Improvement of Parameter Estimations in Tumor Growth Inhibition Models on Xenografted Animals: a Novel Method to Handle the Interval Censoring Caused by Measurement of Smaller Tumors
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Philippe B. Pierrillas ; Michel Tod ; Magali Amiel ; Marylore Chenel…
- 刊名：The AAPS Journal
- 出版年：2016
- 出版时间：March 2016
- 年：2016
- 卷：18
- 期：2
- 页码：404-415
- 全文大小：967 KB
- 参考文献：1.Bergstrand M, Karlsson MO. Handling data below the limit of quantification in mixed effect models. AAPS J. 2009;11(2):371–80. doi:10.1208/s12248-009-9112-5 .CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral <br>2.Duval V, Karlsson MO. Impact of omission or replacement of data below the limit of quantification on parameter estimates in a two-compartment model. Pharm Res. 2002;19(12):1835–40.CrossRef PubMed <br>3.Beal SL. Ways to fit a PK model with some data below the quantification limit. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2001;28(5):481–504.CrossRef PubMed <br>4.Ahn JE, Karlsson MO, Dunne A, Ludden TM. Likelihood based approaches to handling data below the quantification limit using NONMEM VI. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2008;35(4):401–21. doi:10.1007/s10928-008-9094-4 .CrossRef PubMed <br>5.Nguyen TH, Comets E, Mentre F. Extension of NPDE for evaluation of nonlinear mixed effect models in presence of data below the quantification limit with applications to HIV dynamic model. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2012;39(5):499–518. doi:10.1007/s10928-012-9264-2 .CrossRef PubMed <br>6.Sausville EA, Burger AM. Contributions of human tumor xenografts to anticancer drug development. Cancer Res. 2006;66(7):3351–4. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-3627 .CrossRef PubMed <br>7.Rocchetti M, Simeoni M, Pesenti E, De Nicolao G, Poggesi I. Predicting the active doses in humans from animal studies: a novel approach in oncology. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43(12):1862–8. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2007.05.011 .CrossRef PubMed <br>8.Simeoni M, Magni P, Cammia C, De Nicolao G, Croci V, Pesenti E, et al. Predictive pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of tumor growth kinetics in xenograft models after administration of anticancer agents. Cancer Res. 2004;64(3):1094–101.CrossRef PubMed <br>9.Koch G, Walz A, Lahu G, Schropp J. Modeling of tumor growth and anticancer effects of combination therapy. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2009;36(2):179–97. doi:10.1007/s10928-009-9117-9 .CrossRef PubMed <br>10.Sheiner LB, Grasela TH. An introduction to mixed effect modeling: concepts, definitions, and justification. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1991;19(3):S11–S24.CrossRef <br>11.Lindbom L, Pihlgren P, Jonsson EN. PsN-Toolkit—a collection of computer intensive statistical methods for non-linear mixed effect modeling using NONMEM. Comput Methods Prog Biomed. 2005;79(3):241–57. doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2005.04.005 .CrossRef <br>12.Lindbom L, Ribbing J, Jonsson EN. Perl-speaks-NONMEM (PsN)—a Perl module for NONMEM related programming. Comput Methods Prog Biomed. 2004;75(2):85–94. doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2003.11.003 .CrossRef <br>13.Beal SL, Sheiner LB, Boeckmann A, Bauer R. NONMEM user’s guide (1989–2009). Ellicott City: Icon Development Solutions; 2009.<br>14.Herman AB, Savage VM, West GB. A quantitative theory of solid tumor growth, metabolic rate and vascularization. PLoS One. 2011;6(9), e22973. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022973 .CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral <br>15.Simeoni M, Poggesi I, Germani M, De Nicolao G, Rocchetti M. Population modeling of tumor growth inhibition in vivo: application to anticancer drug development. Uppsala: Population Approach Group in Europe; 2004.<br>16.Sostelly A, Payen L, Guitton J, Di Pietro A, Falson P, Honorat M, et al. Quantitative evaluation of the combination between cytotoxic drug and efflux transporter inhibitors based on a tumour growth inhibition model. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2014;28(2):161–9. doi:10.1111/fcp.12005 .CrossRef PubMed <br>17.Magni P, Simeoni M, Poggesi I, Rocchetti M, De Nicolao G. A mathematical model to study the effects of drugs administration on tumor growth dynamics. Math Biosci. 2006;200(2):127–51. doi:10.1016/j.mbs.2005.12.028 .CrossRef PubMed <br>18.Wang Y. Derivation of various NONMEM estimation methods. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2007;34(5):575–93. doi:10.1007/s10928-007-9060-6 .CrossRef PubMed <br>
- 作者单位：Philippe B. Pierrillas (1) (3) <br> Michel Tod (1) (2) <br> Magali Amiel (3) <br> Marylore Chenel (4) <br> Emilie Henin (1) <br><br>1. EMR 3738, Ciblage Thérapeutique en Oncologie, Faculté de Médecine et de Maïeutique Lyon-Sud Charles Mérieux, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Oullins, France <br> 3. Centre de Pharmacocinétique et Métabolisme, Technologie Servier, Orléans, France <br> 2. Pharmacie, Hôpital de la Croix Rousse, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France <br> 4. Division of Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacometrics, Institut de Recherches Internationales Servier, Suresnes, France <br>
- 刊物主题：Pharmacology/Toxicology; Biochemistry, general; Biotechnology; Pharmacy;
- 出版者：Springer US
- ISSN：1550-7416
文摘
The purpose of this study was to explore the interval censoring induced by caliper measurements on smaller tumors during tumor growth experiments in preclinical studies and to show its impact on parameter estimations. A new approach, the so-called interval-M3 method, is proposed to specifically handle this type of data. Thereby, the interval-M3 method was challenged with different methods (including classical methods for handling below quantification limit values) using Stochastic Simulation and Estimation process to take into account the censoring. In this way, 1000 datasets were simulated under the design of a typical of tumor growth study in xenografted mice, and then, each method was used for parameter estimation on the simulated datasets. Relative bias and relative root mean square error (relative RMSE) were consequently computed for comparison purpose. By not considering the censoring, parameter estimations appeared to be biased and particularly the cytotoxic effect parameter, k b> 2 b>, which is the parameter of interest to characterize the efficacy of a compound in oncology. The best performance was noted with the interval-M3 method which properly takes into account the interval censoring induced by caliper measurement, giving overall unbiased estimations for all parameters and especially for the antitumor effect parameter (relative bias = 0.49%, and relative RMSE = 4.06%).