Gender differences in doxorubicin pharmacology for subjects with chemosensitive cancers of young adulthood
For many cancers, adolescents and young adults (AYA) have worse outcomes than for children and adults. Many factors may contribute to the AYA survival gap, including differences in biology, therapeutic intent, and adherence to therapy. It has been observed that male AYAs have poorer outcomes than females. The purpose of this work was to test the proposition that gender-related pharmacologic factors may account for a component of the AYA survival gap.
Patients and methods
A prospective, multi-institutional pharmacologic study of 79 patients in total with chemosensitive cancers (Ewing sarcoma, osteosarcoma and Hodgkin lymphoma) was conducted, with conventional doxorubicin treatment. Pharmacokinetic data of 13 children, 40 AYAs and 13 adults were valid for analysis. Population pharmacokinetics models were developed for doxorubicin and its metabolite doxorubicinol based on the data created in this study. Consequently, model-based analysis was conducted to investigate the relevant topics.
The clearance of doxorubicinol (normalized to body surface area), the main active metabolite of doxorubicin, appears faster in male AYAs than female (p = 0.04, 95% CI 0.1–3.9 L/h). The exposure of doxorubicinol (normalized to dose) is lower in male AYA than female (p = 0.03, 95% CI − 0.005 to − 0.0002 h/L). These might be correlated to the observed difference on nadir neutrophil count between male AYA and female (p = 0.027, 95% CI 0.09–1.4).
Gender-related differences in doxorubicin pharmacology may account for worse outcomes for male AYAs with chemosensitive cancers compared to females. These findings may reduce the AYA survival gap compared to other age groups.
KeywordsDoxorubicin Doxorubicinol Pharmacokinetics modelling Adolescent and young adult Gender Hodgkin’s lymphoma Ewing sarcoma Osteosarcoma
Funding was provided by Victorian Cancer Agency (Grant no. CTPS_08_18).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- 9.Bacci G, Longhi A, Ferrari S, Mercuri M, Versari M, Bertoni F (2006) Prognostic factors in non-metastatic Ewing’s sarcoma tumor of bone: an analysis of 579 patients treated at a single institution with adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy between 1972 and 1998. Acta Oncol 45:469–475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Gehan EA, Nesbit ME Jr, Burgert EO Jr, Viettit J, Tefft M, Perez CA, Kissane J, Hempel C. (1981) Prognostic factors in children with Ewing’s sarcoma. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 56:273–278Google Scholar
- 12.Smeland S, Muller C, Alvegard TA, Wiklund T, Wiebe T, Bjork O, Stenwig AE, Willen H, Holmstrom T, Folleras G, Brosjo O, Kivioja A et al (2003) Scandinavian Sarcoma Group Osteosarcoma Study SSG VIII: prognostic factors for outcome and the role of replacement salvage chemotherapy for poor histological responders. Eur J Cancer 39:488–494CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Bielack SS, Kempf-Bielack B, Delling G, Exner GU, Flege S, Helmke K, Kotz R, Salzer-Kuntschik M, Werner M, Winkelmann W, Zoubek A, Jurgens H et al (2002) Prognostic factors in high-grade osteosarcoma of the extremities or trunk: an analysis of 1,702 patients treated on neoadjuvant cooperative osteosarcoma study group protocols. J Clin Oncol 20:776–790CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Gaspar N, Hawkins DS, Dirksen U, Lewis IJ, Ferrari S, Le Deley MC, Kovar H, Grimer R, Whelan J, Claude L, Delattre O, Paulussen M, Picci P, Sundby Hall K, van den Berg H, Ladenstein R, Michon J, Hjorth L, Judson I, Luksch R, Bernstein ML, Marec-Bérard P, Brennan B, Craft AW, Womer RB, Juergens H, Oberlin O (2015) Ewing sarcoma: current management and future approaches through collaboration. J Clin Oncol 33:3036–3046CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Beal SSL, Boekmann A, Bauer RJ (2009) NONMEM’s user’s guides. ICON Development Solutions, Ellicott CityGoogle Scholar
- 24.http://www.pltsoft.com. Accessed 10 Sept 2018
- 25.R_Core_Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
- 26.Kontny NE, Wurthwein G, Joachim B, Boddy AV, Krischke M, Fuhr U, Thompson PA, Jorger M, Schellens JH, Hempel G (2013) Population pharmacokinetics of doxorubicin: establishment of a NONMEM model for adults and children older than 3 years. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 71(3):749–763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-013-2069-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Frost BM, Eksborg S, Bjork O, Abrahamsson J, Behrendtz M, Castor A, Forestier E, Lonnerholm G (2002) Pharmacokinetics of doxorubicin in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: multi-institutional collaborative study. Med Pediatr Oncol 38(5):329–337. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpo.10052 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.https://uupharmacometrics.github.io/PsN/docs.html. Accessed Aug 2018