Data from Molecular Pharmacodynamics-Guided Scheduling of Biologically Effective Doses: A Drug Development Paradigm Applied to MET Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors

Abstract

<div>Abstract<p>The development of molecularly targeted agents has benefited from use of pharmacodynamic markers to identify “biologically effective doses” (BED) below MTDs, yet this knowledge remains underutilized in selecting dosage regimens and in comparing the effectiveness of targeted agents within a class. We sought to establish preclinical proof-of-concept for such pharmacodynamics-based BED regimens and effectiveness comparisons using MET kinase small-molecule inhibitors. Utilizing pharmacodynamic biomarker measurements of MET signaling (tumor pY<sup>1234/1235</sup>MET/total MET ratio) in a phase 0–like preclinical setting, we developed optimal dosage regimens for several MET kinase inhibitors and compared their antitumor efficacy in a <i>MET</i>-amplified gastric cancer xenograft model (SNU-5). Reductions in tumor pY<sup>1234/1235</sup>MET/total MET of 95%–99% were achievable with tolerable doses of EMD1214063/MSC2156119J (tepotinib), XL184 (cabozantinib), and XL880/GSK1363089 (foretinib), but not ARQ197 (tivantinib), which did not alter the pharmacodynamic biomarker. Duration of kinase suppression and rate of kinase recovery were specific to each agent, emphasizing the importance of developing customized dosage regimens to achieve continuous suppression of the pharmacodynamic biomarker at the required level (here, ≥90% MET kinase suppression). The customized dosage regimen of each inhibitor yielded substantial and sustained tumor regression; the equivalent effectiveness of customized dosage regimens that achieve the same level of continuous molecular target control represents preclinical proof-of-concept and illustrates the importance of proper scheduling of targeted agent BEDs. Pharmacodynamics-guided biologically effective dosage regimens (PD-BEDR) potentially offer a superior alternative to pharmacokinetic guidance (e.g., drug concentrations in surrogate tissues) for developing and making head-to-head comparisons of targeted agents. <i>Mol Cancer Ther; 17(3); 698–709. ©2018 AACR</i>.</p></div>