Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34073681›Full record

ArticlePharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Clinical-Based vs. Model-Based Adaptive Dosing Strategy: Retrospective Comparison in Real-World mRCC Patients Treated with Sunitinib.

Florent Ferrer, Jonathan Chauvin, Bénédicte DeVictor, Bruno Lacarelle, Jean-Laurent Deville, Joseph Ciccolini

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Florent FerrerSMARTc Unit, Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Marseille, Inserm U1068 Aix Marseille Université, 13385 Marseille, France.
Jonathan ChauvinLiXoft, 92160 Antony, France.
Bénédicte DeVictorLaboratoire de Pharmacocinétique et Toxicologie, La Timone University Hospital of Marseille, 13385 Marseille, France.
Bruno LacarelleSMARTc Unit, Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Marseille, Inserm U1068 Aix Marseille Université, 13385 Marseille, France.
Jean-Laurent DevilleMedical Oncology Unit, La Timone University Hospital of Marseille, 13385 Marseille, France.
Joseph CiccoliniSMARTc Unit, Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Marseille, Inserm U1068 Aix Marseille Université, 13385 Marseille, France.ORCID 0000-0003-1733-3410
Inserm · FRHôpital de la Timone · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Different target exposures with sunitinib have been proposed in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients, such as trough concentrations or AUCs. However, most of the time, rather than therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), clinical evidence is preferred to tailor dosing, i.e., by reducing the dose when treatment-related toxicities show, or increasing dosing if no signs of efficacy are observed. Here, we compared such empirical dose adjustment of sunitinib in mRCC patients, with the parallel dosing proposals of a PK/PD model with TDM support. In 31 evaluable patients treated with sunitinib, 53.8% had an empirical change in dosing after treatment started (i.e., 46.2% decrease in dosing, 7.6% increase in dosing). Clinical benefit was observed in 54.1% patients, including 8.3% with complete response. Overall, 58.1% of patients experienced treatment discontinuation eventually, either because of toxicities or progressive disease. When choosing 50-100 ng/mL trough concentrations as a target exposure (i.e., sunitinib + active metabolite N-desethyl sunitinib), 45% patients were adequately exposed. When considering 1200-2150 ng/mL.h as a target AUC (i.e., sunitinib + active metabolite N-desethyl sunitinib), only 26% patients were in the desired therapeutic window. TDM with retrospective PK/PD modeling would have suggested decreasing sunitinib dosing in a much larger number of patients as compared with empirical dose adjustment. Indeed, when using target trough concentrations, the model proposed reducing dosing for 61% patients, and up to 84% patients based upon target AUC. Conversely, the model proposed increasing dosing in 9.7% of patients when using target trough concentrations and in 6.5% patients when using target AUC. Overall, TDM with adaptive dosing would have led to tailoring sunitinib dosing in a larger number of patients (i.e., 53.8% vs. 71-91%, depending on the chosen metrics for target exposure) than a clinical-based decision. Interestingly, sunitinib dosing was empirically reduced in 41% patients who displayed early-onset severe toxicities, whereas model-based recommendations would have immediately proposed to reduce dosing in more than 80% of those patients. This observation suggests that early treatment-related toxicities could have been partly avoided using prospective PK/PD modeling with adaptive dosing. Conversely, the possible impact of model-based adapted dosing on efficacy could not be fully evaluated because no clear relationship was found between baseline exposure levels and sunitinib efficacy measured at 3 months.

Indexed as

model-based adaptive dosingoncologyoral targeted therapypharmacokineticsPK/PD modelingprecision medicinesunitinibtherapeutic drug monitoring

Identifiers

PMID34073681
PMCPMC8224810
OpenAlexW3164843745

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.