Jurij Aguiar Zdovc1, Mihaela Vaupotič1, Gregor Marolt2, Lea Knez1,3, Renata Režonja Kukec1, Tanja Čufer3,4, Tomaž Vovk1, Iztok Grabnar5. 1. Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Ljubljana, Aškerčeva cesta 7, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia. 2. Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Technology, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia. 3. University Clinic of Respiratory and Allergic Diseases Golnik, Golnik, Slovenia. 4. Medical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia. 5. Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Ljubljana, Aškerčeva cesta 7, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia. iztok.grabnar@ffa.uni-lj.si.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cisplatin-etoposide treatment is recommended as a first line in small cell lung cancer patients (SCLC). However, the prognosis is poor and the dosing is not tailored beyond the body surface area, which is related with indeterminate cisplatin exposure-response relationship. We aimed to evaluate cisplatin pharmacokinetics (PK) and the exposure to unbound cisplatin in SCLC patients using the informative priors, and assess the relationship between the cisplatin exposure and probability of neutropenia. METHODS: Observational clinical study was performed including 17 cisplatin-treated SCLC patients. External population cisplatin PK models were identified and NONMEM® software and $PRIOR subroutine were used for the model evaluation. The bias and precision of the model-predicted cisplatin concentrations were evaluated. The best models were combined in a final model including several sets of informative priors, which was used to estimate individual cisplatin exposure, analyze the relationship between the exposure and neutropenia and simulate several cisplatin dosing regimens in a virtual patient cohort. RESULTS: The models by Urien with the informative priors best fitted the data. The individual cisplatin exposure ranged between 2430 and 4560 μg*h/L. There was a trend of increasing probability of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia with increasing cisplatin exposure. Approximately 50%, 75% and 90% of patients receiving 60 mg/m2, 70 mg/m2 and 80 mg/m2, respectively, achieved the previously identified exposure threshold of 2860 μg*h/L. CONCLUSION: We developed a tool to individualize cisplatin dosing based on the estimated probability of neutropenia. The benefit of more intense dosing regimens in SCLC patients should be further assessed.
PURPOSE: Cisplatin-etoposide treatment is recommended as a first line in small cell lung cancer patients (SCLC). However, the prognosis is poor and the dosing is not tailored beyond the body surface area, which is related with indeterminate cisplatin exposure-response relationship. We aimed to evaluate cisplatin pharmacokinetics (PK) and the exposure to unbound cisplatin in SCLC patients using the informative priors, and assess the relationship between the cisplatin exposure and probability of neutropenia. METHODS: Observational clinical study was performed including 17 cisplatin-treated SCLC patients. External population cisplatin PK models were identified and NONMEM® software and $PRIOR subroutine were used for the model evaluation. The bias and precision of the model-predicted cisplatin concentrations were evaluated. The best models were combined in a final model including several sets of informative priors, which was used to estimate individual cisplatin exposure, analyze the relationship between the exposure and neutropenia and simulate several cisplatin dosing regimens in a virtual patient cohort. RESULTS: The models by Urien with the informative priors best fitted the data. The individual cisplatin exposure ranged between 2430 and 4560 μg*h/L. There was a trend of increasing probability of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia with increasing cisplatin exposure. Approximately 50%, 75% and 90% of patients receiving 60 mg/m2, 70 mg/m2 and 80 mg/m2, respectively, achieved the previously identified exposure threshold of 2860 μg*h/L. CONCLUSION: We developed a tool to individualize cisplatin dosing based on the estimated probability of neutropenia. The benefit of more intense dosing regimens in SCLC patients should be further assessed.
Authors: Luis Paz-Ares; Mikhail Dvorkin; Yuanbin Chen; Niels Reinmuth; Katsuyuki Hotta; Dmytro Trukhin; Galina Statsenko; Maximilian J Hochmair; Mustafa Özgüroğlu; Jun Ho Ji; Oleksandr Voitko; Artem Poltoratskiy; Santiago Ponce; Francesco Verderame; Libor Havel; Igor Bondarenko; Andrzej Kazarnowicz; György Losonczy; Nikolay V Conev; Jon Armstrong; Natalie Byrne; Norah Shire; Haiyi Jiang; Jonathan W Goldman Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-10-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: F E de Jongh; J Verweij; W J Loos; R de Wit; M J de Jonge; A S Planting; K Nooter; G Stoter; A Sparreboom Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-09-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Felix E de Jongh; James M Gallo; Meiyu Shen; Jaap Verweij; Alex Sparreboom Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2004-04-30 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: A-M C Dingemans; M Früh; A Ardizzoni; B Besse; C Faivre-Finn; L E Hendriks; S Lantuejoul; S Peters; N Reguart; C M Rudin; D De Ruysscher; P E Van Schil; J Vansteenkiste; M Reck Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2021-04-20 Impact factor: 51.769
Authors: Corinne Faivre-Finn; Michael Snee; Linda Ashcroft; Wiebke Appel; Fabrice Barlesi; Adityanarayan Bhatnagar; Andrea Bezjak; Felipe Cardenal; Pierre Fournel; Susan Harden; Cecile Le Pechoux; Rhona McMenemin; Nazia Mohammed; Mary O'Brien; Jason Pantarotto; Veerle Surmont; Jan P Van Meerbeeck; Penella J Woll; Paul Lorigan; Fiona Blackhall Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 41.316