Radius additivity score: a novel combination index for tumour growth inhibition in fixed-dose xenograft studies

Abstract

The effect of combination therapies in many cancers has often been shown to be superior to that of monotherapies. This success is commonly attributed to drug synergies. Combinations of two (or more) drugs in xenograft tumor growth inhibition (TGI) studies are typically designed at fixed doses for each compound. The available methods for assessing synergy in such study designs are based on combination indices (CI) and model-based analyses. The former methods are suitable for screening exercises but are difficult to verify in in vivo studies, while the latter incorporate drug synergy in semi-mechanistic frameworks describing disease progression and drug action but are unsuitable for screening. In the current study, we proposed the empirical radius additivity (Rad-add) score, a novel CI for synergy detection in fixed-dose xenograft TGI combination studies. The Rad-add score approximates model-based analysis performed using the semi-mechanistic constant-radius growth TGI model. The Rad-add score was compared with response additivity, defined as the addition of the two response values, and the bliss independence model in combination studies derived from the Novartis PDX dataset. The results showed that the bliss independence and response additivity models predicted synergistic interactions with high and low probabilities, respectively. The Rad-add score predicted synergistic probabilities that appeared to be between those predicted with response additivity and the Bliss model. We believe that the Rad-add score is particularly suitable for assessing synergy in the context of xenograft combination TGI studies, as it combines the advantages of CI approaches suitable for screening exercises with those of semi-mechanistic TGI models based on a mechanistic understanding of tumor growth.

1 Introduction

Combination therapies are commonly used in the treatment of many cancers because they are often demonstrated to be superior to monotherapy, an effect often attributed to drug synergy (Mokhtari et al., 2017; Plana et al., 2022). Thereby, drug synergy can be defined as the effect that a result (e.g., an anti-tumour effect) of a combination of two or more compounds cannot be explained by simply both compounds acting independently. Drug synergy can be due to pharmacokinetic effects, where drug-drug interactions may lead to a higher effective drug exposure, and pharmacodynamic effects, where biological synergies on the molecular mechanism of action are exploited.

The study of drug combination effects from clinical data is restricted by ethical constraints that prevent systematic comparisons of control populations with single treatments. Hence, most of the understanding of combination therapies in cancer is derived from preclinical studies (Plana et al., 2022), such as mouse xenograft studies with implanted human tumors, where tumor growth and its drug-mediated inhibition have been studied. However, the predominant method for studying drug combinations for pharmacodynamic synergy is to use dose-response matrices of in vitro screens of cell line panels (Pemovska et al., 2018), which lent its conceptual framework to the analysis of in vivo and clinical studies.

Combination indices (CI) were used to determine whether co-administration of drugs showed synergistic (CI<1), additive (CI = 1), or antagonistic (CI > 1) effects. CI can be defined as the ratio between the expected additive effect of a drug combination and the actual (measured) combination effect on a certain in vitro parameter (such as the proliferation IC50, defined as the amount of drug needed to reduce the proliferation by 50%). Several approaches for deriving CI have been reported (Foucquier and Guedj, 2015; Pemovska et al., 2018) and differ in the calculation of synergies and assumptions on drug-effect curves. Therefore, the response additivity score assumes linearity in the drug-effect curves (requiring synergy to exceed the added single effects). Conversely, the Bliss independence model assumes an exponential drug-effect curve, and the effects are treated as probabilities between zero and one. By contrast, the Loewe additivity score evaluates whether an excess synergistic effect cannot be explained by a mixture of both compounds acting independently (Foucquier and Guedj, 2015). Unsurprisingly, different concepts often yield different CIs for the same data (Pemovska et al., 2018).

To explore the combination of CI-based methods in studies of drug-mediated tumor growth inhibition (TGI) with fixed-dose xenografts, limited literature is available (Wu et al., 2012; Wu, 2013; Huang et al., 2022). Wu et al. developed an interaction index for fixed-dose, two-drug combination studies based on the bliss independence model (Wu et al., 2012). Huang et al. proposed a comprehensive statistical framework to evaluate interactions for TGI, both at a fixed time point and in given time ranges, exploiting the highest single agent, response additivity, and bliss independence methods (Huang et al., 2022). The application of classic methods for CI derivation in xenograft TGI studies is particularly suitable for screening exercises; however, the transfer of such in vitro concepts to in vivo models remains cumbersome. As such, it is questionable whether these methods can well describe effect saturation, whereby single treatments have already eradicated a significant portion of the tumor, and TGI as synergy readout is highly nonlinear with respect to its causation.

