BACKGROUND:Paclitaxel pharmacokinetics were shown to be related to toxicity and survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated the effects of time above paclitaxel concentrations of 0.05 micromol/l (T(>0.05) and systemic exposures (AUC) to total and unbound paclitaxel (tPAC, uPAC) on response in patients with advanced cancer treated with weekly 1-h or 3-h infusions. RESULTS: After 6 weeks of therapy (WOT), 13 out of 21 assessable patients showed either partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD), while 8 had progressive disease (PD). As compared to patients with PD, those with PR or SD showed similar AUCs to uPAC and tPAC but higher (p < 0.05) T (>0.05). Patients with T(>0.05) > or = 20.7 hours had lower probability (p < 0.05) to progress within 12 WOT. CONCLUSION: Taking the heterogeneity of the studied tumor types into account, we found T(>0.05) to be associated with response to treatment. This emphasizes the value of threshold models for the investigation of paclitaxel pharmacodynamics.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Paclitaxel pharmacokinetics were shown to be related to toxicity and survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated the effects of time above paclitaxel concentrations of 0.05 micromol/l (T(>0.05) and systemic exposures (AUC) to total and unbound paclitaxel (tPAC, uPAC) on response in patients with advanced cancer treated with weekly 1-h or 3-h infusions. RESULTS: After 6 weeks of therapy (WOT), 13 out of 21 assessable patients showed either partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD), while 8 had progressive disease (PD). As compared to patients with PD, those with PR or SD showed similar AUCs to uPAC and tPAC but higher (p < 0.05) T (>0.05). Patients with T(>0.05) > or = 20.7 hours had lower probability (p < 0.05) to progress within 12 WOT. CONCLUSION: Taking the heterogeneity of the studied tumor types into account, we found T(>0.05) to be associated with response to treatment. This emphasizes the value of threshold models for the investigation of paclitaxel pharmacodynamics.
Authors: Marie-Rose B S Crombag; Stijn L W Koolen; Sophie Wijngaard; Markus Joerger; Thomas P C Dorlo; Nielka P van Erp; Ron H J Mathijssen; Jos H Beijnen; Alwin D R Huitema Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2019-10-15 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: Daniel L Hertz; Kelley M Kidwell; Kiran Vangipuram; Feng Li; Manjunath P Pai; Monika Burness; Jennifer J Griggs; Anne F Schott; Catherine Van Poznak; Daniel F Hayes; Ellen M Lavoie Smith; N Lynn Henry Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-04-27 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Markus Joerger; Stefanie Kraff; Alwin D R Huitema; Gary Feiss; Berta Moritz; Jan H M Schellens; Jos H Beijnen; Ulrich Jaehde Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2012-09-01 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: Mary Cianfrocca; Sandra Lee; Jamie Von Roenn; Michelle A Rudek; Bruce J Dezube; Susan E Krown; Joseph A Sparano Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2011-01-05 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Lauren A Marcath; Kelley M Kidwell; Adam C Robinson; Kiran Vangipuram; Monika L Burness; Jennifer J Griggs; Catherine Van Poznak; Anne F Schott; Daniel F Hayes; Norah Lynn Henry; Daniel L Hertz Journal: Pharmacogenomics Date: 2018-12-06 Impact factor: 2.533
Authors: Li Chen; Ciao-Sin Chen; Yihan Sun; N Lynn Henry; Kathleen A Stringer; Daniel L Hertz Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2021-06-05 Impact factor: 3.288
Authors: H H Helgason; C M F Kruijtzer; A D R Huitema; S G Marcus; W W ten Bokkel Huinink; M E Schot; J H Schornagel; J H Beijnen; J H M Schellens Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2006-09-12 Impact factor: 7.640