Effects of tamoxifen on normal breast tissue histological composition: Results from a randomised six-arm placebo-controlled trial in healthy women

Tamoxifen prevents recurrence of breast cancer and is suggested for preventive risk-reducing therapy. Tamoxifen reduces mammographic density, a proxy for therapy response, but little is known about its effects in remodelling normal breast tissue. Our study, a substudy within the double-blinded dose-determination trial KARISMA, investigated tamoxifen-specific changes in breast tissue composition and histological markers in healthy women. We included 83 healthy women randomised to 6 months daily intake of 20, 10, 5, 2.5, 1 mg of tamoxifen or placebo. The groups were combined to “no dose” (0-1 mg), “low-dose” (2.5-5 mg) or “high-dose” (10-20 mg) of tamoxifen. Ultrasound-guided biopsies were collected before and after tamoxifen exposure. In each biopsy, epithelial, stromal and adipose tissues was quantified, and expression of epithelial and stromal Ki67, oestrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) analysed. Mammographic density using STRATUS was measured at baseline and end-of-tamoxifen-exposure. We found that different doses of tamoxifen reduced mammographic density and glandular-epithelial area in premenopausal women and associated with reduced epithelium and increased adipose tissue. High-dose tamoxifen also decreased epithelial ER and PR expressions in premenopausal women. Premenopausal women with the greatest reduction in proliferation also had the greatest epithelial reduction. In postmenopausal women, high-dose tamoxifen decreased the epithelial area with no measurable density decrease. Tamoxifen at both low and high doses influences breast tissue composition and expression of histological markers in the normal breast. Our findings connect epithelial proliferation with tissue remodelling in premenopausal women and provide novel insights to understanding biological mechanisms of primary prevention with tamoxifen.     

Retrospective Analysis Using Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Modeling and Simulation Offers Improvements in Efficiency of the Design of Volunteer Infection Studies for Antimalarial Drug Development

Volunteer infection studies using the induced blood stage malaria (IBSM) model have been shown to facilitate antimalarial drug development. Such studies have traditionally been undertaken in single‐dose cohorts, as many as necessary to obtain the dose‐response relationship. To enhance ethical and logistic aspects of such studies, and to reduce the number of cohorts needed to establish the dose‐response relationship, we undertook a retrospective in silico analysis of previously accrued data to improve study design. A pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD) model was developed from initial fictive‐cohort data for OZ439 (mixing the data of the three single‐dose cohorts as: n = 2 on 100 mg, 2 on 200 mg, and 4 on 500 mg). A three‐compartment model described OZ439 PKs. Net growth of parasites was modeled using a Gompertz function and drug‐induced parasite death using a Hill function. Parameter estimates for the PK and PD models were comparable for the multidose single‐cohort vs. the pooled analysis of all cohorts. Simulations based on the multidose single‐cohort design described the complete data from the original IBSM study. The novel design allows for the ascertainment of the PK/PD relationship early in the study, providing a basis for rational dose selection for subsequent cohorts and studies.

Study Highlights

• WHAT IS THE CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ON THE TOPIC?

☑ Volunteer infection studies are routinely used in antimalarial drug development to generate early pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data for compounds.

• WHAT QUESTION DID THIS STUDY ADDRESS?

☑ Can in silico analyses be used to suggest improvements to volunteer infection study designs?

• WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD TO OUR KNOWLEDGE?

☑ Multiple dose adaptive trial designs can potentially reduce the number of cohorts needed to establish the dose‐response relationship in volunteer infection studies.

• HOW MIGHT THIS CHANGE CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY OR TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE?

☑ Real time data analyses can be used to recommend doses for adaptive volunteer infection studies.

