Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28754722›Full record

ReviewThe oncologist2017

Fixed Dosing of Monoclonal Antibodies in Oncology.

Jeroen J M A Hendrikx, John B A G Haanen, Emile E Voest, Jan H M Schellens, Alwin D R Huitema, Jos H Beijnen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The oncologist, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Jeroen J M A HendrikxDepartment of Pharmacy & Pharmacology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute and MC Slotervaart, Amsterdam, The Netherlands J.Hendrikx@nki.nl.
John B A G HaanenDepartment of Medical Oncology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Emile E VoestDepartment of Molecular Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jan H M SchellensDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Alwin D R HuitemaDepartment of Pharmacy & Pharmacology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute and MC Slotervaart, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jos H BeijnenDepartment of Pharmacy & Pharmacology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute and MC Slotervaart, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most monoclonal antibodies in oncology are administered in body-size-based dosing schedules. This is believed to correct for variability in both drug distribution and elimination between patients. However, monoclonal antibodies typically distribute to the blood plasma and extracellular fluids only, which increase less than proportionally with the increase in body weight. Elimination takes place via proteolytic catabolism, a nonspecific immunoglobulin G elimination pathway, and intracellular degradation after binding to the target. The latter is the primary route of elimination and is related to target expression levels rather than body size. Taken together, the minor effects of body size on distribution and elimination of monoclonal antibodies and their usually wide therapeutic window do not support body-size-based dosing. We evaluated effects of body weight on volume of distribution and clearance of monoclonal antibodies in oncology and show that a fixed dose for most of these drugs is justified based on pharmacokinetics. A survey of the savings after fixed dosing of monoclonal antibodies at our hospital showed that fixed dosing can reduce costs of health care, especially when pooling of preparations is not possible (which is often the case in smaller hospitals). In conclusion, based on pharmacokinetic parameters of monoclonal antibodies, there is a rationale for fixed dosing of these drugs in oncology. Therefore, we believe that fixed dosing is justified and can improve efficiency of the compounding. Moreover, drug spillage can be reduced and medication errors may become less likely. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The currently available knowledge of elimination of monoclonal antibodies combined with the publicly available data from clinical trials and extensive population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) modeling justifies fixed dosing. Interpatient variation in exposure is comparable after body weight and fixed dosing and most monoclonal antibodies show relatively flat dose-response relationships. For monoclonal antibodies, this results in wide therapeutic windows and no reduced clinical efficacy after fixed dosing. Therefore, we believe that fixed dosing at a well-selected dose can increase medication safety and help in reduction of costs of health care without the loss of efficacy or safety margins.

Indexed as

Dose-Response Relationship, DrugAntibodies, MonoclonalHumansAntibodies, MonoclonalCancerFixed dosingMonoclonal antibodies

Identifiers

PMID28754722
PMCPMC5634778

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.