Top

Published in:

01-11-2018 | Original Article

Gender differences in doxorubicin pharmacology for subjects with chemosensitive cancers of young adulthood

Authors: Z. Liu, J. Martin, L. Orme, B. Seddon, J. Desai, W. Nicholls, D. Thomson, D. Porter, G. McCowage, C. Underhill, N. Cranswick, M. Michael, M. Zacharin, A. Herschtal, J. Sivasuthan, D. M. Thomas

Published in: Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology | Issue 5/2018

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Results

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).

Conclusion

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.

Available only for authorised users

Bleyer A, Viny A, Barr R (2006) Cancer in 15- to 29-year-olds by primary site. Oncologist 11:590–601CrossRefPubMed

Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Thun MJ (2007) Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin 57:43–66CrossRefPubMed

Albritton K, Bleyer WA (2003) The management of cancer in the older adolescent. Eur J Cancer 39:2584–2599CrossRefPubMed

Bleyer A (2002) Older adolescents with cancer in North America deficits in outcome and research. Pediatr Clin North Am 49:1027–1042CrossRefPubMed

Bleyer A (2005) The adolescent and young adult gap in cancer care and outcome. Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care 35:182–217CrossRefPubMed

Mitchell AE et al (2004) Cancer in adolescents and young adults: treatment and outcome in Victoria. Med J Aust 180:59–62PubMed

Khamly KK, Thursfield VJ, Fay M, Desai J, Toner GC, Choong PF, Ngan SY, Powell GJ, Thomas DM (2009) Gender-specific activity of chemotherapy correlates with outcomes in chemosensitive cancers of young adulthood. Int J Cancer 125:426–431CrossRefPubMed

Klimm B, Reineke T, Haverkamp H, Behringer K, Eich HT, Josting A, Pfistner B, Diehl V, Engert A (2005) Role of hematotoxicity and sex in patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma: an analysis from the German Hodgkin Study Group. J Clin Oncol 23:8003–8011CrossRefPubMed

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 45:469–475CrossRefPubMed

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 56:273–278

11.

Collins M et al (2013) Benefits and adverse events in younger versus older patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for osteosarcoma: findings from a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 31:2303–2312CrossRefPubMed

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 39:488–494CrossRefPubMed

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 20:776–790CrossRefPubMed

14.

Martin JH, Phillips E, Thomas DM, Somogyi A (2015) Adding the ‘medicines’ back in personaolized medicine to improve cancer treatment outcomes. Br J Clin Pharmacol 80:929–931CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Kansara M, Teng W, Smyth M, Thomas DM (2014) Translational Biology of osteosarcoma. Nat Rev Cancer 14:722–735CrossRefPubMed

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 33:3036–3046CrossRefPubMed

17.

Kahn JM, Kelly KM (2018) Adolescent and young adult Hodgkin lymphoma: raising the bar through collaborative science and multidisciplinary care. Pediatr Blood Cancer 30:e27033CrossRef

18.

Gewirtz DA (1999) A critical evaluation of the mechanisms of action proposed for the antitumor effects of the anthracycline antibiotics adriamycin and daunorubicin. Biochem Pharmacol 57:727–741CrossRefPubMed

19.

Boucek RJ, Olson RD, Brenner DE, Ogunbunmi EM, Inui M, Fleischer S (1987) The major metabolite of doxorubicin is a potent inhibitor of membrane-associated ion pumps. A correlative study of cardiac muscle with isolated membrane fractions. J Biol Chem 262:15851–15856PubMed

20.

Gilbert CM, McGeary RP, Filippich LJ, Norris RL, Charles BG (2005) Simultaneous liquid chromatographic determination of doxorubicin and its major metabolite doxorubicinol in parrot plasma. J Chromatogr B Anal Technol Biomed Life Sci 826(1–2):273–276CrossRef

21.

Beal SSL, Boekmann A, Bauer RJ (2009) NONMEM’s user’s guides. ICON Development Solutions, Ellicott City

22.

