AIM: There is no consensus regarding optimal dosing of high dose methotrexate (HDMTX) in patients with primary CNS lymphoma. Our aim was to develop a convenient dosing algorithm to target AUC(MTX) in the range between 1000 and 1100 µmol l(-1) h. METHODS: A population covariate model from a pooled dataset of 131 patients receivingHDMTX was used to simulate concentration-time curves of 10,000 patients and test the efficacy of a dosing algorithm based on 24 h MTX plasma concentrations to target the prespecified AUC(MTX) . These data simulations included interindividual, interoccasion and residual unidentified variability. Patients received a total of four simulated cycles of HDMTX and adjusted MTX dosages were given for cycles two to four. RESULTS: The dosing algorithm proposes MTX dose adaptations ranging from +75% in patients with MTX C(24) < 0.5 µmol l(-1) up to -35% in patients with MTX C(24) > 12 µmol l(-1). The proposed dosing algorithm resulted in a marked improvement of the proportion of patients within the AUC(MTX) target between 1000 and 1100 µmol l(-1) h (11% with standard MTX dose, 35% with the adjusted dose) and a marked reduction of the interindividual variability of MTX exposure. CONCLUSIONS: A simple and practical dosing algorithm for HDMTX has been developed based on MTX 24 h plasma concentrations, and its potential efficacy in improving the proportion of patients within a prespecified target AUC(MTX) and reducing the interindividual variability of MTX exposure has been shown by data simulations. The clinical benefit of this dosing algorithm should be assessed in patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL).
RCT Entities:
AIM: There is no consensus regarding optimal dosing of high dose methotrexate (HDMTX) in patients with primary CNS lymphoma. Our aim was to develop a convenient dosing algorithm to target AUC(MTX) in the range between 1000 and 1100 µmol l(-1) h. METHODS: A population covariate model from a pooled dataset of 131 patients receiving HDMTX was used to simulate concentration-time curves of 10,000 patients and test the efficacy of a dosing algorithm based on 24 h MTX plasma concentrations to target the prespecified AUC(MTX) . These data simulations included interindividual, interoccasion and residual unidentified variability. Patients received a total of four simulated cycles of HDMTX and adjusted MTX dosages were given for cycles two to four. RESULTS: The dosing algorithm proposes MTX dose adaptations ranging from +75% in patients with MTX C(24) < 0.5 µmol l(-1) up to -35% in patients with MTX C(24) > 12 µmol l(-1). The proposed dosing algorithm resulted in a marked improvement of the proportion of patients within the AUC(MTX) target between 1000 and 1100 µmol l(-1) h (11% with standard MTX dose, 35% with the adjusted dose) and a marked reduction of the interindividual variability of MTX exposure. CONCLUSIONS: A simple and practical dosing algorithm for HDMTX has been developed based on MTX 24 h plasma concentrations, and its potential efficacy in improving the proportion of patients within a prespecified target AUC(MTX) and reducing the interindividual variability of MTX exposure has been shown by data simulations. The clinical benefit of this dosing algorithm should be assessed in patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL).
Authors: Ulrich Herrlinger; Martin Schabet; Wolfram Brugger; Rolf-Dieter Kortmann; Wilhelm Küker; Martina Deckert; Corinna Engel; Hans-Jürgen Schmeck-Lindenau; Hans-Günther Mergenthaler; Peter Krauseneck; Christian Benöhr; Christoph Meisner; Otmar D Wiestler; Johannes Dichgans; Lothar Kanz; Michael Bamberg; Michael Weller Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Ulrich Herrlinger; Wilhelm Küker; Martin Uhl; Hans-Peter Blaicher; Hans-Otto Karnath; Lothar Kanz; Michael Bamberg; Michael Weller Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: S Hiraga; N Arita; T Ohnishi; E Kohmura; K Yamamoto; Y Oku; T Taki; M Sato; K Aozasa; T Yoshimine Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: B C Widemann; F M Balis; R F Murphy; J M Sorensen; M J Montello; M O'Brien; P C Adamson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1997-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A J M Ferreri; M Reni; F Pasini; A Calderoni; U Tirelli; A Pivnik; G M Aondio; F Ferrarese; H Gomez; M Ponzoni; B Borisch; F Berger; C Chassagne; P Iuzzolino; A Carbone; J Weis; E Pedrinis; T Motta; A Jouvet; T Barbui; F Cavalli; J Y Blay Journal: Neurology Date: 2002-05-28 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: M Joerger; A D R Huitema; H J G D van den Bongard; P Baas; J H Schornagel; J H M Schellens; J H Beijnen Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Mina Lobbous; L Burt Nabors; Andrew B DeAtkine; Moaaz Abdelrashid; Zach Tucker; Amitkumar Mehta; James M Markert; Jinsuh Kim; John B Fiveash; Robert A Oster Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Jason N Barreto; Joel M Reid; Carrie A Thompson; Kristin C Mara; Andrew D Rule; Kianoush B Kashani; Nelson Leung; Thomas R Larson; Renee M McGovern; Thomas E Witzig; Erin F Barreto Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2021-08-23 Impact factor: 4.689
Authors: Manjunath P Pai; Kenneth C Debacker; Brian Derstine; June Sullivan; Grace L Su; Stewart C Wang Journal: Pharmacotherapy Date: 2020-03-27 Impact factor: 4.705