Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology

, Volume 61, Issue 5, pp 865–873 | Cite as

Plasma pharmacokinetic evaluation of cytotoxic agents radiolabelled with positron emitting radioisotopes

  • A. Saleem
  • E. O. Aboagye
  • J. C. Matthews
  • P. M. Price
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the utility of plasma pharmacokinetic analyses of anti-cancer agents from data obtained during positron emission tomography (PET) oncology studies of radiolabelled anti-cancer agents.

Patients and methods

Thirteen patients were administered fluorine-18 radiolabelled 5-FU ([18F]5-FU) admixed with 5-FU, corresponding to a total 5-FU dose of 380–407 mg/m2 (eight patients) and 1 mg/m2 (five patients). Nine patients received 2.2–19.2 μg/m2 of carbon-11 radiolabelled N-[2-(dimethylamino)ethyl]acridine-4-carboxamide ([11C]DACA) at 1/1,000th of phase I dose, as part of phase 0 microdosing study. Radioactivity of parent drug obtained from arterial blood samples, the injected activity of the radiolabelled drug, and the total dose of injected drug were used to obtain plasma drug concentrations. Plasma pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated using model-dependent and model-independent methods.

Results

5-FU plasma concentrations at therapeutic doses were above the Km and a single compartment kinetic model was best used to fit the kinetics, with a mean half-life of 8.6 min. Clearance and volumes of distribution (Vd) obtained using both model-dependent and model-independent methods were similar. Mean (SE) clearance was 1,421(144), ml min−1 and 1,319 (119) ml min−1 and the mean (SE) Vd was 17.3 (1.8) l and 16.3 (1.9) l by the model-independent method and model-dependent methods, respectively. In contrast, with 1 mg/m2, plasma concentrations of 5-FU were less than the Km and a two-compartment model was used to best fit the kinetics, with the mean 5-FU half-life of 6.5 min. The mean (SE) clearances obtained by the model-independent method and model-dependent methods were 3,089 (314) ml min−1 and 2,225 (200) ml min−1, respectively and the mean (SE) Vd were 27.9 (7.0) l and 2.3 (0.4) l, by the model independent and dependent methods, respectively. Extrapolation of AUC0–Clast to AUC0–∞ was less than 3% in both these cohort of patients. A two-compartment model with a mean half-life of 42.1 min was used to best fit the kinetics of DACA; considerable extrapolation (mean 26%) was required to obtain AUC0–∞ from AUC0–Clast. Mean (SE) clearance of DACA was 1,920 (269) ml min−1, with the model-independent method and 1,627 (287) ml min−1 with the model-dependent method. Similarly, Vd [mean (SE)] of DACA with the model-independent and model-dependent methods were 118 (22) l and 50 (15) l, respectively.

Conclusions

Pharmacokinetic parameters can be estimated with confidence from PET studies for agents given at therapeutic doses, whose half-lives are significantly less than the total sampling time during the scan. Tracer studies performed alone, wherein plasma levels below the Km are expected, may also provide valuable information on drug clearance for the entire range of linear kinetics. However, drugs with half-lives longer than the sampling duration are inappropriate for PET plasma pharmacokinetic evaluation.

Keywords

PET Pharmacokinetics Tracer studies 5-Fluorouracil N-[2-(dimethylamino)ethyl]acridine-4-carboxamide Microdosing 

