Application of the area under the curve of carboplatin in predicting toxicity and efficacy

Assessment of Kidney Function in Patients With Cancer

Cancer patients are living longer. The sequelae of cancer treatment and the role of comorbid conditions present before the diagnosis, such as CKD, have been increasingly recognized. The interface between CKD and cancer is multifaceted. CKD is frequently observed in patients with cancer, and cancer treatment contributes to CKD development and progression. In addition, CKD has been recognized as an important risk factor for cancer development and reduced specific cancer survival. In this context, an accurate evaluation of the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) during oncologic treatment is pivotal and is used to define surgery strategies, program prophylactic management of contrasted examinations, make decisions on cisplatin eligibility, and adjust drug prescriptions, particularly chemotherapy agents. Although the most commonly used equations to estimate GFR based on serum creatinine levels in clinical practice (Cockcroft-Gault, Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study, and CKD Epidemiology Collaboration equations) have not been validated in patients with cancer in large prospective studies, there is increasingly evidence supporting the use of CKD Epidemiology Collaboration equation to assess the GFR in patients with cancer, including for the use of chemotherapy prescriptions. Many patients with cancer may have changes in nutrition status and clearance measurements such as exogenous filtration markers might be extremely useful when clinical decisions differ depending on the GFR level. Future perspectives include the advent of new serum GFR biomarkers such as cystatin C, beta-trace protein, and beta-2 microglobulin as well as the GFR assessment by measuring total kidney parenchymal volume through image examinations.

Performance of formulae based estimates of glomerular filtration rate for carboplatin dosing in stage 1 seminoma

BACKGROUND

Single cycle carboplatin, dosed by glomerular filtration rate (GFR), is standard adjuvant therapy for stage 1 seminoma. Accurate measurement of GFR is essential for correct dosing. Isotopic methods remain the gold standard for the determination of GFR. Formulae to estimate GFR have improved the assessment of renal function in non-oncological settings. We assessed the utility of these formulae for carboplatin dosing.

METHODS

We studied consecutive subjects receiving adjuvant carboplatin for stage 1 seminoma at our institution between 2007 and 2012. Subjects underwent 51Cr-ethylene diamine tetra-acetic acid (EDTA) measurement of GFR with carboplatin dose calculated using the Calvert formula. Theoretical carboplatin doses were calculated from estimated GFR using Chronic Kidney Disease-Epidemiology (CKD-EPI), Management of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) and Cockcroft-Gault (CG) formulae with additional correction for actual body surface area (BSA). Carboplatin doses calculated by formulae were compared with dose calculated by isotopic GFR; a difference <10% was considered acceptable.

RESULTS

115 patients were identified. Mean isotopic GFR was 96.9 ml/min/1.73 m(2). CG and CKD-EPI tended to overestimate GFR whereas MDRD tended to underestimate GFR. The CKD-EPI formula had greatest accuracy. The CKD-EPI formula, corrected for actual BSA, performed best; 45.9% of patients received within 10% of correct carboplatin dose. Patients predicted as underdosed (13.5%) by CKD-EPI were more likely to be obese (p=0.013); there were no predictors of the 40.5% receiving an excess dose.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data support further evaluation of the CKD-EPI formula in this patient population but clinically significant variances in carboplatin dosing occur using non-isotopic methods of GFR estimation. Isotopic determination of GFR should remain the recommended standard for carboplatin dosing when accuracy is essential.

Factors for hematopoietic toxicity of carboplatin: refining the targeting of carboplatin systemic exposure

PURPOSE

Area under the curve (AUC) dosing is routinely carried out for carboplatin, but the chosen target AUC values remain largely empirical. This multicenter pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) study was performed to determine the covariates involved in the interindividual variability of carboplatin hematotoxicity that should be considered when choosing individual target AUCs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Three hundred eighty-three patients received carboplatin as part of established regimens. A semi-physiologic population PK-PD model was applied to describe separately the time course of absolute neutrophil and platelet counts using NONMEM software. The plasma ultrafiltrable carboplatin concentration (C(Carbo)) was assumed to inhibit the proliferation of blood cell precursors through a linear model: drug effect = slope × C(Carbo). The slope corresponds to the patients' sensitivity to carboplatin hematotoxicity. The relationships between the patients' sensitivity to the neutropenic or thrombopenic effects of carboplatin and various covariates, including associated chemotherapies, demographic, biologic, and pharmacogenetic data, were studied.

RESULTS

The sensitivity of carboplatin-induced thrombocytopenia decreased in the case of concomitant paclitaxel chemotherapy (slope decreased by 24%), whereas it increased with coadministration of etoposide and gemcitabine (slope increased by 45% and 133%, respectively). For neutropenia, the sensitivity increased when carboplatin was combined with other cytotoxics (slope increased by 76%).

CONCLUSION

This study provides useful information to clinicians to better estimate the hematopoietic toxicity of carboplatin and thus choose more rationally carboplatin target AUCs as a function of pretreatment or concomitantly administered chemotherapies. For example, an AUC of 5 mg/mL · min is associated with a risk of grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia of 2% in combination with paclitaxel versus 38% with gemcitabine in a non-pretreated patient.

