Limited inter-occasion variability in relation to inter-individual variability in chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression

PurposeA previously developed semi-physiological model of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression has shown consistent system-related parameter and inter-individual variability (IIV) estimates across drugs. A requirement for dose individualization to be useful is relatively low variability between treatment courses (inter-occasion variability [IOV]) in relation to IIV. The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare magnitudes of IOV and IIV in myelosuppression model parameters across six different anti-cancer drug treatments.MethodsNeutrophil counts from several treatment courses following therapy with docetaxel, paclitaxel, epirubicin-docetaxel, 5-fluorouracil–epirubicin–cyclophosphamide, topotecan, and etoposide were included in the analysis. The myelosuppression model was fitted to the data using NONMEM VI. IOV in the model parameters baseline neutrophil counts (ANC0), mean transit time through the non-mitotic maturation chain (mean transit time [MTT]), and the parameter describing the concentration–effect relationship (slope), were evaluated for statistical significance (P < 0.001).ResultsInter-occasion variability in MTT was significant for all the investigated datasets, except for topotecan, and was of similar magnitude (8–16 CV%). IOV in slope was significant for docetaxel, topotecan, and etoposide (19–39 CV%). For all six investigated datasets, the IOV in myelosuppression parameters was lower than the IIV. There was no indication of systematic shifts in the system- or drug sensitivity-related parameters over time across datasets.ConclusionThis study indicates that the semi-physiological model of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression has potential to be used for prediction of the time-course of myelosuppression in future courses and is, thereby, a valuable step towards individually tailored anticancer drug therapy.

[1]  Mats O. Karlsson,et al.  Use of Prior Information to Stabilize a Population Data Analysis , 2002, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics.

[2]  G. Lyman,et al.  Crawford J, Dale DC, Lyman GH. Chemotherapy‐induced neutropenia: risks, consequences, and new directions for its management. Cancer. (2004) 100(2):228–37. , 2004 .

[3]  R. Schilsky,et al.  Pharmacologically based dosing of etoposide: a means of safely increasing dose intensity. , 1991, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[4]  M. O. Karlsson,et al.  The importance of modeling interoccasion variability in population pharmacokinetic analyses , 1993, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics.

[5]  J. Verweij,et al.  Mechanism‐based models for topotecan‐induced neutropenia , 2004, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[6]  W. Evans,et al.  Making TDM work to optimize cancer chemotherapy: a multidisciplinary team approach. , 1998, Clinical chemistry.

[7]  J. Bergh,et al.  Model describing the relationship between pharmacokinetics and hematologic toxicity of the epirubicin-docetaxel regimen in breast cancer patients. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[8]  D H Williams,et al.  A Bayesian Population PK–PD Model of Ispinesib‐induced Myelosuppression , 2007, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[9]  R. Schilsky,et al.  Adaptive control of etoposide administration: Impact of interpatient pharmacodynamic variability , 1989, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[10]  J. Bergh,et al.  Population analysis of the pharmacokinetics and the haematological toxicity of the fluorouracil-epirubicin-cyclophosphamide regimen in breast cancer patients , 2006, Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology.

[11]  L B Sheiner,et al.  A population model for the leukopenic effect of etoposide , 1995, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[12]  David Miles,et al.  Superior survival with capecitabine plus docetaxel combination therapy in anthracycline-pretreated patients with advanced breast cancer: phase III trial results. , 2002, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[13]  Mats O Karlsson,et al.  Model of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression with parameter consistency across drugs. , 2002, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[14]  L. Sheiner,et al.  Estimating bioavailability when clearance varies with time , 1994, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[15]  M. Karlsson,et al.  Clinical application of a semimechanistic-physiologic population PK/PD model for neutropenia following pemetrexed therapy , 2006, Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology.

[16]  George E. Cartwright,et al.  Analytical Review: The Kinetics of Granulopoiesis in Normal Man , 1964 .

[17]  Mats O. Karlsson,et al.  A tool for neutrophil guided dose adaptation in chemotherapy , 2009, Comput. Methods Programs Biomed..

[18]  Mats O Karlsson,et al.  Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modelling in oncological drug development. , 2005, Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology.

[19]  G. Kerr,et al.  Moderate neutropenia with adjuvant CMF confers improved survival in early breast cancer , 2003, British Journal of Cancer.

[20]  M O Karlsson,et al.  Population pharmacokinetic modelling of unbound and total plasma concentrations of paclitaxel in cancer patients. , 2003, European journal of cancer.

[21]  Lewis B. Sheiner,et al.  A population pharmacokinetic model for docetaxel (Taxotere®): Model building and validation , 1996, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics.

[22]  S. Rodenhuis,et al.  Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of topotecan administered by a 24-hour continuous infusion. , 1995, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[23]  G Toffoli,et al.  Population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of oral etoposide. , 2001, British journal of clinical pharmacology.

[24]  M M WINTROBE,et al.  THE KINETICS OF GRANULOPOIESIS IN NORMAL MAN. , 1964, Blood.

[25]  Jos H. Beijnen,et al.  Individualised Cancer Chemotherapy: Strategies and Performance of Prospective Studies on Therapeutic Drug Monitoring with Dose Adaptation , 2005, Clinical pharmacokinetics.

[26]  G. Lyman,et al.  Chemotherapy‐induced neutropenia , 2004, Cancer.

[27]  H. Hollema,et al.  Population Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Paclitaxel and Carboplatin in Ovarian Cancer Patients: A Study by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Pharmacology and Molecular Mechanisms Group and New Drug Development Group , 2007, Clinical Cancer Research.

[28]  I. Tannock,et al.  Analysis of the prognostic effects of inclusion in a clinical trial and of myelosuppression on survival after adjuvant chemotherapy for breast carcinoma , 2001, Cancer.

[29]  Alan Schumitzky,et al.  Model-Based, Goal-Oriented, Individualised Drug Therapy , 1998, Clinical pharmacokinetics.

[30]  E N Jonsson,et al.  Xpose--an S-PLUS based population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model building aid for NONMEM. , 1999, Computer methods and programs in biomedicine.

[31]  Mark J. Ratain,et al.  Body Surface Area as a Determinant of Pharmacokinetics and Drug Dosing , 2001, Investigational New Drugs.

[32]  R. Obach,et al.  Phase I dose-finding study and a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis of the neutropenic response of intravenous diflomotecan in patients with advanced malignant tumours , 2006, Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology.

[33]  Mats O Karlsson,et al.  Population Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Model for Neutropenia with Patient Subgroup Identification: Comparison across Anticancer Drugs , 2006, Clinical Cancer Research.

[34]  J. Verweij,et al.  Factors affecting pharmacokinetic variability of oral topotecan: a population analysis , 2004, British Journal of Cancer.

[35]  A. Auvinen,et al.  Haematological toxicity: a marker of adjuvant chemotherapy efficacy in stage II and III breast cancer. , 1997, British Journal of Cancer.

[36]  M. Karlsson,et al.  Models of schedule dependent haematological toxicity of 2'-deoxy-2'-methylidenecytidine (DMDC) , 2000, European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.

[37]  C. Blomqvist,et al.  Leucocyte nadir as a marker for chemotherapy efficacy in node-positive breast cancer treated with adjuvant CMF , 1999, British Journal of Cancer.