PURPOSE: The study aims to use mathematical modeling and simulation to assess the relative contribution of topotecan systemic exposure and scheduling in the activity and myelosuppression of topotecan in pediatric patients with neuroblastoma. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data were obtained from a phase II study for pediatric patients with high-risk neuroblastoma. The topotecan dosage was individualized to attain a topotecan lactone area under the plasma concentration-time curve between 80 and 120 ng/mL h and given over a protracted schedule (i.e., 10 days). Four mathematical models describing topotecan pharmacokinetics, tumor growth, and neutrophil and platelet dynamics were developed. The models were combined to simulate and compare different topotecan treatment strategies with respect to systemic exposure and schedule. RESULTS: The median change in tumor volume was significantly different between schedules (5% increase for D x 5 versus 60% decrease for D x 5 x 2; P < 0.0001) when administering the same total systemic exposure. Whereas protracted schedules showed increased neutropenia (median of 7 versus 12 days below an absolute neutrophil count of 500/microL; P < 0.0001) and thrombocytopenia (median of 3 versus 10 days below a platelet count of 20,000/microL; P < 0.00001), simulations showed that delays in topotecan therapy would not be required. Simulations showed that an increase in topotecan exposure on the D x 5 schedule by 2.4-fold resulted in a modest decrease in tumor volume (i.e., median percentage change tumor volume of 24% versus 3%). CONCLUSIONS: The present mathematical model gave an innovative approach to determining relevant topotecan schedules for possible evaluation in the clinic, which could lead to improved tumor response with minimized toxicities.
PURPOSE: The study aims to use mathematical modeling and simulation to assess the relative contribution of topotecan systemic exposure and scheduling in the activity and myelosuppression of topotecan in pediatric patients with neuroblastoma. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data were obtained from a phase II study for pediatric patients with high-risk neuroblastoma. The topotecan dosage was individualized to attain a topotecan lactone area under the plasma concentration-time curve between 80 and 120 ng/mL h and given over a protracted schedule (i.e., 10 days). Four mathematical models describing topotecan pharmacokinetics, tumor growth, and neutrophil and platelet dynamics were developed. The models were combined to simulate and compare different topotecan treatment strategies with respect to systemic exposure and schedule. RESULTS: The median change in tumor volume was significantly different between schedules (5% increase for D x 5 versus 60% decrease for D x 5 x 2; P < 0.0001) when administering the same total systemic exposure. Whereas protracted schedules showed increased neutropenia (median of 7 versus 12 days below an absolute neutrophil count of 500/microL; P < 0.0001) and thrombocytopenia (median of 3 versus 10 days below a platelet count of 20,000/microL; P < 0.00001), simulations showed that delays in topotecan therapy would not be required. Simulations showed that an increase in topotecan exposure on the D x 5 schedule by 2.4-fold resulted in a modest decrease in tumor volume (i.e., median percentage change tumor volume of 24% versus 3%). CONCLUSIONS: The present mathematical model gave an innovative approach to determining relevant topotecan schedules for possible evaluation in the clinic, which could lead to improved tumor response with minimized toxicities.
Authors: Julie R Park; Jeffrey R Scott; Clinton F Stewart; Wendy B London; Arlene Naranjo; Victor M Santana; Peter J Shaw; Susan L Cohn; Katherine K Matthay Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-10-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Belén P Solans; Robert Chiesa; Bilyana Doncheva; Helen Prunty; Paul Veys; Iñaki F Trocóniz; Joseph F Standing Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2020-03-03 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: K A Kasow; C F Stewart; R C Barfield; N L Wright; C Li; D K Srivastava; W Leung; E M Horwitz; L C Bowman; R Handgretinger; G A Hale Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2012-03-19 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: Johan G C van Hasselt; Natasha K A van Eijkelenburg; Jos H Beijnen; Jan H M Schellens; Alwin D R Huitema Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Mario González-Sales; Belén Valenzuela; Carlos Pérez-Ruixo; Carlos Fernández Teruel; Bernardo Miguel-Lillo; Arturo Soto-Matos; Juan Jose Pérez-Ruixo Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: Mary F McGuire; Heiko Enderling; Dorothy I Wallace; Jaspreet Batra; Marie Jordan; Sushil Kumar; John C Panetta; Eddy Pasquier Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2013-08-16 Impact factor: 12.701