Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Population analysis of the pharmacokinetics and the haematological toxicity of the fluorouracil-epirubicin-cyclophosphamide regimen in breast cancer patients

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose: The aims of the study were (a) to characterise the pharmacokinetics (PK), including inter-individual variability (IIV) and inter-occasion variability (IOV) as well as covariate relationships and (b) to characterise the relationship between the PK and the haematological toxicity of the component drugs of the fluorouracil (5-FU)—epirubicin (EPI)—cyclophosphamide (CP) regimen in breast cancer patients. Patients and methods: Data from 140 breast cancer patients, either within one of different studies or in routine clinical management, were included in the analyses. The patients were all treated with the fluorouracil-epirubicin-cyclophosphamide (FEC) regimen every third week for 3–12 courses, either in standard doses, i.e. 600/60/600 mg/m2 of 5-FU, EPI and CP, respectively, or according to a dose escalation/reduction protocol (tailored dosing). PK data were available from 84 of the patients, whereas time-courses of haematological toxicity were available from 87 patients. The data analysis was carried out using mixed effects models within the NONMEM program. Results: The PK of 5-FU, EPI and 4-hydroxy-cyclophosphamide (4-OHCP), the active metabolite of CP, were described with a one-compartment model with saturable elimination, a three-compartment linear model and a two-compartment linear model, respectively. No clinical significant correlation was found between PK across drugs. The unexplained variability in clearance was found to be less within patients, between courses (inter-occasion variability, IOV) than between patients (inter-individual variability, IIV) for EPI and 5-FU. For 4-OHCP, however, the IIV diminished by approximately 45% when significant covariates were included and the final population model predicts an IIV that is equal to IOV. Significant covariates for elimination capacity parameters were serum albumin (5-FU, EPI and 4-OHCP), creatinine clearance (5-FU), bilirubin (EPI) and body surface area (BSA) (4-OHCP). Elimination capacity of 5-FU and EPI was not related to BSA and for none of the studied drugs did body weight explain the PK variability. The time-course of haematological toxicity after treatment was well described by a semi-physiological model that assumes additive haematological toxicity between CP and EPI with negligible contribution from 5-FU. The influence of G-CSF could be incorporated into the model in a mechanistic manner as shortening the maturation time to 43% of the normal duration and increasing the mitotic activity to 269% of normal activity. Conclusions: The models presented describe the dose-concentration-toxicity relationships for the FEC therapy and may provide a basis for implementation and comparison of different individualisation strategies based on covariates, therapeutic drug monitoring and/or pharmacodynamic (PD) feedback. The PD model extends on previous semi-mechanistic models in that it also takes G-CSF administration into account.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Beal S, Sheiner L (1999) NONMEM users guides. University of California, San Fransicso, CA

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bergh J, Wiklund T, Erikstein B, Fornander T, Bengtsson NO, Malmstrom P, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen P, Anker G, Bennmarker H, Wilking N (1998) Dosage of adjuvant G-CSF (filgrastim)-supported FEC polychemotherapy based on equivalent haematological toxicity in high-risk breast cancer patients. Scandinavian Breast Group, Study SBG 9401. Ann Oncol 9:403

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bergh J, Wiklund T, Erikstein B, Lidbrink E, Lindman H, Malmstrom P, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen P, Bengtsson NO, Soderlund G, Anker G, Wist E, Ottosson S, Salminen E, Ljungman P, Holte H, Nilsson J, Blomqvist C, Wilking N (2000) Tailored fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide compared with marrow-supported high-dose chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment for high-risk breast cancer: a randomised trial. Scandinavian Breast Group 9401 study. Lancet 356:1384

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cockroft D, Gault M (1976) Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine. Nephron 16:31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. De Bruijn EA, Driessen OM, Hermans J (1991) The CMF-regimen. Toxicity patterns following stepwise combinations of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil. Int J Cancer 48:67

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Del Mastro L, Venturini M, Lionetto R, Carnino F, Guarneri D, Gallo L, Contu A, Pronzato P, Vesentini L, Bergaglio M, Comis S, Rosso R (2001) Accelerated-intensified cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil (CEF) compared with standard CEF in metastatic breast cancer patients: results of a multicenter, randomized phase III study of the Italian gruppo oncologico nord-ouest-mammella inter gruppo group. J Clin Oncol 19:2213

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Diasio RB, Harris BE (1989) Clinical pharmacology of 5-fluorouracil. Clin Pharmacokinet 16:215

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Dobbs NA, Twelves CJ, Gregory W, Cruickshanka C, Richards MA, Rubens RD (2003) Epirubicin in patients with liver dysfunction: development and evaluation of a novel dose modification scheme. Eur J Cancer 39:580

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Evans WE, Relling MV (1989) Clinical pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics of anticancer drugs. Clin Pharmacokinet 16:327

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Evans WE, Relling MV, Rodman JH, Crom WR, Boyett JM, Pui CH (1998) Conventional compared with individualized chemotherapy for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. N Engl J Med 338:499

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Extra JM, Rousseau F, Bruno R, Clavel M, Le Bail N, Marty M (1993) Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of Taxotere (RP 56976; NSC 628503) given as a short intravenous infusion. Cancer Res 53:1037

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fleming RA, Milano G, Thyss A, Etienne MC, Renee N, Schneider M, Demard F (1992) Correlation between dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity in peripheral mononuclear cells and systemic clearance of fluorouracil in cancer patients. Cancer Res 52:2899

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Fossati R, Confalonieri C, Torri V, Ghislandi E, Penna A, Pistotti V, Tinazzi A, Liberati A (1998) Cytotoxic and hormonal treatment for metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review of published randomized trials involving 31,510 women. J Clin Oncol 16:3439

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Freyer G, Tranchand B, Ligneau B, Ardiet C, Souquet PJ, Court-Fortune I, Riou R, Rebattu P, Boissel JP, Trillet-Lenoir V, Girard P (2000) Population pharmacokinetics of doxorubicin, etoposide and ifosfamide in small cell lung cancer patients: results of a multicentre study. Br J Clin Pharmacol 50:315

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Friberg LE, Henningsson A, Maas H, Nguyen L, Karlsson MO (2002) Model of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression with parameter consistency across drugs. J Clin Oncol 15, 20(24):4713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gamelin E, Boisdron-Celle M, Guerin-Meyer V, Delva R, Lortholary A, Genevieve F, Larra F, Ifrah N, Robert J (1999) Correlation between uracil and dihydrouracil plasma ratio, fluorouracil (5-FU) pharmacokinetic parameters, and tolerance in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: A potential interest for predicting 5-FU toxicity and determining optimal 5-FU dosage. J Clin Oncol 17:1105

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Grochow LB, Noe DA, Dole GB, Rowinsky EK, Ettinger DS, Graham ML, McGuire WP, Donehower RC (1989) Phase I trial of trimetrexate glucuronate on a five-day bolus schedule: clinical pharmacology and pharmacodynamics. J Natl Cancer Inst 81:124

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Grochow LB, Baraldi C, Noe D (1990) Is dose normalization to weight or body surface area useful in adults? J Natl Cancer Inst 82:323

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Gurney H (1996) Dose calculation of anticancer drugs: a review of the current practice and introduction of an alternative. J Clin Oncol 14:2590

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Gurney HP, Ackland S, Gebski V, Farrell G (1998) Factors affecting epirubicin pharmacokinetics and toxicity: evidence against using body-surface area for dose calculation. J Clin Oncol 16:2299

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hansen RM, Ryan L, Anderson T, Krzywda B, Quebbeman E, Benson A III, Haller DG, Tormey DC (1996) Phase III study of bolus versus infusion fluorouracil with or without cisplatin in advanced colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 88:668

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Henderson IC, Hayes DF, Gelman R (1988) Dose-response in the treatment of breast cancer: a critical review. J Clin Oncol 6:1501

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Jakobsen P, Bastholt L, Dalmark M, Pfeiffer P, Petersen D, Gjedde SB, Sandberg E, Rose C, Nielsen OS, Mouridsen HT (1991) A randomized study of epirubicin at four different dose levels in advanced breast cancer. Feasibility of myelotoxicity prediction through single blood-sample measurement. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 28:465

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Jonsson EN, Karlsson MO (1998) Automated covariate model building within NONMEM. Pharm Res 15:1463

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Karlsson MO, Sheiner LB (1993) The importance of modeling interoccasion variability in population pharmacokinetic analyses. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 21:735

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Kwon CH, Maddison K, LoCastro L, Borch RF (1987) Accelerated decomposition of 4-hydroxycyclophosphamide by human serum albumin. Cancer Res 47:1505

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Leichman CG, Fleming TR, Muggia FM, Tangen CM, Ardalan B, Doroshow JH, Meyers FJ, Holcombe RF, Weiss GR, Mangalik A et al (1995) Phase II study of fluorouracil and its modulation in advanced colorectal cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 13:1303

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Levine MN, Bramwell VH, Pritchard KI, Norris BD, Shepherd LE, Abu-Zahra H, Findlay B, Warr D, Bowman D, Myles J, Arnold A, Vandenberg T, MacKenzie R, Robert J, Ottaway J, Burnell M, Williams CK, Tu D (1998) Randomized trial of intensive cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil chemotherapy compared with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in premenopausal women with node-positive breast cancer. National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol 16:2651

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Lokich JJ, Ahlgren JD, Gullo JJ, Philips JA, Fryer JG (1989) A prospective randomized comparison of continuous infusion fluorouracil with a conventional bolus schedule in metastatic colorectal carcinoma: a mid-Atlantic oncology program study. J Clin Oncol 7:425

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Microsoft Excel 2000 (1999) Microsoft Corporation

  31. Milano G, Etienne MC (1994) Potential importance of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) in cancer chemotherapy. Pharmacogenetics 4:301

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Moore MJ, Theissen JJ (1992) Cytotoxics and irreversible effects. In: van Boxtel CJ, Holford NHG, Danhof M (eds) The in vivo study of drug action. Elsevier Science Publisher B. V., Amsterdam, p 377

