.48; P = 0.54 for OS).

Conclusions: Coadministration of long-term GAS therapy with pazopanib was associated with significantly shortened PFS and OS. Withdrawal of GAS agents must be considered whenever possible. Therapeutic drug monitoring of pazopanib plasma concentrations may be helpful for patients on pazopanib and GAS therapy.

Translational Relevance

Pazopanib is approved for the treatment of advanced soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) pretreated with doxorubicin-based regimens, based on an increase in progression-free survival (PFS), but not in overall survival (OS). From a pharmacologic point of view, pazopanib absorption is pH-dependent, and coadministration with gastric acid–suppressive (GAS) agents (such as proton pump inhibitors) negatively affects pazopanib plasma concentrations. Herein, we investigated whether GAS agents could affect outcomes of patients with STS treated with pazopanib in the EORTC phase II and III trials. We found that coadministration of long-term GAS therapy with pazopanib was associated with significantly shortened PFS and OS, possibly due to suboptimal plasma concentrations. We conclude that withdrawal of GAS agents must be considered whenever possible in patients with STS treated with pazopanib. Monitoring of pazopanib plasma concentrations may be helpful for patients on pazopanib and concomitant GAS therapy.

Introduction

Although gastric acid–suppressive (GAS) agents such as proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine H2-receptor blockers (H2Bs) are used in 20% to 50% of patients undergoing cancer treatment (1), the importance of gastric acid–mediated drug–drug interactions might be underestimated by medical oncologists and prescribing physicians.

Because of the oral administration route of various molecular targeted therapies, including multityrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), drug–drug interactions concerning gastrointestinal absorption have become apparent (2). Indeed, many TKIs show pH-dependent solubility in the physiologically relevant pH range, and their solubility might be decreased by the coadministration of GAS agents, which increase gastric pH (3). Such drug–drug interactions could reduce the systemic exposure of TKIs, resulting in subtherapeutic exposure levels, and lead to loss of therapeutic benefit (2, 4).

Pazopanib is an orally administered, potent TKI targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFR)-1, -2, and -3, platelet-derived growth factor receptors (PDGFR)-α and -β, and KIT. It is approved for the treatment of patients with advanced nonadipocytic soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) who have received prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease, based on the combined results of the EORTC 62072 (PALETTE) phase III and 62043 phase II trials (5, 6).

The absorption of pazopanib is pH-dependent, and pazopanib is practically insoluble (<0.1 mg/mL) at pH > 4 (2). In a postmarketing drug–drug interactions' study investigating the effect of increased gastric pH on the pharmacokinetics of pazopanib, pazopanib 800 mg OD was given as monotherapy for 7 days followed by pazopanib 800 mg OD in combination with the PPI esomeprazol 40 mg OD for 5 consecutive days. The combined use of pazopanib and esomeprazol resulted in a decrease in the average maximum pazopanib plasma concentration and the average area under the concentration time curve 24 hours after dose by 42% and 40%, respectively (7).

Retrospective data suggest that low plasma concentrations of pazopanib (through steady-state concentration < 20.5 μg/mL) are associated with poor outcomes in renal-cell carcinoma (8). This was recently confirmed for renal cell cancer in terms of progression-free survival (PFS), and a similar trend was observed in STS patients (9). This means that a threshold for pazopanib activity likely exists for both tumor types.

Based on this literature, we conducted a retrospective review of the EORTC 62043 and 62072 databases, in order to investigate the association between the use of GAS therapy and clinical outcomes in patients with STS treated with pazopanib.

Patients and Methods

Study design

The present analysis combined the data from the completed trials EORTC phase II 62043 and phase III 62072 (5, 6). Both studies were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, after approval by Institutional Review Boards, and written consent was obtained from all the subjects.

A per protocol approach was adopted using the following patient inclusion criteria: (i) patients eligible in their respective trial, (ii) patients who did not have liposarcoma, due to their ineligibility for the phase III study based on the phase II results, (iii) patients who started their allocated pazopanib treatment.

Objectives and endpoints

The main objective of the current analysis was to assess the potential presence of an association between the use of GAS agents during pazopanib administration and clinical outcomes. Primary and secondary endpoints were PFS and overall survival (OS), and were calculated from the date of registration/randomization to the first documentation of progression/death and the date of death, respectively. Patients alive at the time of clinical cutoff were censored at the date of last follow-up.

