Targeted Systemic Exposure for Pediatric Cancer Therapy

  • John H. Rodman
  • William E. Evans


Pharmacokinetic variability in pediatric patients due to maturational changes in organ function, effects of concomitant disease, and drug toxicity or interactions commonly results in drug clearances that differ by a factor of 4 or 5. This intersubject pharmacokinetic variability has been shown to correlate to an increased likelihood of toxicity in patients with low drug clearances, and therapeutic failure in patients with high drug clearances [1, 2]. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling strategies have been developed and incorporated into clinical studies intended to define the unique pharmacokinetics of anticancer drugs in pediatric patients, identify clinical correlates (e. g., patient characteristics, laboratory indices of organ function) of pharmacokinetic differences, and adjust dosage regimens to control for pharmacokinetic variability.


Systemic Exposure Pharmacokinetic Variability Nonlinear Mixed Effect Model Monte Carlo Simulation Study Structural Model Parameter 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    W. E. Evans, W. R. Crom, M. Abromowitch, et al. Clinical pharmacodynamics of high dose methotrexate in acute lymphocytic leukemia. N. Engl. J. Med. 314:471–477 (1986).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. H. Rodman, M. Abromowitch, J. A. Sinkule et al. Clinical Pharmacodynamics of Continuous Infusion Teniposide: Systemic Exposure as a Determinant of Response in a Phase I trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 7:1007–1014 (1987).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. H. Rodman, M. Sunderland, R. L. Kavanagh, J. Ochs, J. Yalowich, W. E. Evans, and G. K. Rivera. Pharmacokinetics of continuous infusion methotrexate and teniposide in pediatric cancer patients. Cancer Res. 50:4267–4271 (1990).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. S. Day. Treatment sequencing, asymmetry, and uncertainty: protocol strategies for combination chemotherapy. Cancer Res. 46:3876–3885 (1986).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. J. Coldman, C. M. L. Coppin, and J. H. Goldie. Models for Dose Intensity. Math. Biosci. 92:97–113 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. C. Peck and J. H. Rodman. Analysis of clinical pharmacokinetic data for individualizing drug dosage regimen. In W. E. Evans, J. J. Schentag, and W. J. Jusko (eds.), Applied Pharmacokinetics: Principles of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, Applied Therapeutics, Inc., Spokane, 1986, pp. 55–82.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Z. D’Argenio and A. Schumitzky. A program package for simulation and parameter estimation in pharmacokinetic systems. Comp. Prog. Biomed. 9:115–134 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. L. Beal. Population pharmacokinetic data and parameter estimation based on their first two statistical moments. Drug Metab. Rev. 15:173–194 (1984).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. L. Beal and L. B. Sheiner. NONMEM User’s Guides, NONMEM Project, University of California, San Francisco, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • John H. Rodman
    • 1
    • 2
  • William E. Evans
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics Section, Pharmaceutical DivisionSt. Jude Children’s Research HospitalUSA
  2. 2.The Center for Pediatric Pharmacokinetics and Therapeutics, Departments of Clinical Pharmacy and PediatricsUniversity of TennesseeMemphisUSA

Personalised recommendations