Literature DB >> 7497587

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of prolonged oral etoposide in women with metastatic breast cancer.

M J Millward1, D R Newell, K Yuen, J P Matthews, K Balmanno, C J Charlton, L Gumbrell, M J Lind, F Chapman, M Proctor.   

Abstract

The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of prolonged oral etoposide chemotherapy were investigated in 15 women with metastatic breast cancer who received oral etoposide 100 mg as a single daily dose for up to 15 days. There was considerable interpatient variability in the day 1 pharmacokinetic parameters: area under the plasma concentration time curve (AUC) (0-24 h) 1.95 +/- 0.87 mg/ml per min (mean +/- SD), apparent oral clearance 60.9 +/- 21.7 ml/min per 1.73 m2, peak plasma concentration 5.6 +/- 2.5 micrograms/ml, time to peak concentration 73 +/- 35 min and half-life 220 +/- 83 min. However, intrapatient variability in systemic exposure to etoposide was much less with repeated doses. The intrapatient coefficient of variation (CV) of AUC for day 8 relative to day 1 was 20% and for day 15 relative to day 1 was 15%, compared to the day 1 interpatient CV of 45%. Neutropenia was the principal toxicity. Day 1 pharmacokinetic parameters were related to the percentage decrease in absolute neutrophil count using the sigmoidal Emax equation. A good fit was found between day 1 AUC and neutrophil toxicity (R2 = 0.77). All patients who had a day 1 AUC > 2.0 mg/ml per min had WHO grade III or IV neutropenia. The predictive performance of the models for neutrophil toxicity was better for AUC (percentage mean predictive error 5%, percentage root mean square error 18.1%) than apparent oral clearance, peak plasma concentration, or daily dose (mg/m2). A limited sampling strategy was developed to predict AUC using a linear regression model incorporating a patient effect. Data sets were divided into training and test sets. The AUC could be estimated using a model utilizing plasma etoposide concentration at only two time points, 4 h and 6 h after oral dosing (R2 = 98.9%). The equation AUCpr = -0.376 + 0.631 x C4h + 0.336 x C6h was validated on the test set with a relative mean predictive error of -0.88% and relative root mean square error of 6.4%. These results suggest monitoring of AUC to predict subsequent myelosuppression as a strategy for future trials with oral etoposide.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7497587     DOI: 10.1007/bf00685644

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol        ISSN: 0344-5704            Impact factor:   3.333


  23 in total

1.  What is the optimal dose and duration of treatment with etoposide? II. Comparative pharmacokinetic study of three schedules: 1 x 100 mg, 2 x 50 mg, and 4 x 25 mg of oral etoposide daily for 21 days.

Authors:  A van der Gaast; M Vlastuin; T C Kok; T A Splinter
Journal:  Semin Oncol       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 4.929

2.  Prolonged administration of oral etoposide in patients with relapsed or refractory small-cell lung cancer: a phase II trial.

Authors:  D H Johnson; F A Greco; J Strupp; K R Hande; J D Hainsworth
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1990-10       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  A comparative assessment of the in vitro effects of drugs on cells by means of colony assays or flow microfluorimetry.

Authors:  B T Hill; R D Whelan; H T Rupniak; L Y Dennis; M A Rosholt
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  1981       Impact factor: 3.333

4.  Variable bioavailability following repeated oral doses of etoposide.

Authors:  V J Harvey; M L Slevin; S P Joel; M M Smythe; A Johnston; P F Wrigley
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol       Date:  1985-11

5.  A randomized trial to evaluate the effect of schedule on the activity of etoposide in small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  M L Slevin; P I Clark; S P Joel; S Malik; R J Osborne; W M Gregory; D G Lowe; R H Reznek; P F Wrigley
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  The activity of 10-, 14-, and 21-day schedules of single-agent etoposide in previously untreated patients with extensive small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  P I Clark; B Cottier
Journal:  Semin Oncol       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 4.929

7.  A limited sampling model for the pharmacokinetics of etoposide given orally.

Authors:  D Gentili; M Zucchetti; V Torri; C Sessa; J de Jong; F Cavalli; M D'Incalci
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 3.333

8.  Pharmacodynamics of prolonged oral etoposide in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  A A Miller; E A Tolley; H B Niell; J P Griffin; A M Mauer
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  The effect of dose on the bioavailability of oral etoposide: confirmation of a clinically relevant observation.

Authors:  M L Slevin; S P Joel; R Whomsley; K Devenport; V J Harvey; R J Osborne; P F Wrigley
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 3.333

10.  Protracted oral etoposide in epithelial ovarian cancer: a phase II study in patients with relapsed or platinum-resistant disease.

Authors:  M T Seymour; J L Mansi; C J Gallagher; M E Gore; P G Harper; T R Evans; P M Edmonds; M L Slevin
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  6 in total

1.  Population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of oral etoposide.

Authors:  G Toffoli; G Corona; R Sorio; I Robieux; B Basso; A M Colussi; M Boiocchi
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 2.  Pharmacokinetic optimisation of treatment with oral etoposide.

Authors:  Giuseppe Toffoli; Giuseppe Corona; Barbara Basso; Mauro Boiocchi
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 6.447

Review 3.  Practical treatment guide for dose individualisation in cancer chemotherapy.

Authors:  P Canal; E Chatelut; S Guichard
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 4.  Camptothecin and podophyllotoxin derivatives: inhibitors of topoisomerase I and II - mechanisms of action, pharmacokinetics and toxicity profile.

Authors:  Jörg T Hartmann; Hans-Peter Lipp
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 5.606

5.  Oral treatment with etoposide in small cell lung cancer - dilemmas and solutions.

Authors:  Renata Rezonja; Lea Knez; Tanja Cufer; Ales Mrhar
Journal:  Radiol Oncol       Date:  2013-02-01       Impact factor: 2.991

Review 6.  Genotoxic anti-cancer agents and their relationship to DNA damage, mitosis, and checkpoint adaptation in proliferating cancer cells.

Authors:  Lucy H Swift; Roy M Golsteyn
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2014-02-25       Impact factor: 5.923

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.