Publications (233) View all
-
Article: CYP3A4*22 genotype and systemic exposure affect paclitaxel-induced neurotoxicity.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Paclitaxel is used for the treatment of several solid tumors and displays a high inter- individual variation in exposure and toxicity. Neurotoxicity is one of the most prominent side-effects of paclitaxel. This study explores potential predictive pharmacokinetic and pharmacogenetic determinants for the onset and severity of neurotoxicity. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In an exploratory cohort of patients (n=261) treated with paclitaxel, neurotoxicity incidence and severity, pharmacokinetic parameters and pharmacogenetic variants were determined. Paclitaxel plasma concentrations were measured by HPLC or LC-MS/MS, and individual pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated from previously developed population pharmacokinetic models by non-linear mixed effects modeling (NONMEM). Genetic variants of paclitaxel pharmacokinetics tested were CYP3A4*22, CYP2C8*3, CYP2C8*4, and ABCB1 3435 C>T. The association between CYP3A4*22 and neurotoxicity observed in the exploratory cohort was validated in an independent patient cohort (n=239). RESULTS: Exposure to paclitaxel (logAUC) was correlated with severity of neurotoxicity (P <0.00001). Female CYP3A4*22 carriers were at increased risk of developing neurotoxicity (P = 0.043) in the exploratory cohort. CYP3A4*22 carrier status itself was not associated with pharmacokinetic parameters (CL, AUC, Cmax, or T>0.05) of paclitaxel in males or females. Other genetic variants displayed no association with neurotoxicity. In the subsequent independent validation cohort, CYP3A4*22 carriers were at risk of developing grade 3 neurotoxicity (odds ratio = 19.1; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Paclitaxel exposure showed a relationship with the severity of paclitaxel-induced neurotoxicity. In this study, female CYP3A4*22 carriers had increased risk of developing severe neurotoxicity during paclitaxel therapy. These observations may guide future individualization of paclitaxel treatment.Clinical Cancer Research 05/2013; · 7.74 Impact Factor -
Article: The Future of Drug Development? Seeking Evidence of Activity of Novel Drugs in Small Groups of Patients.
Journal of Clinical Oncology 04/2013; · 18.37 Impact Factor -
Dataset: cassier
-
Article: Pazopanib , a new therapy for metastatic soft tissue sarcoma.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Introduction: Pazopanib (GW786034, Votrient®) is a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-focused multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitor involved in inhibiting the angiogenesis pathway. The agent was recently registered for use in soft tissue sarcomas, a group of diseases with a major unmet medical need. Areas covered: The relevance of angiogenesis in soft tissue sarcomas is discussed. These data were the basis to decide on the development of pazopanib in these diseases. The clinical pharmacology of pazopanib, as far as practically relevant, is summarized. After the first observations of possible activity in soft tissue sarcomas in the Phase I study, a Phase II and subsequent randomized placebo-controlled Phase III study were performed and are being put into perspective in this review. Expert opinion: Pazopanib is an active drug for the treatment of chemotherapy-failing nonadipocytic soft tissue sarcomas. It almost triples progression-free survival significantly from 1.6 to 4.6 months in this heavily pretreated population. The safety profile is manageable, exemplified by the high dose intensity that can be achieved over time. Pazopanib can be considered as part of the standard of care for patients with soft tissue sarcomas.Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy 03/2013; · 3.20 Impact Factor -
Article: Evaluation of Patient Enrollment in Oncology Phase I Clinical Trials.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Introduction. For anticancer drug development, it is crucial that patients participate in early-phase clinical trials. The main aim of this study was to gain insight into the motivations and other variables influencing patients in their decision to participate in phase I oncology trials.Materials and Methods. Over a period of 25 months, all patients who were informed about (specific) phase I trials in our cancer center were retrospectively included in this study. Data on providing informed consent and final phase I enrollment were collected.Results. In total, 365 patients, with a median age of 59 years and a median World Health Organization performance status score of 1, were evaluated. The majority of patients (71%) were pretreated with systemic therapy, with a median of two lines. After specific study information had been given, 145 patients (40%) declined informed consent, 54% of them mainly because of low expectations regarding treatment benefits and concerns about potential side effects. Patients who had received previous systemic therapy consented more frequently than others. After initial consent, 61 patients (17%) still did not receive study treatment, mostly because of secondary withdrawal of consent or rapid clinical deterioration prior to first dosing.Discussion. After specific referral to our hospital for participation in early clinical trials, only 44% of all patients who were informed about a specific phase I trial eventually participated. Reasons for both participation and nonparticipation were diverse. Patient participation rates could be improved by forming an experienced and dedicated study team.The Oncologist 02/2013; · 3.91 Impact Factor
