PURPOSE: To investigate the survival benefit and safety of individualized schedules for sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) through plasma concentration monitoring. METHODS: A total of 105 patients with mRCC were enrolled. The schedule was adjusted in two ways: therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) and toxicity-adjusted schedule (TAS). One group of patients were without any schedule adjustment (maintained schedule, MAS). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), tumor response, and adverse events (AEs) were compared. The relationship between AEs and steady-state concentration or consecutive monitoring curves was explored. Further monitoring of individualized schedules was also conducted. RESULTS: Based on the plasma concentration, the schedules of 18 patients were adjusted in the TDM group. The schedules were adjusted in 37 patients due to severe AEs in the TAS group, while 50 patients were without any schedule adjustment. The median PFS and OS were better in the TDM group than the other two groups (p = 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively). Univariate and multivariate analyses indicated that TDM could decrease the risk of death independently (p = 0.026). Moreover, the incidence of grades 3/4 AEs decreased from 88.9% to 33.3% in the TDM group (p = 0.001). Sunitinib concentration in 150-200ng/mL was regarded as a "transitional zone" due to severe AEs mainly happened when concentration elevated over it. After TDM, further plasma concentration monitoring indicated that individualized schedules enabled sunitinib concentration to fluctuate in a much safer range. CONCLUSION: Treatment-related toxicities could be minimized through plasma concentration monitoring. Patients with adjusted schedules by therapeutic drug monitoring could achieve better survival benefits.
PURPOSE: To investigate the survival benefit and safety of individualized schedules for sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) through plasma concentration monitoring. METHODS: A total of 105 patients with mRCC were enrolled. The schedule was adjusted in two ways: therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) and toxicity-adjusted schedule (TAS). One group of patients were without any schedule adjustment (maintained schedule, MAS). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), tumor response, and adverse events (AEs) were compared. The relationship between AEs and steady-state concentration or consecutive monitoring curves was explored. Further monitoring of individualized schedules was also conducted. RESULTS: Based on the plasma concentration, the schedules of 18 patients were adjusted in the TDM group. The schedules were adjusted in 37 patients due to severe AEs in the TAS group, while 50 patients were without any schedule adjustment. The median PFS and OS were better in the TDM group than the other two groups (p = 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively). Univariate and multivariate analyses indicated that TDM could decrease the risk of death independently (p = 0.026). Moreover, the incidence of grades 3/4 AEs decreased from 88.9% to 33.3% in the TDM group (p = 0.001). Sunitinib concentration in 150-200ng/mL was regarded as a "transitional zone" due to severe AEs mainly happened when concentration elevated over it. After TDM, further plasma concentration monitoring indicated that individualized schedules enabled sunitinib concentration to fluctuate in a much safer range. CONCLUSION: Treatment-related toxicities could be minimized through plasma concentration monitoring. Patients with adjusted schedules by therapeutic drug monitoring could achieve better survival benefits.
Authors: Robert J Motzer; Thomas E Hutson; Piotr Tomczak; M Dror Michaelson; Ronald M Bukowski; Olivier Rixe; Stéphane Oudard; Sylvie Negrier; Cezary Szczylik; Sindy T Kim; Isan Chen; Paul W Bycott; Charles M Baum; Robert A Figlin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Vicki L Goodman; Edwin P Rock; Ramzi Dagher; Roshni P Ramchandani; Sophia Abraham; Jogarao V S Gobburu; Brian P Booth; S Leigh Verbois; David E Morse; Cheng Yi Liang; Nallaperumal Chidambaram; Janet X Jiang; Shenghui Tang; Kooros Mahjoob; Robert Justice; Richard Pazdur Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-03-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Georg A Bjarnason; Jennifer J Knox; Christian K Kollmannsberger; Denis Soulieres; D Scott Ernst; Pawel Zalewski; Christina M Canil; Eric Winquist; Sebastien J Hotte; Scott A North; Daniel Yick Chin Heng; Robyn Jane Macfarlane; Peter M Venner; Anil Kapoor; Aaron R Hansen; Bernhard J Eigl; Piotr Czaykowski; Ben Boyd; Lisa Wang; Naveen S Basappa Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2019-01-14 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Dirk B Mendel; A Douglas Laird; Xiaohua Xin; Sharianne G Louie; James G Christensen; Guangmin Li; Randall E Schreck; Tinya J Abrams; Theresa J Ngai; Leslie B Lee; Lesley J Murray; Jeremy Carver; Emily Chan; Katherine G Moss; Joshua O Haznedar; Juthamas Sukbuntherng; Robert A Blake; Li Sun; Cho Tang; Todd Miller; Sheri Shirazian; Gerald McMahon; Julie M Cherrington Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Elizabeth A Burnham; Arsany A Abouda; Jennifer E Bissada; Dasean T Nardone-White; Jessica L Beers; Jonghwa Lee; Matthew J Vergne; Klarissa D Jackson Journal: Chem Res Toxicol Date: 2022-04-28 Impact factor: 3.973