An alternative for determining CIs may be pharmacodynamic (PD) models, which include a semi-mechanistic study of tumor growth, where PD refers to tumour volume. Such studies are commonly used to describe the TGI evolution of single compounds in xenografts studies (Mayneord, 1932; Simeoni et al., 2004; Jumbe et al., 2010; Parra-Guillen et al., 2013; Evans et al., 2014; Ribba et al., 2014; Mistry et al., 2018; Orrell and Mistry, 2019). PD models have also been expanded to assess synergy (Rocchetti et al., 2009; Terranova et al., 2013; Tosca et al., 2021), they require individual modelling efforts for each tumour using numerical simulations, aggravating large screening exercises.

Therefore, we propose the radius additivity (Rad-add) score, a novel CI score for detecting PD interactions in fixed-dose xenograft TGI combination experiments, to study the pharmacodynamic synergy. The Rad-add score was derived from a semi-mechanistic tumor growth model (Mayneord, 1932; Jumbe et al., 2010; Evans et al., 2014; Mistry et al., 2018; Orrell and Mistry, 2019), but addressed the need to assess combination effects in xenograft studies with a simple index in a high-throughput fashion. We assessed its performance vis-à-vis the bliss and response additivity score using the Novartis dataset from (Gao et al., 2015), a large-scale study of patient-derived xenografts (PDX).

2 Results and discussion

From the Novartis PDX dataset, 22 combination studies (two single-agent arms, one combination arm, and one reference arm) for six different tumor types were derived from the Novartis PDX dataset. Data from the studies were resampled using a bootstrap algorithm to allow the statistical assessment of the combined indices. In Table 1 all tumor studies are listed, together with the targets of all considered compounds. An example of the combination study is shown in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1

Rad-add (see methods Section 3.2 for details), response additivity, and Bliss CIs were derived for all combination studies of the final dataset, and an uncertainty distribution was obtained using 1,000 bootstrap samples. For each combination study, the probability of the drug combination being classified as synergistic was derived as the percentage of bootstrap samples with CI<1. The probabilities of synergistic interactions for all considered combination studies with all investigated approaches are shown in Figure 2. In Supplementary Tables S1, S2, the calculated CIs with 90% confidence intervals are reported.

FIGURE 2

Figure 2 suggests that the Bliss method tends to predict synergy with a high probability for several combinations (e.g., for tumor-type BRCA, BYL719 + LJM716, and for tumor-type CM, LEE011 + encorafenib). Conversely, the response-additivity approach predicts a low probability of synergistic interaction. The highest predicted probability of synergy was approximately 40% for the study with NSCLC as the tumor type and the BYL719 + LGH447 combination. For most combination studies, the probabilities of being classified as synergistic with the Rad-add method seem to fall between the results of the response additivity and bliss approaches. As shown in Figure 2, only one combination (tumor-type NSCLC, BYL719 + LGH447) had a probability higher than 50% of being classified as synergistic with the Rad-add score. The overall low probability of synergistic classification with the Rad-add score is in accordance with previous reports, where drug synergy was often overstated in both clinical and PDX trials (Ocana et al., 2012; Palmer and Sorger, 2017; Plana et al., 2022).

As shown in Supplementary Figure S1, the probabilities for a combination classed as synergistic with the Rad-add approach correlate well (ρ = 0.82, p <0.01) with those calculated via the response additivity method, with the former generally being higher than the latter. This is probably because both the methods rely on the assumption of additivity. Conversely, probabilities calculated using the Rad-add score were not significantly correlated with those calculated using the Bliss approach (ρ = 0.28, p = 0.2), where the former are generally lower than the latter.