GAS therapy embraced both PPI and histamine H2 blocking medications for which the considered drugs are listed in Supplementary Table S1. The percentage of the pazopanib administration period during which there was an overlapping administration of GAS therapy was used to classify patients between users and nonusers of GAS agents. Based on preparatory investigations, a threshold of 80% was selected upfront to differentiate between these patient groups. Exploratory analyses were performed to investigate the impact of this threshold choice on the estimated models.

An additional objective was to examine whether coadministration of GAS therapy had an attenuating effect on pazopanib-specific toxicities such as hypertension, skin toxicities (alopecia, hypopigmentation, skin rash), or thyroid dysfunction. Definitions of these toxicities are detailed in the Supplementary Data.

Statistical analysis

HRs—with their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs)—were estimated from a multivariate Cox regression model adjusting for performance status (0 vs. 1), gender (male vs. female), tumor grade (low vs. intermediate vs. high), and age at randomization (≤50 vs. >50 years). The related 2-sided log-rank test P value and Kaplan–Meier curves were displayed. In order to evaluate the real impact on the drug–drug interaction on the obtained results, similar analyses were conducted on placebo-treated patients from the phase III study, to discriminate for a false effect of GAS therapy on pazopanib treatment outcome, in addition of multivariate sensitivity analyses adjusting for GAS therapy administration at baseline as well. Analyses were performed using SAS, version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.).

Results

GAS therapy administration

A total of 333 patients treated with pazopanib—118 from the 62043 trial and 215 from the 62072 trial—were eligible for this study. Median follow-up from registration/randomization was 27.6 months (interquartile range, 22.9–35.4). Among them, 117 (35.1%) received GAS therapy at least once during their pazopanib treatment administration period and 59 (17.7%) of them concomitantly for >80% of the pazopanib duration (Table 1). Nineteen (5.7%) patients were already receiving GAS therapy at the time of registration. Patients' baseline characteristics are depicted in Supplementary Table S2.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Description of GAS therapy received together with protocol treatment in EORTC 62043 and 62072 studies

Effect of concomitant use of pazopanib and GAS agents

Two patients were excluded from multivariate analyses due to missing tumor grade status. As shown in Table 2, the concomitant administration of GAS therapy and pazopanib (>80% threshold) had a significant detrimental effect on PFS (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.11–1.99; P value 0.008), with a median PFS of 2.8 months in GAS therapy users versus 4.6 months in nonusers (Fig. 1A). Male gender and higher tumor grade were associated with shorter PFS as well. From Fig. 2, the risk of progression/death increased with the duration of GAS therapy taken concomitantly with pazopanib. By adjusting for the use of GAS therapy at baseline, the primary analysis was not significant at an >80% threshold, but the observed trend remained (see Supplementary Fig. S1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Association between clinical outcomes (PFS/OS) and baseline characteristics/concomitant GAS therapy administration (multivariate Cox models) among pazopanib-treated patients

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

PFS and OS in concomitant GAS therapy/administered treatment users (blue curve) versus nonusers (red curve) at a threshold of 80%. PFS in the pazopanib-treated population (A), OS in the pazopanib-treated population (B), PFS in the placebo-treated population (C), and OS in the placebo-treated population (D). Pazopanib-treated population: median PFS, 2.8 months (users) vs. 4.6 months (nonusers); median OS, 8.0 months (users) vs. 12.6 months (nonusers). Placebo-treated population: median PFS, 2.1 months (users) vs. 1.3 months (nonusers); median OS, 10.1 months (users) vs. 10.7 months (nonusers).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Evolution of the HR (multivariate analysis) for the effect of concomitant administration of GAS therapy/treatment on PFS (top) and OS (bottom) among pazopanib (red) and placebo (blue) patients according to the selected threshold value.

Similarly, a significant negative effect of the concomitant administration of GAS therapy and pazopanib on OS was observed (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.31–2.49; P value < 0.001), even with a low threshold value (see Table 2 and Figs. 1B and 2). A longer period of overlap of GAS agents' intake along with pazopanib administration has a detrimental effect on OS (Fig. 2).

