ArticleCancer chemotherapy and pharmacology2025
Alternative routes of drug administration: exposure of imatinib using different formulations.
Article in Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology, 2025. 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.
- Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Oral Targeted Anticancer Drugs: Achievements, Experiences, Challenges, and the Path Forward.Therapeutic drug monitoring · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo explore the possibility of treating patients with alternative imatinib formulations.
methodsTwo patients were treated with different enteral en rectal imatinib formulations. During treatment plasma concentrations where measured to assure adequate exposure.
resultsThe first patient received imatinib suspension through the duodenum tube. With a dose of 400 mg BID the patient had an imatinib plasma concentration of 750 µg/L. After increasing the dose to 600 mg BID the imatinib plasma concentration was 1500 µg/L (target GIST treatment > 1100 µg/L). Rectal administration of the tablet did not lead to sufficient plasma concentrations. The second had adequate exposure of imatinib both when the suspension was taken orally and through the tube (target CML treatment are > 1000 µg/L).
conclusionFor patients able to swallow liquids, we prefer the suspended imatinib tablets (comparable to drug label). If patients have a duodenum tube the use of a suspension base with pulverized tablets could be an alternative. Based on the extremely low exposure found in case 1, we do not recommend rectal administration of tablets. We recommend the monitor plasma concentrations when off label dosing forms are used.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40111550What 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.