The Rad-add score, which is based on observed values at the beginning and the end of the experiment approximates a model-based analysis, conducted via regressing a model, Eq 6 with f(cmp) = 1, against the time-series data, which also assumes that the tumor radius grows linearly over the time interval of interest. The similarity between the TGI derived using the Rad-add score method and those derived from regressing a model against the time-series was also assessed. In Supplementary Figure S2, the predicted TGI using the empirical Rad-add method is compared with those derived from regressing the underlying PD model against the time-series data. The two metrics correlate well (ρ = 0.98, p <0.01), suggesting that the radius additivity method is a good approximation of the model-based analysis via regression.

In this study, a novel CI method, the Rad-add score, was developed for fixed-dose, drug-combination, and xenograft TGI studies. The Rad-add score is derived from the mechanistic understanding of tumor volume growth and is intended as an approximation of a model-based analysis performed using the constant radius growth model. The Rad-add score incorporates the advantages of model-based analysis, such as the description of synergy in a semi-mechanistic framework of disease progression and drug actions, together with the speed of CI calculation. The latter characteristic makes the Rad-add score suitable for screening. Indeed, the Rad-add score has some drawbacks. Like other CI approaches, the Rad-add score is currently developed only by using PD profiles, ignoring pharmacokinetics, and therefore potential effects on tumor growth due to drug-drug interactions. Finally, the Rad-add score is only suitable for fixed-dose xenograft combination TGI studies, whereas other CI methods can be used in diverse contexts.

In conclusion, in the context of xenograft combination TGI studies, we believe that the Rad-add score is a suitable method for detecting synergy, as it combines the advantages of model-based analysis with those of CI-based methods.

3 Methods

3.1 TGI and CI with response additivity and Bliss models

In a standard xenograft TGI combination study, one reference arm, k single-agent arms (one for each treatment), and one combination arm were typically used. In such studies, TGI was considered an indicator of treatment efficacy. For a given treatment , can be defined as follows:

Where V(t_end) and V₀ are the tumor volumes at the end and beginning of the experiment, respectively. Subscript r refers to the reference arm The CI for TGI is calculated as follows, where is the predicted TGI in the case of additivity and is the TGI of the combination arm.

CI equal to, lower than, and higher than 1 represent additivity, synergy, and antagonism, respectively. The CI depends on the method used to calculate . For the case of two treatments (A and B) administered in combination, calculated according to the response additivity and Bliss model ( and ) are as follows:

The hypothesis that TGI_add relies on is a linear dose-effect relationship, whereas TGI_Bliss is an exponential dose-effect relationship (Foucquier and Guedj, 2015). TGI_Bliss is based on the principle of statistical independence. Therefore, to calculate TGI_Bliss, TGI_A and TGI_B must be treated as probabilities (between zero and one). In xenograft experiments, it is not uncommon to observe a TGI effect higher than 100%; in such cases, the requirement of the TGI to calculate the Bliss score is not respected.

3.2 Derivation of the radius additivity (Rad-add) score

In 1932, Mayneord showed that the increase in the long diameter of tumors implanted in rats followed a linear law. This was explained by the fact that not the whole tumor mass is in a state of active growth, but only a thin capsule enclosing a necrotic core (Mayneord, 1932). This observation forms the basis of numerous TGI models used to analyze preclinical drug development data (Jumbe et al., 2010; Evans et al., 2014; Mistry et al., 2018; Orrell and Mistry, 2019). From such observations, if we map the observed tumour volume onto a spherical shape, the following model for radius growth in the untreated case can be derived:

Where R is the radius of the tumor and g is the radius growth rate constant. When treatment begins, the reference growth rate may be decreased by the pharmacological action of the compounds, which depends on their exposure (c(t)) and potency (IC₅₀). Typically, such pharmacological actions follow Hill’s function.where h (Hill coefficient) and IC₅₀ can be obtained from in vitro experiments or estimated directly from in vivo experiments, respectively. f(cmp) can be used to describe tumor growth under treatment as follows:where d is the decay parameter representing the maximal decay rate caused by a certain treatment for a certain tumor and mouse strain. From Eq 6, it is possible to easily derive the analytic expression of R(t), where R₀ is the radius at the beginning of the experiment (t = 0).

For simplicity, we define as the effect on the radius growth at time t of a given treatment cmp_i and as the unperturbed tumor growth at time t. The additive effect of a combination of treatments, i = 1…k, is defined as follows:

By determining the radius at the end of the experiment (t_end) and R₀ for the reference arm, it is trivial to calculate G_t. Once G_t is known, can be derived for all considered compounds (if the radii at the beginning and end of the experiments are known for each treatment). (Thus, Rad-add is an empirical metric, which attempts to approximate a model-based metric which would involve regressing Eq 6 against the time-series data.) Once G_t and , i = 1…k, are known, can be predicted using Eq 8, where R0 is equal to the radius at the beginning of the experiment for the combination arm. From the predicted volume at the end of the experiments under the hypothesis of additivity can then be derived using V = 4/3 π R ^ 3, i.e., mapping back to the spherical volume, and the TGI can be calculated according to Eq 1. If TGI_combi is known, CI can be calculated using Eq 2.

Notably, the Rad-add score is agnostic in terms of the shapes of both control radius growth and drug-mediated effects, as G_t and are directly calculated from the tumor growth curves. Therefore Rad-add can be considered an empirical value, as stated above. A model-based version of the score can also be calculated, termed PD model, by regressing Eq 6 against the time-series data. Within, this study only single doses of the compound were available and so f(cmp) = 1, i.e., no in-vitro data were used and an IC50 value from the in-vivo data cannot be estimated.

3.3 Comparison of Rad-add score with response additivity and Bliss

The performance of Rad-add, response additivity, and Bliss scores were compared on the public PDX dataset by Novartis (Gao et al., 2015). In such datasets, different tumor growth curves can be obtained for different patients, tumor types, and treatments. The latter can be either a single agent or combination of agents. Different PDX experiments were performed for the same tumor types and treatments. These PDXs are characterized by different mutations, copy number alterations, and mRNA expression levels.

For all combination studies in the final dataset, the CI using Rad-add, response additivity, and Bliss methods were calculated. The CI distributions were obtained by bootstrapping with 1,000 samples. For each CI, the probability of being classified as synergistic was calculated as the proportion of bootstrap samples, where a CI<1. For the Rad-add CI calculation, tumor volumes in the Novartis PDX dataset were converted to radii with the hypothesis that tumors are spherical in shape.

The analysis was performed using the R software (version 4.2.1 (R Core Team, 2022). The codes and information for reproducibility are available in the Supplementary Material.

References

• 1

  Bardia A. Gounder M. Rodon J. Janku F. Lolkema M. P. Stephenson J. J. et al (2020). Phase Ib Study of Combination Therapy with MEK Inhibitor Binimetinib and Phosphatidylinositol 3‐Kinase Inhibitor Buparlisib in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors with RAS/RAF Alterations. Oncol.25, e160–e169. 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0297

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  Delord J.-P. Robert C. Nyakas M. McArthur G. A. Kudchakar R. Mahipal A. et al (2017). Phase I Dose-Escalation and -Expansion Study of the BRAF Inhibitor Encorafenib (LGX818) in Metastatic BRAF-Mutant Melanoma. Clin. Cancer Res.23, 5339–5348. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-2923

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  Evans N. D. Dimelow R. J. Yates J. W. T. (2014). Modelling of tumour growth and cytotoxic effect of docetaxel in xenografts. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed.114, e3–e13. 10.1016/j.cmpb.2013.06.014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  Foucquier J. Guedj M. (2015). Analysis of drug combinations: current methodological landscape. Pharmacol. Res. Perspect.3, e00149. 10.1002/prp2.149

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  Gao H. Korn J. M. Ferretti S. Monahan J. E. Wang Y. Singh M. et al (2015). High-throughput screening using patient-derived tumor xenografts to predict clinical trial drug response. Nat. Med.21, 1318–1325. 10.1038/nm.3954

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  Huang L. Wang J. Fang B. Meric-Bernstam F. Roth J. A. Ha M. J. (2022). CombPDX: a unified statistical framework for evaluating drug synergism in patient-derived xenografts. Sci. Rep.12, 12984. 10.1038/s41598-022-16933-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  Jumbe N. L. Xin Y. Leipold D. D. Crocker L. Dugger D. Mai E. et al (2010). Modeling the efficacy of trastuzumab-DM1, an antibody drug conjugate, in mice. J. Pharmacokinet. Pharmacodyn.37, 221–242. 10.1007/s10928-010-9156-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  Juric D. Rodon J. Tabernero J. Janku F. Burris H. A. Schellens J. H. M. et al (2018). Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinase α-Selective Inhibition With Alpelisib (BYL719) in PIK3CA-Altered Solid Tumors: Results From the First-in-Human Study. JCO36, 1291–1299. 10.1200/JCO.2017.72.7107

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  Kong A. Rea D. Ahmed S. Beck J. T. López R. L. Biganzoli L. et al (2016). Phase 1B/2 study of the HSP90 inhibitor AUY922 plus trastuzumab in metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer patients who have progressed on trastuzumab-based regimen. Oncotarget7, 37680–37692. 10.18632/oncotarget.8974

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  Mayneord W. V. (1932). On a Law of Growth of Jensen’s Rat Sarcoma. Am. J. Cancer16, 841–846. 10.1158/ajc.1932.841

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  Mistry H. B. Orrell D. Eftimie R. (2018). Model based analysis of the heterogeneity in the tumour size dynamics differentiates vemurafenib, dabrafenib and trametinib in metastatic melanoma. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol.81, 325–332. 10.1007/s00280-017-3486-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  Mokhtari R. B. Homayouni T. S. Baluch N. Morgatskaya E. Kumar S. Das B. et al (2017). Combination therapy in combating cancer. Oncotarget8, 38022–38043. 10.18632/oncotarget.16723

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  Molife L. R. Fong P. C. Paccagnella L. Reid A. H. M. Shaw H. M. Vidal L. et al (2010). The insulin-like growth factor-I receptor inhibitor figitumumab (CP-751,871) in combination with docetaxel in patients with advanced solid tumours: results of a phase Ib dose-escalation, open-label study. Br. J. Cancer103, 332–339. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605767

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  Moreno V. Greil R. Yachnin J. Majem M. Wermke M. Arkenau H.-T. et al (2021). Pharmacokinetics and safety of capmatinib with food in patients with MET-dysregulated advanced solid tumors. Clin. Ther.43, 1092–1111. 10.1016/j.clinthera.2021.04.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  Ocana A. Amir E. Yeung C. Seruga B. Tannock I. F. (2012). How valid are claims for synergy in published clinical studies?Ann. Oncol.23, 2161–2166. 10.1093/annonc/mdr608

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  Orrell D. Mistry H. B. (2019). A simple model of a growing tumour. PeerJ7, e6983. 10.7717/peerj.6983

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  Palmer A. C. Sorger P. K. (2017). Combination Cancer Therapy Can Confer Benefit via Patient-to-Patient Variability without Drug Additivity or Synergy. Cell.171, 1678–1691. 10.1016/j.cell.2017.11.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  Parra-Guillen Z. P. Berraondo P. Ribba B. Trocóniz I. F. (2013). Modeling Tumor Response after Combined Administration of Different Immune-Stimulatory Agents. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.346, 432–442. 10.1124/jpet.113.206961

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  Passamonti F. Gupta V. Martino B. Foltz L. Zaritskey A. Al-Ali H. K. et al (2021). Comparing the safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib in patients with Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System low-intermediate-1-intermediate-2-and high-risk myelofibrosis in JUMP, a Phase 3b, expanded-access study. Hematol. Oncol.39, 558–566. 10.1002/hon.2898

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  Pemovska T. Bigenzahn J. W. Superti-Furga G. (2018). Recent advances in combinatorial drug screening and synergy scoring. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol.42, 102–110. Anti-infectives• New Technologies. 10.1016/j.coph.2018.07.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  Plana D. Palmer A. C. Sorger P. K. (2022). Independent Drug Action in Combination Therapy: Implications for Precision Oncology. Cancer Discov.12, 606–624. 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-21-0212

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  R Core Team (2022). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. URL https://www.R-project.org/.

  • Google Scholar

• 23

  Raab M. S. Thomas S. K. Ocio E. M. Guenther A. Goh Y.-T. Talpaz M. et al (2019). The first-in-human study of the pan-PIM kinase inhibitor PIM447 in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma. Leukemia33, 2924–2933. 10.1038/s41375-019-0482-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  Reynolds K. L. Bedard P. L. Lee S.-H. Lin C.-C. Tabernero J. Alsina M. et al (2017). A phase I open-label dose-escalation study of the anti-HER3 monoclonal antibody LJM716 in patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus or head and neck and HER2-overexpressing breast or gastric cancer. BMC Cancer17, 646. 10.1186/s12885-017-3641-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  Ribba B. Holford N. Magni P. Trocóniz I. Gueorguieva I. Girard P. et al (2014). A Review of Mixed-Effects Models of Tumor Growth and Effects of Anticancer Drug Treatment Used in Population Analysis. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst. Pharmacol.3, 113. 10.1038/psp.2014.12

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  Rocchetti M. Bene F. D. Germani M. Fiorentini F. Poggesi I. Pesenti E. et al (2009). Testing additivity of anticancer agents in pre-clinical studies: A PK/PD modelling approach. Eur. J. Cancer45, 3336–3346. 10.1016/j.ejca.2009.09.025

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  Rosenthal M. Clement P. M. Campone M. Gil-Gil M. J. DeGroot J. Chinot O. et al (2020). Buparlisib plus carboplatin or lomustine in patients with recurrent glioblastoma: a phase Ib/II, open-label, multicentre, randomised study. ESMO Open5, e000672. 10.1136/esmoopen-2020-000672

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  Santoro A. Su W.-C. Navarro A. Simonelli M. Yang J. C. Ardizzoni A. et al (2022). Phase Ib/II study of ceritinib in combination with ribociclib in patients with ALK-rearranged non–small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer166, 170–177. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2022.02.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  Simeoni M. Magni P. Cammia C. De Nicolao G. Croci V. Pesenti E. et al (2004). Predictive Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Modeling of Tumor Growth Kinetics in Xenograft Models after Administration of Anticancer Agents. Cancer Res.64, 1094–1101. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-03-2524

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  Smith J. C. Sheltzer J. M. (2018). Systematic identification of mutations and copy number alterations associated with cancer patient prognosis. eLife7, e39217. 10.7554/eLife.39217

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  Spreafico A. Delord J.-P. De Mattos-Arruda L. Berge Y. Rodon J. Cottura E. et al (2015). A first-in-human phase I, dose-escalation, multicentre study of HSP990 administered orally in adult patients with advanced solid malignancies. Br. J. Cancer112, 650–659. 10.1038/bjc.2014.653

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  Terranova N. Germani M. Del Bene F. Magni P. (2013). A predictive pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic model of tumor growth kinetics in xenograft mice after administration of anticancer agents given in combination. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol.72, 471–482. 10.1007/s00280-013-2208-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  Tolcher A. W. Bendell J. C. Papadopoulos K. P. Burris H. A. Patnaik A. Jones S. F. et al (2015). A phase IB trial of the oral MEK inhibitor trametinib (GSK1120212) in combination with everolimus in patients with advanced solid tumors. Ann. Oncol.26, 58–64. 10.1093/annonc/mdu482

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  Tosca E. M. Gauderat G. Fouliard S. Burbridge M. Chenel M. Magni P. (2021). Modeling restoration of gefitinib efficacy by co-administration of MET inhibitors in an EGFR inhibitor-resistant NSCLC xenograft model: A tumor-in-host DEB-based approach. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst. Pharmacol.10, 1396–1411. 10.1002/psp4.12710

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  van Geel RMJM Tabernero J. Elez E. Bendell J. C. Spreafico A. Schuler M. et al (2017). A Phase Ib Dose-Escalation Study of Encorafenib and Cetuximab with or without Alpelisib in Metastatic BRAF-Mutant Colorectal Cancer. Cancer Discov.7, 610–619. 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-16-0795

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  Wu J. Tracey L. Davidoff A. M. (2012). Assessing Interactions for Fixed-Dose Drug Combinations in Tumor Xenograft Studies. J. Biopharm. Statistics22, 535–543. 10.1080/10543406.2011.556285

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  Wu J. (2013). Assessing interactions for fixed-dose drug combinations in subcutaneous tumor xenograft studies. Pharm. Stat.12, 115–119. 10.1002/pst.1559

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar