Pharmacodynamic modeling of chemotherapeutic effects: Application of a transit compartment model to characterize methotrexate effects in vitro

AAPS PharmSci

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 2002, Pages

  Lobo, Evelyn D ^a   Balthasar, Joseph P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

Author keywords

Cell growth inhibition; Chemotherapeutic; Effect; Methotrexate; Model; Modeling; Transit compartment

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; METHOTREXATE;

CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CELL CYCLE PHASE; CELL KILLING; CELL VIABILITY; COMPARTMENT MODEL; CONCENTRATION RESPONSE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DATA ANALYSIS; DOSE TIME EFFECT RELATION; DRUG EFFECT; DRUG EXPOSURE; EHRLICH ASCITES TUMOR CELL; IN VITRO STUDY; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; NITROBLUE TETRAZOLIUM TEST; PHARMACODYNAMICS; REVIEW; SARCOMA CELL; TUMOR CELL CULTURE; TUMOR GROWTH; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CELL CULTURE; CELL DIVISION; EHRLICH ASCITES TUMOR; PATHOLOGY;

ANIMALS; CARCINOMA, EHRLICH TUMOR; CELL DIVISION; METHOTREXATE; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; TUMOR CELLS, CULTURED;

EID: 85046916618     PISSN: 15221059     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1208/ps040442     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Lokich J, Anderson N. Dose intensity for bolus versus infusion chemotherapy administration: review of the literature for 27 anti-neoplastic agents. Ann Oncol. 1997;8:15-25.
2. Aisner J, Van Echo DA, Whitacre M, Wiernik PH. A phase I trial of continuous infusion VP16-213 (etoposide). Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1982;7:157-160.
3. Frei ED, Bickers JN, Hewlett JS, et al. Dose schedule and antitumor studies of arabinosyl cytosine (NSC 63878). Cancer Res. 1969;29:1325-1332.
4. Wiernik PH, Schwartz EL, Strauman JJ, et al. Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of taxol. Cancer Res. 1987;47:2486-2493.
5. O'Dwyer PJ, Hudes GR, Walczak J, et al. Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of the novel platinum analogue CI-973 on a 5-daily dose schedule. Cancer Res. 1992;52:6746-6753.
6. Minami H, Sasaki Y, Saijo N, et al. Indirect-response model for the time course of leukopenia with anticancer drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1998;64:511-521.
7. Minami H, Sasaki Y, Watanabe T, Ogawa M. Pharmacodynamic modeling of the entire time course of leukopenia after a 3-hour infusion of paclitaxel. Jpn J Cancer Res. 2001;92:231-238.
8. Friberg LE, Freijs A, Sandstrom M, Karlsson MO. Semiphysiological model for the time course of leukocytes after varying schedules of 5-fluorouracil in rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2000;295:734-740.
9. Jodrell DI, Egorin MJ, Canetta RM, et al. Relationships between carboplatin exposure and tumor response and toxicity in patients with ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1992;10:520-528.
10. Stewart CF, Baker SD, Heideman RL, et al. Clinical pharmacodynamics of continuous infusion topotecan in children: systemic exposure predicts hematologic toxicity. J Clin Oncol. 1994;12:1946-1954.
11. Cellarier E, Terret C, Labarre P, et al. Pharmacokinetic study of cystemustine, administered on a weekly schedule in cancer patients. Ann Oncol. 2002;13:760-769.
12. Van Kesteren C, Mathot RA, Raymond E, et al. Population pharmacokinetics and pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships of the novel anticancer agent E7070 in four phase I studies. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2002;53:553P.
13. Zhou H, Choi L, Lau H, et al. Population pharmacokinetics/toxicodynamics (PK/TD) relationship of SAM486A in phase I studies in patients with advanced cancers. J Clin Pharmacol. 2000;40:275-283.
14. Gimmel S, Maurer HR. Growth kinetics of L1210 leukemic cells exposed to different concentration courses of methotrexate in vitro. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1994;34:351-355.
15. Braakhuis BJ, Ruiz van Haperen VW, Boven E, et al. Schedule-dependent antitumor effect of gemcitabine in in vivo model system. Semin Oncol. 1995;22:42-46.
16. Kishi S, Goto N, Nakamura T, Ueda T. Evaluation of cell-killing effects of 1-beta-D-arabinofuranosylcytosine and daunorubicin by a new computer-controlled in vitro pharmacokinetic simulation system. Cancer Res. 1999;59:2629-2634.
17. Mager DE, Jusko WJ. Pharmacodynamic modeling of time-dependent transduction systems. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001;70:210-216.
18. Jusko WJ. Pharmacodynamics of chemotherapeutic effects: dose-time-response relationships for phase-nonspecific agents. J Pharm Sci. 1971;60:892-895.
19. Jusko WJ. A pharmacodynamic model for cell-cycle-specific chemotherapeutic agents. J Pharmacokin Biopharm. 1973;1:175-200.
20. Sun YN, Jusko WJ. Transit compartments versus gamma distribution function to model signal transduction processes in pharmacodynamics. J Pharm Sci. 1998;87:732-737.
21. Tada H, Shiho O, Kuroshima K, et al. An improved colorimetric assay for interleukin 2. J Immunol Methods. 1986;93:157-165.
22. D'Argenio DZ, Schumitzky A. ADAPT II User's Guide: Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Systems Analysis Software. Los Angeles, CA: Biomedical Simulations Resource; 1997.
23. Levasseur LM, Slocum HK, Rustum YM, Greco WR. Modeling of the time-dependency of in vitro drug cytotoxicity and resistance. Cancer Res. 1998;58:5749-5761.
24. Hassan SB, Jonsson E, Larsson R, Karlsson MO. Model for time dependency of cytotoxic effect of CHS 828 in vitro suggests two different mechanisms of action. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2001;299:1140-1147.
25. Rodman JH, Relling MV, Stewart CF, et al. Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of anticancer drugs in children. Semin Oncol. 1993;20:18-29.
26. Evans WE, Relling MV, Rodman JH, et al. Conventional compared with individualized chemotherapy for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:499-505.
27. Sheiner LB, Stanski DR, Vozeh S, et al. Simultaneous modeling of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: application to d-tubocurarine. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1979;25:358-371.
28. Dayneka NL, Garg V, Jusko WJ. Comparison of four basic models of indirect pharmacodynamic responses. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1993;21:457-478.
29. Labat C, Mansour K, Malmary MF, et al. Chronotoxicity of methotrexate in mice after intraperitoneal administration. Chronobiologia. 1987;14:267-275.