Volunteer infection studies using the induced blood stage malaria (IBSM) model have been recognized as a valuable system for defining the key pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) relationships for dose selection in antimalarial drug development. ¹ , ² , ³ , ⁴ , ⁵ , ⁶ , ⁷ In such studies, healthy volunteers are inoculated intravenously with a given quantity (with small variability) of Plasmodium‐infected red cells. Parasitemia is then followed by quantitative polymerase chain reaction until a prespecified treatment threshold is reached when the test drug is administered. Parasite and drug concentrations are then measured. These studies are conducted prior to phase II dose‐response (D‐R) trials and can be included in an integrated first‐in‐human study protocol, or after completion of the first‐in‐human PK and safety study. IBSM studies have been typically designed as flexible multiple cohort studies where each volunteer of one cohort receives a single dose of the same amount of drug (“single dose per cohort”). ² , ³ , ⁴ , ⁵ After each cohort, a decision is made to stop or to add a cohort to test a lower or higher dose based on the response observed in the previous cohorts.For the multiple single‐dose‐per‐cohort design, the starting dose is typically selected based on safety and PK information from a phase I single ascending dose (SAD) study and, more recently, on preclinical data from a severe combined immunodeficient mouse model, with the dose selected on the basis of being best able to inform the D‐R relationship, rather than aiming for cure. This approach, where a single dose is tested in all subjects of the initial cohort, risks missing the dose likely to be most informative for defining the PK/PD relationship.An alternative approach is to spread a range of doses across a smaller number of subjects within the initial cohort and use PK/PD models developed based on data from this cohort to support dose selections of subsequent cohorts and studies. Using data from a previous study, ² we undertook an in silico investigation of such an adaptive study design, aiming to reduce the number of subjects exposed to inefficacious doses, and to establish a D‐R relationship. This multiple‐dose‐groups‐per‐cohort design, referred to as the “2‐2‐4” design, is contrasted with the already implemented study design depicted in Figure  1 .Open in a separate windowFigure 1Comparison of standard and adaptive designs of IBSM studies. A/B/C, dose levels to be selected during the progress of the study based on pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic results of the initial cohort; CHMI, controlled human malaria infection; D‐R, dose‐response; IBSM, induced blood stage malaria infection; n, number of subjects at each dose.The objectives of this retrospective analysis were to: (i) compare PK/PD parameter estimates from the initial cohort of the 2‐2‐4 study design with the prior results from the data of the full study and (ii) propose a preliminary workflow to establish D‐R early in an IBSM study, and use modeling and simulation (M&S) to support dose selections for subsequent cohorts and later phase clinical trials.     

EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer—2020 Update. Part 1: Screening,Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent

ObjectiveTo present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa).Evidence acquisitionThe panel performed a literature review of new data, covering the time frame between 2016 and 2020. The guidelines were updated and a strength rating for each recommendation was added based on a systematic review of the evidence.Evidence synthesisA risk-adapted strategy for identifying men who may develop PCa is advised, generally commencing at 50 yr of age and based on individualised life expectancy. Risk-adapted screening should be offered to men at increased risk from the age of 45 yr and to breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutation carriers, who have been confirmed to be at risk of early and aggressive disease (mainly BRAC2), from around 40 yr of age. The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies is recommended. When a biopsy is performed, a combination of targeted and systematic biopsies must be offered. There is currently no place for the routine use of tissue-based biomarkers. Whilst prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography is the most sensitive staging procedure, the lack of outcome benefit remains a major limitation. Active surveillance (AS) should always be discussed with low-risk patients, as well as with selected intermediate-risk patients with favourable International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) 2 lesions. Local therapies are addressed, as well as the AS journey and the management of persistent prostate-specific antigen after surgery. A strong recommendation to consider moderate hypofractionation in intermediate-risk patients is provided. Patients with cN1 PCa should be offered a local treatment combined with long-term hormonal treatment.ConclusionsThe evidence in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. The 2020 EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for their use in clinical practice. These PCa guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management.Patient summaryUpdated prostate cancer guidelines are presented, addressing screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. These guidelines rely on the available scientific evidence, and new insights will need to be considered and included on a regular basis. In some cases, the supporting evidence for new treatment options is not yet strong enough to provide a recommendation, which is why continuous updating is important. Patients must be fully informed of all relevant options and, together with their treating physicians, decide on the most optimal management for them.