4.4 Article

Renal function-based versus standard dosing of pemetrexed: a randomized controlled trial

期刊

CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 91, 期 1, 页码 33-42

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00280-022-04489-1

关键词

Non-small cell lung cancer; Pemetrexed; Precision dosing; Estimated glomerular filtration rate; Pharmacokinetics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared optimized dosing of pemetrexed to standard body surface area-based dosing in patients with non-small cell lung cancer and mesothelioma. The results showed no superiority of optimized dosing in terms of pharmacokinetic endpoint, safety, or quality of life.
Purpose Pemetrexed is a chemotherapeutic drug in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer and mesothelioma. Optimized dosing of pemetrexed based on renal function instead of body surface area (BSA) is hypothesized to reduce pharmacokinetic variability in systemic exposure and could therefore improve treatment outcomes. The aim of this study is to compare optimized dosing to standard BSA-based dosing. Methods A multicenter randomized (1:1) controlled trial was performed to assess superiority of optimized dosing versus BSA-based dosing in patients who were eligible for pemetrexed-based chemotherapy. The individual exposure to pemetrexed in terms of area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) was determined. The fraction of patients attaining to a predefined typical target AUC (164 mg x h/L +/- 25%) was calculated. Results A total of 81 patients were included. Target attainment was not statistically significant different between both arms (89% vs. 84% (p = 0.505)). The AUC of pemetrexed was similar between the optimized dosing arm (n = 37) and the standard of care arm (n = 44) (155 mg x h/L vs 160 mg x h/L (p = 0.436). Conclusion We could not show superiority of optimized dosing of pemetrexed in patients with an adequate renal function does not show added value on the attainment of a pharmacokinetic endpoint, safety, nor QoL compared to standard of care dosing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据