BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of gynaecological cancer-related death in Western countries. Intraperitoneal (IP) peroperative chemotherapy is an interesting therapeutic option. However, very few data are available regarding pharmacokinetics and especially population pharmacokinetics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-one patients with advanced epithelial cancer classified as International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IIIC were included in the study. Blood and IP samples were taken over a 24-hour period during and after IP treatment. Both total and ultrafiltered (Uf) platinum (Pt) concentrations were analysed using a population approach with nonlinear mixed-effects modelling (NONMEM) software. Improvement of the model with covariates was performed as well as assessment of the model using bootstrap and posterior visual predictive methods. RESULTS: Both IP fluid and serum pharmacokinetics were satisfactorily described with a three-compartment model for both Uf Pt and total Pt concentrations. The covariates were bodyweight for the IP volume of distribution in the Uf Pt model, and both IP and serum protein concentrations for the clearance from the central compartment in the total Pt model. A nomogram, based on the results of the Monte Carlo simulations, displays a dose recommendation regarding both the risk of renal toxicity and the potent efficacy of the treatment. A limited sampling strategy (LSS) allowing the estimation of potential risk of renal toxicity is also described. CONCLUSION: The pharmacokinetics of cisplatin during peroperative IP chemotherapy could be successfully fitted with the present model, which allowed a dosing strategy accompanied by an LSS to facilitate the follow-up of patients.
BACKGROUND:Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of gynaecological cancer-related death in Western countries. Intraperitoneal (IP) peroperative chemotherapy is an interesting therapeutic option. However, very few data are available regarding pharmacokinetics and especially population pharmacokinetics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-one patients with advanced epithelial cancer classified as International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IIIC were included in the study. Blood and IP samples were taken over a 24-hour period during and after IP treatment. Both total and ultrafiltered (Uf) platinum (Pt) concentrations were analysed using a population approach with nonlinear mixed-effects modelling (NONMEM) software. Improvement of the model with covariates was performed as well as assessment of the model using bootstrap and posterior visual predictive methods. RESULTS: Both IP fluid and serum pharmacokinetics were satisfactorily described with a three-compartment model for both Uf Pt and total Pt concentrations. The covariates were bodyweight for the IP volume of distribution in the Uf Pt model, and both IP and serum protein concentrations for the clearance from the central compartment in the total Pt model. A nomogram, based on the results of the Monte Carlo simulations, displays a dose recommendation regarding both the risk of renal toxicity and the potent efficacy of the treatment. A limited sampling strategy (LSS) allowing the estimation of potential risk of renal toxicity is also described. CONCLUSION: The pharmacokinetics of cisplatin during peroperative IP chemotherapy could be successfully fitted with the present model, which allowed a dosing strategy accompanied by an LSS to facilitate the follow-up of patients.
Authors: Marc T Goodman; Holly L Howe; Ko Hui Tung; Joellyn Hotes; Barry A Miller; Steven S Coughlin; Vivien W Chen Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Syed A Ahmad; Joseph Kim; Jeffrey J Sussman; Debbie A Soldano; Linda J Pennington; Laura E James; Andrew M Lowy Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: M Quinn; E Avall-Lundqvist; A du Bois; J Vermorken; M Parmar; J Pfisterer; G Stuart; T Thigpen; J Neijt Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2005 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Carlo R Rossi; Mirto Foletto; Simone Mocellin; Pierluigi Pilati; Simone Michele De; Marcello Deraco; Francesco Cavaliere; Pietro Palatini; Fabiola Guasti; Romano Scalerta; Mario Lise Journal: Cancer Date: 2002-01-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Bruno Chauffert; Patrick Favoulet; Emmanuel Polycarpe; Christian Duvillard; Jean-Luc Beltramo; Francis Bichat; Patrick Rat; Philippe Genne; Laurent Benoit Journal: Surg Oncol Clin N Am Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 3.495
Authors: Felix E de Jongh; James M Gallo; Meiyu Shen; Jaap Verweij; Alex Sparreboom Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2004-04-30 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: E Chatelut; A V Boddy; B Peng; H Rubie; M Lavit; A Dezeuze; A D Pearson; H Roché; A Robert; D R Newell; P Canal Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 1996-04 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: B Royer; E Kalbacher; S Onteniente; V Jullien; D Montange; S Piedoux; A Thiery-Vuillemin; D Delroeux; S Pili-Floury; E Guardiola; M Combe; P Muret; V Nerich; B Heyd; B Chauffert; J-P Kantelip; X Pivot Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2011-12-15 Impact factor: 7.640