Dose banding as an alternative to body surface area-based dosing of chemotherapeutic agents

Background: Dose banding is a recently suggested dosing method that uses predefined ranges (bands) of body surface area (BSA) to calculate each patients dose by using a single BSA-value per band. Thus, drugs with sufficient long-term stability can be prepared in advance. The main advantages of dose banding are to reduce patient waiting time and improve pharmacy capacity planning; additional benefits include reduced medication errors, reduced drug wastage, and prospective quality control. This study compares dose banding with individual BSA dosing and fixed dose according to pharmacokinetic criteria.Methods:Three BSA bands were defined: BSA1.7 m2, 1.7 m2 BSA1.9 m 2, BSA1.9 m2 and each patient dose was calculated based on a unique BSA-value per band (1.55, 1.80, and 2.05 m 2, respectively). By using individual clearance values of six drugs (cisplatin, docetaxel, paclitaxel, doxorubicin, irinotecan, and topotecan) from 1012 adult cancer patients in total, the AUCs corresponding to three dosing methods (BSA dosing, dose banding, and fixed dose) were compared with a target AUC for each drug.Results:For all six drugs, the per cent variation in individual dose obtained with dose banding compared with BSA dosing ranged between 14% and 22%, and distribution of AUC values was very similar with both dosing methods. In terms of reaching the target AUC, there was no significant difference in precision between dose banding and BSA dosing, except for paclitaxel (32.0% vs 30.7%, respectively; P=0.05). However, precision was significantly better for BSA dosing compared with fixed dose for four out of six drugs.Conclusion:For the studied drugs, implementation of dose banding should be considered as it entails no significant increase in interindividual plasma exposure

Clinical pharmacodynamic factors in docetaxel toxicity

Neutropenia is the main dose-limiting toxicity occurring in docetaxel treatment. The objective of this study was to identify pharmacodynamic (PD) factors responsible for the neutropaenia caused by docetaxel. Data were obtained from 92 patients treated with docetaxel as a monochemotherapy in two different treatment centres. A semiphysiological population pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) model was applied to describe the time course of neutrophils and the neutropaenic effect of docetaxel. The plasma docetaxel concentration was assumed to inhibit the proliferation of neutrophil precursors through a linear model: Drug effect=Slope × Conc. Slope corresponds to the patients' sensitivity to the neutropaenic effect of docetaxel. Covariate analysis was performed by testing the relationship between the patients' characteristics and Slope using the program NONMEM. The neutropaenic effect of docetaxel showed a high interindividual variability. Three significant PD covariates were identified: serum α1-acid glycoprotein levels (AAG), level of chemotherapy pretreatment, and treatment centre. Extensive pretreatment was associated with an increase in Slope values meaning a higher haematotoxicity. An increase in AAG was associated with a decrease of both Slope and docetaxel plasma clearance. Patients treated in one centre had both higher Slope and docetaxel clearance. The centre effect (most likely due to a bias in the PK part of the study between the two centres) reveals the robustness of the PK/PD model. Individual dosing of docetaxel should be based on previous chemotherapy but not on the AAG level since it has a similar influence on PD and PK docetaxel parameters. This methodology should be applied to further investigate elderly patients and to identify more precisely the characteristics of previous chemotherapy that contribute to the cumulative myelotoxicity

Cancer and renal insufficiency results of the BIRMA study

Background: Half of anticancer drugs are predominantly excreted in urine. Dosage adjustment in renal insufficiency (RI) is, therefore, a crucial issue. Moreover, patients with abnormal renal function are at high risk for drug-induced nephrotoxicity. The Belgian Renal Insufficiency and Anticancer Medications (BIRMA) study investigated the prevalence of RI in cancer patients, and the profile/dosing of anticancer drugs prescribed. Methods:Primary end point: to estimate the prevalence of abnormal glomerular filtration rate (GFR; estimated with the abbreviated Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formula) and RI in cancer patient. Secondary end point: to describe the profile of anticancer drugs prescribed (dose reduction/nephrotoxicity). Data were collected for patients presenting at one of the seven Belgian BIRMA centres in March 2006. Results: A total of 1218 patients were included. The prevalence of elevated SCR (1.2 mg per 100 ml) was 14.9%, but 64.0% had a GFR90 ml min 1 per 1.73 m 2. In all, 78.6% of treated patients (n1087) were receiving at least one drug needing dosage adjustment and 78.1% received at least one nephrotoxic drug. In all, 56.5% of RI patients receiving chemotherapy requiring dose reduction in case of RI did not receive dose adjustment. Conclusions: The RI is highly frequent in cancer patients. In all, 80% of the patients receive potentially nephrotoxic drugs and/or for which dosage must be adjusted in RI. Oncologists should check the appropriate dose of chemotherapeutic drugs in relation to renal function before prescribing. © 2010 Cancer Research UK.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Population pharmacokinetics in phase I drug development: a phase I study of PK1 in patients with solid tumours