Sensitivity analysis on placebo-treated patients

A total of 110 patients within the placebo-treated patients of the 62072 study were eligible for the sensitivity analyses. Among them, 33 (30%) received GAS therapy at least once during their pazopanib treatment administration period and 24 (21.8%) of them concomitantly for >80% of the pazopanib duration (Table 1). Median follow-up from registration/randomization for placebo-treated patients was 25.1 months (interquartile range, 22.7–28.9). Unlike the pazopanib-treated population, no association was observed between concomitant administration of GAS therapy/placebo and PFS (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.51–1.34; P value 0.43 for threshold >80%; Table 3; Figs. 1C and 2), as well as OS (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.48–1.48; P value 0.547 for threshold >80%; Table 3; Figs. 1D and 2), ignorant of the threshold used.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Association between clinical outcomes (PFS/OS) and baseline characteristics/concomitant GAS therapy administration (multivariate Cox models) among placebo-treated patients

Impact on pazopanib-related toxicities

No relevant differences in the frequency of pazopanib-related toxicities were observed between patients who received or did not receive GAS therapy concurrent with their pazopanib treatment (threshold >80%). Summary results of these analyses are presented in Supplementary Tables S3 and S4.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to investigate the potential effect of concomitant use of GAS therapy and pazopanib treatment on the clinical outcome of patients with STS. For the primary analysis, we chose upfront to consider that a patient was a concomitant GAS therapy/pazopanib user if more than 80% of the pazopanib treatment administration period overlapped with GAS therapy prescriptions. This threshold included enough patients in each group (user vs. nonuser) to estimate any possible association. Chu and colleagues (10) chose a threshold value of 20% to determine PPI-treated patients, whereas another study by Sun and colleagues (11) considered the presence of concomitant administration when the patient received at least 1 PPI prescription together with capecitabine. However, a higher threshold value allowed the composition of a more homogeneous group of GAS users, making the occurrence of the expected drug–drug interaction with pazopanib more likely and therefore its potential impact on patient outcome. Moreover, the exploration of the impact of different threshold values on the outcome for concomitant administration neutralized the limitations of a single 80% value choice.

From multivariate analyses, this coadministration of GAS therapy was found to have a negative impact on PFS and OS, for which the severity depended on the period of overlap of GAS agent intake with pazopanib; a longer duration led to a worse prognosis. Furthermore, these effects were not observed in the 62072 trial placebo cohort when using the same analytic approach, which confirmed that the detected impact on clinical outcomes was most likely caused by the drug–drug interaction between GAS therapy and pazopanib.

We consider that the effects of GAS therapy on the pharmacokinetics of pazopanib could account for this observation. Indeed, pazopanib has a pH-dependent absorption and is practically insoluble (<0.1 mg/mL) at pH > 4 (2). As a consequence, the increase in gastric pH caused by GAS therapy could decrease pazopanib solubility and absorption, leading to suboptimal plasma concentrations (3).

Similar findings were reported in the PAZOGIST trial, a randomized phase II study of pazopanib in patients with advanced GIST (12). In this trial, patients with a past history of gastrectomy had significantly lower plasma concentrations compared with patients without gastrectomy and shorter PFS.

A possible negative clinical effect of GAS agents on treatment outcomes has also been suggested for other oral anticancer agents with pH-dependent absorption: erlotinib in non-small lung cancer, sunitinib in renal-cell carcinoma, and capecitabine in gastroesophageal cancer (13, 10, 14). Moreover, a recent study reported that the concomitant administration of PPIs and capecitabine is associated with an increased risk of recurrence in early-stage colorectal cancer patients (11). All studies conducted on this particular topic recommend avoiding GAS therapy concomitantly with anticancer treatments whenever possible.

Of note, the circadian pattern of gastric pH and the time course during which medications that increase gastric pH have their effect suggest that timing of pazopanib administration could influence the pazopanib exposure (15). Therefore, if the concurrent use of a GAS agent is medically necessary during pazopanib treatment, it is currently recommended that the dose of pazopanib should be taken without food, once daily in the evening, concomitantly with the GAS agent.

As administration of GAS therapy during pazopanib treatment reduced pazopanib efficacy, we undertook an exploratory analysis to assess whether coadministration also had a protective effect against pazopanib-specific toxicities such as hypertension, skin-related toxicities, or thyroid dysfunction. In the corresponding analyses shown in the appendix, no consistent differences in occurrence of pazopanib-related toxicities were observed between concomitant GAS users and nonusers. Only slight distinctions were reported around skin toxicities, but this analysis was further limited by the low overall incidence of adverse events.

As in previous research on this topic, our study has some limitations (16). First of all, the retrospective nature of the present study did not permit investigation of the respective timings of administration of GAS therapy and pazopanib. In addition, PPI dose and type of PPI were not considered in this study. As the potential to suppress the acidity of the stomach differs for the different PPI variants, this could be of relevance (17). Also, it is unknown whether patients have always mentioned their over-the-counter use of GAS therapy given its widespread availability without prescription. Regarding GAS therapy itself, subgroup analyses differentiating PPIs from H2 blocker intake concomitantly to pazopanib were conducted, and a similar impact was observed on patient outcomes for both agents.

