Literature DB >> 10803455

Adaptive control methods for the dose individualisation of anticancer agents.

A Rousseau1, P Marquet, J Debord, C Sabot, G Lachâtre.   

Abstract

Numerous studies have found a clear relationship between systemic exposure and the toxicity or (more rarely) the efficacy of anticancer agents. Moreover, the clearance of most of these drugs differs widely between patients. These findings, combined with the narrow therapeutic index of anticancer drugs, suggest that patient outcome would be improved if doses were individualised to achieve a target systemic exposure. Bayesian maximum a posteriori probability (MAP) forecasting is an efficient and robust method for the optimisation of drug therapy, but its use for anticancer drugs is not yet extensive. The aim of this paper is to review the application of population pharmacokinetics and MAP to anticancer drugs and to evaluate whether and when MAP Bayesian estimation improves the clinical benefit of anticancer chemotherapy. For each drug, the relationships between pharmacokinetic variables [e.g. plasma concentration or the area under the concentration-time curve] and pharmacodynamic effects are described. Secondly, the methodologies employed are considered and, finally, the results are analysed in terms of predictive performance as well as, where possible, the impact on clinical end-points. Some studies were retrospective and intended only to evaluate individual pharmacokinetic parameter values using very few blood samples. Among the prospective trials, a few studied the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships which provided the basis for routine pharmacokinetic monitoring. Others were performed in clinical context where MAP Bayesian estimation was used to determine maximum tolerated systemic exposure (e.g. for carboplatin, topotecan, teniposide) or for pharmacokinetic monitoring (e.g. for methotrexate or platinum compounds). Indeed, its flexibility in blood sampling times makes this technique much more applicable than other limited sampling strategies. These examples demonstrate that individual dose adjustment helps manage toxicity. The performance of pharmacokinetic monitoring is linked to the methodology used at each step of its design and application. Moreover, a limitation to the use of pharmacokinetic monitoring for certain anticancer drugs has been the difficulty in obtaining pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic data. Recent progress in analytical methods, as well as the development of noninvasive methods (such as positron emission tomography) for evaluating the effects of chemotherapy, will help to define pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships. Bayesian estimation is the strategy of choice for performing pharmacokinetic studies, as well as ensuring that a given patient benefits from the desired systemic exposure. Together, these methods could contribute to improving cancer chemotherapy in terms of patient outcome and survival.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10803455     DOI: 10.2165/00003088-200038040-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet        ISSN: 0312-5963            Impact factor:   6.447


  182 in total

1.  [Pharmacokinetic study of active ultrafiltrable platinum during a 5-day course of continuous constant flow infusion of cisplatin with modification of the dosage].

Authors:  C Dechamp; Y Rinaldi; A Durand; R Favre
Journal:  Bull Cancer       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 1.276

2.  Doxorubicin and doxorubicinol: intra- and inter-individual variations of pharmacokinetic parameters.

Authors:  J M Jacquet; F Bressolle; M Galtier; M Bourrier; D Donadio; J Jourdan; J F Rossi
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 3.333

Review 3.  Methodological issues in pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling.

Authors:  E Bellissant; V Sébille; G Paintaud
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 6.447

4.  Conventional compared with individualized chemotherapy for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Authors:  W E Evans; M V Relling; J H Rodman; W R Crom; J M Boyett; C H Pui
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1998-02-19       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Long-term survivors of advanced neuroblastoma with MYCN amplification: A report of 19 patients surviving disease-free for more than 66 months.

Authors:  K Kawa; N Ohnuma; M Kaneko; K Yamamoto; T Etoh; H Mugishima; M Ohhira; J Yokoyama; F Bessho; T Honna; J Yoshizawa; K Nakada; M Iwafuchi; T Nozaki; J Mimaya; T Sawada; T Nakamura; H Miyata; K Yamato; Y Tsuchida
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Analysis of pharmacokinetic data using parametric models. II. Point estimates of an individual's parameters.

Authors:  L B Sheiner
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1985-10

Review 7.  Pharmacokinetic optimisation of cancer chemotherapy. Effect on outcomes.

Authors:  E Masson; W C Zamboni
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 6.447

8.  Suramin, an active drug for prostate cancer: interim observations in a phase I trial.

Authors:  M A Eisenberger; L M Reyno; D I Jodrell; V J Sinibaldi; K H Tkaczuk; R Sridhara; E G Zuhowski; M H Lowitt; S C Jacobs; M J Egorin
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1993-04-21       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  A randomized trial of two etoposide schedules in small-cell lung cancer: the influence of pharmacokinetics on efficacy and toxicity.

Authors:  P I Clark; M L Slevin; S P Joel; R J Osborne; D I Talbot; P W Johnson; R Reznek; T Masud; W Gregory; P F Wrigley
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Predicting etoposide toxicity: relationship to organ function and protein binding.

Authors:  S P Joel; R Shah; P I Clark; M L Slevin
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  15 in total

Review 1.  Pharmacology of anticancer drugs in the elderly population.

Authors:  Hans Wildiers; Martin S Highley; Ernst A de Bruijn; Allan T van Oosterom
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 6.447

2.  Maximum a posteriori Bayesian estimation of epirubicin clearance by limited sampling.

Authors:  Lorraine D Ralph; Alison H Thomson; Nicola A Dobbs; Chris Twelves
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 4.335

3.  Population pharmacokinetics of high-dose methotrexate in children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia.

Authors:  Dolores Aumente; Dolores Santos Buelga; John C Lukas; Pedro Gomez; Antonio Torres; Maria José García
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 6.447

Review 4.  Individualised cancer chemotherapy: strategies and performance of prospective studies on therapeutic drug monitoring with dose adaptation: a review.

Authors:  Milly E de Jonge; Alwin D R Huitema; Jan H M Schellens; Sjoerd Rodenhuis; Jos H Beijnen
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 6.447

5.  Bayesian estimation of methotrexate pharmacokinetic parameters and area under the curve in children and young adults with localised osteosarcoma.

Authors:  Annick Rousseau; Christophe Sabot; Nicole Delepine; Gerard Delepine; Jean Debord; Gerard Lachâtre; Pierre Marquet
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 6.447

6.  Therapeutic drug monitoring of imatinib: Bayesian and alternative methods to predict trough levels.

Authors:  Verena Gotta; Nicolas Widmer; Michael Montemurro; Serge Leyvraz; Amina Haouala; Laurent A Decosterd; Chantal Csajka; Thierry Buclin
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 6.447

7.  A Nonparametric Method to Optimize Initial Drug Dosing and Attainment of a Target Exposure Interval: Concepts and Application to Busulfan in Pediatrics.

Authors:  Michaël Philippe; Michael Neely; Yves Bertrand; Nathalie Bleyzac; Sylvain Goutelle
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 6.447

8.  Model-based approach to early predict prolonged high grade neutropenia in carboplatin-treated patients and guide G-CSF prophylactic treatment.

Authors:  Mélanie L Pastor; Céline M Laffont; Laurence Gladieff; Etienne Chatelut; Didier Concordet
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2014-09-04       Impact factor: 4.200

Review 9.  A systematic review of limited sampling strategies for platinum agents used in cancer chemotherapy.

Authors:  Gabriel W Loh; Lillian S L Ting; Mary H H Ensom
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 6.447

10.  In vitro chemosensitivity of head and neck cancer cell lines.

Authors:  P J Schuler; S Trellakis; J Greve; M Bas; C Bergmann; E Bölke; G Lehnerdt; S Mattheis; A E Albers; S Brandau; S Lang; T L Whiteside; H Bier; T K Hoffmann
Journal:  Eur J Med Res       Date:  2010-08-20       Impact factor: 2.175

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.