PURPOSE: First, to evaluate the peritoneal (IP), plasma ultrafiltrated (UF) and protein-bound (B) pharmacokinetics (PK) of oxaliplatin after intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemoperfusion (HIPEC) following cytoreductive surgery. Second, to evaluate the relationship between oxaliplatin exposure and observed toxicity. METHODS: IP, UF, and B concentrations from 75 patients treated by 30-min oxaliplatin-based HIPEC procedures were analysed according to a pharmacokinetic modelling approach using NONMEM. Oxaliplatin was administered in a 5 % dextrose solution (2 L/m(2)) at 360 (n = 58) or 460 mg/m(2) (n = 17). The most frequently observed toxicities were related to the peritoneal, systemic exposures and to the parameters corresponding to the oxaliplatin absorption from peritoneal cavity into plasma. RESULTS: IP (n = 536), UF (n = 669) and B (n = 661) concentrations were simultaneously described according to a five-compartment PK model with irreversible nonlinear binding from UF to B according to a Michaelis-Menten equation. The mean (±SD) maximum fraction of dose absorbed and elimination half-life from the peritoneum was 53.7 % (±8.5) and 0.49 h (±0.1), respectively. The mean (±SD) ratio AUC(IP)/AUC(UF) was 5.3 (±2) confirming the pharmacokinetic advantage of the procedure. Haemoperitoneum (22.7 %), neuropathy (18.7 %), grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (13.3 %) were the most frequently reported toxicities. AUC(UF) accounts for approximately 12 % of the variation in the maximum percentage of platelet decrease (r = 0.35, p = 0.002). Thrombocytopenia was correlated with higher AUCUF, partly dependent on the extent and rate of oxaliplatin absorption. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a common dose administered, variability in peritoneal and systemic oxaliplatin exposures are observed, leading to differences in haematological toxicity between patients.
PURPOSE: First, to evaluate the peritoneal (IP), plasma ultrafiltrated (UF) and protein-bound (B) pharmacokinetics (PK) of oxaliplatin after intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemoperfusion (HIPEC) following cytoreductive surgery. Second, to evaluate the relationship between oxaliplatin exposure and observed toxicity. METHODS: IP, UF, and B concentrations from 75 patients treated by 30-min oxaliplatin-based HIPEC procedures were analysed according to a pharmacokinetic modelling approach using NONMEM. Oxaliplatin was administered in a 5 % dextrose solution (2 L/m(2)) at 360 (n = 58) or 460 mg/m(2) (n = 17). The most frequently observed toxicities were related to the peritoneal, systemic exposures and to the parameters corresponding to the oxaliplatin absorption from peritoneal cavity into plasma. RESULTS: IP (n = 536), UF (n = 669) and B (n = 661) concentrations were simultaneously described according to a five-compartment PK model with irreversible nonlinear binding from UF to B according to a Michaelis-Menten equation. The mean (±SD) maximum fraction of dose absorbed and elimination half-life from the peritoneum was 53.7 % (±8.5) and 0.49 h (±0.1), respectively. The mean (±SD) ratio AUC(IP)/AUC(UF) was 5.3 (±2) confirming the pharmacokinetic advantage of the procedure. Haemoperitoneum (22.7 %), neuropathy (18.7 %), grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (13.3 %) were the most frequently reported toxicities. AUC(UF) accounts for approximately 12 % of the variation in the maximum percentage of platelet decrease (r = 0.35, p = 0.002). Thrombocytopenia was correlated with higher AUCUF, partly dependent on the extent and rate of oxaliplatin absorption. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a common dose administered, variability in peritoneal and systemic oxaliplatin exposures are observed, leading to differences in haematological toxicity between patients.
Authors: Alexandre Chan; Daniel L Hertz; Manuel Morales; Elizabeth J Adams; Sharon Gordon; Chia Jie Tan; Nathan P Staff; Jayesh Kamath; Jeong Oh; Shivani Shinde; Doreen Pon; Niharkia Dixit; James D'Olimpio; Cristina Dumitrescu; Margherita Gobbo; Kord Kober; Samantha Mayo; Linda Pang; Ishwaria Subbiah; Andreas S Beutler; Katherine B Peters; Charles Loprinzi; Maryam B Lustberg Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-07-30 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Loek A W de Jong; Fortuné M K Elekonawo; Philip R de Reuver; Andre J A Bremers; Johannes H W de Wilt; Frank G A Jansman; Rob Ter Heine; Nielka P van Erp Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Gabriel Glockzin; Michael Gerken; Sven A Lang; Monika Klinkhammer-Schalke; Pompiliu Piso; Hans J Schlitt Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2014-11-04 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Loek A W de Jong; Fortuné M K Elekonawo; Marie Lambert; Jan Marie de Gooyer; Henk M W Verheul; David M Burger; Johannes H W de Wilt; Etienne Chatelut; Rob Ter Heine; Philip R de Reuver; Andre J A Bremers; Nielka P van Erp Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2020-06-27 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Thomas S Zajonz; Michael Sander; Winfried Padberg; Andreas Hecker; Ruediger Hörbelt; Christian Koch; Emmanuel Schneck Journal: Ann Med Surg (Lond) Date: 2018-01-31