Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 260

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Review of therapeutic drug monitoring of anticancer drugs part 1 – Cytotoxics

Open access
Paci, Angelo, Veal, Gareth, Bardin, Christophe, Levêque, Dominique, Widmer, Nicolas, Beijnen, Jos, Astier, Alain, Chatelut, Etienne·2014·European Journal of Cancer

Abstract

Most anticancer drugs are characterised by a steep dose-response relationship and narrow therapeutic window. Inter-individual pharmacokinetic (PK) variability is often substantial. The most relevant PK parameter for cytotoxic drugs is the area under the plasma concentration versus time curve (AUC). Thus it is somewhat surprising that therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is still uncommon for the majority of agents. Goals of the review were to assess the rationale for more widely used TDM of cytotoxics in oncology. There are several reasons why TDM has never been fully implemented into daily oncology practice. These include difficulties in establishing appropriate concentration target ranges, common use of combination chemotherapies for many tumour types, analytical challenges with prodrugs, intracellular compounds, the paucity of published data from pharmacological trials and 'Day1 = Day21' administration schedules. There are some specific situations for which these limitations are overcome, including high dose methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil infusion, mitotane and some high dose chemotherapy regimens. TDM in paediatric oncology represents an important challenge. Established TDM approaches includes the widely used anticancer agents carboplatin, busulfan and methotrexate, with 13-cis-retinoic acid also recently of interest. Considerable effort should be made to better define concentration-effect relationships and to utilise tools such as population PK/PD models and comparative randomised trials of classic dosing versus pharmacokinetically guided adaptive dosing. There is an important heterogeneity among clinical practices and a strong need to promote TDM guidelines among the oncological community.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.04.014

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Paci, A., Veal, G., Bardin, C., Levêque, D., Widmer, N., Beijnen, J., Astier, A., & Chatelut, E.
Venue
European Journal of Cancer
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-08
Volume
50
Issue
12
Pages
2010-2019
ISSN
0959-8049 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2142616277
Cited by
260
References
1
FWCI
22.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.