Advertisement
Journal of Clinical Oncology  
Search for:
Limit by:
  Browse by Subject or Issue
Home Search or Browse JCO My JCO Subscriptions Customer Service Site Map

Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 25, No 21 (July 20), 2007: pp. 3055-3060
© 2007 American Society of Clinical Oncology.
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.11.6210

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Save to my personal folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRights & Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Miller, A. A.
Right arrow Articles by Ratain, M. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Miller, A. A.
Right arrow Articles by Ratain, M. J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Phase I and Pharmacokinetic Study of Erlotinib for Solid Tumors in Patients With Hepatic or Renal Dysfunction: CALGB 60101

Antonius A. Miller, Daryl J. Murry, Kouros Owzar, Donna R. Hollis, Lionel D. Lewis, Hedy L. Kindler, John L. Marshall, Miguel A. Villalona-Calero, Martin J. Edelman, Raymond J. Hohl, Stuart M. Lichtman, Mark J. Ratain

From the Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC; University of Iowa College of Pharmacy; University of Iowa Hospitals, Iowa City, IA; Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics and Cancer and Leukemia Group B Statistical Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Dartmouth Medical School, Lebanon, NH; Cancer and Leukemia Group B; University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC; Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, OH; University of Maryland Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; and North Shore–Long Island Jewish Health System, Manhasset, NY

Address reprint requests to Antonius A. Miller, MD, Comprehensive Cancer Center of Wake Forest University, Medical Center Blvd, Winston-Salem, NC 27157-1082; e-mail: aamiller{at}wfubmc.edu

Purpose We investigated dose and pharmacokinetics of erlotinib in patients with hepatic dysfunction or renal dysfunction.

Patients and Methods Patients were assigned to one of three cohorts: cohort 1, AST ≥ 3x upper limit of normal; cohort 2, direct bilirubin of 1 to 7 mg/dL; and cohort 3, creatinine of 1.6 to 5.0 mg/dL. Cohort 1a was amended for albumin less than 2.5 g/dL. Erlotinib was administered orally daily to groups of at least three assessable patients in escalating doses of 50, 75, 100, and 150 mg, starting with 50 mg in hepatic dysfunction patients and 75 mg in renal dysfunction patients.

Results Between December 2001 and May 2005, 55 patients were accrued. The distribution of assessable patients was: two of three in cohort 1, three of three in cohort 1a, 16 of 30 in cohort 2, and 18 of 18 in cohort 3. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) consisted of elevation of both total and direct bilirubin ≥ 1.5x baseline in three patients (cohort 1: one of five patients at 50 mg; cohort 2: two of six patients at 100 mg). In cohort 2, one of seven patients had DLT at 75 mg. No DLT was encountered in cohort 3 with 12 patients at 150 mg. Apparent oral clearance (mean ± standard deviation) was cohort dependent as follows: 1.9 ± 0.2 L/h in cohort 1; 3.7 ± 4.7 L/h in cohort 1a; 2.4 ± 1.1 L/h in cohort 2; and 4.5 ± 2.7 L/h in cohort 3 (Kruskal-Wallis, P < .017).

Conclusion Patients with renal dysfunction tolerate 150 mg of erlotinib daily and seem to have an erlotinib clearance similar to patients without organ dysfunction. Patients with hepatic dysfunction should be treated at a reduced dose (ie, 75 mg daily) consistent with their reduced clearance.

Supported by National Cancer Institute Grants No. CA 03927, CA 47642, CA 33601, CA 47577, CA 04326, CA 41287, CA 77597, CA 77658, CA 31983, CA 47642, CA 35279, and CA 31946.

Presented in part at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, June 2-6, 2006, Atlanta, GA.

The content of this article is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute.

Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and author contributions are found at the end of this article.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JCOHome page
A. A. Miller, D. J. Murry, K. Owzar, D. R. Hollis, E. B. Kennedy, G. Abou-Alfa, A. Desai, J. Hwang, M. A. Villalona-Calero, E. C. Dees, et al.
Phase I and Pharmacokinetic Study of Sorafenib in Patients With Hepatic or Renal Dysfunction: CALGB 60301
J. Clin. Oncol., April 10, 2009; 27(11): 1800 - 1805.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



About
JCO
 Editorial
Roster
 Advertising
Information
 Librarians &
Institutions
 Rights &
Permissions
 PDA Services

Copyright © 2007 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1527-7755. Print ISSN: 0732-183X
Terms and Conditions of Use
  HighWire Press HighWire Press™ assists in the publication of JCO Online