Linked Life Data

3289632

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/3289632

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
6
pubmed:dateCreated
1988-7-29
pubmed:abstractText
The studies reviewed herein support the precept that "systemic dose-intensity" (i.e., systemic exposure) may be more informative than "administered dose-intensity" for certain anticancer drugs. This does not mean that the administered dose-intensity should be ignored; in fact these data indicate the importance of documenting and assessing administered dose-intensity as an initial step toward identifying those situations where systemic dose-intensity may be most important. The studies described in this review were selected as representative examples of successful clinical pharmacodynamic studies; other published examples include vincristine AUC versus severity of neurotoxicity, etoposide systemic exposure versus leukopenia, red cell concentration of mercaptopurine metabolites versus neutropenia in children with ALL, and ARA-CTP retention in leukemic blasts versus clinical response in acute non-lymphocytic leukemia. As is the case with other types of clinical trials in cancer patients, there are also examples of negative pharmacodynamic studies (i.e., no relationship found between concentration and effects). There are several possible reasons for such negative findings, including the lack of such a relationship for some drugs, measuring the inappropriate drug moiety (e.g., failure to measure all active metabolites), measuring drug concentrations in the wrong biological fluid, evaluating systemic exposure over too narrow a range (i.e., all patients have either sub- or supra-therapeutic systemic exposure), selecting inappropriate sampling times or pharmacokinetic parameters, inadequately assessing drug toxicity or response, or simply studying an inadequate number of patients or patients with drug-resistant cancers. Therefore, negative findings in some pharmacodynamic studies should not deter the investigation of other drugs and/or other malignant diseases, just as negative therapeutic trials do not preclude subsequent clinical trials in oncology. Also, finding a relation between systemic exposure and drug toxicity, in the absence of a clear relation to antitumor effects, is potentially of great clinical utility. Such data should allow more objective escalation of drug dosages in individual patients, to ensure maximum dose-intensity while avoiding host toxicity. Obviously, if such dose escalation could be guided by more easily measured patient characteristics (e.g., age, weight, CrCl, shoe size, etc.), then using drug concentrations in individual patients might be obviated.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
pubmed:grant
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:chemical
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Jun
pubmed:issn
0006-5242
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
56
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
241-8
pubmed:dateRevised
2007-11-14
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1988
pubmed:articleTitle
Clinical pharmacodynamics of anticancer drugs: a basis for extending the concept of dose-intensity.
pubmed:affiliation
Pharmaceutical Division, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S., Review, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't