Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 361

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Dose calculation of anticancer drugs: a review of the current practice and introduction of an alternative.

Gurney, H·1996·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To review the current dose-calculation practice and propose a non-body-surface area (BSA)-based dose-calculation method. METHODS: Data that supported the introduction of BSA-based dose calculation in the late 1950s were reviewed. Data on 18 drugs that correlated pharmacokinetic (PK) variables for cytotoxic drugs with BSA were examined. Other methods of dose calculation, such as therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) and adaptive control, were also examined. RESULTS: The BSA-based method of dose calculation was adopted without adequate investigation of its accuracy. BSA fails to standardize the marked interpatient variation in PK for most cytotoxic drugs. A definite correlation was found between PK variables and BSA for only one drug (docetaxel). PK parameters correlate with toxicity, as well as response in some tumors, but do not completely explain the variation in drug effect between individuals. The complexities of TDM may make its universal use impractical. A non-BSA-based dose calculation method is proposed that defines three mandatory steps: prime dose, modified dose, and toxicity-adjusted dose (PMT dosing). Prime dose is the fixed dose of a drug used alone or in combination and is derived from the reanalysis of phase I/II studies and from clinical practice. Modified dose is an adjustment of the prime dose before administration, based on dose-adjustment guidelines that predict the drug-handling ability of an individual. Population pharmacodynamic studies may be used for the development of these guidelines. Subsequent doses are adjusted in each patient according to a target toxicity, such as nadir neutrophil count or other objective toxicity, that serves as a surrogate marker for potential antitumor effect (toxicity-adjusted dose). Patients who are predicted to have very abnormal drug handling should be excluded from such a dosing scheme and TDM may be more suitable. CONCLUSION: The routine use of BSA for dose calculation should be reevaluated. Other methods of dose calculation should be investigated. TDM may be impractical in all patients and remains unvalidated. PMT dosing ensures that the condition of each individual is considered, to predict drug effects better. Clinical dose-calculation systems such as PMT dosing should be evaluated prospectively.

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 · 10.1200/jco.1996.14.9.2590

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 361

Metadata

Authors
Gurney, H.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
1996-09
Volume
14
Issue
9
Pages
2590-2611
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W1892571469
Cited by
361
References
0
FWCI
10.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Dose calculation of anticancer drugs: a review of the current practice and introduction of an alternative. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1996.14.9.2590
The paper
Gurney, H. (1996). Dose calculation of anticancer drugs: a review of the current practice and introduction of an alternative. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1996.14.9.2590

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.