BACKGROUND: Dactinomycin (AMD) and vincristine (VCR) have been used for the treatment of childhood cancer over the past 40 years but evidence-based dosing guidance is lacking. METHODS: Patient AMD and VCR dose and drug-related adverse event (AE) information from four rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) and two Wilms tumor (WT) studies were assembled. Statistical modeling was used to account for differences in AE data collection across studies, develop rate models for grade 3/4 CTCAE v3 hepatic- (AMD) and neuro- (VCR) toxicity, assess variation in toxicity rates over age and other factors, and predict toxicity risk under current dosing guidelines. RESULTS: For the same dose/body size, AMD toxicity rates were higher in patients <1 year than older patients and VCR toxicity rates increased with age. The statistical model provided estimates for AMD and VCR toxicity risk under current dosing schedules and indicated that patients of smaller body size were at lower risk of VCR toxicity than larger patients of the same age. The rate of AMD toxicity was highest early in treatment and was lower in patients who tolerated initial AMD without toxicity. CONCLUSION: The observed decrease in AMD toxicity rate with cumulative dose may indicate sensitivity in a subgroup of patients while the observed increase in VCR toxicity risk with age may indicate changing sensitivity to VCR. Current dosing practices result in a fairly uniform toxicity profile within age group. However, PK/PD studies should be done to provide further provide further information on best dosing guidelines.
BACKGROUND:Dactinomycin (AMD) and vincristine (VCR) have been used for the treatment of childhood cancer over the past 40 years but evidence-based dosing guidance is lacking. METHODS:PatientAMD and VCR dose and drug-related adverse event (AE) information from four rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) and two Wilms tumor (WT) studies were assembled. Statistical modeling was used to account for differences in AE data collection across studies, develop rate models for grade 3/4 CTCAE v3 hepatic- (AMD) and neuro- (VCR) toxicity, assess variation in toxicity rates over age and other factors, and predict toxicity risk under current dosing guidelines. RESULTS: For the same dose/body size, AMD toxicity rates were higher in patients <1 year than older patients and VCR toxicity rates increased with age. The statistical model provided estimates for AMD and VCR toxicity risk under current dosing schedules and indicated that patients of smaller body size were at lower risk of VCR toxicity than larger patients of the same age. The rate of AMD toxicity was highest early in treatment and was lower in patients who tolerated initial AMD without toxicity. CONCLUSION: The observed decrease in AMD toxicity rate with cumulative dose may indicate sensitivity in a subgroup of patients while the observed increase in VCR toxicity risk with age may indicate changing sensitivity to VCR. Current dosing practices result in a fairly uniform toxicity profile within age group. However, PK/PD studies should be done to provide further provide further information on best dosing guidelines.
Authors: Gareth J Veal; Michael Cole; Julie Errington; Annie Parry; Juliet Hale; Andrew D J Pearson; Karen Howe; Julia C Chisholm; Carol Beane; Bernadette Brennan; Fiona Waters; Adam Glaser; Sue Hemsworth; Heather McDowell; Yvonne Wright; Kathy Pritchard-Jones; Ross Pinkerton; Gail Jenner; James Nicholson; Ann M Elsworth; Alan V Boddy Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2005-08-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: D M Green; N E Breslow; J B Beckwith; J Z Finklestein; P Grundy; P R Thomas; T Kim; S Shochat; G Haase; M Ritchey; P Kelalis; G J D'Angio Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: W M Crist; J R Anderson; J L Meza; C Fryer; R B Raney; F B Ruymann; J Breneman; S J Qualman; E Wiener; M Wharam; T Lobe; B Webber; H M Maurer; S S Donaldson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-06-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: D M Green; N E Breslow; J B Beckwith; J Z Finklestein; P E Grundy; P R Thomas; T Kim; S J Shochat; G M Haase; M L Ritchey; P P Kelalis; G J D'Angio Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jennifer B Dennison; Palaniappan Kulanthaivel; Robert J Barbuch; Jamie L Renbarger; William J Ehlhardt; Stephen D Hall Journal: Drug Metab Dispos Date: 2006-05-05 Impact factor: 3.922
Authors: B M Frost; G Lönnerholm; P Koopmans; J Abrahamsson; M Behrendtz; A Castor; E Forestier; D R A Uges; S S N de Graaf Journal: Acta Paediatr Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 2.299
Authors: John T Mondick; Leonid Gibiansky; Marc R Gastonguay; Jeffrey M Skolnik; Michael Cole; Gareth J Veal; Alan V Boddy; Peter C Adamson; Jeffrey S Barrett Journal: J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 3.126
Authors: Charissa T Jagt; Michelle Zuckermann; Fibo Ten Kate; Jan A J M Taminiau; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; Hugo Heij; Jan De Kraker; Arnauld C Verschuur Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2009-12-15 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Alena Y Z Edwards; Jeffrey M Skolnik; Erin Dombrowsky; Dimple Patel; Jeffrey S Barrett Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2012-05-24 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Ellen M Lavoie Smith; Clare Kuisell; Grace A Kanzawa-Lee; Celia M Bridges; Paola Alberti; Guido Cavaletti; Rima Saad; Susanna Park Journal: Lancet Haematol Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 18.959
Authors: Abha A Gupta; James R Anderson; Alberto S Pappo; Sheri L Spunt; Roshni Dasgupta; Daniel J Indelicato; Douglas S Hawkins Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-07-14 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Christopher R Hill; Michael Cole; Julie Errington; Ghada Malik; Alan V Boddy; Gareth J Veal Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: Kellie J Nazemi; Violet Shen; Jonathan L Finlay; James Boyett; Mehmet Kocak; Deborah Lafond; Sharon L Gardner; Roger J Packer; H Stacy Nicholson Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2016-05-20 Impact factor: 3.167