Population pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of docetaxel in phase II studies in patients with cancer

PURPOSE The population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) approach was prospectively integrated in the clinical development of docetaxel to assess the PK profile in a large population of patients and investigate systemic exposure as a prognostic factor for clinical outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS PK analysis was performed at first course in 24 phase II studies of docetaxel monotherapy using four randomized limited-sampling schedules. Bayesian estimates of clearance (CL), area under the concentration-time curve (AUC), and peak and duration of plasma levels greater than threshold levels were used as measures of exposure. PD data included for efficacy, response rate, time to first response, and time to progression (TTP) in breast cancer and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and for toxicity, grade 4 neutropenia, and febrile neutropenia at first course and time to onset of fluid retention. PK/PD analysis was conducted using logistic and Cox multivariate regression models. RESULTS PK protocol implementation was successful. Most of the patients registered (721 of 936, 77%) were sampled and 68% were assessable for PK (640 patients). First-course docetaxel AUC was a significant predictor (P = .0232) of TTP in NSCLC (n = 151). Docetaxel CL was a strong independent predictor (P &lt; .0001) of both grade 4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (n = 582). Cumulative dose was the strongest predictor (P &lt; .0001) of the time to onset of fluid retention (n = 631). However, the duration of exposure over 0.20 micromol/L (0.16 microg/mL) at first course was an independent predictor (P = .0029). Few patients (n = 25, 4%) received the recommended dexamethasone premedication. CONCLUSION First-course docetaxel PK is a predictor of first-course hematologic toxicity, but also of fluid retention, which is cumulative in nature. Patients with elevated hepatic enzymes have a 27% reduction in docetaxel CL and are at a higher risk of toxicity. A starting dose of 75 mg/m2 is currently being evaluated in this population. Prospective implementation of large-scale population PK/PD evaluation is feasible in early drug development and this approach generates clinically relevant findings. </jats:sec

Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: Model estimates of potential benefits and harms

Background: Despite trials of mammography and widespread use, optimal screening policy is controversial. Objective: To evaluate U.S. breast cancer screening strategies. Design: 6 models using common data elements. Data Sources: National data on age-specific incidence, competing mortality, mammography characteristics, and treatment effects. Target Population: A contemporary population cohort. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Societal. Interventions: 20 screening strategies with varying initiation and cessation ages applied annually or biennially. Outcome Measures: Number of mammograms, reduction in deaths from breast cancer or life-years gained (vs. no screening), false-positive results, unnecessary biopsies, and overdiagnosis. Results of Base-Case Analysis: The 6 models produced consistent rankings of screening strategies. Screening biennially maintained an average of 81% (range across strategies and models, 67% to 99%) of the benefit of annual screening with almost half the number of false-positive results. Screening biennially from ages 50 to 69 years achieved a median 16.5% (range, 15% to 23%) reduction in breast cancer deaths versus no screening. Initiating biennial screening at age 40 years (vs. 50 years) reduced mortality by an additional 3% (range, 1% to 6%), consumed more resources, and yielded more false-positive results. Biennial screening after age 69 years yielded some additional mortality reduction in all models, but overdiagnosis increased most substantially at older ages. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Varying test sensitivity or treatment patterns did not change conclusions. Limitation: Results do not include morbidity from false-positive results, patient knowledge of earlier diagnosis, or unnecessary treatment. Conclusion: Biennial screening achieves most of the benefit of annual screening with less harm. Decisions about the best strategy depend on program and individual objectives and the weight placed on benefits, harms, and resource considerations. Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute