BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Despite its important role in cancer treatment, there is currently very limited available information concerning the clinical pharmacology of actinomycin D (Act D). The study was designed to characterise Act D pharmacokinetics and investigate the impact of pharmacogenetic variation on Act D disposition in children with cancer. METHODS: A total of 650 plasma samples collected over an 8 year period from 117 patients ≤21 years receiving Act D (0.4-1.6 mg/m(2)) were used to characterise a population pharmacokinetic model. Polymorphisms in ABCB1 were analysed in 140 patients. RESULTS: A 3-compartment model provided a good fit to the data. Median values for Act D clearance and volume of distribution in the central compartment (V 1) obtained from the model were 5.3 L/h and 1.9 L (13.9 L/h/70 kg and 7.5 L/70 kg), respectively. There was substantial inter-subject variation in all pharmacokinetic parameters (coefficients of variation 53-81 % for non-normalised values). Body weight was a major determinant of Act D clearance, such that dose capping at 2 mg in larger children at a protocol dose of 1.5 mg/m(2) resulted in significantly lower area under the plasma concentration-time curves (mean AUC values: 9.3 versus 12.8 mg·min/L; P < 0.0001). No significant relationships were found between ABCB1 genetic variants and Act D pharmacokinetic parameters, nor between CL, V 1 or dose and incidence of grade 3 or 4 toxicity. CONCLUSION: We have defined the pharmacokinetics of Act D in a paediatric patient population, providing robust estimates of key pharmacokinetic parameters. Pharmacokinetic data bring into question the current clinical practice of dose capping at 2 mg in larger patients. Pharmacogenetic variation in candidate drug transporter genes identified from preclinical studies does not significantly impact on Act D exposure in a clinical setting.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Despite its important role in cancer treatment, there is currently very limited available information concerning the clinical pharmacology of actinomycin D (Act D). The study was designed to characterise Act D pharmacokinetics and investigate the impact of pharmacogenetic variation on Act D disposition in children with cancer. METHODS: A total of 650 plasma samples collected over an 8 year period from 117 patients ≤21 years receiving Act D (0.4-1.6 mg/m(2)) were used to characterise a population pharmacokinetic model. Polymorphisms in ABCB1 were analysed in 140 patients. RESULTS: A 3-compartment model provided a good fit to the data. Median values for Act D clearance and volume of distribution in the central compartment (V 1) obtained from the model were 5.3 L/h and 1.9 L (13.9 L/h/70 kg and 7.5 L/70 kg), respectively. There was substantial inter-subject variation in all pharmacokinetic parameters (coefficients of variation 53-81 % for non-normalised values). Body weight was a major determinant of Act D clearance, such that dose capping at 2 mg in larger children at a protocol dose of 1.5 mg/m(2) resulted in significantly lower area under the plasma concentration-time curves (mean AUC values: 9.3 versus 12.8 mg·min/L; P < 0.0001). No significant relationships were found between ABCB1 genetic variants and Act D pharmacokinetic parameters, nor between CL, V 1 or dose and incidence of grade 3 or 4 toxicity. CONCLUSION: We have defined the pharmacokinetics of Act D in a paediatric patient population, providing robust estimates of key pharmacokinetic parameters. Pharmacokinetic data bring into question the current clinical practice of dose capping at 2 mg in larger patients. Pharmacogenetic variation in candidate drug transporter genes identified from preclinical studies does not significantly impact on Act D exposure in a clinical setting.
Authors: Anne-Joy M de Graan; Cynthia S Lancaster; Amanda Obaidat; Bruno Hagenbuch; Laure Elens; Lena E Friberg; Peter de Bruijn; Shuiying Hu; Alice A Gibson; Gitte H Bruun; Thomas J Corydon; Torben S Mikkelsen; Aisha L Walker; Guoqing Du; Walter J Loos; Ron H N van Schaik; Sharyn D Baker; Ron H J Mathijssen; Alex Sparreboom Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-06-18 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Ron H J Mathijssen; Sharon Marsh; Mats O Karlsson; Rujia Xie; Sharyn D Baker; Jaap Verweij; Alex Sparreboom; Howard L McLeod Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2003-08-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: S Hoffmeyer; O Burk; O von Richter; H P Arnold; J Brockmöller; A Johne; I Cascorbi; T Gerloff; I Roots; M Eichelbaum; U Brinkmann Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2000-03-28 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Christopher R Hill; David Jamieson; Huw D Thomas; Colin D A Brown; Alan V Boddy; Gareth J Veal Journal: Biochem Pharmacol Date: 2012-10-11 Impact factor: 5.858
Authors: Ruth B Siboni; Masayuki Nakamori; Stacey D Wagner; Adam J Struck; Leslie A Coonrod; Shanee A Harriott; Daniel M Cass; Matthew K Tanner; J Andrew Berglund Journal: Cell Rep Date: 2015-12-10 Impact factor: 9.423
Authors: Jeffrey Skolnik; David Hall; Donald A Barkauskas; Ganesh Moorthy; Thomas R Larson; Elizabeth Fox; Brenda J Weigel; Stacey L Berg; Joel M Reid Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2021-05-22 Impact factor: 3.288
Authors: Christopher Walsh; Jennifer J Bonner; Trevor N Johnson; Sibylle Neuhoff; Essam A Ghazaly; John G Gribben; Alan V Boddy; Gareth J Veal Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2016-02-25 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Constanza L Cortes; Sonia R Veiga; Eugènia Almacellas; Javier Hernández-Losa; Joan C Ferreres; Sara C Kozma; Santiago Ambrosio; George Thomas; Albert Tauler Journal: Mol Cancer Date: 2016-01-04 Impact factor: 27.401
Authors: Gareth J Veal; Michael Cole; Girish Chinnaswamy; Julieann Sludden; David Jamieson; Julie Errington; Ghada Malik; Christopher R Hill; Thomas Chamberlain; Alan V Boddy Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 9.162