OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to build population pharmacokinetic models that describe plasma concentrations of irinotecan (CPT-11) and its metabolites 7-ethyl-10-hydroxycamptothecin (SN-38) and SN-38 glucuronide (SN-38G) and to investigate the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships between drug exposure and diarrhea, the major dose-limiting toxicity. METHODS: Data were obtained from 109 patients (65 men and 44 women) who received 1.5-hour (range, 0.75- to 2.25-hour) intravenous infusions of irinotecan at doses that ranged from 100 to 350 mg/m(2); 44 patients had a second course. The population pharmacokinetic models were developed to describe plasma concentration-time profiles. The area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to 60 hours [AUC (0-60)] was used as a measure of drug exposure to model the probabilities of diarrhea with use of a logistic regression model. RESULTS: A 3-compartment pharmacokinetic model best described the disposition of irinotecan, whereas SN-38 and SN-38G showed 2-compartmental characteristics. The population estimate of clearance for irinotecan was 31.6 L/h, and the volume of distribution at steady-state (V(SS)) was 263 L. The clearance divided by formation fraction (F(m)) was 712 L/h and 66.8 L/h for SN-38 and SN-38G, respectively. The V(SS)/F(m) was 72,000 L for SN-38 and 85.4 L for SN-38G. The frequencies of diarrhea scores in this study were 46% (grade 0), 28% (grade 1), 20% (grade 2), 4% (grade 3), and 2% (grade 4). Significant correlations between AUC(0-60) and diarrhea scores were found for irinotecan (P <.05) and SN-38G (P <.01) but not for SN-38 or the biliary index. CONCLUSIONS: In this population analysis, irinotecan and SN-38G AUC values were appropriate predictors of the risk for diarrhea, and SN-38G AUC showed the stronger relationship of the two. The developed population models may be useful in further clinical development of this agent.
OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to build population pharmacokinetic models that describe plasma concentrations of irinotecan (CPT-11) and its metabolites 7-ethyl-10-hydroxycamptothecin (SN-38) and SN-38 glucuronide (SN-38G) and to investigate the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships between drug exposure and diarrhea, the major dose-limiting toxicity. METHODS: Data were obtained from 109 patients (65 men and 44 women) who received 1.5-hour (range, 0.75- to 2.25-hour) intravenous infusions of irinotecan at doses that ranged from 100 to 350 mg/m(2); 44 patients had a second course. The population pharmacokinetic models were developed to describe plasma concentration-time profiles. The area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to 60 hours [AUC (0-60)] was used as a measure of drug exposure to model the probabilities of diarrhea with use of a logistic regression model. RESULTS: A 3-compartment pharmacokinetic model best described the disposition of irinotecan, whereas SN-38 and SN-38G showed 2-compartmental characteristics. The population estimate of clearance for irinotecan was 31.6 L/h, and the volume of distribution at steady-state (V(SS)) was 263 L. The clearance divided by formation fraction (F(m)) was 712 L/h and 66.8 L/h for SN-38 and SN-38G, respectively. The V(SS)/F(m) was 72,000 L for SN-38 and 85.4 L for SN-38G. The frequencies of diarrhea scores in this study were 46% (grade 0), 28% (grade 1), 20% (grade 2), 4% (grade 3), and 2% (grade 4). Significant correlations between AUC(0-60) and diarrhea scores were found for irinotecan (P <.05) and SN-38G (P <.01) but not for SN-38 or the biliary index. CONCLUSIONS: In this population analysis, irinotecan and SN-38G AUC values were appropriate predictors of the risk for diarrhea, and SN-38G AUC showed the stronger relationship of the two. The developed population models may be useful in further clinical development of this agent.
Authors: Aditya Bardia; Ingrid A Mayer; Jennifer R Diamond; Rebecca L Moroose; Steven J Isakoff; Alexander N Starodub; Nikita C Shah; Joyce O'Shaughnessy; Kevin Kalinsky; Michael Guarino; Vandana Abramson; Dejan Juric; Sara M Tolaney; Jordan Berlin; Wells A Messersmith; Allyson J Ocean; William A Wegener; Pius Maliakal; Robert M Sharkey; Serengulam V Govindan; David M Goldenberg; Linda T Vahdat Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jing Li; Edward A Sausville; Patrick J Klein; David Morgenstern; Christopher P Leamon; Richard A Messmann; Patricia LoRusso Journal: J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2009-10-16 Impact factor: 3.126
Authors: Islam R Younis; Samuel Malone; Henry S Friedman; Larry J Schaaf; William P Petros Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2008-05-22 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Huali Wu; Jeffrey R Infante; Vicki L Keedy; Suzanne F Jones; Emily Chan; Johanna C Bendell; Wooin Lee; Beth A Zamboni; Satoshi Ikeda; Hiroshi Kodaira; Mace L Rothenberg; Howard A Burris; William C Zamboni Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Spinel Karas; Amy S Etheridge; Eleftheria Tsakalozou; Jacqueline Ramírez; Erika Cecchin; Ron H N van Schaik; Giuseppe Toffoli; Mark J Ratain; Ron H J Mathijssen; Alan Forrest; Robert R Bies; Federico Innocenti Journal: AAPS J Date: 2020-03-17 Impact factor: 4.009