1. Population Pharmacokinetic and Dynamic Analysis of the Topoisomerase I Inhibitor Lurtotecan in Phase II Studies
- Author
-
Schellens, J.H.M., Heinrich, B., Lehnert, M., Gore, M.E., Kaye, S.B., Dombernowsky, P., Paridaens, R., van Oosterom, A.T., Verweij, J., Loos, W.J., Calvert, H., Pavlidis, N., Cortes-Funes, H., Wanders, J., Roelvink, M., Sessa, C., Selinger, K., Wissel, P.S., Gamucci, T., and Hanauske, A.R.
- Subjects
Antimitotic agents -- Research ,Antineoplastic agents -- Research ,Pharmacokinetics -- Research ,Pharmaceuticals and cosmetics industries - Abstract
Byline: J.H.M. Schellens (1), B. Heinrich (2), M. Lehnert (3), M.E. Gore (4), S.B. Kaye (5), P. Dombernowsky (6), R. Paridaens (7), A.T. van Oosterom (7), J. Verweij (8), W.J. Loos (8), H. Calvert (9), N. Pavlidis (10), H. Cortes-Funes (11), J. Wanders (12), M. Roelvink (12), C. Sessa (13), K. Selinger (14), P.S. Wissel (14), T. Gamucci (15), A.R. Hanauske (7) Keywords: lurtotecan (GI147211); population analysis; pharmacokinetics; pharmacodynamics; NONMEM; Bayesian algorithm; phase II; topoisomerase I Abstract: Population pharmacokinetic-dynamic analysiswas prospectively integrated in a broadphase II program of lurtotecan (GI147211),a novel camptothecin derived topoisomeraseI inhibitor, to determine the populationpharmacokinetic profile in a largerpopulation, to estimate individualpharmacokinetic parameters and toinvestigate relationships with clinicaloutcome. A sparse sampling method wasapplied during course one, which involvedtwo sampling time-points. A Bayesianalgorithm was used to estimate individualpharmacokinetic parameters, in particulartotal plasma clearance (CL) and volume ofdistribution. In total, samples werecollected of 109 (63%) of 173 patients.Pharmacokinetic-dynamic evaluation could becarried out successfully in 85 (78%) ofthe sampled patients. CL of lurtotecanshowed substantial variability (mean 87+- 28 L/h) and was of the same magnitudeas in the phase I studies where fullpharmacokinetic curves were used. Residualvariability in the population estimate ofCL was 9.9%. No significant relationshipswere observed between exposure parametersand toxicity nor likelihood of tumorresponse, however the latter relationshipmay well have been obscured by theheterogeneity of the studied population.Prospective implementation of large scalepopulation pharmacokinetic-dynamic analysisis feasible and important to establishwhether interpatient variability in drugexposure is a major determinant of toxicityor activity. Author Affiliation: (1) The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2) Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munchen, Germany (3) Klinik C fur Innere Medizin, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland (4) CRC Center for Cancer Therapeutics, The Inst. of Cancer Research, Belmont, Surrey, UK (5) Dept. Med. Oncol, Beatson Oncology Center, Glasgow, UK (6) University Hospital Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark (7) University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Catholic University, Leuven, Belgium (8) Rotterdam Cancer Institute (Daniel den Hoed Kliniek) and University Hospital Rotterdam, The Netherlands (9) Div. Oncology, Newcastle General Hospital, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK (10) University of Ioannina, Greece (11) Dept. Med. Oncol, Hospital Universitario ``12 de Octubre'', Madrid, Spain (12) EORTC-New Drug Development Office, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (13) Ospedale San Giovanni, Bellinzona, Switzerland (14) GlaxoWellcome Inc, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA (15) Istituto Regina Elena, Rome, Italy Article History: Registration Date: 10/10/2004
- Published
- 2002