BACKGROUND: In the clinical development of oncology drugs, the recommended dose is usually determined using a 3 + 3 dose-escalation study design. However, this phase I design does not always adequately describe dose-toxicity relationships. METHODS: 125 patients, with either solid tumours or lymphoma, were included in the study and 1217 platelet counts were available over three treatment cycles. The data was used to build a population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PKPD) model using a sequential modeling approach. Model-derived Recommended Doses (MDRD) of abexinostat (a Histone Deacetylase Inhibitor) were determined from simulations of different administration schedules, and the higher bound for the probability of reaching these MDRD with a 3 + 3 design were obtained. RESULTS: The PKPD model developed adequately described platelet kinetics in both patient populations with the inclusion of two platelet baseline counts and a disease progression component for patients with lymphoma. Simulation results demonstrated that abexinostat administration during the first 4 days of each week in a 3-week cycle led to a higher MDRD compared to the other administration schedules tested, with a maximum probability of 40 % of reaching these MDRDs using a 3 + 3 design. CONCLUSIONS: The PKPD model was able to predict thrombocytopenia following abexinostat administration in both patient populations. A model-based approach to determine the recommended dose in phase I trials is preferable due to the imprecision of the 3 + 3 design.
BACKGROUND: In the clinical development of oncology drugs, the recommended dose is usually determined using a 3 + 3 dose-escalation study design. However, this phase I design does not always adequately describe dose-toxicity relationships. METHODS: 125 patients, with either solid tumours or lymphoma, were included in the study and 1217 platelet counts were available over three treatment cycles. The data was used to build a population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PKPD) model using a sequential modeling approach. Model-derived Recommended Doses (MDRD) of abexinostat (a Histone Deacetylase Inhibitor) were determined from simulations of different administration schedules, and the higher bound for the probability of reaching these MDRD with a 3 + 3 design were obtained. RESULTS: The PKPD model developed adequately described platelet kinetics in both patient populations with the inclusion of two platelet baseline counts and a disease progression component for patients with lymphoma. Simulation results demonstrated that abexinostat administration during the first 4 days of each week in a 3-week cycle led to a higher MDRD compared to the other administration schedules tested, with a maximum probability of 40 % of reaching these MDRDs using a 3 + 3 design. CONCLUSIONS: The PKPD model was able to predict thrombocytopenia following abexinostat administration in both patient populations. A model-based approach to determine the recommended dose in phase I trials is preferable due to the imprecision of the 3 + 3 design.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Charlotte van Kesteren; Anthe S Zandvliet; Mats O Karlsson; Ron A A Mathôt; Cornelis J A Punt; Jean-Pierre Armand; Eric Raymond; Alwin D R Huitema; Christian Dittrich; Herlinde Dumez; Henri H Roché; Jean-Pierre Droz; Miroslav Ravic; S Murray Yule; Jantien Wanders; Jos H Beijnen; Pierre Fumoleau; Jan H M Schellens Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: Mark J Bishton; Simon J Harrison; Benjamin P Martin; Nicole McLaughlin; Chloé James; Emma C Josefsson; Katya J Henley; Benjamin T Kile; H Miles Prince; Ricky W Johnstone Journal: Blood Date: 2011-02-03 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: A Ali; O Bluteau; K Messaoudi; A Palazzo; S Boukour; L Lordier; Y Lecluse; P Rameau; L Kraus-Berthier; A Jacquet-Bescond; H Lelièvre; S Depil; P Dessen; E Solary; H Raslova; W Vainchenker; I Plo; N Debili Journal: Cell Death Dis Date: 2013-07-25 Impact factor: 8.469
Authors: Antje-Christine Walz; Arthur J Van De Vyver; Li Yu; Marc R Birtwistle; Nevan J Krogan; Mehdi Bouhaddou Journal: Pharmacol Ther Date: 2022-02-18 Impact factor: 13.400
Authors: Daniel Moj; Hannah Britz; Jürgen Burhenne; Clinton F Stewart; Gerlinde Egerer; Walter E Haefeli; Thorsten Lehr Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2017-10-07 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: A H M de Vries Schultink; A A Suleiman; J H M Schellens; J H Beijnen; A D R Huitema Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 2.953