Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2008
Randomized crossover pharmacokinetic study of solvent-based paclitaxel and nab-paclitaxel.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеResearch Support, N.I.H., IntramuralПоддержка 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.
Gardner Erin R, Dahut William L, Scripture Charity D, Jones Jacquin, Aragon-Ching Jeanny B, Desai Neil, Hawkins Michael J, Sparreboom Alex, Figg William D
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Abraxane (ABI-007) is a 130-nm albumin-bound (nab) particle formulation of paclitaxel, devoid of any additional excipients. We hypothesized that this change in formulation alters the systemic disposition of paclitaxel compared with conventional solvent-based formulations (sb-paclitaxel; Taxol), and leads to improved tolerability of the drug.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with malignant solid tumors were randomized to receive the recommended single-agent dose of nab-paclitaxel (260 mg/m(2) as a 30-minute infusion) or sb-paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2) as a 3-hour infusion). After cycle 1, patients crossed over to the alternate treatment. Pharmacokinetic studies were carried out for the first cycle of sb-paclitaxel and the first two cycles of nab-paclitaxel.
RESULTS: Seventeen patients were treated, with 14 receiving at least one cycle each of nab-paclitaxel and sb-paclitaxel. No change in nab-paclitaxel pharmacokinetics was found between the first and second cycles (P = 0.95), suggesting limited intrasubject variability. Total drug exposure was comparable between the two formulations (P = 0.55) despite the dose difference. However, exposure to unbound paclitaxel was significantly higher after nab-paclitaxel administration, due to the increased free fraction (0.063 +/- 0.021 versus 0.024 +/- 0.009; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: This study shows that paclitaxel disposition is subject to considerable variability depending on the formulation used. Because systemic exposure to unbound paclitaxel is likely a driving force behind tumoral uptake, these findings explain, at least in part, previous observations that the administration of nab-paclitaxel is associated with augmented antitumor efficacy compared with solvent-based paclitaxel.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with malignant solid tumors were randomized to receive the recommended single-agent dose of nab-paclitaxel (260 mg/m(2) as a 30-minute infusion) or sb-paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2) as a 3-hour infusion). After cycle 1, patients crossed over to the alternate treatment. Pharmacokinetic studies were carried out for the first cycle of sb-paclitaxel and the first two cycles of nab-paclitaxel.
RESULTS: Seventeen patients were treated, with 14 receiving at least one cycle each of nab-paclitaxel and sb-paclitaxel. No change in nab-paclitaxel pharmacokinetics was found between the first and second cycles (P = 0.95), suggesting limited intrasubject variability. Total drug exposure was comparable between the two formulations (P = 0.55) despite the dose difference. However, exposure to unbound paclitaxel was significantly higher after nab-paclitaxel administration, due to the increased free fraction (0.063 +/- 0.021 versus 0.024 +/- 0.009; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: This study shows that paclitaxel disposition is subject to considerable variability depending on the formulation used. Because systemic exposure to unbound paclitaxel is likely a driving force behind tumoral uptake, these findings explain, at least in part, previous observations that the administration of nab-paclitaxel is associated with augmented antitumor efficacy compared with solvent-based paclitaxel.