Advertisement
help button home button The Oncologist
HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Oncologist, Vol. 12, No. 8, 924-926, August 2007; doi:10.1634/theoncologist.12-8-924
© 2007 AlphaMed Press

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow eLetters: Submit a response to this article
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Reprints/Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hempel, G.
Right arrow Articles by Boos, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hempel, G.
Right arrow Articles by Boos, J.

Clinical Pharmacology

Flat-Fixed Dosing Versus Body Surface Area–Based Dosing of Anticancer Drugs: There Is a Difference

Georg Hempela,b, Joachim Boosb

aInstitut für Pharmazeutische und Medizinische Chemie der Universität Münster, Münster, Germany; bKlinik und Poliklinik für Kinder- und Jugendmedizin, Pädiatrische Hämatologie/Onkologie, Münster, Germany

Correspondence: Georg Hempel, Ph.D., Institut für Pharmazeutische und Medizinische Chemie -Klinische Pharmazie-Hittorfstr. 58-62, 48149 Münster, Germany. Telephone: 49-251-83-33334; Fax: 49-251-83-32144; e-mail: georg.hempel{at}uni-muenster.de

Received April 12, 2007; accepted for publication June 26, 2007.

In a recent review, Mathijssen et al. [1] proposed using flat-fixed dosing regimens rather than body surface area (BSA)-based dosing for anticancer drugs because "it does not seem worse than using BSA-based dosing" with regard to pharmacokinetic variability. We feel that this statement, together with other recent publications arguing against BSA-based dosing, requires a counterpart.

Most cytotoxic drugs have a narrow therapeutic range and are often administered at a dose close to the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) because of the fact that, for many solid tumors and leukemia, increasing systemic exposure often results in higher response rates. In contrast, molecularly targeted cytostatic drugs, like tyrosine kinase inhibitors, should have a greater therapeutic range and an optimal effective dose that can be much lower than the MTD [2].

For classic cytotoxic drugs, every patient should experience the same high systemic exposure close to, but clearly below, the MTD. Systemic exposure can be quantified as the area under the curve (AUC) of the plasma concentration versus time curve. The AUC is determined by the administered dose and the individual clearance of a drug according to the formula:


Formula

Thus, to achieve a constant AUC in patients, clearance is the important pharmacokinetic parameter for dose adjustment. About 50 years ago, it was found that BSA shows a correlation with the MTD between species and it was therefore introduced into preclinical research [3]. At that time, BSA was also used in patients to adjust the dose of cytostatic drugs and BSA-based dosing also became the standard in pediatric oncology [4]. With the broader availability of methods to quantify drugs in biological fluids, pharmacokinetic investigations were conducted with the aim to provide a better insight into the disposition and elimination of the drugs to improve the therapeutic index.

It was found that BSA-based dosing did not necessarily result in a reduction in the variability of AUC. Therefore, the value of BSA-based dosing was questioned [5]. Alternative concepts, like therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), were shown to be useful for certain drugs like busulfan; however, it is difficult to apply TDM for patients outside big treatment centers [6].

In 1996, the discussion of the appropriate way to adjust the dose of anticancer drugs started to heat up when Guerny [7] questioned the value of BSA-based dosing strategies. In the following years, several authors supported the arguments [8]. The latter authors concluded that BSA should not be automatically regarded as the dosing strategy in phase I studies. We also think that no automatism should be applied because with the availability of population pharmacokinetic methods, BSA and other covariates possibly useful to predict the clearance of drugs can be easily identified. In another retrospective investigation, BSA-based dosing was statistically significantly associated with a reduction in interpatient variability (coefficient of correlation, r >0.5; p < .01; reduction in variability of clearance >15%) for only five of 33 newer agents [9]. However, in the majority of the 33 drugs, a weak reduction in the variability was found with BSA-based dosing, while for 10 drugs variability increased with BSA-based dosing. The criterion "reduction in variability of clearance >15%" appears rather strict because for drugs with only a weak correlation between BSA and clearance, patients with extreme BSA values are more adequately dosed according to BSA. Interestingly, when prospectively evaluating BSA-based dosing for paclitaxel, it was found to be useful in order to reduce the variability of AUC [10].

It must be pointed out that the results of studies investigating the role of BSA and other covariates are highly dependent on the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the patient population. Heterogeneity in both the pharmacokinetic and the size parameters is very high in children [11]. In contrast, in an adult patient population with a BSA range of 1.6–2.2 m2, it appears difficult to identify any correlation between BSA and pharmacokinetic parameters. In addition, extreme values of body mass indices also influence the clearance and distribution of drugs.

In pediatric oncology, the typical range of BSA is 0.4–2 m2. In such a population, for almost any drug, there is a correlation between clearance and BSA. It is obvious that for children a scale parameter such as BSA or weight for dose calculation is absolutely necessary. In pediatric oncology, flat-fixed dosing regimens are not an option for cytotoxic drugs with a narrow therapeutic range. The question to be addressed in any patient population is: What is the best parameter to predict clearance for a certain drug?