Drug exposure: still an excellent biomarker

Relationships between plasma drug concentrations and clinical outcome have been defined for various chemotherapeutic agents, showing that drug exposure may be a marker of toxicity, mainly hematological and gastrointestinal toxicity, as well as efficacy, expressed as tumor response and survival. Biomarkers provide information for guidance in dosing and the minimization of interindividual variation in response. Drug exposure is commonly measured with parameters such as area under the plasma concentration-time curve, steady-state plasma or serum concentrations, peak concentrations and duration above a threshold concentration. In this review, we focus on drugs where pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships as well as systemic exposure have been associated to toxicity and/or efficacy in solid and hematological tumors, these include: carboplatin, methotrexate, busulphan, 5-fluorouracil, etoposide, anthracyclines, irinotecan, vinorelbine and docetaxel.

Flat Dosing of Carboplatin Is Justified in Adult Patients with Normal Renal Function

PURPOSE

The Calvert formula is a widely applied algorithm for the a priori dosing of carboplatin based on patients glomerular filtration rate (GFR) as accurately measured using the 51Cr-EDTA clearance. Substitution of the GFR in this formula by an estimate of creatinine clearance or GFR as calculated by formulae using serum creatinine (SCR; Cockcroft-Gault, Jelliffe, and Wright) is, however, routine clinical practice in many hospitals. The goal of this study was to validate this practice retrospectively in a large heterogeneous adult patient population.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Concentration-time data of ultrafilterable platinum of 178 patients (280 courses, 3,119 samples) with different types of cancer receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy in conventional and high doses were available. Data were described with a linear two-compartment population pharmacokinetic model. Relations between SCR-based formulae for estimating renal function and carboplatin clearance were investigated.

RESULTS

None of the tested SCR-based estimates of renal function were relevantly related to the pharmacokinetic variables of carboplatin. Neither SCR (median, 51; range, 18-124 micromol/L) nor the estimated GFR using the three different formulae was related to carboplatin clearance.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data do not support the application of modifications of the Calvert formula by estimating GFR from SCR in the a priori dosing of carboplatin in patients with relatively normal renal function (creatinine clearance, >50 mL/min). For targeted carboplatin exposures, the original Calvert formula, measuring GFR using the 51Cr-EDTA clearance, remains the method of choice. Alternatively, in patients with normal renal function, a flat dose based on the mean population carboplatin clearance should be administered.

Evaluation of predictive formulae for glomerular filtration rate for carboplatin dosing in gynecological malignancies

OBJECTIVES

Carboplatin dosing is usually based on glomerular filtration rate (GFR). The Cockcroft-Gault and the Modified Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study formulae are based on serum creatinine to estimate GFR when measured GFR is impractical. The MDRD formula has been shown to be more accurate in non-cancer patients with chronic renal disease. We compared the accuracy of these formulae for dosing carboplatin in patients with gynecological cancers.

METHODS

Patient data were collected retrospectively at the Vancouver Centre of the British Columbia Cancer Agency, Canada. GFR estimated by formula was compared to measured GFR. Dose derived from estimated GFR was compared to dose derived from measured GFR. Bias (percentage error) and precision (absolute percentage error) were compared with two-sided paired t-test.

RESULTS

A total of 96 patients were evaluable: median age 60 years, weight 62 kg, height 159 cm, baseline serum creatinine 71 micromol/l, GFR 91 ml/min. Both formulae had limited precision with a small bias for estimated GFR and dosing. Eight-five percent of patients would have received a significantly different dose if estimated GFR from any formula was used. The MDRD formula was more precise than the Cockcroft-Gault formula.

CONCLUSIONS

The MDRD formula seems to be more accurate than the Cockcroft-Gault formula in this population. However, both have limited precision and measured GFR should be preferred for carboplatin dosing.

Toxicity of platinum compounds

Since the introduction of platinum-based combination chemotherapy, particularly cisplatin, the outcome of the treatment of many solid tumours has changed. The leading platinum compounds in cancer chemotherapy are cisplatin, carboplatin and oxaliplatin. They share some structural similarities; however, there are marked differences between them in therapeutic use, pharmacokinetics and adverse effects profiles [1-4]. Compared to cisplatin, carboplatin has inferior efficacy in germ-cell tumour, head and neck cancer and bladder and oesophageal carcinoma, whereas both drugs seem to have comparable efficacy in advanced non-small cell and small cell lung cancer as well as ovarian cancer [5-7]. Oxaliplatin belongs to the group of diaminocyclohexane platinum compounds. It is the first platinum-based drug that has marked efficacy in colorectal cancer when given in combination with 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid [8,9]. Other platinum compounds such as oral JM216, ZD0473, BBR3464 and SPI-77, which is a pegylated liposomal formulation of cisplatin, are still under investigation [10-13], whereas nedaplatin has been approved in Japan for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer and other solid tumours. This review focuses on cisplatin, carboplatin and oxaliplatin.

The clinical pharmacology of alkylating agents in high-dose chemotherapy

Alkylating agents are widely used in high-dose chemotherapy regimens in combination with hematological support. Knowledge about the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of these agents administered in high doses is critical for the safe and efficient use of these regimens. The aim of this review is to summarize the clinical pharmacology of the alkylating agents (including the platinum compounds) in high-dose chemotherapy. Differences between conventional and high doses will be discussed.