Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32466789›Full record

ArticleBMC pharmacology & toxicology2020

Can we optimise doxorubicin treatment regimens for children with cancer? Pharmacokinetic simulations and a Delphi consensus procedure.

Christian Siebel, Gudrun Würthwein, Claudia Lanvers-Kaminsky, Nicolas André, Frank Berthold, Ilaria Castelli, Pascal Chastagner, François Doz, Martin English, Gabriele Escherich and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pharmacology & toxicology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. CD8Nature cardiovascular research · 2024
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Mitigation of Cardiovascular Disease and Toxicity through NRF2 Signalling.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

16 authors at 10 institutions in 4 countries.

Christian SiebelDepartment of Paediatric Haematology and Oncology, University Children's Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, A1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Gudrun WürthweinDepartment of Paediatric Haematology and Oncology, University Children's Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, A1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Claudia Lanvers-KaminskyDepartment of Paediatric Haematology and Oncology, University Children's Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, A1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Nicolas AndréDepartment of Paediatric Haematology-Oncology, La Timone University Hospital of Marseille, Marseille, France.
Frank BertholdDepartment of Paediatric Oncology and Haematology, University Children's Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Ilaria CastelliDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Milano-Bicocca, Hospital S Gerardo, Monza, Italy.
Pascal ChastagnerDepartment of Paediatric Oncology, CHRU Nancy, Vandoeuvre Les Nancy, France.
François DozOncology Center SIREDO, Institut Curie and University Paris Descartes, Paris, France.
Martin EnglishBirmingham Women's and Children's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Gabriele EscherichUniversity Medical Centre Eppendorf, Clinic of Paediatric Haematology and Oncology, Hamburg, Germany.
Michael C FrühwaldSwabian Children's Cancer Centre, University Children's Hospital Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.
Norbert GrafDepartment of Paediatric Haematology/Oncology, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, Germany.
Andreas H GrollDepartment of Paediatric Haematology and Oncology, University Children's Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, A1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Antonio RuggieroDivision of Paediatric Oncology, Catholic University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Georg HempelDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Medical Chemistry - Clinical Pharmacy, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Joachim BoosDepartment of Paediatric Haematology and Oncology, University Children's Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, A1, 48149, Muenster, Germany. boos@ukmuenster.de.ORCID 0000-0003-2954-2025
University Hospital Münster · DEBirmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust · GBSaarland University · DEUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · ITUniversität Hamburg · DEUniversité Paris Cité · FRUniversity Hospital Augsburg · DEUniversity Hospital Cologne · DEUniversity of Milano-Bicocca · ITUniversity of Münster · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite its cardiotoxicity doxorubicin is widely used for the treatment of paediatric malignancies. Current treatment regimens appear to be suboptimal as treatment strategies vary and do not follow a clear pharmacological rationale. Standardisation of dosing strategies in particular for infants and younger children is required but is hampered by scarcely defined exposure-response relationships. The aim is to provide a rational dosing concept allowing for a reduction of variability in systemic therapy intensity and subsequently unforeseen side effects.

methodsDoxorubicin plasma concentrations in paediatric cancer patients were simulated for different treatment schedules using a population pharmacokinetic model which considers age-dependent differences in doxorubicin clearance. Overall drug exposure and peak concentrations were assessed. Simulation results were used to support a three round Delphi consensus procedure with the aim to clarify the pharmacological goals of doxorubicin dosing in young children. A group of 28 experts representing paediatric trial groups and clinical centres were invited to participate in this process.

resultsPharmacokinetic simulations illustrated the substantial differences in therapy intensity associated with current dosing strategies. Consensus among the panel members was obtained on a standardised a priori dose adaptation that individualises doxorubicin doses based on age and body surface area targeting uniform drug exposure across children treated with the same protocol. Further, a reduction of peak concentrations in very young children by prolonged infusion was recommended.

conclusionsAn approach to standardise current dose modification schemes in young children is proposed. The consented concept takes individual pharmacokinetic characteristics into account and involves adaptation of both the dose and the infusion duration potentially improving the safety of doxorubicin administration.

Indexed as

Antibiotics, AntineoplasticDoxorubicinNeoplasmsAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolComputer SimulationDelphi TechniqueHumansInfantInfant, NewbornModels, BiologicalAntibiotics, AntineoplasticDoxorubicinCardiotoxicityChildrenDelphi procedureDoxorubicinPharmacokinetics

Identifiers

PMID32466789
PMCPMC7254632
OpenAlexW3028619223

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.