Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology · 2014
Population pharmacokinetics of peritoneal, plasma ultrafiltrated and protein-bound oxaliplatin concentrations in patients with disseminated peritoneal cancer after intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemoperfusion of oxaliplatin following cytoreductive surgery: correlation between oxaliplatin exposure and thrombocytopenia.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chalret du Rieu Quentin, White-Koning Mélanie, Picaud Laetitia, Lochon Isabelle, Marsili Sabrina, Gladieff Laurence, Chatelut Etienne, Ferron Gwenaël
Аннотация
PURPOSE: First, to evaluate the peritoneal (IP), plasma ultrafiltrated (UF) and protein-bound (B) pharmacokinetics (PK) of oxaliplatin after intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemoperfusion (HIPEC) following cytoreductive surgery. Second, to evaluate the relationship between oxaliplatin exposure and observed toxicity.
METHODS: IP, UF, and B concentrations from 75 patients treated by 30-min oxaliplatin-based HIPEC procedures were analysed according to a pharmacokinetic modelling approach using NONMEM. Oxaliplatin was administered in a 5 % dextrose solution (2 L/m(2)) at 360 (n = 58) or 460 mg/m(2) (n = 17). The most frequently observed toxicities were related to the peritoneal, systemic exposures and to the parameters corresponding to the oxaliplatin absorption from peritoneal cavity into plasma.
RESULTS: IP (n = 536), UF (n = 669) and B (n = 661) concentrations were simultaneously described according to a five-compartment PK model with irreversible nonlinear binding from UF to B according to a Michaelis-Menten equation. The mean (±SD) maximum fraction of dose absorbed and elimination half-life from the peritoneum was 53.7 % (±8.5) and 0.49 h (±0.1), respectively. The mean (±SD) ratio AUC(IP)/AUC(UF) was 5.3 (±2) confirming the pharmacokinetic advantage of the procedure. Haemoperitoneum (22.7 %), neuropathy (18.7 %), grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (13.3 %) were the most frequently reported toxicities. AUC(UF) accounts for approximately 12 % of the variation in the maximum percentage of platelet decrease (r = 0.35, p = 0.002). Thrombocytopenia was correlated with higher AUCUF, partly dependent on the extent and rate of oxaliplatin absorption.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite a common dose administered, variability in peritoneal and systemic oxaliplatin exposures are observed, leading to differences in haematological toxicity between patients.
METHODS: IP, UF, and B concentrations from 75 patients treated by 30-min oxaliplatin-based HIPEC procedures were analysed according to a pharmacokinetic modelling approach using NONMEM. Oxaliplatin was administered in a 5 % dextrose solution (2 L/m(2)) at 360 (n = 58) or 460 mg/m(2) (n = 17). The most frequently observed toxicities were related to the peritoneal, systemic exposures and to the parameters corresponding to the oxaliplatin absorption from peritoneal cavity into plasma.
RESULTS: IP (n = 536), UF (n = 669) and B (n = 661) concentrations were simultaneously described according to a five-compartment PK model with irreversible nonlinear binding from UF to B according to a Michaelis-Menten equation. The mean (±SD) maximum fraction of dose absorbed and elimination half-life from the peritoneum was 53.7 % (±8.5) and 0.49 h (±0.1), respectively. The mean (±SD) ratio AUC(IP)/AUC(UF) was 5.3 (±2) confirming the pharmacokinetic advantage of the procedure. Haemoperitoneum (22.7 %), neuropathy (18.7 %), grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (13.3 %) were the most frequently reported toxicities. AUC(UF) accounts for approximately 12 % of the variation in the maximum percentage of platelet decrease (r = 0.35, p = 0.002). Thrombocytopenia was correlated with higher AUCUF, partly dependent on the extent and rate of oxaliplatin absorption.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite a common dose administered, variability in peritoneal and systemic oxaliplatin exposures are observed, leading to differences in haematological toxicity between patients.