Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Development of a pharmacokinetic limited sampling model for temozolomide and its active metabolite MTIC

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To develop a pharmacokinetic limited sampling model (LSM) for temozolomide and its metabolite MTIC in infants and children.

Methods

LSMs consisting of either two or four samples were determined using a modification of the D-optimality algorithm. This accounted for prior distribution of temozolomide and MTIC pharmacokinetic parameters based on full pharmacokinetic sampling from 38 patients with 120 pharmacokinetic studies (dosage range 145–200 mg/m2 per day orally). Accuracy and bias of each LSM were determined relative to the full sampling method. We also assessed the predictive performance of the LSMs using Monte-Carlo simulations.

Results

The four strategies generated from the D-optimality algorithm were as follows: LSM 1=0.25, 1.25, and 3 h; LSM 2=0.25, 1.25, and 6 h; LSM 3=0.25, 0.5, 1.25, and 3 h; LSM 4=0.25, 0.5, 1.25, and 6 h. LSM 2 demonstrated the best combination of low bias [0.1% (−8.9%, 11%) and 11% (4.3%, 15%)] and high accuracy [−1.0% (−12%, 24%) and 14% (7.9%, 37%)] for temozolomide clearance and MTIC AUC, respectively. Furthermore, adding a fourth sample (e.g., LSM 4) did not substantially decrease the bias or increase the accuracy for temozolomide clearance or MTIC AUC. Results from Monte-Carlo simulations also revealed that LSM 2 had the best combination of lowest bias (0.1±6.1% and −0.8±6.5%), and the highest accuracy (4.5±4.1% and 5.0±4.3%) for temozolomide clearance and MTIC apparent clearance, respectively.

Conclusions

Using data derived from our population analysis, the sampling times for a limited sample pharmacokinetic model for temozolomide and MTIC in children are prior to the temozolomide dose, and 15 min, 1.25 h and 6 h after the dose.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brandes AA, Pasetto LM, Monfardini S (2000) New drugs in recurrent high grade gliomas. Anticancer Res 20:1913

    Google Scholar 

  2. Prados MD (2000) Future directions in the treatment of malignant gliomas with temozolomide. Semin Oncol 27:41

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baker SD, Wirth M, Statkevich P, Reidenberg P, Alton K, Sartorius SE, Dugan M, Cutler D, Batra V, Grochow LB, Donehower RC, Rowinsky EK (1999) Absorption, metabolism, and excretion of 14C-temozolomide following oral administration to patients with advanced cancer. Clin Cancer Res 5:309

    Google Scholar 

  4. Newlands ES, Blackledge GRP, Slack JA, Rustin GJS, Smith DB, Stuart NSA, Quarterman CP, Hofman R, Stevens MFG, Brampton MH, Gibson AC (1992) Phase I trial of temozolomide (CCRG 81045: M&B 39831: NSC 362856). Br J Cancer 65:287

    Google Scholar 

  5. Reid JM, Stevens DC, Rubin J, Ames MM (1997) Pharmacokinetics of 3-methyl-(triazen-1-yl)imidazole-4-carboximide following the administration of temozolomide to patients with advanced cancer. Clin Cancer Res 3:2393

    Google Scholar 

  6. Reed MD (1999) Optimal sampling theory: an overview of its application to pharmacokinetic studies in infants and children. Pediatrics 104:627

    Google Scholar 

  7. Panetta JC, Iacono LC, Adamson PC, Stewart CF (2003) The importance of pharmacokinetic limited sampling models for childhood cancer drug development. Clin Cancer Res 9:5068

    Google Scholar 

  8. Estlin EJ, Lashford L, Ablett S, Price L, Gowing R, Gholkar A, Kohler J, Lewis IJ, Morland B, Pinkerton CR, Stevens MC, Mott M, Stevens R, Newell DR, Walker D, Dicks-Mireaux C, McDowell H, Reidenberg P, Statkevich P, Marco A, Batra V, Dugan M, Pearson AD (1998) Phase I study of temozolomide in paediatric patients with advanced cancer. United Kingdom Children’s Cancer Study Group. Br J Cancer 78:652

    Google Scholar 

  9. Panetta JC, Kirstein MN, Gajjar A, Nair G, Fouladi M, Heideman RL, Wilkinson M, Stewart CF (2003) Population pharmacokinetics of temozolomide and metabolites in infants and children with primary central nervous system tumors. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 52:435

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lashford LS, Thiesse P, Jouvet A, Jaspan T, Couanet, D, Griffiths PD, Doz F, Ironside J, Robson K, Hobson R, Dugan M, Pearson AD, Vassal G, Frappaz D (2002) Temozolomide in malignant gliomas of childhood: a United Kingdom Children’s Cancer Study Group and French Society for Pediatric Oncology Intergroup Study. J Clin Oncol 20:4684

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hammond LA, Eckardt JR, Baker SD, Eckhardt SG, Dugan M, Forral K, Reidenberg P, Statkevich P, Weiss GR, Rinaldi DA, Von Hoff DD, Rowinsky EK (1999) Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of temozolomide on a daily-for-5-days schedule in patients with advanced solid malignancies. J Clin Oncol 17:2604

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jen JF, Cutler DL, Pai SM, Batra VK, Affrime MB, Zambas DN, Heft S, Hajian G (2000) Population pharmacokinetics of temozolomide in cancer patients. Pharm Res 17:1284

    Google Scholar 

  13. Panetta JC, Kirstein MN, Gajjar AJ, Nair G, Fouladi M, Stewart CF (2003) A mechanistic mathematical model of temozolomide myelosuppression in children with high-grade gliomas. Math Biosci 186:29

    Google Scholar 

  14. Steimer JL, Mallet A, Golmard JL, Boisvieux JF (1984) Alternative approaches to estimation of population pharmacokinetic parameters: comparison with the nonlinear mixed-effect model. Drug Metab Rev 15:265

    Google Scholar 

  15. D’Argenio DZ, Schumitzky A (1990) ADAPT II user’s guide. Biomedical Simulation Resource, University of Southern California, Los Angeles

  16. Gibaldi M, Perrier D (1982) Pharmacokinetics, 2nd edn. Dekker, New York

  17. D’Argenio DZ (1981) Optimal sampling times for pharmacokinetic experiments. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 9:739

    Google Scholar 

  18. Panetta JC, Wilkinson M, Pui C-H, Relling MV (2002) Limited and optimal sampling strategies for etoposide and etoposide catechol in children with leukemia. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 29:171

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sheiner LB, Beal SL (1981) Some suggestions for measuring predictive performance. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 9:503

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Lisa Walters, Terri Kuehner, Paula Condy, Margaret Edwards, and Sheri Ring for assistance in obtaining plasma samples, Suzan Hanna for her invaluable technical support in the laboratory, and Kathy Probst for her support with data management. This work was supported in part by USPHS awards CA23099 and Cancer Center CORE grant CA21765, the Schering Plough Institute, and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities (ALSAC).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kirstein, M.N., Panetta, J.C., Gajjar, A. et al. Development of a pharmacokinetic limited sampling model for temozolomide and its active metabolite MTIC. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 55, 433–438 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-004-0896-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-004-0896-9

Keywords

Navigation