Literature DB >> 2143234

Pharmacologically guided phase I clinical trials based upon preclinical drug development.

J M Collins1, C K Grieshaber, B A Chabner.   

Abstract

Since our original proposal 4 years ago, considerable support has evolved for the concept of pharmacologically guided dose escalation in phase I clinical trials with new anticancer drugs. The original focus has been broadened to develop additional links between preclinical testing and phase I clinical trials. Recent experiences with very lengthy phase I trials for at least eight drugs have provided particular impetus for this project. The original pharmacodynamic hypothesis for the proposal was equal toxicity at equal plasma levels. Specifically, two facets of the concept were that (a) dose-limiting toxicity correlates with, and in turn is predicted by, drug concentrations in plasma and (b) that the quantitative relationship between toxicity and drug exposure, as measured by plasma drug concentration times time (C x T), holds across species. If true, this hypothesis would suggest that dose escalations in humans could be safely based on measurement of drug levels in plasma, rather than on empirical escalation schemes. In addition to the collection of a larger retrospective data base to validate this hypothesis, practical results have already been achieved. In two studies sponsored by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the escalation pattern was prospectively modified on the basis of measurements of drug levels in plasma. In addition, for three NCI-sponsored drugs, more careful matching of schedules between clinical and preclinical testing produced entry doses that were up to 25 times higher than doses used in standard procedures. Consequently, the phase I trials for each drug were completed with a savings of 12-24 months. As a result of work in both the United States and Europe, a substantial collection of data now demonstrates that coordination with preclinical pharmacology and toxicology studies can save both time and resources in early clinical trials without a loss of safety.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2143234     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/82.16.1321

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  35 in total

Review 1.  Optimizing the science of drug development: opportunities for better candidate selection and accelerated evaluation in humans.

Authors:  L J Lesko; M Rowland; C C Peck; T F Blaschke
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.200

Review 2.  Clinical trial design for target specific anticancer agents.

Authors:  Ronald Hoekstra; Jaap Verweij; Ferry A L M Eskens
Journal:  Invest New Drugs       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.850

Review 3.  Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic guided trial design in oncology.

Authors:  Ch van Kesteren; R A A Mathôt; J H Beijnen; J H M Schellens
Journal:  Invest New Drugs       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.850

Review 4.  Mechanistic models for myelosuppression.

Authors:  Lena E Friberg; Mats O Karlsson
Journal:  Invest New Drugs       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.850

Review 5.  Choice of starting dose and escalation for phase I studies of antitumor agents.

Authors:  J S Penta; G L Rosner; D L Trump
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 3.333

Review 6.  Current challenges for the early clinical development of anticancer drugs in the era of molecularly targeted agents.

Authors:  Christophe Le Tourneau; Véronique Diéras; Patricia Tresca; Wulfran Cacheux; Xavier Paoletti
Journal:  Target Oncol       Date:  2010-04-02       Impact factor: 4.493

7.  Predictors for establishing recommended phase 2 doses: analysis of 320 dose-seeking oncology phase 1 trials.

Authors:  Nicolas Penel; Alain Duhamel; Antoine Adenis; Patrick Devos; Nicolas Isambert; Stéphanie Clisant; Jacques Bonneterre
Journal:  Invest New Drugs       Date:  2010-11-04       Impact factor: 3.850

Review 8.  Do anticancer agents reach the tumor target in the human brain?

Authors:  M G Donelli; M Zucchetti; M D'Incalci
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 3.333

9.  An interface model for dosage adjustment connects hematotoxicity to pharmacokinetics.

Authors:  C Meille; A Iliadis; D Barbolosi; N Frances; G Freyer
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2008-12-24       Impact factor: 2.745

10.  In vitro characterization of the myelotoxicity of cyclopentenyl cytosine.

Authors:  D A Volpe; D L Du; C K Grieshaber; M J Murphy
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 3.333

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.