Literature DB >> 19902363

Comparison of two pharmacodynamic transduction models for the analysis of tumor therapeutic responses in model systems.

Jun Yang1, Donald E Mager, Robert M Straubinger.   

Abstract

Semi-mechanistic pharmacodynamic (PD) models that capture tumor responses to anticancer agents with fidelity can provide valuable insights that could aid in the optimization of dosing regimens and the development of drug delivery strategies. This study evaluated the utility and potential interchangeability of two transduction-type PD models: a cell distribution model (CDM) and a signal distribution model (SDM). The evaluation was performed by simulating dense and sparse tumor response data with one model and analyzing it using the other. Performance was scored by visual inspection and precision of parameter estimation. Capture of tumor response data was also evaluated for a liposomal formulation of paclitaxel in the paclitaxel-resistant murine Colon-26 model. A suitable PK model was developed by simultaneous fitting of literature data for paclitaxel formulations in mice. Analysis of the simulated tumor response data revealed that the SDM was more flexible in describing delayed drug effects upon tumor volume progression. Dense and sparse data simulated using the CDM were fit very well by the SDM, but under some conditions, data simulated using the SDM were fitted poorly by the CDM. Although both models described the dose-dependent therapeutic responses of Colon-26 tumors, the fit by the SDM contained less bias. The CDM and SDM are both useful transduction models that recapitulate, with fidelity, delayed drug effects upon tumor growth. However, they are mechanistically distinct and not interchangeable. Both fit some types of tumor growth data well, but the SDM appeared more robust, particularly where experimental data are sparse.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19902363      PMCID: PMC2811636          DOI: 10.1208/s12248-009-9155-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AAPS J        ISSN: 1550-7416            Impact factor:   4.009


  33 in total

1.  Sensitivity analysis of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic systems: I. A structural approach to sensitivity analysis of physiologically based pharmacokinetic models.

Authors:  I A Nestorov
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1999-12

2.  Role of dosage regimen in controlling indirect pharmacodynamic responses.

Authors: 
Journal:  Adv Drug Deliv Rev       Date:  1998-09-07       Impact factor: 15.470

3.  Numerical validation and properties of a rapid binding approximation of a target-mediated drug disposition pharmacokinetic model.

Authors:  Anshu Marathe; Wojciech Krzyzanski; Donald E Mager
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2009-05-12       Impact factor: 2.745

4.  Transit compartments versus gamma distribution function to model signal transduction processes in pharmacodynamics.

Authors:  Y N Sun; W J Jusko
Journal:  J Pharm Sci       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 3.534

5.  Comparative pharmacokinetics of unbound paclitaxel during 1- and 3-hour infusions.

Authors:  Hans Gelderblom; Klaus Mross; Albert J ten Tije; Dirk Behringer; Stephan Mielke; Desirée M van Zomeren; Jaap Verweij; Alex Sparreboom
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2002-01-15       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Comparative in vivo studies with paclitaxel and liposome-encapsulated paclitaxel.

Authors:  A Cabanes; K E Briggs; P C Gokhale; J A Treat; A Rahman
Journal:  Int J Oncol       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 5.650

7.  Mechanism-based pharmacokinetic model for paclitaxel.

Authors:  A Henningsson; M O Karlsson; L Viganò; L Gianni; J Verweij; A Sparreboom
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2001-10-15       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  A mathematical model to study the effects of drugs administration on tumor growth dynamics.

Authors:  P Magni; M Simeoni; I Poggesi; M Rocchetti; G De Nicolao
Journal:  Math Biosci       Date:  2006-03-03       Impact factor: 2.144

9.  High-performance liquid chromatographic assay for taxol in human plasma and urine and pharmacokinetics in a phase I trial.

Authors:  S M Longnecker; R C Donehower; A E Cates; T L Chen; R B Brundrett; L B Grochow; D S Ettinger; M Colvin
Journal:  Cancer Treat Rep       Date:  1987-01

10.  Antitumor effect of taxol-containing liposomes in a taxol-resistant murine tumor model.

Authors:  A Sharma; E Mayhew; R M Straubinger
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1993-12-15       Impact factor: 12.701

View more
  25 in total

1.  Comparative performance of cell life span and cell transit models for describing erythropoietic drug effects.

Authors:  Nageshwar R Budha; Andreas Kovar; Bernd Meibohm
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 4.009

2.  Biomarker- versus drug-driven tumor growth inhibition models: an equivalence analysis.

Authors:  Maria Luisa Sardu; Italo Poggesi; Giuseppe De Nicolao
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2015-07-26       Impact factor: 2.745

3.  Model-based assessment of erlotinib effect in vitro measured by real-time cell analysis.

Authors:  Stephan Benay; Christophe Meille; Stefan Kustermann; Isabelle Walter; Antje Walz; P Alexis Gonsard; Elina Pietilae; Nicole Kratochwil; Athanassios Iliadis; Adrian Roth; Thierry Lave
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2015-03-31       Impact factor: 2.745

4.  Establishing in vitro-in vivo correlation for antibody drug conjugate efficacy: a PK/PD modeling approach.

Authors:  Dhaval K Shah; Frank Loganzo; Nahor Haddish-Berhane; Sylvia Musto; Hallie S Wald; Frank Barletta; Judy Lucas; Tracey Clark; Steve Hansel; Alison Betts
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2018-02-08       Impact factor: 2.745

5.  Quantitative modeling of the dynamics and intracellular trafficking of far-red light-activatable prodrugs: implications in stimuli-responsive drug delivery system.

Authors:  Mengjie Li; Pritam Thapa; Pallavi Rajaputra; Moses Bio; Cody J Peer; William D Figg; Youngjae You; Sukyung Woo
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2017-09-14       Impact factor: 2.745

6.  Evolution of the Systems Pharmacokinetics-Pharmacodynamics Model for Antibody-Drug Conjugates to Characterize Tumor Heterogeneity and In Vivo Bystander Effect.

Authors:  Aman P Singh; Gail M Seigel; Leiming Guo; Ashwni Verma; Gloria Gao-Li Wong; Hsuan-Ping Cheng; Dhaval K Shah
Journal:  J Pharmacol Exp Ther       Date:  2020-04-09       Impact factor: 4.030

7.  Bench to bedside translation of antibody drug conjugates using a multiscale mechanistic PK/PD model: a case study with brentuximab-vedotin.

Authors:  Dhaval K Shah; Nahor Haddish-Berhane; Alison Betts
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2012-11-15       Impact factor: 2.745

8.  Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of the antitumor effect of TM208 and EGFR-TKI resistance in human breast cancer xenograft mice.

Authors:  Xi-Wei Ji; Shuang-Min Ji; Run-Tao Li; Ke-Hua Wu; Xiao Zhu; Wei Lu; Tian-Yan Zhou
Journal:  Acta Pharmacol Sin       Date:  2016-05-02       Impact factor: 6.150

9.  Preclinical pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic models to predict schedule-dependent interaction between erlotinib and gemcitabine.

Authors:  Mengyao Li; Hanqing Li; Xiaoliang Cheng; Xipei Wang; Liang Li; Tianyan Zhou; Wei Lu
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2013-01-24       Impact factor: 4.200

Review 10.  Moving from basic toward systems pharmacodynamic models.

Authors:  William J Jusko
Journal:  J Pharm Sci       Date:  2013-05-16       Impact factor: 3.534

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.