Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32296331›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2020

Integrated Data Analysis of Six Clinical Studies Points Toward Model-Informed Precision Dosing of Tamoxifen.

Lena Klopp-Schulze, Anna Mueller-Schoell, Patrick Neven, Stijn L W Koolen, Ron H J Mathijssen, Markus Joerger, Charlotte Kloft

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Genes · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Therapeutic drug monitoring of oral targeted antineoplastic drugs.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Lena Klopp-SchulzeDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Biochemistry, Institute of Pharmacy, Free University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Anna Mueller-SchoellDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Biochemistry, Institute of Pharmacy, Free University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Patrick NevenVesalius Research Center, University Hospitals Leuven, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Stijn L W KoolenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Ron H J MathijssenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Markus JoergerDepartment of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Cantonal Hospital, St., Gallen, Switzerland.
Charlotte KloftDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Biochemistry, Institute of Pharmacy, Free University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Freie Universität Berlin · DEErasmus MC Cancer Institute · NLKU Leuven · BEUniversity of St. Gallen · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAt tamoxifen standard dosing, ∼20% of breast cancer patients do not reach proposed target endoxifen concentrations >5.97 ng/mL. Thus, better understanding the large interindividual variability in tamoxifen pharmacokinetics (PK) is crucial. By applying non-linear mixed-effects (NLME) modeling to a pooled 'real-world' clinical PK database, we aimed to (i) dissect several levels of variability and identify factors predictive for endoxifen exposure and (ii) assess different tamoxifen dosing strategies for their potential to increase the number of patients reaching target endoxifen concentrations.

methodsTamoxifen and endoxifen concentrations with genetic and demographic data of 468 breast cancer patients from six reported studies were used to develop a NLME parent-metabolite PK model. Different levels of variability on model parameters or measurements were investigated and the impact of covariates thereupon explored. The model was subsequently applied in a simulation-based comparison of three dosing strategies with increasing degree of dose individualization for a large virtual breast cancer population. Interindividual variability of endoxifen concentrations and the fraction of patients at risk for not reaching target concentrations were assessed for each dosing strategy. RESULTS AND

conclusionsThe integrated NLME model enabled to differentiate and quantify four levels of variability (interstudy, interindividual, interoccasion, and intraindividual). Strong influential factors, i.e., CYP2D6 activity score, drug-drug interactions with CYP3A and CYP2D6 inducers/inhibitors and age, were reliably identified, reducing interoccasion variability to <20% CV. Yet, unexplained interindividual variability in endoxifen formation remained large (47.2% CV). Hence, therapeutic drug monitoring seems promising for achieving endoxifen target concentrations. Three tamoxifen dosing strategies [standard dosing (20 mg QD), CYP2D6-guided dosing (20, 40, and 60 mg QD) and individual model-informed precision dosing (MIPD)] using three therapeutic drug monitoring samples (5-120 mg QD) were compared, leveraging the model. The proportion of patients at risk for not reaching target concentrations was 22.2% in standard dosing, 16.0% in CYP2D6-guided dosing and 7.19% in MIPD. While in CYP2D6-guided- and standard dosing interindividual variability in endoxifen concentrations was high (64.0% CV and 68.1% CV, respectively), it was considerably reduced in MIPD (24.0% CV). Hence, MIPD demonstrated to be the most promising strategy for achieving target endoxifen concentrations.

Indexed as

individualized dosingmodel-informed precision dosingmodelingpharmacokineticssimulationtamoxifen

Identifiers

PMID32296331
PMCPMC7136483
OpenAlexW3014976138

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.