» Articles » PMID: 10803455

Adaptive Control Methods for the Dose Individualisation of Anticancer Agents

Overview
Specialty Pharmacology
Date 2000 May 10
PMID 10803455
Citations 16
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Numerous studies have found a clear relationship between systemic exposure and the toxicity or (more rarely) the efficacy of anticancer agents. Moreover, the clearance of most of these drugs differs widely between patients. These findings, combined with the narrow therapeutic index of anticancer drugs, suggest that patient outcome would be improved if doses were individualised to achieve a target systemic exposure. Bayesian maximum a posteriori probability (MAP) forecasting is an efficient and robust method for the optimisation of drug therapy, but its use for anticancer drugs is not yet extensive. The aim of this paper is to review the application of population pharmacokinetics and MAP to anticancer drugs and to evaluate whether and when MAP Bayesian estimation improves the clinical benefit of anticancer chemotherapy. For each drug, the relationships between pharmacokinetic variables [e.g. plasma concentration or the area under the concentration-time curve] and pharmacodynamic effects are described. Secondly, the methodologies employed are considered and, finally, the results are analysed in terms of predictive performance as well as, where possible, the impact on clinical end-points. Some studies were retrospective and intended only to evaluate individual pharmacokinetic parameter values using very few blood samples. Among the prospective trials, a few studied the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships which provided the basis for routine pharmacokinetic monitoring. Others were performed in clinical context where MAP Bayesian estimation was used to determine maximum tolerated systemic exposure (e.g. for carboplatin, topotecan, teniposide) or for pharmacokinetic monitoring (e.g. for methotrexate or platinum compounds). Indeed, its flexibility in blood sampling times makes this technique much more applicable than other limited sampling strategies. These examples demonstrate that individual dose adjustment helps manage toxicity. The performance of pharmacokinetic monitoring is linked to the methodology used at each step of its design and application. Moreover, a limitation to the use of pharmacokinetic monitoring for certain anticancer drugs has been the difficulty in obtaining pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic data. Recent progress in analytical methods, as well as the development of noninvasive methods (such as positron emission tomography) for evaluating the effects of chemotherapy, will help to define pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships. Bayesian estimation is the strategy of choice for performing pharmacokinetic studies, as well as ensuring that a given patient benefits from the desired systemic exposure. Together, these methods could contribute to improving cancer chemotherapy in terms of patient outcome and survival.

Citing Articles

Easy and reliable maximum a posteriori Bayesian estimation of pharmacokinetic parameters with the open-source R package mapbayr.

Le Louedec F, Puisset F, Thomas F, Chatelut E, White-Koning M CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2021; 10(10):1208-1220.

PMID: 34342170 PMC: 8520754. DOI: 10.1002/psp4.12689.


Identification of the key target profiles underlying the drugs of narrow therapeutic index for treating cancer and cardiovascular disease.

Yin J, Li X, Li F, Lu Y, Zeng S, Zhu F Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2021; 19:2318-2328.

PMID: 33995923 PMC: 8105181. DOI: 10.1016/j.csbj.2021.04.035.


Whole-body Imaging of Cell Death Provides a Systemic, Minimally Invasive, Dynamic, and Near-real Time Indicator for Chemotherapeutic Drug Toxicity.

Johnson S, Ugolkov A, Haney C, Bondarenko G, Li L, Waters E Clin Cancer Res. 2018; 25(4):1331-1342.

PMID: 30420445 PMC: 6377818. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-1846.


Precision Medicine with Imprecise Therapy: Computational Modeling for Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer.

McKenna M, Weis J, Brock A, Quaranta V, Yankeelov T Transl Oncol. 2018; 11(3):732-742.

PMID: 29674173 PMC: 6056758. DOI: 10.1016/j.tranon.2018.03.009.


A Nonparametric Method to Optimize Initial Drug Dosing and Attainment of a Target Exposure Interval: Concepts and Application to Busulfan in Pediatrics.

Philippe M, Neely M, Bertrand Y, Bleyzac N, Goutelle S Clin Pharmacokinet. 2016; 56(4):435-447.

PMID: 27585476 DOI: 10.1007/s40262-016-0448-6.


References
1.
Joel S, Shah R, Clark P, Slevin M . Predicting etoposide toxicity: relationship to organ function and protein binding. J Clin Oncol. 1996; 14(1):257-67. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1996.14.1.257. View

2.
Dechamp C, Rinaldi Y, Durand A, Favre R . [Pharmacokinetic study of active ultrafiltrable platinum during a 5-day course of continuous constant flow infusion of cisplatin with modification of the dosage]. Bull Cancer. 1989; 76(8):883-5. View

3.
Eisenberger M, Reyno L, Jodrell D, Sinibaldi V, Tkaczuk K, Sridhara R . Suramin, an active drug for prostate cancer: interim observations in a phase I trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993; 85(8):611-21. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/85.8.611. View

4.
Bellissant E, Sebille V, Paintaud G . Methodological issues in pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1998; 35(2):151-66. DOI: 10.2165/00003088-199835020-00004. View

5.
Jacquet J, Bressolle F, GALTIER M, Bourrier M, Donadio D, Jourdan J . Doxorubicin and doxorubicinol: intra- and inter-individual variations of pharmacokinetic parameters. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1990; 27(3):219-25. DOI: 10.1007/BF00685716. View