Search

Drug interactions are an ongoing concern in treatment of cancer, especially when cytotoxic drugs are being used. However, the clinical relevance of these interactions is not always investigated. Drug interactions can be pharmaceutical, pharmacokinetic, or pharmacodynamic. They can also be wanted (eg, use of ciclosporin to enhance the oral bioavailability of paclitaxel); unwanted (eg, combination of the antiviral agent sorivudine and oral fluorouracil analogues can lead to fatal complications); between cytotoxic drugs, cytotoxic drugs and non-cytotoxic drugs; or with pharmaceutical vehicles. Potential interactions between anticancer drugs and over-the-counter or alternative medicines and herbs should not be underestimated. More attention should be given to the recognition of potential drug interactions in the preclinical and early clinical development phase of a new anticancer drug. Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of drug interactions, with selected examples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cisplatin is among the most widely used anticancer drugs and known to cause a dose-limiting nephrotoxicity, which is partially dependent on the renal uptake carrier OCT2. We here report a previously unrecognized, OCT2-independent pathway of cisplatin-induced renal injury that is mediated by the organic anion transporters OAT1 and OAT3. Using transporter-deficient mouse models, we found that this mechanism regulates renal uptake of a mercapturic acid metabolite of cisplatin that acts as a precursor of a potent nephrotoxin. The function of these two transport systems can be simultaneously inhibited by the tyrosine kinase inhibitor nilotinib through noncompetitive mechanisms, without compromising the anticancer properties of cisplatin. Collectively, our findings reveal a novel pathway that explains the fundamental basis of cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity, with potential implications for its therapeutic management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Quantitative model-based analyses are helpful to support decision-making in drug development. In oncology, disease progression/clinical outcome (DPCO) models have been used for early predictions of clinical outcome, but most of such approaches did not include adverse events or dose intensity. In addition, cost-effectiveness evaluations of investigational compounds are becoming increasingly important. Here, we developed an integrated model-based framework including relevant treatment effects for patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with the anticancer agent eribulin. The framework included (i) a DPCO model relating prostate-specific antigen (PSA) dynamics to survival; (ii) models for adverse events including dose-limiting neutropenia and other graded toxicities; (iii) a model for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score; (iv) a model for dropout; (v) the consideration of cost effectiveness. The model allowed simulation of realistic treatment courses. Subsequently, simulations evaluating alternative treatment protocols or patient characteristics were performed in order to derive inferences on expected efficacy and cost effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Frameworks that associate cancer dynamic disease progression models with parametric survival models for clinical outcome have recently been proposed to support decision making in early clinical development. Here we developed such a disease progression clinical outcome model for castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) using historical phase II data of the anticancer agent eribulin. Disease progression was captured using the dynamics of prostate-specific antigen (PSA). For clinical outcome, overall survival (OS) was used. The model for PSA dynamics comprised parameters for baseline PSA (23.2 ng/ml, relative standard error (RSE) 16.5%), growth rate (0.00879 day−1, RSE 12.6%), drug effect (0.241 µg·h·l−1 day−1, RSE 32.6%), and resistance development (0.0113 day−1, RSE 44.3%). OS was modeled according to a Weibull distribution. Predictors for survival included model-predicted PSA time to nadir (TTN), PSA growth rate, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score, and baseline PSA. The developed framework can be considered to support informative design and analysis of drugs developed for CRPC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicities, and pharmacokinetics of topotecan administered as a 30-min intravenous (i.v.) infusion over 5 days in combination with a 1-h i.v. infusion of ifosfamide (IF) for 3 consecutive days every 3 weeks. Patients with advanced malignancies refractory to standard therapy were entered into the study. The starting dose of topotecan was 0.4?mg?m-2?day-1 × 5 days. Ifosfamide was administered at a fixed dose of 1.2?g?m-2?day-1 × 3 days. In all, 36 patients received 144 treatment courses. Owing to toxicities, the schedule of topotecan administration was reduced from 5 to 3 days. The MTD was reached at topotecan 1.2?mg?m-2?day-1 × 3 days with IF 1.2?g?m-2?day-1 × 3 days. Haematological toxicities were dose limiting. Neutropenia was the major toxicity. Thrombocytopenia and anaemia were rare. Nonhaematological toxicities were relatively mild. Partial responses were documented in three patients with ovarian cancer dosed below the MTD. Topotecan and IF did not appear to interact pharmacokinetically. The relationships between the exposure to topotecan lactone and total topotecan, and the decrease in absolute neutrophil count and the decrease in thrombocytes, were described with sigmoidal-Emax models. The combination of 1.0?mg?m-2?day-1 topotecan administered as a 30-min i.v. infusion daily times three with 1.2?g?m-2?day-1 IF administered as a 1-h i.v. infusion daily times three every 3 weeks was feasible. However, the combination schedule of topotecan and IF did result in considerable haematological toxicity and in conjunction with previously reported pronounced nonhaematological toxicities and treatment related deaths, it may be concluded that this is not a favourable combination.British Journal of Cancer (2004) 90, 2268-2277. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6601861 www.bjcancer.com Published online 11 May 2004 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]