Doxorubicin pharmacokinetics were determined in 33 patients with solid tumours who received intravenous doses of 20–320 mg m−2 HPMA copolymer bound doxorubicin (PK1) in a phase I study. Since assay constraints limited the data at lower doses, conventional analysis was not feasible and a ‘population approach’ was used. Bound concentrations were best described by a biexponential model and further analyses revealed a small influence of dose or weight on V1 but no identifiable effects of age, body surface area, renal or hepatic function. The final model was: clearance (Q) 0.194 l h−1; central compartment volume (V1) 4.48 × (1+0.00074 × dose (mg)) l; peripheral compartment volume (V2) 7.94 l; intercompartmental clearance 0.685 l h−1. Distribution and elimination half-lives had median estimates of 2.7 h and 49 h respectively. Free doxorubicin was present at most sampling times with concentrations around 1000 times lower than bound doxorubicin values. Data were best described using a biexponential model and the following parameters were estimated: apparent clearance 180 l h−1; apparent V1 (l) 1450 × (1+0.0013 × dose (mg)), apparent V2 (l) 21 300 × (1–0.0013 × dose (mg)) × (1+2.95 × height (m)) and apparent Q 6950 l h−1. Distribution and elimination half-lives were 0.13 h and 85 h respectively. © 1999 Cancer Research Campaig

Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis: pharmacokinetics and clinical outcome of paclitaxel and carboplatin treatment

Purpose: Administration of chemotherapy in patients with renal failure, treated with hemodialysis or continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) is still a challenge and literature data is scarce. Here we present a case study of a patient on CAPD, treated with weekly and three-weekly paclitaxel/ carboplatin for recurrent ovarian cancer. Experimental: During the first, second and ninth cycle of treatment, blood, urine and CAPD samples were collected for pharmacokinetic analysis of paclitaxel and total and unbound carboplatin-derived platinum. Results: Treatment was well tolerated by the patient. No excessive toxicity was observed and at the e

Factors for Hematopoietic Toxicity of Carboplatin: Refining the Targeting of Carboplatin Systemic Exposure

Purpose Area under the curve (AUC) dosing is routinely carried out for carboplatin, but the chosen target AUC values remain largely empirical. This multicenter pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) study was performed to determine the covariates involved in the interindividual variability of carboplatin hematotoxicity that should be considered when choosing individual target AUCs.Patients and Methods Three hundred eighty-three patients received carboplatin as part of established regimens. A semi-physiologic population PK-PD model was applied to describe separately the time course of absolute neutrophil and platelet counts using NONMEM software. The plasma ultrafiltrable carboplatin concentration (CCarbo) was assumed to inhibit the proliferation of blood cell precursors through a linear model: drug effect = slope × CCarbo. The slope corresponds to the patients\u27 sensitivity to carboplatin hematotoxicity. The relationships between the patients\u27 sensitivity to the neutropenic or thrombopenic effects of carboplatin and various covariates, including associated chemotherapies, demographic, biologic, and pharmacogenetic data, were studied. Results The sensitivity of carboplatin-induced thrombocytopenia decreased in the case of concomitant paclitaxel chemotherapy (slope decreased by 24%), whereas it increased with coadministration of etoposide and gemcitabine (slope increased by 45% and 133%, respectively). For neutropenia, the sensitivity increased when carboplatin was combined with other cytotoxics (slope increased by 76%). Conclusion This study provides useful information to clinicians to better estimate the hematopoietic toxicity of carboplatin and thus choose more rationally carboplatin target AUCs as a function of pretreatment or concomitantly administered chemotherapies. For example, an AUC of 5 mg/mL · min is associated with a risk of grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia of 2% in combination with paclitaxel versus 38% with gemcitabine in a non-pretreated patient

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacogenetic determinants of the activity and toxicity of irinotecan in metastatic colorectal cancer patients

