Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Recruiting

NCT Number: NCT07344363

Prostate Cancer REsearch Using Cross-validation of Innovative Sampling, Integrating LC-MS/MS for Optimized Therapeutic Drug moNitoring

Applying Dried Blood Spots (DBS) techniques to pharmacokinetic analysis could significantly streamline the use of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM) in clinical practice. To establish DBS as a viable alternative sampling method, it is essential to demonstrate that results obtained from DBS analysis are reliable. This validation can be achieved through a cross-validation study. In this protocol, an original validated method, the plasma-based assay, serves as the "reference", while the alternative DBS-based analytical technique is the "comparator." The reliability will be defined analysing patients' samples with the new methods and comparing these results with those obtained with the reference LC-MS/MS (Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry) methods (in plasma). The possibility to apply DBS technique to pharmacokinetic analysis should largely facilitate the application of TDM to clinical practice.

Recruiting

Interested in participating?

Request Info

Key information

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Observational

Primary location

Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano (CRO), IRCCS

Aviano, Pordenone, 33081, Italy

Location status: Recruiting

Location contact

Arianna Dri, Dr

SUB_INVESTIGATOR

Bianca Posocco, PhD

SUB_INVESTIGATOR

Eleonora Cecchin, Dr

SUB_INVESTIGATOR

Erika Cecchin, PhD, PharmD

CONTACT

[email protected]

+ 39 0434 659667

Erika Cecchin, PhD, PharmD

PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Giorgia Bortolus, Dr

SUB_INVESTIGATOR

Lucia Fratino, MD

PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Sara Gagno, PhD

SUB_INVESTIGATOR

About this study

Applying Dried Blood Spots (DBS) techniques to pharmacokinetic analysis could significantly streamline the use of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM) in clinical practice. To establish DBS as a viable alternative sampling method, it is essential to demonstrate that results obtained from DBS analysis are reliable. This validation can be achieved through a cross-validation study. In this protocol, an original validated method, the plasma-based assay, serves as the "reference", while the alternative DBS-based analytical technique is the "comparator." The reliability will be defined analysing patients' samples with the new methods and comparing these results with those obtained with the reference LC-MS/MS methods (in plasma). The possibility to apply DBS technique to pharmacokinetic analysis should largely facilitate the application of TDM to clinical practice.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients treated with abiraterone, apalutamide, darolutamide, and enzalutamide according to the dosing regimens described in the Summary of Product Characteristics. The treatment cycle does not matter but patients should be at the steady state (see section 4.2);• Age ≥18;
  • Signed informed consent is required

Exclusion criteria

  • Conditions that may limit the ability to adequately comply with the study procedures outlined in the protocol;
  • Refusal of informed consent;
  • Any condition that, in the investigator's judgment, could compromise appropriate participation in the study.

Treatment and study plan

Primary outcomes

  1. To assess the reliability of innovative analytical methods based on DBS sampling for the quantification of abiraterone, apalutamide, darolutamide, and enzalutamide

    Time frame: 24 months

    The reliability will be assessed comparing results obtained with the new methods and with the reference LC-MS/MS methods (in plasma) evaluating the comprehensive results of the following analysis:

    • Calculation of Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (ρc) that quantifies the agreement between two measures of the same variable (e.g. chemical concentration);
    • Quantification of the mean difference and of the limits of agreement between the two methods with Bland-Altman method;
    • Evaluation of the slope and the intercept obtained using Passing-Bablok regression analysis;
    • Check for agreement with FDA/EMA guidelines requirements: the difference between the results obtained with the new method and the results obtained with the gold standard assay (% difference) should be within 20% in least two-thirds (67%) of the samples analyzed

Secondary outcomes

  1. To collect preliminary data regarding intra-patient (consecutive samples collected from the same patient) variability of Cmin values;

    Time frame: 24 months

    Intra-patient variation will be evaluated with intrapatient variation coefficient

  2. To collect preliminary data regarding inter-patient (samples from different patients treated at the same drug dose) variability of Cmin values;

    Time frame: 24 months

    Inter-patient variation will be evaluated with variation coefficient

  3. To conduct a preliminary evaluation of the correlation between drug exposure and toxicity

    Time frame: 24 months

    Mean difference in Cmin between patients with of without drug-related toxicity

Study contacts

Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.

Erika Cecchin

CONTACT

[email protected]

+ 39 0434 659667

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Centro di Riferimento Oncologico - Aviano

Other

Registry information

Acronym: PRECISION

Important dates

Study start
2025
Primary completion
2027
Study completion
2027
First posted
Jan 15, 2026
Registry last updated
Feb 2, 2026

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.