References

  1. 1.
    Stoller RG et al (1977) Use of plasma pharmacokinetics to predict and prevent methotrexate toxicity. N Engl J Med 297(12):630–634PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Calvert AH et al (1989) Carboplatin dosage: prospective evaluation of a simple formula based on renal function. J Clin Oncol 7(11):1748–1756PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wolf W, Waluch V, Presant CA (1998) Non-invasive 19F-NMRS of 5-fluorouracil in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic studies. NMR Biomed 11(7):380–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Saleem A, Aboagye EO, Price PM (2000) In vivo monitoring of drugs using radiotracer techniques. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 41(1):21–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bergstrom M, Grahnen A, Langstrom B (2003) Positron emission tomography microdosing: a new concept with application in tracer and early clinical drug development. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 59(5, 6):357–366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Saleem A et al (2001) Pharmacokinetic evaluation of N-[2-(dimethylamino)ethyl]acridine-4-carboxamide in patients by positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol 19(5):1421–1429PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brown GD (1999) Radiolabelling of anticancer drugs with short-lived positron emitters for PET studies. University of London, London, p 256Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brown GD et al (1993) A practical synthesis of 5-[18F]Fluorouracil using HPLC and a study of its metabolic profile in rats. J Label Compd Radiopharm 32:521–522Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown GD et al (1994) Carbon-11 labelling of the antitumour agent, [N-11C-methyl] NSC 601316 for pre-clinical evaluation in man by PET. J Label Compd Radiopharm 35:558Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harte RJ et al (1999) Tumor, normal tissue, and plasma pharmacokinetic studies of fluorouracil biomodulation with N-phosphonacetyl-L-aspartate, folinic acid, and interferon alfa. J Clin Oncol 17(5):1580–1588PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saleem A et al (2000) Modulation of fluorouracil tissue pharmacokinetics by eniluracil: in-vivo imaging of drug action. Lancet 355(9221):2125–2131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    D’Argenio DZ, Schumitzky A (1997) A program package for simulation and parameter estimation in pharmacokinetic systems. Comput Programs Biomed 9(2):115–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Osman S et al (1997) Studies on the metabolism of the novel antitumor agent [N-methyl-11C]N- [2-(dimethylamino)ethyl]acridine-4-carboxamide in rats and humans prior to phase I clinical trials. Cancer Res 57(11):2172–2180PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heidelberger C et al (1957) Fluorinated pyrimidines, a new class of tumour-inhibitory compounds. Nature 179(4561):663–666PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Finan PJ et al (1987) The relationship between plasma pharmacokinetics and tissue metabolites of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in patients with colorectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 13(4):349–353PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fraile RJ et al (1980) Pharmacokinetics of 5-fluorouracil administered orally, by rapid intravenous and by slow infusion. Cancer Res 40(7):2223–2228PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Collins JM et al (1980) Nonlinear pharmacokinetic models for 5-fluorouracil in man: intravenous and intraperitoneal routes. Clin Pharmacol Ther 28(2):235–246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Groeningen CJ et al (1988) Pharmacokinetics of 5-fluorouracil assessed with a sensitive mass spectrometric method in patients on a dose escalation schedule. Cancer Res 48(23):6956–6961PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heggie GD et al (1987) Clinical pharmacokinetics of 5-fluorouracil and its metabolites in plasma, urine, and bile. Cancer Res 47(8):2203–2206PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    MacMillan WE, Wolberg WH, Welling PG (1978) Pharmacokinetics of fluorouracil in humans. Cancer Res 38(10):3479–3482PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spicer DV et al (1988) Reevaluation of the maximum tolerated dose of continuous venous infusion of 5-fluorouracil with pharmacokinetics. Cancer Res 48(2):459–461PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Erlichman C, Fine S, Elhakim T (1986) Plasma pharmacokinetics of 5-FU given by continuous infusion with allopurinol. Cancer Treat Rep 70(7):903–904PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fleming RA et al (1992) Correlation between dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity in peripheral mononuclear cells and systemic clearance of fluorouracil in cancer patients. Cancer Res 52(10):2899–2902PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thyss A et al (1986) Clinical pharmacokinetic study of 5-FU in continuous 5-day infusions for head and neck cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 16(1):64–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kestell P et al (1999) Plasma pharmacokinetics of N-[2-(dimethylamino)ethyl]acridine-4-carboxamide in a phase I trial. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 44(1):45–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Propper DJ et al (2003) Use of positron emission tomography in pharmacokinetic studies to investigate therapeutic advantage in a phase I study of 120-hour intravenous infusion XR5000. J Clin Oncol 21(2):203–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Twelves CJ et al (1999) Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of DACA (XR5000): a novel inhibitor of topoisomerase I and II. CRC Phase I/II Committee. Br J Cancer 80(11):1786–1791PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Aboagye EO et al (2001) Extraction of 5-fluorouracil by tumor and liver: a noninvasive positron emission tomography study of patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Cancer Res 61(13):4937–4941PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Meikle SR et al (1998) Pharmacokinetic assessment of novel anti-cancer drugs using spectral analysis and positron emission tomography: a feasibility study. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 42(3):183–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Saleem
    • 1
  • E. O. Aboagye
    • 2
  • J. C. Matthews
    • 3
  • P. M. Price
    • 1
  1. 1.Academic Department of Radiation OncologyChristie Hospital NHS Foundation TrustManchesterUK
  2. 2.Imperial College School of MedicineHammersmith HospitalLondonUK
  3. 3.The University of Manchester Wolfson Molecular Imaging CentreManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations