Identifying Sources of Interindividual Pharmacokinetic Variability with Population Modeling

Predicting Paclitaxel Disposition in Humans With Whole-Body Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling

Paclitaxel is a commonly used drug in the treatment of multiple solid tumors, including cancers of the breast, lung, and ovaries. Despite the established exposure–pharmacodynamic relationships for paclitaxel, treatment is associated with wide interindividual pharmacokinetic variability that leads to unpredictability of the agent's clinical activity and toxicity. We hypothesized that physiologically‐based modeling approaches could be employed to predict the human pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel following administration of the approved Cremophor‐based formulation (Taxol). The model was developed from tissue distribution studies performed in mice and applied to plasma concentration‐time data obtained in adult cancer patients receiving Taxol at the approved dose and schedule (175 mg/m² by a 3‐hour intravenous infusion), taking into account interspecies differences in physiological parameters. The final model adequately captured the observed concentrations in patients and allowed prediction of paclitaxel distribution profiles in multiple target organs and can be applied to further refine the chemotherapeutic treatment with a clinically important agent.

Individualized pharmacotherapy with paclitaxel

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

More than two decades of clinical experience with paclitaxel as an anticancer drug have contributed significantly to the optimization of today's application schemes and patients' safety. Recent knowledge about interindividual pharmacokinetic variability and population modeling provides a novel scientific basis for an improved and individualized therapeutic approach.

RECENT FINDINGS

Age, gender and bilirubin levels were shown to be associated with an altered pharmacokinetic profile. Prolonged exposure to paclitaxel concentrations exceeding the thresholds of 0.05 or 0.1 micromol/l were predictive for neutropenia, peripheral neuropathy and survival. Due to substantial interindividual diversity observed in paclitaxel pharmacokinetics actual research focuses on common single nucleotide polymorphisms in genes encoding metabolizing enzymes and drug transporters such as CYP450, P-glycoprotein and the organic anion transporting polypeptide OATP1B3. Polymorphisms of ABCB1 encoding P-glycoprotein were found to be associated with neutropenia and neurotoxicity. A haplotype of CYP3A4 was associated with paclitaxel pharmacokinetics.

SUMMARY

Several demographic, pharmacokinetic and genetic covariables that have been identified to influence toxicity and tumor responses following chemotherapy with paclitaxel are discussed with regard to their transferability into a bedside approach.

Flat-fixed dosing versus body surface area based dosing of anticancer drugs in adults: does it make a difference?

The current practice of using body-surface area (BSA) in dosing anticancer agents was implemented in clinical oncology half a century ago. By correcting for BSA, it was generally assumed that cancer patients would receive a dose of a particular cytotoxic drug associated with an acceptable degree of toxicities without reducing the agent's therapeutic effect. More recently, doubt has arisen to this hypothesis, and for many drugs, the effects of BSA on the pharmacokinetics of these agents have therefore been studied retrospectively. In (by far) most cases, use of BSA does not reduce the interindividual variation in the pharmacokinetics of adults, and thus, a logical rationale for further use of this tool in dosing adults is lacking. As a result, alternative dosing strategies have been proposed in order to replace BSA-based dosing. Flat-fixed dosing regimens have been suggested, thereby avoiding potential dose calculation mistakes. As flat-fixed dosing does not typically lead to greater pharmacokinetic variability, it does not seem worse than using BSA-based dosing. While it provides a simplification, it can, however, be questioned whether to call this an improvement or not. The implementation of so-called genotyping and phenotyping strategies, and therapeutic drug monitoring, may probably be of more clinical value. In the end, the nonscientifically based BSA-based dosing strategy should be replaced by alternative strategies. Despite the lack of basic fundamentals, BSA-based dosing still seems "untouchable" in clinical oncology. Even when alternatives will be shown to be indisputably better, many hurdles will probably have to be overcome before physicians will be willing to ban BSA-based dosing. Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest is found at the end of this article.