As far as pazopanib plasma concentrations are concerned, it has been argued that clinical activity was lower in patients with trough steady-state concentrations < 20.5 μg/mL (8, 9). In the context of medically necessary GAS therapy, we suggest that therapeutic drug monitoring could help detect patients with suboptimal plasma exposure. Whether intrapatient pazopanib dose escalation would improve outcomes in these patients remains unknown, although a recent study has shown the feasibility of such an approach (18). Furthermore, acidic beverages increase the bioavailability of erlotinib—another TKI with pH-dependent absorption (19, 21)—but the impact in patients taking pazopanib with GAS therapy is currently unknown. Another approach to prevent suboptimal pazopanib exposure could be to use alternative schedules to combine TKI and GAS. This is currently under investigation in at least 2 clinical trials with TKIs: regorafenib and afatinib (see www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02800330 and www.trialregister.nl: NTR6652, respectively, last accessed on February 20, 2018).

One of the main challenges for this study was the approach used to describe this particular type of drug–drug interaction effect. To handle the potential time-dependence relation of the drug, several methods such as landmark analyses, Cox models with time-dependent covariates, or even landmark supermodels (20) could be used. However, the relatively low number of patients and the complexity of our data made the results not applicable to these models. Moreover, by examining the patient profiles, no apparent link between patterns of GAS therapy administration and the duration of pazopanib treatment was identified, suggesting no specific trend over time. Therefore, we preferred to preserve the assumption that the hazard functions are proportional over time and consider the level of coadministration as baseline information, even though this was conceptually inaccurate. Dichotomizing patients between user and nonusers was the most intelligible way to illustrate the drug interaction impact. The proportion of concomitant GAS therapy/pazopanib expressed as a continuous covariate has been investigated too, showing a nonsignificant detrimental effect on PFS (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.98–1.10; P value 0.219 for a +20% overlapping augmentation).

In conclusion, in the EORTC 62043 and 62072 trials, 35% of eligible patients took GAS agents at any time during pazopanib treatment, and in half of these patients for over 80% of the duration of their pazopanib treatment. Administration of long duration GAS therapy with pazopanib was associated with both shortened PFS and OS. Therefore, in patients with an indication to start pazopanib, withdrawal of GAS agents must be considered whenever possible, and patients should be warned against taking over the counter GAS medications. If patients have good medical reasons to stay on, or to start, GAS medication, therapeutic drug monitoring of pazopanib plasma concentrations could be helpful to optimally adjust the pazopanib dose.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

O. Mir has ownership interests (including patents) at Amplitude Surgical and Transgene, reports receiving speakers bureau honoraria from Eli-Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, and Servier, and is a consultant/advisory board member for Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli-Lilly, Ipsen, Lundbeck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Servier, and Vifor Pharma. A. Le Cesne reports receiving speakers bureau honoraria from Pharmamar, Pfizer, Novartis and Lilly. J.-Y. Blay is a consultant/advisory board member for Novartis and reports receiving commercial research support from GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis. R.H.J. Mathijssen reports receiving speakers bureau honoraria from and reports receiving commercial research support from Novartis. A. Gronchi is a consultant/advisory board member for Novartis, Pfizer, Bayer, Pharmamar, Lilly, and Nanobiotix, and reports receiving commercial research support from Pharmamar. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other authors.

Authors' Contributions

Conception and design: O. Mir, N. Touati, M. Lia, S. Litière, A. Le Cesne, J.-Y. Blay, R. Young, H. Gelderblom, W.T. Van der Graaf, A. Gronchi

Development of methodology: O. Mir, N. Touati, M. Lia, S. Litière, J.-Y. Blay

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): O. Mir, M. Lia, S. Litière, A. Le Cesne, S. Sleijfer, J.-Y. Blay, M. Leahy, H. Gelderblom, W.T. Van der Graaf

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): O. Mir, N. Touati, S. Litière, A. Le Cesne, S. Sleijfer, J.-Y. Blay, R. Young, R.H.J. Mathijssen, A. Gronchi

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: O. Mir, N. Touati, S. Litière, A. Le Cesne, S. Sleijfer, J.-Y. Blay, M. Leahy, R. Young, R.H.J. Mathijssen, N.P. Van Erp, H. Gelderblom, W.T. Van der Graaf, A. Gronchi

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): O. Mir, N. Touati, S. Litière

Study supervision: O. Mir, S. Litière, A. Le Cesne, A. Gronchi

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group, EORTC staff, and Fonds Cancer (FOCA) from Belgium.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Footnotes

  • Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Clinical Cancer Research Online (http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/).

