ArticleCancer chemotherapy and pharmacology2022
Adaptive dosing of sunitinib in a metastatic renal cell carcinoma patient: when in silico modeling helps to go quicker to the point.
Article in Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAdaptive dosing strategy with oral targeted therapies in oncology is mostly based upon clinical signs. Using pharmacokinetics (PK) models to customize dosing could help saving time, i.e., by predicting clinical outcome through early monitoring of drug levels. CASE REPORT: We present the case of a metastatic renal cell carcinoma patient treated with standard Sunitinib dosing (i.e., 50 mg QD). Clinical signs suggested lack of efficacy. Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM) confirmed that exposure was below the expected target exposure. PK modeling suggested that dosing could be increased safely to 75 mg QD. Sunitinib dosing was instead changed empirically to 62.5 mg only, increasing drug exposure to the lower part of the therapeutic window. Resolution of bone pains plus Stable Disease were observed. Even though further modeling suggested to increase Sunitinib dosing to 75 mg again, the intermediate dosing was maintained for the subsequent cycles to preserve the safety. Unfortunately, severe pains plus degradation of the general state were reported and imaging showed Progressive Disease. The patient was finally switched to alternative therapy, without being treated at the 75 mg level of Suntitinib. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION: This case suggests that model-based adaptive dosing could have allowed to reach quicker the best dosing with Sunitinib, thus possibly ensuring a better management of this patient. Model-informed dosing should be used instead of empirical search for the most appropriate dosing to ensure a good benefit/risk ratio with Sunitinib, especially in the context of such aggressive disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.