AIMS: Patients with low muscle mass have increased risk of paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy, which is dependent on systemic paclitaxel exposure. Dose optimization may be feasible through the secondary use of radiologic data for body composition. The objective of this study was to interrogate morphomic parameters as predictors of paclitaxel pharmacokinetics to identify alternative dosing strategies that may improve treatment outcomes. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of female patients with breast cancer scheduled to receive 80 mg/m2 weekly paclitaxel infusions. Paclitaxel was measured at the end of initial infusion to estimate maximum concentration (Cmax ). Computed tomography (CT) scans were used to measure 29 body composition features for inclusion in pharmacokinetic modelling. Monte Carlo simulations were performed to identify infusion durations that limit the probability of exceeding Cmax > 2885 ng/mL, which was selected based on prior work linking this to an unacceptable risk of peripheral neuropathy. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were included in the analysis. The optimal model was a two-compartment pharmacokinetic model with T11 skeletal muscle area as a covariate of paclitaxel volume of distribution (Vd). Simulations suggest that extending infusion of the standard paclitaxel dose from 1 hour to 2 and 3 hours in patients who have skeletal muscle area 4907-7080 mm2 and <4907 mm2 , respectively, would limit risk of Cmax > 2885 ng/mL to <50%, consequently reducing neuropathy, while marginally increasing overall systemic paclitaxel exposure. CONCLUSION: Extending paclitaxel infusion duration in ~25% of patients who have low skeletal muscle area is predicted to reduce peripheral neuropathy while maintaining systemic exposure, suggesting that personalizing paclitaxel dosing based on body composition may improve treatment outcomes.
AIMS: Patients with low muscle mass have increased risk of paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy, which is dependent on systemic paclitaxel exposure. Dose optimization may be feasible through the secondary use of radiologic data for body composition. The objective of this study was to interrogate morphomic parameters as predictors of paclitaxel pharmacokinetics to identify alternative dosing strategies that may improve treatment outcomes. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of female patients with breast cancer scheduled to receive 80 mg/m2 weekly paclitaxel infusions. Paclitaxel was measured at the end of initial infusion to estimate maximum concentration (Cmax ). Computed tomography (CT) scans were used to measure 29 body composition features for inclusion in pharmacokinetic modelling. Monte Carlo simulations were performed to identify infusion durations that limit the probability of exceeding Cmax > 2885 ng/mL, which was selected based on prior work linking this to an unacceptable risk of peripheral neuropathy. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were included in the analysis. The optimal model was a two-compartment pharmacokinetic model with T11 skeletal muscle area as a covariate of paclitaxel volume of distribution (Vd). Simulations suggest that extending infusion of the standard paclitaxel dose from 1 hour to 2 and 3 hours in patients who have skeletal muscle area 4907-7080 mm2 and <4907 mm2 , respectively, would limit risk of Cmax > 2885 ng/mL to <50%, consequently reducing neuropathy, while marginally increasing overall systemic paclitaxel exposure. CONCLUSION: Extending paclitaxel infusion duration in ~25% of patients who have low skeletal muscle area is predicted to reduce peripheral neuropathy while maintaining systemic exposure, suggesting that personalizing paclitaxel dosing based on body composition may improve treatment outcomes.
Authors: B A Derstine; S A Holcombe; R L Goulson; B E Ross; N C Wang; J A Sullivan; G L Su; S C Wang Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2017 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Markus Joerger; Alwin D R Huitema; Desiree H J G van den Bongard; Jan H M Schellens; Jos H Beijnen Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-04-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Anne-Joy M de Graan; Laure Elens; Jason A Sprowl; Alex Sparreboom; Lena E Friberg; Bronno van der Holt; Pleun J de Raaf; Peter de Bruijn; Frederike K Engels; Ferry A L M Eskens; Erik A C Wiemer; Jaap Verweij; Ron H J Mathijssen; Ron H N van Schaik Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2013-05-02 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Brian A Derstine; Sven A Holcombe; Brian E Ross; Nicholas C Wang; Grace L Su; Stewart C Wang Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-07-27 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Katja Trobec; Mojca Kerec Kos; Stephan von Haehling; Jochen Springer; Stefan D Anker; Mitja Lainscak Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-11-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Raafi Ali; Vickie E Baracos; Michael B Sawyer; Laurent Bianchi; Sarah Roberts; Eric Assenat; Caroline Mollevi; Pierre Senesse Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2016-01-27 Impact factor: 4.452