This parameter can be BSA, weight, height, age, or any other parameter predictive of the elimination of xenobiotics from the body. Body mass index may also influence distribution and clearance. For drugs excreted through the kidneys, the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) often predicts the drug's clearance sufficiently precisely. Dosing based on renal function was successfully applied for carboplatin and is now part of the clinical routine in many centers for both adults and children [12, 13].

The controversy over flat-fixed dosing concepts versus BSA-based dosing can be illustrated by recent investigations on cisplatin. In 2001, de Jongh et al. [14] published an investigation on the pharmacokinetics of cisplatin in 268 adults with BSA values of 1.86 m2 ± 10.4%. The variability in BSA was relatively low and could not explain the variability in the clearance of unbound platinum (25.6%, versus 23.6% using BSA-based dosing). From these findings, the authors concluded that BSA-based dosing should not be used for dosing cisplatin and suggested a flat-fixed dosing regimen. Analyzing the same data using a more precise and sensitive population pharmacokinetic method, BSA was found to be the only covariate to be predictive of cisplatin clearance and volume of distribution [15]. In contrast to the former analysis, the population pharmacokinetic method applied could account for all kinds of variability, that is, interindividual, intraindividual, and residual variability. Therefore, it is not surprising that the inter-individual variability in clearance was overestimated in the former study [14] using the standard two-stage approach. Therefore, the results presented in the former investigation do not allow drawing final conclusions. Consequently, the authors no longer recommend a flat-fixed dosing regimen and suggest three different dose groups depending on the patient's BSA [16]. Another group investigating 43 cisplatin-treated patients with a BSA of 1.38–2.1 m2 found BSA to be predictive of the volume of distribution and clearance [17]. From these findings, it appears that flat-fixed dosing for cisplatin can be applied only in well-defined, homogeneous populations.

Although cisplatin, besides irreversible tissue binding, is almost exclusively cleared through the kidneys, it was already shown earlier that GFR cannot be used to adjust the dose of cisplatin [18]. A recent approach to find other parameters predictive of cisplatin clearance in children failed to identify better covariates than BSA and suggested an approach using plasma concentrations and weight [19].

Neuroblastoma patients often receive 40 mg/m2 cisplatin as a 96-hour infusion. The median BSA in a drug-monitoring program done in our lab was 0.57 m2, with a range of 0.37–1.25 m2. It is obvious that, in such a population with many infants and some older children, flat-fixed dosing regimens are not an option. Rather, children below the age of 1 year are dosed according to body weight, because BSA would result in relatively higher absolute doses than body weight. The reason for this dose reduction is a precaution, because infants may be more susceptible to side effects like oto- and nephrotoxicity. However, the rationale for this is a matter of debate. Another problem with cisplatin is that the clearance of cisplatin decreases from cycle to cycle as a result of the nephrotoxic effect of the drug.

Arguments given for flat-fixed dosing regimens are economic advantages and a lower risk for calculating errors. However, hospital pharmacists responsible for the preparation of cytostatic drugs do not support the argument of economic advantages of flat-fixed dosing regimens. With central preparation units for cytostatic drugs, only very small amounts of the drug formulations have to be discarded as a result of the adjustment by BSA. From an industry point of view, flat-fixed dosing regimens might be advantageous but this does not necessarily result in a cost reduction for the hospitals.

From a pharmacist's point of view, the safety arguments given for flat-fixed dosing are not very convincing. The risk for calculating errors may be justified in a setting where only the clinician calculates the dose and the cytostatic drug is prepared by nurses on the ward. However, to improve safety for both patients and hospital staff, nowadays the preparation of the cytostatic drugs and the recalculation of the dose should be done by experienced hospital pharmacists. With at least two health care professionals calculating the dose, the risk for dosing errors is relatively small compared with the possible over- or underdosing when flat-fixed dosing regimens are used.

Even if flat-fixed dosing regimens could be established in adults, in pediatric oncology, BSA-based dose adjustment is absolutely necessary and will remain the standard mode of dosing as long as there are no alternative validated parameters for dose adjustment such as GFR or serum creatinine for renally excreted drugs. Therefore, more population pharmacokinetic studies are required to identify covariates showing a higher predictability than BSA for the clearance of cytotoxic drugs. Hopefully, pharmacogenetic approaches will identify more parameters to predict the clearance of cytotoxic drugs. A good example is the genotyping on irinotecan uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 (UGT1A1), which is now recommended in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeling of the drug [20]. Another interesting approach for dose individualization to reduce the variability in individual exposure is phenotyping of drug-metabolizing enzymes. The applicability of this approach was demonstrated recently by phenotyping of cytochrome P450 3A4 before administering docetaxel [21].