Lindbom L, Pihlgren P, Jonsson EN (2004) Perl-speaks-NONMEM (PsN)--a Perl module for NONMEM related programming. Comput Methods Progr Biomed 75(2):85–94CrossRef

23.

Lindbom L, Pihlgren P, Jonsson EN (2005) PsN-Toolkit—a collection of computer intensive statistical methods for non-linear mixed effect modeling using NONMEM. Comput Methods Progr Biomed 79(3):241–257CrossRef

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, Vienna

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 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Voller S, Boos J, Krischke M, Wurthwein G, Kontny NE, Boddy AV, Hempel G (2015) Age-dependent pharmacokinetics of doxorubicin in children with cancer. Clin Pharmacokinet. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40262-015-0272-4 CrossRefPubMed

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 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Kunarajah K, Hennig S, Norris RL, Lobb M, Charles BG, Pinkerton R, Moore AS (2017) Population pharmacokinetic modelling of doxorubicin and doxorubicinol in children with cancer: is there a relationship with cardiac troponin profiles?. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 80:15–25CrossRefPubMed

30.

Beal SL (2001) Ways to fit a PK model with some data below the quantification limit. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 28(5):481–504CrossRefPubMed

31.

https://uupharmacometrics.github.io/PsN/docs.html. Accessed Aug 2018

32.

Parke J, Holford NH, Charles BG (1999) A procedure for generating bootstrap samples for the validation of nonlinear mixedeffects population models. Comput Methods Progr Biomed 59(1):19–29CrossRef

33.

Beal SL (2001) Ways to fit a PK model with some data below the quantification limit. J 532 Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 28:481–504CrossRef

34.

Pérez-Blanco JS, Santos-Buelga D, Fernández De Gatta MDM et al (2016) Population pharmacokinetic of doxorubicin and doxorubicinol in patients diagnosed with non-Hodgkin´s lymphoma. Br J Clin Pharmacol 82:1517–1527CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Callies S, de Alwis DP, Wright JG, Sandler A, Burgess M, Aarons L (2003) A population pharmacokinetic model for doxorubicin and doxorubicinol in the presence of a novel MDR modulator, zosuquidar trihydrochloride (LY335979). Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 51:107–118PubMed

36.

Veal GJ, Hartford CM, Stewart CF (2010) Clinical pharmacology in the adolescent oncology patient. J Clin Oncol 28:4790–4799CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Cusack BJ, Young SP, Driskell J, Olson RD (1993) Doxorubicin and doxorubicinol pharmacokinetics and tissue concentrations following bolus injection and continuous infusion of doxorubicin in the rabbit. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 32:53–58CrossRefPubMed

Title: Gender differences in doxorubicin pharmacology for subjects with chemosensitive cancers of young adulthood
Authors: Z. Liu
J. Martin
L. Orme
B. Seddon
J. Desai
W. Nicholls
D. Thomson
D. Porter
G. McCowage
C. Underhill
N. Cranswick
M. Michael
M. Zacharin
A. Herschtal
J. Sivasuthan
D. M. Thomas
Publication date: 01-11-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology / Issue 5/2018
Print ISSN: 0344-5704
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0843
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-018-3683-8

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2018

A phase I clinical trial of hepatic arterial infusion of oxaliplatin and oral capecitabine, with or without intravenous bevacizumab, in patients with advanced cancer and predominant liver involvement

Comparative study of the effects of venlafaxine and duloxetine on chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy

A comparison of the quality of informed consent for phase I oncology trials over a 30-year period

A new non-dilution rapid desensitization protocol successfully applied to all-grade platinum hypersensitivity

Prognostic significance of CEACAM5mRNA-positive circulating tumor cells in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Phase Ib study of irinotecan and ramucirumab for advanced gastric cancer previously treated with fluoropyrimidine with/without platinum and taxane

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer