Yuxiang Ma1, Yuehao Lin2, Benyan Zou3, Wanli Liu2, Yang Zhang1, Liping Zhao4, Yan Huang3, Yunpeng Yang3, Wenfeng Fang3, Yuanyuan Zhao3, Jin Sheng3, Tao Qin3, Zhihuang Hu3, Salavatore J Salamone, Yunying Li, Li Zhang5, Hongyun Zhao6. 1. State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Clinical Trial Center, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, 651# Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China. 2. Department of Medicine Laboratory, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China. 3. Department of Medical Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, 651# Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Yue Bei People's Hospital, Shaoguan, China. 5. Department of Medical Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, 651# Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China. zhangli63@hotmail.com. 6. State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Clinical Trial Center, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, 651# Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China. zhaohy@sysucc.org.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: 5-Fluorouracil plus cisplatin is the most commonly used chemotherapy regimen for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). The objective of this study was to establish an individualized 5-fluorouracil treatment model based on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses of 5-fluorouracil in East-Asian NPC patients. METHODS: A total of 122 NPC patients were administered 5-fluorouracil plus cisplatin treatment. Blood samples were collected to calculate the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) for 5-fluorouracil, and expressions of thymidylate synthase (TS) and dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) at both protein and messenger RNA (mRNA) levels were analyzed in the tumor tissues from 73 patients in the same cohort. RESULTS: The results showed a wide (sevenfold) pharmacokinetic variability of 5-fluorouracil exposure (measured as AUC) based on body surface area (BSA) dosing. Pharmacokinetic analyses revealed that the 5-fluorouracil AUC range had a significant impact on the response of patients to 5-fluorouracil and related toxicities. Patients with 5-fluorouracil AUC <25 mg·h/L responded unsatisfactorily to 5-fluorouracil (overall response rate [ORR] 17.5 % lower than patients with AUC 25-35, p = 0.176; and 26.1 % lower than patients with AUC >35, p = 0.031). On the other hand, patients with 5-fluorouracil AUC >35 mg·h/L experienced more 5-fluorouracil-related toxicities (a grade 3 or higher toxicity rate 57.1 % higher than patients with AUC 25-35, p < 0.001; and 60.0 % higher than AUC >35, p < 0.001). The established 5-fluorouracil therapeutic window in head and neck cancer (HNC) [AUC 25-35 mg·h/L) was verified in our study. Pharmacodynamic analyses indicated a positive correlation between TS and DPD expression (p < 0.001) and, despite the pharmacokinetic influences, low expression of TS mRNA in tumor tended to have a better ORR (81.0 vs. 54.3 %, p = 0.051). No significant association was found between DPD expression and ORR. CONCLUSIONS: The therapeutic window of 5-fluorouracil for East-Asian NPC patients was verified as 25-35 mg·h/L based on lower toxicity and higher efficacy. TS mRNA expression showed potentially predictive value in 5-fluorouracil treatment, and personalized treatment based on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics proved to be clinically beneficial and is worthy of further clinical studies.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:5-Fluorouracil plus cisplatin is the most commonly used chemotherapy regimen for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). The objective of this study was to establish an individualized 5-fluorouracil treatment model based on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses of 5-fluorouracil in East-Asian NPCpatients. METHODS: A total of 122 NPCpatients were administered 5-fluorouracil plus cisplatin treatment. Blood samples were collected to calculate the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) for 5-fluorouracil, and expressions of thymidylate synthase (TS) and dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) at both protein and messenger RNA (mRNA) levels were analyzed in the tumor tissues from 73 patients in the same cohort. RESULTS: The results showed a wide (sevenfold) pharmacokinetic variability of 5-fluorouracil exposure (measured as AUC) based on body surface area (BSA) dosing. Pharmacokinetic analyses revealed that the 5-fluorouracil AUC range had a significant impact on the response of patients to 5-fluorouracil and related toxicities. Patients with 5-fluorouracil AUC <25 mg·h/L responded unsatisfactorily to 5-fluorouracil (overall response rate [ORR] 17.5 % lower than patients with AUC 25-35, p = 0.176; and 26.1 % lower than patients with AUC >35, p = 0.031). On the other hand, patients with 5-fluorouracil AUC >35 mg·h/L experienced more 5-fluorouracil-related toxicities (a grade 3 or higher toxicity rate 57.1 % higher than patients with AUC 25-35, p < 0.001; and 60.0 % higher than AUC >35, p < 0.001). The established 5-fluorouracil therapeutic window in head and neck cancer (HNC) [AUC 25-35 mg·h/L) was verified in our study. Pharmacodynamic analyses indicated a positive correlation between TS and DPD expression (p < 0.001) and, despite the pharmacokinetic influences, low expression of TS mRNA in tumor tended to have a better ORR (81.0 vs. 54.3 %, p = 0.051). No significant association was found between DPD expression and ORR. CONCLUSIONS: The therapeutic window of 5-fluorouracil for East-Asian NPCpatients was verified as 25-35 mg·h/L based on lower toxicity and higher efficacy. TS mRNA expression showed potentially predictive value in 5-fluorouracil treatment, and personalized treatment based on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics proved to be clinically beneficial and is worthy of further clinical studies.
Authors: H Shiga; E I Heath; A A Rasmussen; B Trock; P G Johnston; A A Forastiere; M Langmacher; A Baylor; M Lee; K J Cullen Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Sharyn D Baker; Jaap Verweij; Eric K Rowinsky; Ross C Donehower; Jan H M Schellens; Louise B Grochow; Alex Sparreboom Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-12-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Y Shirota; J Stoehlmacher; J Brabender; Y P Xiong; H Uetake; K D Danenberg; S Groshen; D D Tsao-Wei; P V Danenberg; H J Lenz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Christiane Jakob; Torsten Liersch; Wolfdietrich Meyer; Gustavo B Baretton; Peter Häusler; Wolfgang Schwabe; Heinz Becker; Daniela E Aust Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Alex A Adjei; Joel M Reid; Robert B Diasio; Jeff A Sloan; Deborah A Smith; Joseph Rubin; Henry C Pitot; Steven R Alberts; Richard M Goldberg; Lorelei J Hanson; Pamela Atherton; Matthew M Ames; Charles Erlichman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: K Ikeda; M Terashima; H Kawamura; I Takiyama; K Koeda; A Takagane; N Sato; K Ishida; T Iwaya; C Maesawa; H Yoshinari; K Saito Journal: Jpn J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-03 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Jan H Beumer; Edward Chu; Carmen Allegra; Yusuke Tanigawara; Gerard Milano; Robert Diasio; Tae Won Kim; Ron H Mathijssen; Li Zhang; Dirk Arnold; Katsuki Muneoka; Narikazu Boku; Markus Joerger Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2018-09-11 Impact factor: 6.875