Back to Search
Start Over
Busulfan dosing (Q6 or Q24) with adjusted or actual body weight, does it matter?
- Source :
-
Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners [J Oncol Pharm Pract] 2015 Dec; Vol. 21 (6), pp. 425-32. Date of Electronic Publication: 2014 Jul 01. - Publication Year :
- 2015
-
Abstract
- Background: In hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), patients receive individualized treatment planning in conditioning regimens to prevent unwarranted toxicities while maximizing desired outcomes. The dose of a widely studied agent in this setting, busulfan, can be adjusted based on area under the curve (AUC); however, choice of actual body weight (ABW) versus adjusted body weight (DBW) weight to calculate the initial dose may be critical in attaining goal AUC.<br />Objective: To determine which weight best correlates with achievement of goal AUC for patients receiving busulfan conditioning for HSCT. Secondary objectives include evaluation of AUC results with clinical outcomes such as toxicity and survival.<br />Methods: An institutional review board-approved retrospective analysis was performed on 31 allogeneic HSCT recipients who received intravenous busulfan (Q6H with cyclophosphamide [Bu/Cy] or once daily with fludarabine [Flu/Bu]).<br />Results: Eighteen patients received Flu/Bu (50% ABW, 50% DBW) and 13 received Bu/Cy (23% ABW, 77% DBW). Overall, patients dosed by DBW were more likely to undershoot goal AUC (-12.8% vs. +19.5%, p = 0.018) and require dose increases (+20% vs. -19.9%, p = 0.012) versus those dosed by ABW. Subgroup analysis confirmed these results for Bu/Cy (-23.6% vs. +2.2%, p < 0.001 for goal AUC; +36.2% vs. -4.5%, p = 0.008 for busulfan dose increase), but not Flu/Bu (-0.8% vs. +25.3%, p = 0.123 for goal AUC; +3.4% vs. -25.1%, p = 0.174 for busulfan dose increase). Time to engraftment, progression-free survival, and overall survival were not different between dosing groups (p > 0.05). No patient experienced busulfan-related toxicity.<br />Conclusions: Further prospective studies are warranted to elucidate which weight is most likely to achieve goal AUC and subsequent optimal patient outcomes.<br /> (© The Author(s) 2014.)
- Subjects :
- Administration, Intravenous
Adult
Aged
Antineoplastic Agents, Alkylating pharmacokinetics
Antineoplastic Agents, Alkylating therapeutic use
Area Under Curve
Busulfan pharmacokinetics
Busulfan therapeutic use
Disease-Free Survival
Female
Hematologic Neoplasms therapy
Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Humans
Immunosuppressive Agents administration & dosage
Immunosuppressive Agents therapeutic use
Male
Middle Aged
Retrospective Studies
Treatment Outcome
Vidarabine administration & dosage
Vidarabine analogs & derivatives
Vidarabine therapeutic use
Antineoplastic Agents, Alkylating administration & dosage
Body Weight
Busulfan administration & dosage
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 1477-092X
- Volume :
- 21
- Issue :
- 6
- Database :
- MEDLINE
- Journal :
- Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 24986792
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1177/1078155214541571