    Google Scholar 

  33. Moore MJ, Erlichman C, Thiessen JJ, Bunting PS, Hardy R, Kerr I, Soldin S (1994) Variability in the pharmacokinetics of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil in women receiving adjuvant treatment for breast cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 33:472

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Plosker GL, Faulds D (1993) Epirubicin. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic use in cancer chemotherapy. Drugs 45:788

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Ralph LD, Thomson AH, Dobbs NA, Twelves C (2003) A population model of epirubicin pharmacokinetics and application to dosage guidelines. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 52:34

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Riccardi A, Giordano M, Brugnatelli S, Ucci G, Danova M, Mora O, Fava S, Ascari E (1995) Different doses of epirubicin associated with fixed doses of cyclophosphamide and 5-fluorouracil: a randomised study in advanced breast cancer (letter). Eur J Cancer 31A:1549

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Robert J (1994) Clinical pharmacokinetics of epirubicin. Clin Pharmacokinet 26:428

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Rodman JH, Abromowitch M, Sinkule JA, Hayes FA, Rivera GK, Evans WE (1987) Clinical pharmacodynamics of continuous infusion teniposide: systemic exposure as a determinant of response in a phase I trial. J Clin Oncol 5:1007

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Rodman JH, Relling MV, Stewart CF, Synold TW, McLeod H, Kearns C, Stute N, Crom WR, Evans WE (1993) Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of anticancer drugs in children. Semin Oncol 20:18

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Sandstrom M, Freijs A, Larsson R, Nygren P, Fjallskog ML, Bergh J, Karlsson MO (1996) Lack of relationship between systemic exposure for the component drug of the fluorouracil, epirubicin, and 4-hydroxycyclophosphamide regimen in breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 14:1581

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Sandstrom M, Lindman H, Nygren P, Lidbrink E, Bergh J, Karlsson MO (2005) Haematological toxicity of the epirubicin-docetaxel regimen in breast cancer patients. J Clin Onc 23:413

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Sawyer M, Ratain MJ (2001) Body surface area as a determinant of pharmacokinetics and drug dosing. Invest New Drugs 19:171

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Simonsen LE, Wahlby U, Sandstrom M, Freijs A, Karlsson MO (2000) Haematological toxicity following different dosing schedules of 5-fluorouracil and epirubicin in rats. Anticancer Res 20:1519

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Terret C, Erdociain E, Guimbaud R, Boisdron-Celle M, McLeod HL, Fety-Deporte R, Lafont T, Gamelin E, Bugat R, Canal P, Chatelut E (2000) Dose and time dependencies of 5-fluorouracil pharmacokinetics. Clin Pharmacol Ther 68:270

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Twelves CJ, Dobbs NA, Michael Y, Summers LA, Gregory W, Harper PG, Rubens RD, Richards MA (1992) Clinical pharmacokinetics of epirubicin: the importance of liver biochemistry tests. Br J Cancer 66:765

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Van der Wall E, Rutgers EJ, Holtkamp MJ, Baars JW, Schornagel JH, Peterse JL, Beijnen JH, Rodenhuis S (1996) Efficacy of up-front 5-fluorouracil-epidoxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (FEC) chemotherapy with an increased dose of epidoxorubicin in high-risk breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer 73:1080

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Venturini M, Del Mastro L, Testore F, Danova M, Garrone O, Lanfranco C, Latini F, Sertoli MR, Lionetto R, Queirolo P, Ardizzoni A, Rosso R (1996) Erythropoietin and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor allow acceleration and dose escalation of cyclophosphamide/epidoxorubicin/5-fluorouracil chemotherapy: a dose-finding study in patients with advanced breast cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 38:487

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Yule SM, Boddy AV, Cole M, Price L, Wyllie R, Tasso MJ, Pearson AD, Idle JR (1995) Cyclophosphamide metabolism in children. Cancer Res 55:803

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

First of all we want to thank the patients for participating. We also want to thank Britt Jansson, Malin Johansson, Therese Bäckman, Josefin Ahnström, Malin Lundström, Rita Grönberg, Tina Fornbrandt, Carina Andersson and Leif Astner for assistance in different parts and phases of the work, and the Swedish Cancer Society for financial support.

Author information

Author notes

  1. M. Sandström

    Present address: AstraZeneca R&D, Pepparedsleden 1, 43183, Mölndal, Sweden

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmaceutical Biosciences, Division of Pharmacokinetics and Drug Therapy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    M. Sandström & M.O. Karlsson

  2. Department of Oncology, Radiology and Clinical Immunology, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden

    H. Lindman & P. Nygren

  3. Apoteksbolaget AB Central Laboratory, Stockholm, Sweden

    M. Johansson

  4. Radiumhemmet, Karolinska Institute and Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden

    J. Bergh

Authors
  1. M. Sandström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Lindman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. Nygren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Johansson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. Bergh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M.O. Karlsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Sandström.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sandström, M., Lindman, H., Nygren, P. et al. Population analysis of the pharmacokinetics and the haematological toxicity of the fluorouracil-epirubicin-cyclophosphamide regimen in breast cancer patients. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 58, 143–156 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-005-0140-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-005-0140-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation