pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Pharmacokinetic optimisation of cancer chemotherapy. Effect on outcomes - PubMed

Review

Pharmacokinetic optimisation of cancer chemotherapy. Effect on outcomes

E Masson et al. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1997 Apr.

Abstract

Cancer chemotherapy doses are empirical in that the majority are administered at a fixed dose (mg/m2 or mg/kg). One reason for this is the intrinsic sensitivity of the tumour or host cells to one particular chemotherapy agent is unknown. Therefore, the likelihood of response or toxicity is unpredictable a priori. This contrasts with antimicrobial chemotherapy where sensitivity (minimum inhibitory concentration) can be determined for a specific bacterium. The pharmacokinetics of cancer chemotherapy agents is also highly variable between patients. In addition, the small therapeutic index of these drugs, combined with the lack of good surrogate markers of toxicity or response, adds to the empiricism of the administration of cancer chemotherapy. In the past few years, numerous studies have established good relationships between systemic exposure to cancer chemotherapy and both response and toxicity. These relationships have been used to individualise chemotherapy dose administration a priori and a posteriori. Some examples of drugs which are individualised based on their pharmacokinetics are methotrexate, busulfan and carboplatin. Other examples of antineoplastic agents which may eventually be individualised based on their pharmacokinetics are mercaptopurine, fluorouracil, etoposide and teniposide, topotecan and suramin. New strategies are being investigated to improve the therapeutic index of cancer chemotherapy agents such as biomodulation, pharmacogenetics, circadian administration and the modification of drug scheduling. Pharmacokinetic studies have also played a major role in these areas. Thus, despite the empiricism associate with cancer chemotherapy administration, some progress has been made and shown to have an impact on outcome. However, more studies are needed to improve cancer chemotherapy administration.

PubMed Disclaimer

Cited by

Busulfan-cyclophosphamide versus cyclophosphamide-busulfan as conditioning regimen before allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation: a prospective randomized trial.
Seydoux C, Medinger M, Gerull S, Halter J, Heim D, Chalandon Y, Levrat SM, Schanz U, Nair G, Ansari M, Simon P, Passweg JR, Cantoni N. Seydoux C, et al. Ann Hematol. 2021 Jan;100(1):209-216. doi: 10.1007/s00277-020-04312-y. Epub 2020 Oct 23. Ann Hematol. 2021. PMID: 33098041 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
In vivo microdialysis for PK and PD studies of anticancer drugs.
Zhou Q, Gallo JM. Zhou Q, et al. AAPS J. 2005 Oct 24;7(3):E659-67. doi: 10.1208/aapsj070366. AAPS J. 2005. PMID: 16353942 Free PMC article. Review.
The efficiency concept in pharmacodynamics.
Alván G, Paintaud G, Wakelkamp M. Alván G, et al. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1999 May;36(5):375-89. doi: 10.2165/00003088-199936050-00005. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1999. PMID: 10384860 Review.
Plasma concentration monitoring of busulfan: does it improve clinical outcome?
McCune JS, Gibbs JP, Slattery JT. McCune JS, et al. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2000 Aug;39(2):155-65. doi: 10.2165/00003088-200039020-00005. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2000. PMID: 10976660 Review.
Meta-analysis of inter-patient pharmacokinetic variability of liposomal and non-liposomal anticancer agents.
Schell RF, Sidone BJ, Caron WP, Walsh MD, White TF, Zamboni BA, Ramanathan RK, Zamboni WC. Schell RF, et al. Nanomedicine. 2014 Jan;10(1):109-17. doi: 10.1016/j.nano.2013.07.005. Epub 2013 Jul 24. Nanomedicine. 2014. PMID: 23891988 Free PMC article.

References

1. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1982;8(2):215-9 - PubMed
1. Lancet. 1994 May 14;343(8907):1188-90 - PubMed
1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993 Apr 21;85(8):611-21 - PubMed
1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996 Jun 19;88(12):817-24 - PubMed
1. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1993 May;53(5):555-61 - PubMed

Pharmacokinetic optimisation of cancer chemotherapy. Effect on outcomes - PubMed