Infusional therapy with alkylating agents.

R B Jones
{"title":"Infusional therapy with alkylating agents.","authors":"R B Jones","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In 1990, Donehower editorialized in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, entitled \"Evaluating Cancer Chemotherapy by Infusion\" (92). In the same issue, Goldberg reported a phase III study comparing etoposide and cDDP administered by either bolus or infusion to patients with non-small cell lung cancer (93). There was no advantage to the infusional schedule; in fact, it produced greater myelotoxicity. In the editorial, Donehower commented that the daily etoposide dose was not substantially pharmacokinetically different from a daily bolus schedule (because of the drug's relatively long half-life), and the greater myelotoxicity of infusional cDDP might have been predicted by preclinical studies. He suggested that studies of cancer drugs given by infusion should only be undertaken in the context of strong accompanying pharmacologic and preclinical experimental rationale, and that phase III studies of this concept should only be undertaken after a strong justification is developed. The concept that infusions of AA are generally less toxic than bolus dosing formed much of the rationale for infusional AA administered with BMT. The detailed studies of Teicher (1) and Frei (89), cited above, provided strong preclinical data suggesting that improvement in the therapeutic index could be achieved for most AA when infusional schedules were used. Additionally, the high toxic risk accompanying high-dose combination AA therapy with hematopoietic cell support mandated detailed PK studies. Data produced by these efforts (5, 12) now add additional basis for systemic exploration of AA infusions. Armed with the basic data suggested by Donehower, a more scientifically based study of AA infusion can take place in the future. Compelling rationales now support such studies. The availability of means to avoid fatal hematologic toxicity for virtually all patients suggests that the next era of exploration of AA infusions will be fruitful, and accompanied by a deeper understanding of the relationship between visceral organ toxicities and PK/PD changes produced by AA administered over prolonged periods.</p>","PeriodicalId":79426,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of infusional chemotherapy","volume":"6 2","pages":"74-81"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1996-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of infusional chemotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 1990, Donehower editorialized in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, entitled "Evaluating Cancer Chemotherapy by Infusion" (92). In the same issue, Goldberg reported a phase III study comparing etoposide and cDDP administered by either bolus or infusion to patients with non-small cell lung cancer (93). There was no advantage to the infusional schedule; in fact, it produced greater myelotoxicity. In the editorial, Donehower commented that the daily etoposide dose was not substantially pharmacokinetically different from a daily bolus schedule (because of the drug's relatively long half-life), and the greater myelotoxicity of infusional cDDP might have been predicted by preclinical studies. He suggested that studies of cancer drugs given by infusion should only be undertaken in the context of strong accompanying pharmacologic and preclinical experimental rationale, and that phase III studies of this concept should only be undertaken after a strong justification is developed. The concept that infusions of AA are generally less toxic than bolus dosing formed much of the rationale for infusional AA administered with BMT. The detailed studies of Teicher (1) and Frei (89), cited above, provided strong preclinical data suggesting that improvement in the therapeutic index could be achieved for most AA when infusional schedules were used. Additionally, the high toxic risk accompanying high-dose combination AA therapy with hematopoietic cell support mandated detailed PK studies. Data produced by these efforts (5, 12) now add additional basis for systemic exploration of AA infusions. Armed with the basic data suggested by Donehower, a more scientifically based study of AA infusion can take place in the future. Compelling rationales now support such studies. The availability of means to avoid fatal hematologic toxicity for virtually all patients suggests that the next era of exploration of AA infusions will be fruitful, and accompanied by a deeper understanding of the relationship between visceral organ toxicities and PK/PD changes produced by AA administered over prolonged periods.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
烷基化剂输注治疗。
1990年,Donehower在《国家癌症研究所杂志》上发表社论,题为“通过输液评估癌症化疗”(92)。在同一期杂志上,Goldberg报道了一项比较依托泊苷和cDDP在非小细胞肺癌患者中给药或输注的III期研究(93)。输液计划没有任何优势;事实上,它产生了更大的骨髓毒性。在社论中,Donehower评论说,每日的依托泊苷剂量与每日大剂量的药代动力学上并没有实质性的不同(因为药物的半衰期相对较长),并且临床前研究可能已经预测了输注cDDP更大的骨髓毒性。他建议,对输注给药的癌症药物的研究只应在强有力的伴随药理学和临床前实验理论的背景下进行,并且该概念的III期研究只有在强有力的理由得到证实后才应进行。AA输注通常比大剂量给药毒性更小,这一概念构成了BMT输注AA的基本原理。上面引用的Teicher(1)和Frei(89)的详细研究提供了强有力的临床前数据,表明当使用输注方案时,大多数AA的治疗指标可以得到改善。此外,高剂量AA联合造血细胞支持治疗的高毒性风险要求进行详细的PK研究。这些努力产生的数据(5,12)现在为系统性探索AA输注提供了额外的基础。有了Donehower提出的基础数据,未来可以进行更科学的AA输注研究。现在有令人信服的理由支持这样的研究。对于几乎所有患者来说,避免致命血液学毒性的方法的可用性表明,下一个探索AA输注的时代将是富有成效的,并且伴随着对长期给药AA产生的内脏器官毒性和PK/PD变化之间关系的更深入理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Hematopoietic rescue with peripheral blood stem cells: promising strategies in cancer therapy. Peripheral blood stem cells: a historical perspective. Hematopoietic "stem cell" transplantation: are there any clouds on an expanding horizon? Methods of stem cell mobilization. Stem cell purging ex vivo.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1