Refinement of the population pharmacokinetic model for the monoclonal antibody matuzumab: external model evaluation and simulations.
OBJECTIVE
A developed population pharmacokinetic model of the humanized monoclonal antibody (mAb) matuzumab was evaluated by external evaluation. Based on the estimates of the final model, simulations of different dosing regimens and the covariate effect were performed.


METHODS
The development dataset included 90 patients, and the evaluation dataset included 81 patients; the two sets of patients were from three different studies. In all studies, the patients had different types of advanced carcinoma - mainly colon, rectal and pancreatic cancer. They received matuzumab as multiple 1-hour intravenous infusions in a wide range of dosing regimens (development dataset: from 400 mg every 3 weeks to 2000 mg in the first week followed by 1600 mg weekly; evaluation dataset: from 100 mg weekly to 800 mg weekly). In addition to 1256 serum mAb concentrations for model development, there were 1124 concentrations available for model evaluation. Serum concentration-time data were simultaneously fitted using NONMEM software. The developed two-compartment model - with the parameters central volume of distribution (V(1)) and peripheral volume of distribution (V(2)), intercompartmental clearance and linear clearance (CLL), an additional nonlinear elimination pathway (Michaelis-Menten constant: the concentration with the half-maximal elimination rate and V(max): the maximum elimination rate) and covariate relations - was evaluated by an external dataset. Different simulation scenarios were performed to demonstrate the impact of the incorporated covariate effect and the influence of different dosing regimens and dosing strategies on the concentration-time profiles.


RESULTS
The developed model included the covariate fat-free mass (FFM) on V(1) and on CLL. The evaluation did not support the covariate FFM on V(1) and, after deletion of this covariate, the model parameters of the refined model were estimated. The model showed good precision for all parameters: the relative standard errors (RSEs) were <42% for the development dataset and < or = 51% for the evaluation dataset (excluding the higher RSEs for the correlation between V(2) and V(max) and the interindividual variability on V(2) for the evaluation dataset). The model showed good robustness for the ability to estimate highly precise parameters for the combined dataset of 171 patients (RSE <29%). Simulations revealed that variability in concentration-time profiles for minimum and maximum steady-state concentrations was reduced to a marginal extent by a proposed dose adaptation.


CONCLUSIONS
The population pharmacokinetic model for matuzumab was improved by evaluation with an external dataset. The new model obtained precise parameter estimates and demonstrated robustness. After correlation with efficacy data simulation results in particular could serve as a tool to guide dose selection for this 'targeted' cancer therapy.
Kuester
Katharina
K
Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Institute of Pharmacy, Freie Universitaet Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Kovar
Andreas
A
Lüpfert
Christian
C
Brockhaus
Brigitte
B
Kloft
Charlotte
C
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D000911:Antibodies, Monoclonal / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000493:pharmacokinetics*; D061067:Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; D000970:Antineoplastic Agents / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000493:pharmacokinetics*; D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic; D003198:Computer Simulation; D003625:Data Collection; D004334:Drug Administration Schedule; D004359:Drug Therapy, Combination; D006801:Humans; D007262:Infusions, Intravenous; D008875:Middle Aged; D008954:Models, Biological; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000188:drug therapy
D000911:Antibodies, Monoclonal; D061067:Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; D000970:Antineoplastic Agents; C520777:matuzumab
J Cell Physiol. 2008 Mar;214(3):559-67
17894407
Eur J Cancer. 2001 Sep;37 Suppl 4:S16-22
11597400
Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 2000 Jan-Mar;25(1):49-58
11032091
Drugs. 2000;60 Suppl 1:15-23; discussion 41-2
11129168
Cancer. 2002 Mar 1;94(5):1593-611
11920518
J Clin Oncol. 2000 Nov 1;18(21 Suppl):54S-9S
11060328
Br J Cancer. 2006 May 8;94(9):1293-9
16622465
Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 1999 Jun;31(6):637-43
10404636
Clin Pharmacokinet. 2007;46(3):221-34
17328581
Curr Oncol Rep. 2002 Jan;4(1):9-19
11734109
Pharm Res. 1999 May;16(5):709-17
10350015
J Cell Biochem. 1990 Oct;44(2):69-79
2250044
J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2001 Apr;28(2):171-92
11381569
Invest New Drugs. 2004 Jan;22(1):39-52
14707493
Clin Cancer Res. 2006 Sep 15;12(18):5481-90
17000683
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2005 Oct;56(4):361-9
15868146
Pharm Res. 2003 Nov;20(11):1885-900
14661937
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jan 1;22(1):175-84
14701780
Drugs Today (Barc). 2005 Feb;41(2):107-27
15821783
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1999 Jan;53(2):167-76
10326794
Oncologist. 2002;7 Suppl 4:2-8
12202782
AAPS J. 2007 Mar 02;9(1):E60-83
17408237
J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2004 Dec;31(6):419-40
16222783
Protein Eng. 1991 Oct;4(7):773-83
1798701
Curr Med Res Opin. 2005 Apr;21(4):483-8
15899095
Semin Oncol. 2003 Feb;30(1 Suppl 1):3-11
12644979
Semin Oncol. 2001 Dec;28(6 Suppl 18):43-7
11774205
J Biol Chem. 1980 May 25;255(10):4834-42
6246084
Oncol Rep. 2000 May-Jun;7(3):603-7
10767376
Clin Pharmacokinet. 2007;46(9):713-37
17713971
Br J Cancer. 2008 Mar 11;98(5):900-6
18319714
Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Aug 1;13(15 Pt 2):s4597-601
17671148
Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2005 Apr;5 Suppl 1:S19-27
15871762
Clin Cancer Res. 2001 Jul;7(7):1850-5
11448895
Arch Biochem Biophys. 1987 Feb 1;252(2):549-60
2434025
Pharm Res. 2008 Feb;25(2):359-68
17587152
Biochem Pharmacol. 2006 Jun 28;72(1):1-10
16469301
Eur J Pediatr. 2006 Nov;165(11):741-6
16807730
N Engl J Med. 2004 Jul 22;351(4):337-45
15269313
J Surg Oncol. 1992 Nov;51(3):147-52
1434639
Mol Syst Biol. 2005;1:2005.0010
16729045
Clin Pharmacokinet. 2005;44(10):1051-65
16176118
Eur J Pharm Sci. 2001 May;13(2):115-22
11297895