BACKGROUND: Ethnic differences in drug susceptibility and toxicity are a major concern, not only in drug development but also in the clinical setting. We review the toxicity profiles of docetaxel according to dose and ethnicity. METHODS: We analyzed phase II and III clinical trials that included a once-every-3-weeks single-agent docetaxel arm. Logistic regression analysis was applied to identify the significant variables affecting the reported incidence of docetaxel-induced severe neutropenia. RESULTS: Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified studies conducted in Asia [odds ratio (OR) 19.0; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 3.64-99.0] and docetaxel dose (OR 1.08; 95% CI 1.03-1.13) as independent variables for the incidence of grade 3/4 neutropenia. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant difference in the incidence of docetaxel-induced severe neutropenia between Asian and non-Asian clinical studies. Physicians and pharmacists should consider ethnic diversity in docetaxel toxicity when interpreting the results of clinical trials.
BACKGROUND: Ethnic differences in drug susceptibility and toxicity are a major concern, not only in drug development but also in the clinical setting. We review the toxicity profiles of docetaxel according to dose and ethnicity. METHODS: We analyzed phase II and III clinical trials that included a once-every-3-weeks single-agent docetaxel arm. Logistic regression analysis was applied to identify the significant variables affecting the reported incidence of docetaxel-induced severe neutropenia. RESULTS: Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified studies conducted in Asia [odds ratio (OR) 19.0; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 3.64-99.0] and docetaxel dose (OR 1.08; 95% CI 1.03-1.13) as independent variables for the incidence of grade 3/4 neutropenia. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant difference in the incidence of docetaxel-induced severe neutropenia between Asian and non-Asian clinical studies. Physicians and pharmacists should consider ethnic diversity in docetaxeltoxicity when interpreting the results of clinical trials.
Authors: P Fumoleau; B Chevallier; P Kerbrat; Y Krakowski; J L Misset; C Maugard-Louboutin; V Dieras; N Azli; N Bougon; A Riva; H Roche Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 1996-02 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: D A Vorobiof; B L Rapoport; M R Chasen; R P Abratt; N Cronje; L Fourie; G McMichael; D Hacking Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: S Chan; K Friedrichs; D Noel; T Pintér; S Van Belle; D Vorobiof; R Duarte; M Gil Gil; I Bodrogi; E Murray; L Yelle; G von Minckwitz; S Korec; P Simmonds; F Buzzi; R González Mancha; G Richardson; E Walpole; M Ronzoni; M Murawsky; M Alakl; A Riva; J Crown Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Y Inuyama; A Kataura; K Togawa; S Saijo; B Satake; S Takeoda; A Konno; S Ebihara; Y Sasaki; A Kida; J Kanzaki; G Ichikawa; N Kono; H Moriyama; S Kamata; H Miyake; M Sakai; M Horiuchi; A Kubota; M Tsukuda; H Matsuura; S Baba; H Saito; T Matsunaga; T Taguchi Journal: Gan To Kagaku Ryoho Date: 1999-01
Authors: Suzanne Jones; Dana Thompson; John Barton; Jeff Patton; Dianna Shipley; F Anthony Greco; David Spigel; Jeff Infante; Howard A Burris Journal: Clin Lung Cancer Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 4.785
Authors: K Takeda; S Negoro; T Tamura; Y Nishiwaki; S Kudoh; S Yokota; K Matsui; H Semba; K Nakagawa; Y Takada; M Ando; T Shibata; N Saijo Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2009-01-22 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: K H Park; S Lee; J H Park; S Y Kang; H Y Kim; I H Park; Y H Park; Y H Im; H J Lee; S Park; S I Lee; K H Jung; Y S Kim; Jae Hong Seo Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 3.603