Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Effect of different mathematical methods on etoposide area under the curve estimations and pharmacodynamic response predictions

Abstract

Different methods to calculate interval area under the curve (AUC) data may produce substantial error. The purpose of this study was to compare methods of calculating etoposide AUC and determine the effect of these values on white blood cell (WBC) count nadir predictions calculated from a previously reported equation. Three AUC calculation methods were used: (1) the linear trapezoidal method, (2) a combination of the linear and logarithmic trapezoidal methods, and (3) the Lagrange method. Since none of the methods for determining the AUC could be considered the standard, the methods were evaluated by comparing differences between pairs of calculated AUC values by each method. The 95% CI for differences between all pairs of AUC values were greater than zero (no difference) indicating significance. Consistent with the smoother fitting function between data points, the Lagrange method tended to produce a larger AUC, lower clearance values, and lower WBC nadir count predictions than the other methods. The largest difference encountered was between the Lagrange and the linear-log AUC methods with a mean value of 16.9 μg h/ml (95% CI 9.4–24.3) This difference would account for approximately 11% of the total AUC. Using a previously published equation, where WBC nadir=−0.057+0.048×etoposide clearance, with clearance determined as dose/AUC, mean differences in calculated WBC nadir count values between the three AUC methods ranged from 80 to 220 cells/μl, which would be expected to be of little clinical consequence. The precision of this equation, using data derived from linear trapezoidal AUC calculations, had a mean absolute error of 0.93×103/μl (95% CI 0.53–1.32). Our findings suggest that any of the three mathematical methods studied would produce similar etoposide AUC values and pharmacodynamic predictions. Further, these findings also suggest that the major limitation in predicting etoposide leukopenia lies with the imprecision of the pharmacodynamic model more so than the ability to accurately determine the AUC. However, our findings may not be applicable if other factors intervene which dramatically alter the shape of the etoposide concentration-time curve.

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

References

  1. 1.

    Chiou WL (1978) Critical evaluation of the potential error in pharmacokinetic studies of using the linear trapezoidal rule method for the calculation of the area under the plasma level-time curve. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 6:539

  2. 2.

    Glantz SA (1987) Primer of biostatistics, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, p 246

  3. 3.

    Lum BL, Kaubisch S, Yahanda AM, Adler KM, Jew L, Ehsan MN, Brophy NA, Halsey J, Gosland MP, Sikic BI (1992) Alteration of etoposide pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics by cyclosporine in a phase I trial to modulate multidrug resistance. J Clin Oncol 10:1635

  4. 4.

    Miller AA, Tolley EA, Niell HB, Stewart CF, Griffin JP (1992) Pharmacodynamics of three daily infusions of etoposide in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 31:161

  5. 5.

    Ratain MJ, Schilsky RL, Conley BA, Egorin MJ (1990) Pharmacodynamics in cancer therapy. J Clin Oncol 8:1739

  6. 6.

    Rocci ML, Jusko WJ (1983) LAGRAN program for area and moments in pharmacokinetic analysis. Comput Programs Biomed 16:203

  7. 7.

    Scheiner LB, Beal SL (1982) Some suggestions for measuring predictive performance. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 9:503

  8. 8.

    Yahanda AM, Adler KM, Fisher GA, Brophy NA, Halsey J, Hardy RI, Gosland MP, Lum BL, Sikic BI (1992) Phase I trial of etoposide with cyclosporine as a modulator of multidrug resistance. J Clin Oncol 10:1635

  9. 9.

    Yeh KC, Kwan KC (1978) A comparison of numerical integrating algorithms by trapezoidal, lagrange, and spline approximation. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 6:79

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Bert L. Lum.

Additional information

Supported by National Institutes of Health grants numbers R01 CA 52168 and M01 RR 00070 (General Clinical Research Centers)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McCauley, D.L., Lum, B.L. & Sikic, B.I. Effect of different mathematical methods on etoposide area under the curve estimations and pharmacodynamic response predictions. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 37, 286–288 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00688330

Download citation

Key words

  • Etoposide
  • Pharmacokinetics
  • Area under the curve