Dose-escalating and pharmacological study of bortezomib in adult cancer patients with impaired renal function: a National Cancer Institute Organ Dysfunction Working Group Study
- First Online:
- 268 Downloads
To determine the toxicities, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and maximum tolerated dose of bortezomib in patients with renal impairment and to develop dosing guidelines for such a patient population.
Patients and Methods
Sixty-two adult cancer patients received intravenous bortezomib at 0.7–1.5 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 every 3 weeks. Patients were stratified by 24-h creatinine clearance (CrCl) normalized to body surface area (BSA) 1.73 m2 into five cohorts: normal renal function (≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2); mild dysfunction (40–59 ml/min/1.73 m2); moderate dysfunction (20–39 ml/min/1.73 m2); severe dysfunction (<20 ml/min/1.73 m2); and dialysis. Dose escalation was planned for the four cohorts with renal dysfunction. Plasma bortezomib concentrations and blood 20S proteasome inhibition were assayed.
Bortezomib escalation to the standard 1.3 mg/m2 dose was well tolerated in all patients with CrCl ≥20 ml/min/1.73 m2; 0.7 mg/m2 was tolerated in three patients with severe renal dysfunction (<20 ml/min/1.73 m2). Bortezomib dose escalation was well tolerated in nine dialysis patients, including to 1.3 mg/m2 in four patients. Decreased CrCl did not affect bortezomib pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics. Bortezomib-related side-effects were neither more common nor severe in patients with renal dysfunction versus those with normal renal function.
Bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 is well tolerated, and dose reductions are not necessary in patients with renal dysfunction. Extrapolation from clinical and pharmacologic data suggests patients with severe renal dysfunction, including dialysis patients, can receive bortezomib at the full dose established to be clinically effective in the general patient population.
KeywordsRenal function Bortezomib Toxicity Pharmacokinetics Pharmacodynamics
- 4.Hershko A (1997) Roles of ubiquitin -mediated proteolysis in cell cycle control. Curr Opin Struct Biol 9:788–799Google Scholar
- 7.Zetter BR (1993) Adhesion molecules in tumor metastasis. Semin Cancer Biol 4:215–218Google Scholar
- 15.Dimopoulos MA, Richardson P, Schlag R et al (2008) A prospective, randomized, phase III study of bortezomib, melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide (VMPT) versus bortezomib, melphalan and prednisone (VMP) in elderly newly diagnosed myeloma patients. Blood 112:1727aGoogle Scholar
- 16.Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA et al (2000) New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:205–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Blade J, Samson D, Reece D et al (1998) Criteria for evaluating disease response and progression in patients with multiple myeloma treated by high-dose therapy and haemopoietic stem cell transplantation. Myeloma Subcommittee of the EBMT. European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplant. Br J Haematol 102:1115–1123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Prepared by a Committee of the Chronic Leukemia–Myeloma Task Force, National Cancer Institute (1968) Proposed guidelines for protocol studies. II. Plasma cell myeloma. Cancer Chemother Rep 3 1:17–39 Google Scholar
- 22.Stewart AK, Sullivan D, Lonial S et al (2006) Pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) study of two doses of bortezomib (Btz) in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (MM). Blood 108:1008aGoogle Scholar
- 23.Melamed J (2005) Repeat-dose pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of bortezomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. Report No. M34103-058 CSR. Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- 25.Ludwig H, Adam Z, Hajek R et al (2008) Bortezomib-doxorubicin-dexamethasone (BDD) for reversal of acute light chain induced renal failure (ARF) in multiple myeloma (MM). Results from a phase II study. Blood 112:Abstr 3682Google Scholar