Investigational New Drugs

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 171–177 | Cite as

Body Surface Area as a Determinant of Pharmacokinetics and Drug Dosing

  • Michael Sawyer
  • Mark J. Ratain
Article

Abstract

Body surface area (BSA) was introduced intomedical oncology in order to derive a safestarting dose for phase I studies ofanticancer drugs from preclinical animaltoxicology data. It is not clear however,as to why dosing by BSA was extended to theroutine dosing of antineoplastic agents.Several formulas exist to estimate BSA, butthe formula derived by DuBois and DuBois isthe one used in adult medical oncology. This formula was derived based on data fromonly nine patients; subsequent attempts tovalidate the formula have found the DuBoisformula to either over or underestimate theactual determined BSA. While cardiacoutput does correlate with BSA, therelationship between BSA and otherphysiologic measures relevant for drugmetabolism and disposition, such as, renaland hepatic function, is weak ornonexistent. Further only epirubicin,etoposide, and carboplatin have beenstudied to determine if dosing by BSA wouldreduce interpatient variability, and noneof these drugs were found to havesignificant relationships between theirpharmacokinetics and BSA. Future clinicaltrials of new agents should not presumethat dosing based on BSA reducesinterpatient variability. Studies shouldexamine the role, if any, BSA has in dosingnew chemotherapeutic agents in initialphase I studies.

