RESUMEN
AIMS: To investigate the population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide in breast cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-five female patients with early or advanced breast cancer received doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) over 15 minutes followed by cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) over 15 minutes. The plasma concentration-time data of both drugs were measured, and the relationship between drug pharmacokinetics and neutrophil counts was evaluated using nonlinear mixed-effect modelling. Relationships were explored between drug exposure (the area under the plasma concentration-time curve [AUC]), toxicity and tumour response. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients had complete pharmacokinetic and toxicity data. In 50 patients with measurable disease, the objective response rate was 60%, with complete responses in 6% of patients. Both doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide pharmacokinetics were associated with neutrophil toxicity. Cyclophosphamide exposure (the AUC) was significantly higher in patients with at least stable disease (n = 44) than in patients with progressive disease (n = 6; 945 micromol . h/L [95% CI 889, 1001] vs 602 micromol . h/L [95% CI 379, 825], p = 0.0002). No such correlation was found for doxorubicin. Body surface area was positively correlated with doxorubicin clearance; AST and patient age were negatively correlated with doxorubicin clearance; creatinine clearance was positively correlated with doxorubicinol clearance; and occasional concurrent use of carbamazepine was positively correlated with cyclophosphamide clearance. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed inhibitory population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model adequately described individual neutrophil counts after administration of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide. In this patient population, exposure to cyclophosphamide, as assessed by the AUC, might have been a predictor of the treatment response, whereas exposure to doxorubicin was not. A prospective study should validate cyclophosphamide exposure as a predictive marker for the treatment response and clinical outcome in this patient group.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama/tratamiento farmacológico , Ciclofosfamida/farmacocinética , Doxorrubicina/farmacocinética , Algoritmos , Antibióticos Antineoplásicos/efectos adversos , Antibióticos Antineoplásicos/farmacocinética , Antibióticos Antineoplásicos/uso terapéutico , Antineoplásicos Alquilantes/efectos adversos , Antineoplásicos Alquilantes/farmacocinética , Antineoplásicos Alquilantes/uso terapéutico , Área Bajo la Curva , Ciclofosfamida/efectos adversos , Ciclofosfamida/uso terapéutico , Doxorrubicina/efectos adversos , Doxorrubicina/uso terapéutico , Femenino , Enfermedades Hematológicas/inducido químicamente , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Modelos Biológicos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Paclitaxel and carboplatin are frequently used in advanced ovarian cancer following cytoreductive surgery. Threshold models have been used to predict paclitaxel pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamics, whereas the time above paclitaxel plasma concentration of 0.05 to 0.2 micromol/L (t(C > 0.05-0.2)) predicts neutropenia. The objective of this study was to build a population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model of paclitaxel/carboplatin in ovarian cancer patients. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: One hundred thirty-nine ovarian cancer patients received paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2)) over 3 h followed by carboplatin area under the concentration-time curve 5 mg/mL*min over 30 min. Plasma concentration-time data were measured, and data were processed using nonlinear mixed-effect modeling. Semiphysiologic models with linear or sigmoidal maximum response and threshold models were adapted to the data. RESULTS: One hundred five patients had complete pharmacokinetic and toxicity data. In 34 patients with measurable disease, objective response rate was 76%. Neutrophil and thrombocyte counts were adequately described by an inhibitory linear response model. Paclitaxel t(C > 0.05) was significantly higher in patients with a complete (91.8 h) or partial (76.3 h) response compared with patients with progressive disease (31.5 h; P = 0.02 and 0.05, respectively). Patients with paclitaxel t(C > 0.05) > 61.4 h (mean value) had a longer time to disease progression compared with patients with paclitaxel t(C > 0.05) < 61.4 h (89.0 versus 61.9 weeks; P = 0.05). Paclitaxel t(C > 0.05) was a good predictor for severe neutropenia (P = 0.01), whereas carboplatin exposure (C(max) and area under the concentration-time curve) was the best predictor for thrombocytopenia (P < 10(-4)). CONCLUSIONS: In this group of patients, paclitaxel t(C > 0.05) is a good predictive marker for severe neutropenia and clinical outcome, whereas carboplatin exposure is a good predictive marker for thrombocytopenia.