Literature DB >> 7684658

A limited sampling method for estimation of the etoposide area under the curve.

A S Strömgren1, B T Sørensen, P Jakobsen, A Jakobsen.   

Abstract

A limited sampling method for estimation of the etoposide area under the curve (AUC) is presented. The method was developed and validated in 23 patients (42 pharmacokinetic studies) with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), limited disease. The patients received 100 mg/m2 etoposide as a 90-min intravenous infusion in combination with carboplatin, allowing for etoposide dose modification at a following course (25% increase or decrease) due to high or low nadir values for leukocytes or thrombocytes. Of the 42 pharmacokinetic studies, 27 were used in the model development and 15 were used in the model validation. Single regression analyses of the AUC versus the fitted concentrations for the model data set were performed at several time points. The analyses demonstrated high and essentially identical correlation coefficients in the interval between 2 and 21 h, with a maximal value of 0.96 being recorded at 4 h. Multiple regression analysis was then performed using fitted concentrations corresponding to 0.08-21 h. The best model for one sample was AUC = 1.01 x (dose level divided by 100 mg/m2) + 799 x C4 h, that for two samples was AUC = 1.43 x (dose level divided by 100 mg/m2) + 544 x C4 h + 1756 x C21 h, and that for three samples was AUC = 0.07 x (dose level divided by 100 mg/m2) + 110 x C5 min + 474 x C4 h + 1759 x C21 h. Not unexpectedly, the model validation revealed that the one-sample model was less precise than the two- or three-sample model [percentage of root mean squared error (RMSE%) = 11.6%, 7.1%, and 5.4%, respectively]. All models proved to be unbiased in the validation [percentage of mean predictive error (MPE%) +/- SE = 4.2% +/- 11.0%, 7.9% +/- 6.1%, and 6.3% +/- 5.3%, respectively]. The models were subsequently validated in 14 pharmacokinetic studies of patients with metastatic germ-cell tumours who were receiving combination chemotherapy with cisplatin and bleomycin plus 100 mg/m2 etoposide as a 90-min infusion. The RMSE% was 13.4%, 10.8%, and 9.0% and the MPE% +/- SE was -1.0% +/- 11.9%, 1.7% +/- 10.5%, and 2.7% +/- 7.9% for the one-, two-, and three-sample models, respectively. The limited sampling methods presented herein may prove to be a most valuable tool for therapeutic drug monitoring in regimens in which etoposide is given in combination with carboplatin or with cisplatin and bleomycin.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1993        PMID: 7684658     DOI: 10.1007/bf00685840

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


  22 in total

Review 1.  Etoposide. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic potential in combination chemotherapy of cancer.

Authors:  J M Henwood; R N Brogden
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 9.546

2.  Adaptive control of etoposide administration: impact of interpatient pharmacodynamic variability.

Authors:  M J Ratain; R L Schilsky; K E Choi; C Guarnieri; D Grimmer; N J Vogelzang; E Senekjian; M A Liebner
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 6.875

3.  Limited sampling model for vinblastine pharmacokinetics.

Authors:  M J Ratain; N J Vogelzang
Journal:  Cancer Treat Rep       Date:  1987-10

4.  A limited sampling method for estimation of the carboplatin area under the curve.

Authors:  B T Sørensen; A Strömgren; P Jakobsen; A Jakobsen
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 3.333

5.  A simple method for the determination of glomerular filtration rate.

Authors:  J Bröchner-Mortensen
Journal:  Scand J Clin Lab Invest       Date:  1972-11       Impact factor: 1.713

6.  Phase I trial using adaptive control dosing of hexamethylene bisacetamide (NSC 95580).

Authors:  B A Conley; A Forrest; M J Egorin; E G Zuhowski; V Sinibaldi; D A Van Echo
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1989-06-15       Impact factor: 12.701

7.  Phase I clinical and pharmacological study of 72-hour continuous infusion of etoposide in patients with advanced cancer.

Authors:  C L Bennett; J A Sinkule; R L Schilsky; E Senekjian; K E Choi
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1987-04-01       Impact factor: 12.701

8.  In vitro pharmacodynamic evaluation of VP-16-213 and implications for chemotherapy.

Authors:  S N Wolff; W W Grosh; K Prater; K R Hande
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 3.333

9.  Limited sampling models for amonafide (NSC 308847) pharmacokinetics.

Authors:  M J Ratain; A E Staubus; R L Schilsky; L Malspeis
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1988-07-15       Impact factor: 12.701

10.  5-FU therapeutic monitoring with dose adjustment leads to an improved therapeutic index in head and neck cancer.

Authors:  J Santini; G Milano; A Thyss; N Renee; P Viens; P Ayela; M Schneider; F Demard
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1989-02       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Adaptive control methods for the dose individualisation of anticancer agents.

Authors:  A Rousseau; P Marquet; J Debord; C Sabot; G Lachâtre
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 6.447

Review 2.  Limited-sampling models for anticancer agents.

Authors:  L J van Warmerdam; W W ten Bokkel Huinink; R A Maes; J H Beijnen
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 4.553

Review 3.  Pharmacodynamics and long-term toxicity of etoposide.

Authors:  K Kobayashi; M J Ratain
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 3.333

4.  A study of the feasibility and accuracy of pharmacokinetically guided etoposide dosing in children.

Authors:  S P Lowis; L Price; A D Pearson; D R Newell; M Cole
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 7.640

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.