  • Received August 22, 2018.
  • Revision received November 5, 2018.
  • Accepted December 14, 2018.
  • Published first February 14, 2019.
  • ©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Smelick G,
    2. Heffron T,
    3. Chu L,
    4. Dean B,
    5. West D,
    6. Duvall S,
    7. et al.
    Prevalence of acid-reducing agents (ARA) in cancer populations and ARA drug-drug interaction potential for molecular targeted agents in clinical development. Mol Pharm 2013;10:4055–62.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. 2.↵
    1. Budha N,
    2. Frymoyer A,
    3. Smelick G,
    4. Jin J,
    5. Yago M,
    6. Dresser M,
    7. et al.
    Drug absorption interactions between oral targeted anticancer agents and PPIs: is pH-dependent solubility the Achilles heel of targeted therapy?. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2012;92:203–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. van Leeuwen R,
    2. Jansman F,
    3. Hunfeld N,
    4. Peric R,
    5. Reyners A,
    6. Imholz A,
    7. et al.
    Tyrosine kinase inhibitors and proton pump inhibitors: an evaluation of treatment options. Clin Pharmacokinet 2017;56:683–8.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. van Leeuwen R,
    2. van Gelder T,
    3. Mathijssen R,
    4. Jansman F
    . Drug-drug interactions with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors: a clinical perspective. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:315–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. van der Graaf W,
    2. Blay J,
    3. Chawla S,
    4. Kim D,
    5. Bui-Nguyen B,
    6. Casali P,
    7. et al.
    EORTC soft tissue and bone sarcoma group and PALETTE study group. Pazopanib for metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (PALETTE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet 2012;379:1879–86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Sleijfer S,
    2. Ray-Coquard I,
    3. Papai Z,
    4. Le Cesne A,
    5. Scurr M,
    6. Schöffski P,
    7. et al.
    Pazopanib a multikinase angiogenesis inhibitor, in patients with relapsed or refractory advanced soft tissue sarcoma: a phase II study from the European Organisation for research and treatment of cancer-soft tissue and bone sarcoma group (EORTC study 620. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:3126–32.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Tan A,
    2. Gibbon D,
    3. Stein M,
    4. Lindquist D,
    5. Edenfield J,
    6. Martin J,
    7. et al.
    Effects of ketoconazole and esomeprazole on the pharmacokinetics of pazopanib in patients with solid tumors. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2013;71:1635–43.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    1. Suttle A,
    2. Ball H,
    3. Molimard M,
    4. Hutson T,
    5. Carpenter C,
    6. Rajagopalan D,
    7. et al.
    Relationships between pazopanib exposure and clinical safety and efficacy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Br J Cancer 2014;111:1909–16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Verheijen R,
    2. Swart L,
    3. Beijnen J,
    4. Schellens J,
    5. Huitema A,
    6. Steeghs N
    . Exposure-survival analyses of pazopanib in renal cell carcinoma and soft tissue sarcoma patients: opportunities for dose optimization. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2017;80:1171–8.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    1. Chu M,
    2. Hecht J,
    3. Slamon D,
    4. Wainberg Z,
    5. Bang Y,
    6. Hoff P,
    7. et al.
    Association of proton pump inhibitors and capecitabine efficacy in advanced gastroesophageal cancer: secondary analysis of the TRIO-13/LOGiC randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 2017;3:767–73.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    1. Sun J,
    2. Ilich A,
    3. Kim C,
    4. Wong G,
    5. Ghosh S,
    6. Danilak M,
    7. et al.
    Concomitant administration of proton pump inhibitors and capecitabine is associated with increased recurrence risk in early stage colorectal cancer patients. Clin Colorectal Cancer 2016;15:257–63.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    1. Mir O,
    2. Cropet C,
    3. Toulmonde M,
    4. Le Cesne A,
    5. Molimard M,
    6. Bompas E,
    7. et al.
    PAZOGIST study group of the French Sarcoma Groupe-Groupe d'Etude des Tumeurs Osseuses (GSF-GETO). Pazopanib plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours resistant to imatinib and sunitinib (PAZO. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:632–41.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    1. Chu M,
    2. Ghosh S,
    3. Chambers C,
    4. Basappa N,
    5. Butts C,
    6. Chu Q,
    7. et al.
    Gastric acid suppression is associated with decreased erlotinib efficacy in non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer 2015;16:33–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Ha V,
    2. Ngo M,
    3. Chu M,
    4. Ghosh S,
    5. Sawyer M,
    6. Chambers C
    . Does gastric acid suppression affect sunitinib efficacy in patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell cancer? J Oncol Pharm Pract 2015;21:194–200.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Hunfeld N,
    2. Touw D,
    3. Mathot R,
    4. Mulder P,
    5. VAN Schaik R,
    6. Kuipers E,
    7. et al.
    A comparison of the acid-inhibitory effects of esomeprazole and pantoprazole in relation to pharmacokinetics and CYP2C19 polymorphism. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2010;31:150–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Hussaarts K,
    2. van Leeuwen R,
    3. Mathijssen R
    . Factors affecting the association of proton pump inhibitors and capecitabine efficacy in advanced gastroesophageal cancer. JAMA Oncol 2018;4:263–4.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    1. Röhss K,
    2. Lind T,
    3. Wilder-Smith C
    . Esomeprazole 40 mg provides more effective intragastric acid control than lansoprazole 30 mg, omeprazole 20 mg, pantoprazole 40 mg and rabeprazole 20 mg in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2004;60:531–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Verheijen R,
    2. Bins S,
    3. Mathijssen R,
    4. Lolkema M,
    5. van Doorn L,
    6. Schellens J,
    7. et al.
    Individualized pazopanib dosing: a prospective feasibility study in cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 2016;22:5738–46.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. van Leeuwen R,
    2. Peric R,
    3. Hussaarts K,
    4. Kienhuis E,
    5. IJzerman N,
    6. de Bruijn P,
    7. et al.
    Influence of the acidic beverage cola on the absorption of erlotinib in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2016;34:1309–14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. van Houwelingen H,
    2. Putter H
    . Dynamic prediction in clinical survival analysis. Lifetime Data Anal 2008;14:447–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Kletzl H,
    2. Giraudon M,
    3. Ducray P,
    4. Abt M,
    5. Hamilton M,
    6. Lum B
    . Effect of gastric pH on erlotinib pharmacokinetics in healthy individuals: omeprazole and ranitidine. Anticancer Drugs 2015;26:565–72.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
Clinical Cancer Research: 25 (5)
March 2019
Volume 25, Issue 5
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Editorial Board (PDF)

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Clinical Cancer Research article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Impact of Concomitant Administration of Gastric Acid–Suppressive Agents and Pazopanib on Outcomes in Soft-Tissue Sarcoma Patients Treated within the EORTC 62043/62072 Trials
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Clinical Cancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Clinical Cancer Research.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Impact of Concomitant Administration of Gastric Acid–Suppressive Agents and Pazopanib on Outcomes in Soft-Tissue Sarcoma Patients Treated within the EORTC 62043/62072 Trials
Olivier Mir, Nathan Touati, Michela Lia, Saskia Litière, Axel Le Cesne, Stefan Sleijfer, Jean-Yves Blay, Michael Leahy, Robin Young, Ron H.J. Mathijssen, Nielka P. Van Erp, Hans Gelderblom, Winette T. Van der Graaf and Alessandro Gronchi
Clin Cancer Res March 1 2019 (25) (5) 1479-1485; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-2748

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Impact of Concomitant Administration of Gastric Acid–Suppressive Agents and Pazopanib on Outcomes in Soft-Tissue Sarcoma Patients Treated within the EORTC 62043/62072 Trials
Olivier Mir, Nathan Touati, Michela Lia, Saskia Litière, Axel Le Cesne, Stefan Sleijfer, Jean-Yves Blay, Michael Leahy, Robin Young, Ron H.J. Mathijssen, Nielka P. Van Erp, Hans Gelderblom, Winette T. Van der Graaf and Alessandro Gronchi
Clin Cancer Res March 1 2019 (25) (5) 1479-1485; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-2748
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Authors' Contributions
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Prediction of Pathologic Complete Response
  • Navitoclax with Osimertinib for EGFR-mutant NSCLC
  • Everolimus, Letrozole, and Trastuzumab in HR+/HER2+ Cancers
Show more Clinical Trials: Targeted Therapy
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn  YouTube  RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • CCR Focus Archive
  • Meeting Abstracts

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Clinical Cancer Research

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Clinical Cancer Research
eISSN: 1557-3265
ISSN: 1078-0432

Advertisement