Using well-designed population pharmacokinetic studies with sufficient patient numbers representing the entire population, it should be possible to find parameters to precisely predict the clearance of cytostatic drugs. This should enable the oncologist to adjust the dose better than using flat-fixed dosing or BSA-based dosing regimens. A good example for this approach is the dosing of carboplatin in children using serum creatinine, gender, weight, and age [22]. For some drugs, especially the newer targeted drugs with a wider therapeutic range, flat-fixed dosing may be appropriate in not too heterogeneous populations, although dose individualization based on biomarkers appears to be most appropriate for such drugs. However, switching to flat-fixed dosing in general would be therapy deindividualization.


   DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Top
 Disclosure of Potential...
References
 
The authors indicate no potential conflicts of interest.


   REFERENCES
Top
 Disclosure of Potential...
 References
 

  1. Mathijssen RHJ, de Jong FA, Loos WJ et al. Flat-fixed versus body surface area–based dosing of anticancer drugs in adults: Does it make a difference? The Oncologist 2007;12:913–923.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Shaked Y, Bocci G, Munoz R et al. Cellular and molecular surrogate markers to monitor targeted and non-targeted antiangiogenic drug activity and determine optimal biologic dose. Curr Cancer Drug Targets 2005;5:551–559.[CrossRef][Medline]
  3. Pinkel D. The use of body surface area as a criterion of drug dosage in cancer chemotherapy. Cancer Res 1958;18:853–856.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Crawford JD, Terry ME, Rourke GM. Simplification of drug dosage calculation by application of the surface area principle. Pediatrics 1950;5:783–790.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Felici A, Verweij J, Sparreboom A. Dosing strategies for anticancer drugs: The good, the bad and body-surface area. Eur J Cancer 2002;38:1677–1684.[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Bleyzac N, Souillet G, Magron P et al. Improved clinical outcome of paediatric bone marrow recipients using a test dose and Bayesian pharmacokinetic individualization of busulfan dosage regimens. Bone Marrow Transplant 2001;28:743–751.[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Gurney H. Dose calculation of anticancer drugs: A review of the current practice and introduction of an alternative. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:2590–2611.[Abstract]
  8. Sawyer M, Ratain MJ. Body surface area as a determinant of pharmacokinetics and drug dosing. Invest New Drugs 2001;19:171–177.[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. Baker SD, Verweij J, Rowinsky EK et al. Role of body surface area in dosing of investigational anticancer agents in adults, 1991–2001. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1883–1888.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Smorenburg CH, Sparreboom A, Bontenbal M et al. Randomized cross-over evaluation of body-surface area-based dosing versus flat-fixed dosing of paclitaxel. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:197–202.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Rodman JH, Relling MV, Stewart CF et al. Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of anticancer drugs in children. Semin Oncol 1993;20:18–29.[Medline]
  12. Newell DR, Pearson AD, Balmanno K et al. Carboplatin pharmacokinetics in children: The development of a pediatric dosing formula. The United Kingdom Children's Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 1993;11:2314–2323.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Calvert AH, Egorin MJ. Carboplatin dosing formulae: Gender bias and the use of creatinine-based methodologies. Eur J Cancer 2002;38:11–16.[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. de Jongh FE, Verweij J, Loos WJ et al. Body-surface area-based dosing does not increase accuracy of predicting cisplatin exposure. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3733–3739.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. de Jongh FE, Gallo JM, Shen M et al. Population pharmacokinetics of cisplatin in adult cancer patients. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2004;54:105–112.[Medline]
  16. Loos WJ, de Jongh FE, Sparreboom A et al. Evaluation of an alternate dosing strategy for cisplatin in patients with extreme body surface area values. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:1499–1506.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Urien S, Lokiec F. Population pharmacokinetics of total and unbound plasma cisplatin in adult patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2004;57:756–763.[CrossRef][Medline]
  18. Peng B, English MW, Boddy AV et al. Cisplatin pharmacokinetics in children with cancer. Eur J Cancer 1997;33:1823–1828.[CrossRef][Medline]
  19. Goodisman J, Souid AK. Constancy in integrated cisplatin plasma concentrations among pediatric patients. J Clin Pharmacol 2006;46:443–448.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Innocenti F, Ratain MJ. Pharmacogenetics of irinotecan: Clinical perspectives on the utility of genotyping. Pharmacogenomics 2006;7:1211–1221.[CrossRef][Medline]
  21. Yamamoto N, Tamura T, Murakami H et al. Randomized pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of docetaxel: Dosing based on body-surface area compared with individualized dosing based on cytochrome P450 activity estimated using a urinary metabolite of exogenous cortisol. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:1061–1069.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Chatelut E, Boddy AV, Peng B et al. Population pharmacokinetics of carboplatin in children. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1996;59:436–443.[CrossRef][Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 DTBHome page
Body surface area for adjustment of drug dose
DTB, March 1, 2010; 48(3): 33 - 36.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow eLetters: Submit a response to this article
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Reprints/Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hempel, G.
Right arrow Articles by Boos, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hempel, G.
Right arrow Articles by Boos, J.

HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE ONCOLOGIST STEM CELLS CME ALPHAMED PRESS JOURNALS