The lorlatinib ADME studies were published in the Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.

Link to the manuscript: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcph.1621

Citation: Stypinski, D., Fostvedt, L., Lam, J.L., Vaz, A., Johnson, T.R., Boerma, J.S. and Pithavala, Y.K. (2020), Metabolism, Excretion, and Pharmacokinetics of Lorlatinib (PF-06463922) and Evaluation of the Impact of Radiolabel Position and Other Factors on Comparability of Data Across 2 ADME Studies. The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 60: 1254-1267. 

Abstract: While an initial clinical absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) study (Study 1; N = 6) with 100 mg/100 µCi [¹⁴C]lorlatinib, radiolabeled on the carbonyl carbon, confirmed that the primary metabolic pathways for lorlatinib are oxidation (N-demethylation, N-oxidation) and N-glucuronidation, it also revealed an unanticipated, intramolecular cleavage metabolic pathway of lorlatinib, yielding a major circulating benzoic acid metabolite (M8), and an unlabeled pyrido-pyrazole substructure. Concerns regarding the fate of unknown metabolites associated with this intramolecular cleavage pathway led to conduct of a second ADME study (Study 2; N = 6) of identical design but with the radiolabel positioned on the pyrazole ring. Results were similar with respect to the overall mass balance, lorlatinib plasma exposures, and metabolic profiles in excreta for the metabolites that retained the radiolabel in both studies. Differences were observed in plasma total radioactivity exposures (2-fold area under the plasma concentration–time curve from time 0 to infinity difference) and relative ratios of the percentage of dose recovered in urine vs feces (48% vs 41% in Study 1; 28% vs 64% in Study 2). In addition, an approximately 3-fold difference in the mean molar exposure ratio of M8 to lorlatinib was observed for values derived from metabolic profiling data relative to those derived from specific bioanalytical methods (0.5 vs 1.4 for Studies 1 and 2, respectively). These interstudy differences were attributed to a combination of factors, including alteration of radiolabel position, orthogonal analytical methodologies, and intersubject variability, and illustrate that results from clinical ADME studies are not unambiguous and should be interpreted within the context of the specific study design considerations.