This study aims at establishing relationships between genetic and non-genetic factors of variation of the pharmacokinetics of irinotecan and its metabolites; and also at establishing relationships between the pharmacokinetic or metabolic parameters and the efficacy and toxicity of irinotecan. We included 49 patients treated for metastatic colorectal cancer with a combination of 5-fluorouracil and irinotecan; a polymorphism in the UGT1A1 gene (TA repeat in the TATA box) and one in the CES2 gene promoter (830C>G) were studied as potential markers for SN-38 glucuronidation and irinotecan activation, respectively; and the potential activity of CYP3A4 was estimated from cortisol biotransformation into 6β-hydroxycortisol. No pharmacokinetic parameter was directly predictive of clinical outcome or toxicity. The AUCs of three important metabolites of irinotecan, SN-38, SN-38 glucuronide and APC, were tentatively correlated with patients' pretreatment biological parameters related to drug metabolism (plasma creatinine, bilirubin and liver enzymes, and blood leukocytes). SN-38 AUC was significantly correlated with blood leukocytes number and SN-38G AUC was significantly correlated with plasma creatinine, whereas APC AUC was significantly correlated with plasma liver enzymes. The relative extent of irinotecan activation was inversely correlated with SN-38 glucuronidation. The TATA box polymorphism of UGT1A1 was significantly associated with plasma bilirubin levels and behaved as a significant predictor for neutropoenia. The level of cortisol 6β-hydroxylation predicted for the occurrence of diarrhoea. All these observations may improve the routine use of irinotecan in colorectal cancer patients. UGT1A1 genotyping plus cortisol 6β-hydroxylation determination could help to determine the optimal dose of irinotecan

Vinorelbine/carboplatin vs gemcitabine/carboplatin in advanced NSCLC shows similar efficacy, but different impact of toxicity

This randomised phase III study in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients was conducted to compare vinorelbine/carboplatin (VC) and gemcitabine/carboplatin (GC) regarding efficacy, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and toxicity. Chemonaive patients with NSCLC stage IIIB/IV and WHO performance status 0–2 were eligible. No upper age limit was defined. Patients received vinorelbine 25 mg m−2 or gemcitabine 1000 mg m−2 on days 1 and 8 and carboplatin AUC4 on day 1 and three courses with 3-week cycles. HRQOL questionnaires were completed at baseline, before chemotherapy and every 8 weeks until 49 weeks. During 14 months, 432 patients were included (VC, n=218; GC, n=214). Median survival was 7.3 vs 6.4 months, 1-year survival 28 vs 30% and 2-year survival 7 vs 7% in the VC and GC arm, respectively (P=0.89). HRQOL, represented by global QOL, nausea/vomiting, dyspnoea and pain, showed no significant differences. More grade 3–4 anaemia (P<0.01), thrombocytopenia (P<0.01) and transfusions of blood (P<0.01) or platelets (P<0.01) were observed in the GC arm. There was more grade 3–4 leucopoenia (P<0.01) in the VC arm, but the rate of neutropenic infections was the same (P=0.87). In conclusion, overall survival and HRQOL are similar, while grade 3–4 toxicity requiring interventions are less frequent when VC is compared to GC in advanced NSCLC

A phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of capecitabine (Xeloda®) and irinotecan combination therapy (XELIRI) in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal tumours

Capecitabine is a highly active oral fluoropyrimidine that is an attractive alternative to 5-fluorouracil in colorectal cancer treatment. The current study, undertaken in 27 patients with gastrointestinal tumours, aimed to assess the toxicity and potential for significant pharmacokinetic interactions of a combination regimen incorporating capecitabine with 3-weekly irinotecan (XELIRI). Irinotecan (200 and 250 mg m−2) was administered as a 90-min infusion on day 1 in combination with escalating capecitabine doses (700–1250 mg m−2 twice daily) administered on days 2–15 of a 3-week treatment cycle. Pharmacokinetics were characterised on days 1 and 2 of the first two cycles. A total of 103 treatment cycles were administered. The principal dose-limiting toxicities were diarrhoea and neutropenia. Capecitabine 1150 mg m−2 twice daily with irinotecan 250 mg m−2 was identified as the maximum-tolerated dose and capecitabine 1000 mg m−2 with irinotecan 250 mg m−2 was identified as the recommended dose for further study. Analyses confirmed that there were no significant pharmacokinetic interactions between the two agents. The combination was clinically active, with complete and partial responses achieved in heavily pretreated patients. This study indicates that XELIRI is a potentially feasible and clinically active regimen in patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer