Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10803455›Full record

ReviewClinical pharmacokinetics2000

Adaptive control methods for the dose individualisation of anticancer agents.

A Rousseau, P Marquet, J Debord, C Sabot, G Lachâtre

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Whole-body Imaging of Cell Death Provides a Systemic, Minimally Invasive, Dynamic, and Near-real Time Indicator for Chemotherapeutic Drug Toxicity.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2019
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. In vitro chemosensitivity of head and neck cancer cell lines.European journal of medical research · 2010
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

A RousseauDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University Hospital, Limoges, France. rousseau@pharma.unilim.fr
P Marquet
J Debord
C Sabot
G Lachâtre

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerous studies have found a clear relationship between systemic exposure and the toxicity or (more rarely) the efficacy of anticancer agents. Moreover, the clearance of most of these drugs differs widely between patients. These findings, combined with the narrow therapeutic index of anticancer drugs, suggest that patient outcome would be improved if doses were individualised to achieve a target systemic exposure. Bayesian maximum a posteriori probability (MAP) forecasting is an efficient and robust method for the optimisation of drug therapy, but its use for anticancer drugs is not yet extensive. The aim of this paper is to review the application of population pharmacokinetics and MAP to anticancer drugs and to evaluate whether and when MAP Bayesian estimation improves the clinical benefit of anticancer chemotherapy. For each drug, the relationships between pharmacokinetic variables [e.g. plasma concentration or the area under the concentration-time curve] and pharmacodynamic effects are described. Secondly, the methodologies employed are considered and, finally, the results are analysed in terms of predictive performance as well as, where possible, the impact on clinical end-points. Some studies were retrospective and intended only to evaluate individual pharmacokinetic parameter values using very few blood samples. Among the prospective trials, a few studied the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships which provided the basis for routine pharmacokinetic monitoring. Others were performed in clinical context where MAP Bayesian estimation was used to determine maximum tolerated systemic exposure (e.g. for carboplatin, topotecan, teniposide) or for pharmacokinetic monitoring (e.g. for methotrexate or platinum compounds). Indeed, its flexibility in blood sampling times makes this technique much more applicable than other limited sampling strategies. These examples demonstrate that individual dose adjustment helps manage toxicity. The performance of pharmacokinetic monitoring is linked to the methodology used at each step of its design and application. Moreover, a limitation to the use of pharmacokinetic monitoring for certain anticancer drugs has been the difficulty in obtaining pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic data. Recent progress in analytical methods, as well as the development of noninvasive methods (such as positron emission tomography) for evaluating the effects of chemotherapy, will help to define pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships. Bayesian estimation is the strategy of choice for performing pharmacokinetic studies, as well as ensuring that a given patient benefits from the desired systemic exposure. Together, these methods could contribute to improving cancer chemotherapy in terms of patient outcome and survival.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntineoplastic AgentsBayes TheoremHumansModels, BiologicalNeoplasmsAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.