body surface area dosage phase I 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Pinkel D: The use of body surface area as a criterion of drug dosage in cancer chemotherapy. Cancer Research 18: 853–856, 1958PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Freireich EJ, Gehan EA, Rall DP, Schmidt LH, Skipper HE: Quantitative comparison of toxicity of anticancer agents in mouse, rat, hamster, dog, monkey, and man. Cancer Chemother Rep 50(4): 219–244, 1966PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DuBois D, DuBois E: A Formula to estimate the approximate surface area if height and weight be known. Arch Internal Med 17: 863–871, 1916Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mitchell D, Strydom NB, Graan CHv, Walt WHvd: Human surface area: comparison of the Du Bois formula with direct photometric measurement. Pflugers Arch 325(2): 188–190, 1971PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gehan EA, George SL: Estimation of human body surface area from height and weight. Cancer Chemother Rep 54(4): 225–235, 1970PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Crawford J, Terry M, Rourke G: Simplification of drug dosage calculation by application of the surface area principle. Pediatrics 5: 783–790, 1950PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kleiber M: Body size and metabolism. Hilgardia 6: 315–333, 1932Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Murry DJ, Crom WR, Reddick WE, Bhargava R, Evans WE: Liver volume as a determinant of drug clearance in children and adolescents. Drug Metab Dispos 23(10): 1110–1116, 1995PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nawaratne S, Brien JE, Seeman E, Fabiny R, Zalcberg J, Cosolo W, Angus P, Morgan DJ: Relationships among liver and kidney volumes, lean body mass and drug clearance. Br J Clin Pharmacol 46(5): 447–452, 1998PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bach B, Hansen JM, Kampmann JP, Rasmussen SN, Skovsted L: Disposition of antipyrine and phenytoin correlated with age and liver volume in man. Clin Pharmacokinet 6(5): 389–396, 1981PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Swift CG, Homeida M, Halliwell M, Roberts CJ: Antipyrine disposition and liver size in the elderly. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 14(2): 149–152, 1978PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pirttiaho H: Liver size in evaluating drug metabolizing capacity in man. Int J Clin Pharmacol Biopharm 17(6): 271–276, 1979PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roberts CJ, Jackson L, Halliwell M, Branch RA: The relationship between liver volume, antipyrine clearance and indocyanine green clearance before and after phenobarbitone administration in man. Br J Clin Pharmacol 3(5): 907–913, 1976PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harvey AM: Classics in clinical science: the concept of renal clearance. Am J Med 68(1): 6–8, 1980PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cullen G, Nelson W, Holmes F: Studies of kidney function in children. J Clin Invest 14: 563–574, 1935Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McIntosh J, Moller E, Slyke DV: The influence of body size on urea output. J Clin Invest 6(3): 467–483, 1928Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holten C: The dependence of the normal kidney function on the size of the body. Acta Paediatric 12: 251–267, 1932Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wesson L: Physiology of the Human Kidney New York. Grune and Stratton, 1969Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Martin L, Chatelut E, Boneu A, Rostaing L, Roussilhes C, Caselles O, Canal P: Improvement of the Cockcroft-Gault equation for predicting glomerular filtration in cancer patients. Bull Cancer 85(7): 631–636, 1998PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gibson J, Evans W: Clinical studies of the blood volume. II. The relation of plasma and total blood volume to venous pressure, blood velocity rate, physical measurements, age and sex in ninety normal humans. Clin Invest 16: 317–328, 1937Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Boer P: Estimated lean body mass as an index for normalization of body fluid volumes in humans. Am J Physiol 247(4 Pt 2): F632–F636, 1984PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bruno R, Vivler N, Vergniol JC, De Phillips SL, Montay G, Sheiner LB: A population pharmacokinetic model for docetaxel (Taxotere): model building and validation. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 24(2): 153–172, 1996PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    de Simone G, Devereux RB, Daniels SR, Mureddu G, Roman MJ, Kimball TR, Greco R, Witt S, Contaldo F: Stroke volume and cardiac output in normotensive children and adults. Assessment of relations with body size and impact of overweight. Circulation 95(7): 1837–1843, 1997PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ratain MJ, Schilsky RL, Choi KE, Guarnieri C, Grimmer D, Vogelzang NJ, Senekjian E, Liebner MA: Adaptive control of etoposide administration: impact of interpatient pharmacodynamic variability. Clin Pharmacol Ther 45(3): 226–233, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ackland SP, Ratain MJ, Vogelzang NJ, Choi KE, Ruane M, Sinkule JA: Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of long-term continuous-infusion doxorubicin. Clin Pharmacol Ther 45(4): 340–347, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rowinsky EK, Ettinger DS, Grochow LB, Brundrett RB, Cates AE, Donehower RC: Phase I and pharmacologic study of hexamethylene bisacetamide in patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol 4(12): 1835–1844, 1986PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Grochow LB, Baraldi C, Noe D: Is dose normalization to weight or body surface area useful in adults? J Natl Cancer Inst 82(4): 323–325, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cosolo WC, Morgan DJ, Seeman E, Zimet AS, McKendrick JJ, Zalcberg JR: Lean body mass, body surface area and epirubicin kinetics. Anticancer Drugs 5(3): 293–297, 1994PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dobbs NA, Twelves CJ: What is the effect of adjusting epirubicin doses for body surface area? Br J Cancer 78(5): 662–666, 1998PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gurney HP, Ackland S, Gebski V, Farrell G: Factors affecting epirubicin pharmacokinetics and toxicity: evidence against using body-surface area for dose calculation [see comments]. J Clin Oncol 16(7): 2299–2304, 1998PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Alberts DS, Dorr RT: New perspectives on an old friend: optimizing carboplatin for the treatment of solid tumors. Oncologist 3(1): 15–34, 1998PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Calvert AH, Harland SJ, Newell DR, Siddik ZH, Harrap KR: Phase I studies with carboplatin at the Royal Marsden Hospital. Cancer Treat Rev 12Suppl A: 51–57, 1985PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Newell D, Calvert A, O'Reilly S, Burnell M, Gumbrell L, Boxall F, Gore M, Wiltshaw E: Prospective validation of a simple formula for determining carboplatin dosage. Brit J Cancer 56: 233, 1987Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Egorin MJ, Van Echo DA, Olman EA, Whitacre MY, Forrest A, Aisner J:Prospective validation of a pharmacologically based dosing scheme for the cis-diamminedichloroplatinum( II) analogue diamminecyclobutanedicarboxylatoplatinum. Cancer Res 45(12 Pt 1): 6502–6506, 1985PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Calvert AH, Newell DR, Gumbrell LA, O'Reilly S, Burnell M, Boxall FE, Siddik ZH, Judson IR, Gore ME, Wiltshaw E: Carboplatin dosage: prospective evaluation of a simple formula based on renal function [see comments]. J Clin Oncol 7(11): 1748–1756, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Piotrovsky VK, Huang ML, Van Peer A, Langenaecken C: Effects of demographic variables on vorozole pharmacokinetics in healthy volunteers and in breast cancer patients. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 42(3): 221–228, 1998PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ratain MJ, Mick R, Schilsky RL, Vogelzang NJ, Berezin F: Pharmacologically based dosing of etoposide: a means of safely increasing dose intensity. J Clin Oncol 9(8): 1480–1486, 1991PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nguyen L, Chatelut E, Chevreau C, Tranchand B, Lochon I, Bachaud JM, Pujol A, Houin G, Bugat R, Canal P: Population pharmacokinetics of total and unbound etoposide. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 41(2): 125–132, 1998PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gurney H: Dose calculation of anticancer drugs: a review of the current practice and introduction of an alternative. J Clin Oncol 14(9): 2590–2611, 1996PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Sawyer
    • 1
  • Mark J. Ratain
    • 1
  1. 1.Committee on Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, and Cancer Research CenterThe University of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations