PURPOSE: To characterize the pharmacokinetics of temsirolimus and its major metabolite, sirolimus, in patients receiving enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs (EIAED) compared with patients receiving non-EIAEDs. An additional objective was to determine whether concentrations of temsirolimus or sirolimus were achieved in brain tumor tissue. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with recurrent malignant gliomas not receiving EIAEDs initially received temsirolimus weekly at a dose of 250 mg i.v. The dose was subsequently reduced to 170 mg due to intolerable side effects. For patients taking EIAEDs, the starting dose of temsirolimus was 250 mg with standard dose escalation until the maximal tolerated dose was established. Ten whole blood samples were obtained over a period of 24 h after administration of temsirolimus for pharmacokinetic assessments. Patients eligible for cytoreductive surgery received temsirolimus before tumor resection. Whole blood and tumor tissue were obtained for analysis. RESULTS: Significant differences in the pharmacokinetic variables for temsirolimus and sirolimus were observed between the two patient groups at a comparable dose level of 250 mg. For patients receiving EIAEDs, the systemic exposure to temsirolimus was lower by 1.5-fold. Likewise, peak concentrations and exposure to sirolimus were lower by 2-fold. Measurable concentrations of temsirolimus and sirolimus were observed in brain tumor specimens. The average tissue to whole blood ratio for temsirolimus was 1.43 and 0.84 for sirolimus. CONCLUSIONS: Drugs that induce cytochrome P450 3A4, such as EIAEDs, significantly affect the pharmacokinetics of temsirolimus and its active metabolite, sirolimus. Total exposure to temsirolimus and sirolimus was lower in the EIAED group at the maximum tolerated dose of 250 mg compared with the non-EIAED group at the maximum tolerated dose of 170 mg. However, brain tumor tissue concentrations of temsirolimus and sirolimus were relatively comparable in both groups of patients at their respective dose levels. Correlative analyses of the tissue for the inhibition of the key regulators (p70S6 kinase and 4E-binding protein 1) of mammalian target of rapamycin are necessary to define the therapeutic significance of the altered exposure to temsirolimus.
PURPOSE: To characterize the pharmacokinetics of temsirolimus and its major metabolite, sirolimus, in patients receiving enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs (EIAED) compared with patients receiving non-EIAEDs. An additional objective was to determine whether concentrations of temsirolimus or sirolimus were achieved in brain tumor tissue. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:Patients with recurrent malignant gliomas not receiving EIAEDs initially received temsirolimus weekly at a dose of 250 mg i.v. The dose was subsequently reduced to 170 mg due to intolerable side effects. For patients taking EIAEDs, the starting dose of temsirolimus was 250 mg with standard dose escalation until the maximal tolerated dose was established. Ten whole blood samples were obtained over a period of 24 h after administration of temsirolimus for pharmacokinetic assessments. Patients eligible for cytoreductive surgery received temsirolimus before tumor resection. Whole blood and tumor tissue were obtained for analysis. RESULTS: Significant differences in the pharmacokinetic variables for temsirolimus and sirolimus were observed between the two patient groups at a comparable dose level of 250 mg. For patients receiving EIAEDs, the systemic exposure to temsirolimus was lower by 1.5-fold. Likewise, peak concentrations and exposure to sirolimus were lower by 2-fold. Measurable concentrations of temsirolimus and sirolimus were observed in brain tumor specimens. The average tissue to whole blood ratio for temsirolimus was 1.43 and 0.84 for sirolimus. CONCLUSIONS: Drugs that induce cytochrome P450 3A4, such as EIAEDs, significantly affect the pharmacokinetics of temsirolimus and its active metabolite, sirolimus. Total exposure to temsirolimus and sirolimus was lower in the EIAED group at the maximum tolerated dose of 250 mg compared with the non-EIAED group at the maximum tolerated dose of 170 mg. However, brain tumor tissue concentrations of temsirolimus and sirolimus were relatively comparable in both groups of patients at their respective dose levels. Correlative analyses of the tissue for the inhibition of the key regulators (p70S6 kinase and 4E-binding protein 1) of mammalian target of rapamycin are necessary to define the therapeutic significance of the altered exposure to temsirolimus.
Authors: Evanthia Galanis; Jan C Buckner; Matthew J Maurer; Jeffrey I Kreisberg; Karla Ballman; J Boni; Josep M Peralba; Robert B Jenkins; Shaker R Dakhil; Roscoe F Morton; Kurt A Jaeckle; Bernd W Scheithauer; Janet Dancey; Manuel Hidalgo; Daniel J Walsh Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-07-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Susan M Chang; Patrick Wen; Timothy Cloughesy; Harry Greenberg; David Schiff; Charles Conrad; Karen Fink; H Ian Robins; Lisa De Angelis; Jeffrey Raizer; Kenneth Hess; Ken Aldape; Kathleen R Lamborn; John Kuhn; Janet Dancey; Michael D Prados Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: Manuel Hidalgo; Jan C Buckner; Charles Erlichman; Marilyn S Pollack; Joseph P Boni; Gary Dukart; Bonnie Marshall; Lisa Speicher; Laurence Moore; Eric K Rowinsky Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-10-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Joseph P Boni; Cathie Leister; Gregor Bender; Virginia Fitzpatrick; Natalie Twine; Jennifer Stover; Andrew Dorner; Fred Immermann; Michael E Burczynski Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Michael B Atkins; Manuel Hidalgo; Walter M Stadler; Theodore F Logan; Janice P Dutcher; Gary R Hudes; Young Park; Song-Heng Liou; Bonnie Marshall; Joseph P Boni; Gary Dukart; Matthew L Sherman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael A Vogelbaum; Daria Krivosheya; Hamid Borghei-Razavi; Nader Sanai; Michael Weller; Wolfgang Wick; Riccardo Soffietti; David A Reardon; Manish K Aghi; Evanthia Galanis; Patrick Y Wen; Martin van den Bent; Susan Chang Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-11-26 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Warren P Mason; Mary Macneil; Petr Kavan; Jacob Easaw; David Macdonald; Brian Thiessen; Shweta Urva; Zarnie Lwin; Lynn McIntosh; Elizabeth Eisenhauer Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2011-12-09 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: Michael D Prados; Sara A Byron; Nhan L Tran; Joanna J Phillips; Annette M Molinaro; Keith L Ligon; Patrick Y Wen; John G Kuhn; Ingo K Mellinghoff; John F de Groot; Howard Colman; Timothy F Cloughesy; Susan M Chang; Timothy C Ryken; Waibhav D Tembe; Jeffrey A Kiefer; Michael E Berens; David W Craig; John D Carpten; Jeffrey M Trent Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2015-05-01 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: David A Reardon; Annick Desjardins; James J Vredenburgh; Sridharan Gururangan; Allan H Friedman; James E Herndon; Jennifer Marcello; Julie A Norfleet; Roger E McLendon; John H Sampson; Henry S Friedman Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2009-06-28 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Jana Portnow; Behnam Badie; Xueli Liu; Paul Frankel; Shu Mi; Mike Chen; Timothy W Synold Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2014-03-15 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Charles A Kunos; Evanthia Galanis; Jeffrey Buchsbaum; Qian Shi; Lewis C Strauss; C Norman Coleman; Mansoor M Ahmed Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2017-05-30 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Matthias Holdhoff; Jeffrey G Supko; Gary L Gallia; Christine L Hann; David Bonekamp; Xiaobu Ye; Bing Cao; Alessandro Olivi; Stuart A Grossman Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2009-09-19 Impact factor: 4.130