Site of childhood cancer care in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Due to the complexity of diagnosis and treatment, care for children and young adolescents with cancer preferably occurs in specialised paediatric oncology centres with potentially better cure rates and minimal late effects. This study assessed where children with cancer in the Netherlands were treated since 2004. METHODS: All patients aged under 18 diagnosed with cancer between 2004 and 2013 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) and linked with the Dutch Childhood Oncology Group (DCOG) database. Associations between patient and tumour characteristics and site of care were tested statistically with logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: This population-based study of 6021 children diagnosed with cancer showed that 82% of them were treated in a paediatric oncology centre. Ninety-four percent of the patients under 10 years of age, 85% of the patients aged 10-14 and 48% of the patients aged 15-17 were treated in a paediatric oncology centre. All International Classification of Childhood Cancers (ICCC), 3rd edition, ICCC-3 categories, except embryonal tumours, were associated with a higher risk of treatment outside a paediatric oncology centre compared to leukaemia. Multivariable analyses by ICCC-3 category revealed that specific tumour types such as chronic myelogenous leukaemia (CML), embryonal carcinomas, bone tumours other type than osteosarcoma, non-rhabdomyosarcomas, thyroid carcinomas, melanomas and skin carcinomas as well as lower-staged tumours were associated with treatment outside a paediatric oncology centre. CONCLUSION: The site of childhood cancer care in the Netherlands depends on the age of the cancer patient, type of tumour and stage at diagnosis. Collaboration between paediatric oncology centre(s), other academic units is needed to ensure most up-to-date paediatric cancer care for childhood cancer patients at the short and long term.

Final height in survivors of childhood cancer compared with Height Standard Deviation Scores at diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Our study aimed to evaluate final height in a cohort of Dutch childhood cancer survivors (CCS) and assess possible determinants of final height, including height at diagnosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We calculated standard deviation scores (SDS) for height at initial cancer diagnosis and height in adulthood in a cohort of 573 CCS. Multivariable regression analyses were carried out to estimate the influence of different determinants on height SDS at follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, survivors had a normal height SDS at cancer diagnosis. However, at follow-up in adulthood, 8.9% had a height ≤-2 SDS. Height SDS at diagnosis was an important determinant for adult height SDS. Children treated with (higher doses of) radiotherapy showed significantly reduced final height SDS. Survivors treated with total body irradiation (TBI) and craniospinal radiation had the greatest loss in height (-1.56 and -1.37 SDS, respectively). Younger age at diagnosis contributed negatively to final height. CONCLUSION: Height at diagnosis was an important determinant for height SDS at follow-up. Survivors treated with TBI, cranial and craniospinal irradiation should be monitored periodically for adequate linear growth, to enable treatment on time if necessary. For correct interpretation of treatment-related late effects studies in CCS, pre-treatment data should always be included.

A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of MAG-CPT, a water-soluble polymer conjugate of camptothecin.

Polymeric drug conjugates are a new and experimental class of drug delivery systems with pharmacokinetic promises. The antineoplastic drug camptothecin was linked to a water-soluble polymeric backbone (MAG-CPT) and administrated as a 30 min infusion over 3 consecutive days every 4 weeks to patients with malignant solid tumours. The objectives of our study were to determine the maximal tolerated dose, the dose-limiting toxicities, and the plasma and urine pharmacokinetics of MAG-CPT, and to document anti-tumour activity. The starting dose was 17 mg m(-2) day(-1). Sixteen patients received 39 courses at seven dose levels. Maximal tolerated dose was at 68 mg m(-2) day(-1) and dose-limiting toxicities consisted of cumulative bladder toxicity. MAG-CPT and free camptothecin were accumulated during days 1-3 and considerable amounts of MAG-CPT could still be retrieved in plasma and urine after 4-5 weeks. The half-lives of bound and free camptothecin were equal indicating that the kinetics of free camptothecin were release rate dependent. In summary, the pharmacokinetics of camptothecin were dramatically changed, showing controlled prolonged exposure of camptothecin. Haematological toxicity was relatively mild, but serious bladder toxicity was encountered which is typical for camptothecin and was found dose limiting.

A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of bi-daily dosing of oral paclitaxel in combination with cyclosporin A.

PURPOSE: To investigate dose escalation of bi-daily (b.i.d.) oral paclitaxel in combination with cyclosporin A in order to improve and prolong the systemic exposure to paclitaxel and to explore the maximum tolerated dose and dose limiting toxicity (DLT) of this combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 15 patients received during course 1 two doses of oral paclitaxel (2 x 60, 2 x 90, 2 x 120, or 2 x 160 mg/m2) 7 h apart in combination with 15 mg/kg of cyclosporin A, co-administered to enhance the absorption of paclitaxel. During subsequent courses, patients received 3-weekly intravenous paclitaxel at a dose of 175 mg/m2 as a 3-h infusion. RESULTS: Toxicities observed following b.i.d. dosing of oral paclitaxel were generally mild and included toxicities common to paclitaxel administration and mild gastrointestinal toxicities such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, which occurred more often at the higher dose levels. Dose escalation of b.i.d. oral paclitaxel from 2 x 60 to 2 x 160 mg/m2 did not result in a significant increase in the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of paclitaxel. The AUC after doses of 2 x 60, 90, 120, and 160 mg/m2 were 3.77 +/- 2.70, 4.57 +/- 2.43, 3.62 +/- 1.58, and 8.58 +/- 7.87 microM.h, respectively. The AUC achieved after intravenous administration of paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 was 17.95 +/- 3.94 microM.h. CONCLUSION: Dose increment of paclitaxel did not result in a significant additional increase in the AUC values of the drug. Dose escalation of the b.i.d. dosing regimen was therefore not continued up to DLT. As b.i.d. dosing appeared to result in higher AUC values compared with single-dose administration (data which we have published previously), we recommend b.i.d. dosing of oral paclitaxel for future studies. Although pharmacokinetic data are difficult to interpret, due to the limited number of patients at each dose level and the large interpatient variability, we recommend the dose level of 2 x 90 mg/m2 for further investigation, as this dose level showed the highest systemic exposure to paclitaxel combined with good safety.

The effect of different doses of cyclosporin A on the systemic exposure of orally administered paclitaxel.

The objective of this study was to define the minimally effective dose of cyclosporin A (CsA) that would result in a maximal increase of the systemic exposure to oral paclitaxel. Six evaluable patients participated in this randomized cross-over study in which they received at two occasions two doses of 90 mg/m(2) oral paclitaxel 7 h apart in combination with 10 or 5 mg/kg CsA. Dose reduction of CsA from 10 to 5 mg/kg resulted in a statistically significant decrease in the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and time above the threshold concentrations of 0.1 microM (T>0.1 microM) of oral paclitaxel. The mean (+/-SD) AUC and T>0.1 microM values of oral paclitaxel with CsA 10 mg/kg were 4.29+/-0.88 microM x h and 12.0+/-2.1 h, respectively. With CsA 5 mg/kg these values were 2.75+/-0.63 microM x h and 7.0+/-2.1 h, respectively (p=0.028 for both parameters). In conclusion, dose reduction of CsA from 10 to 5 mg/kg resulted in a significant decrease in the AUC and T>0.1 microM values of oral paclitaxel. Because CsA 10 mg/kg resulted in similar paclitaxel AUC and T>0.1 microM values compared to CsA 15 mg/kg (data which we have published previously), the minimally effective dose of CsA is determined at 10 mg/kg.

Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of oral paclitaxel.

PURPOSE: To investigate dose escalation of oral paclitaxel in combination with dose increment and scheduling of cyclosporine (CsA) to improve the systemic exposure to paclitaxel and to explore the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 53 patients received, on one occasion, oral paclitaxel in combination with CsA, coadministered to enhance the absorption of paclitaxel, and, on another occasion, intravenous paclitaxel at a dose of 175 mg/m(2) as a 3-hour infusion. RESULTS: The main toxicities observed after oral intake of paclitaxel were acute nausea and vomiting, which reached DLT at the dose level of 360 mg/m(2). Dose escalation of oral paclitaxel from 60 to 300 mg/m(2) resulted in significant but less than proportional increases in the plasma area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) of paclitaxel. The mean AUC values +/- SD after 60, 180, and 300 mg/m(2) of oral paclitaxel were 1.65 +/- 0.93, 3.33 +/- 2.39, and 3.46 +/- 1.37 micromol/L.h, respectively. Dose increment and scheduling of CsA did not result in a further increase in the AUC of paclitaxel. The AUC of intravenous paclitaxel was 15.39 +/- 3.26 micromol/L.h. CONCLUSION: The MTD of oral paclitaxel was 300 mg/m(2). However, because the pharmacokinetic data of oral paclitaxel, in particular at the highest doses applied, revealed nonlinear pharmacokinetics with only a moderate further increase of the AUC with doses up to 300 mg/m(2), the oral paclitaxel dose of 180 mg/m(2) in combination with 15 mg/kg oral CsA is considered most appropriate for further investigation. The safety of the oral combination at this dose level was good.

Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of a daily times 5 short intravenous infusion schedule of 9-aminocamptothecin in a colloidal dispersion formulation in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: To determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), and pharmacokinetics of 9-aminocamptothecin (9-AC) in a colloidal dispersion (CD) formulation administered as a 30-minute intravenous (IV) infusion over 5 consecutive days every 3 weeks. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with solid tumors refractory to standard therapy were entered onto the study. The starting dose was 0.4 mg/m(2)/d. The MTD was assessed on the first cycle and was defined as the dose at which > or = two of three patients or > or = two of six patients experience DLT. Pharmacokinetic measurements were performed on days 1 and 5 of the first cycle and on day 4 of subsequent cycles using high-performance liquid chromatography. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients received 104+ treatment courses at seven dose levels. The DLT was hematologic. At a dose of 1.3 mg/m(2)/d, three of six patients experienced grade 3 thrombocytopenia. Grade 4 neutropenia that lasted less than 7 days was observed in four patients. At a dose of 1.1 mg/m(2)/d, four of nine patients had grade 4 neutropenia of brief duration, which was not dose limiting. Nonhematologic toxicities were relatively mild and included nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, obstipation, mucositis, fatigue, and alopecia. Maximal plasma concentrations and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) increased linearly with dose, but interpatient variation was wide. Lactone concentrations exceeded 10 nmol/L, the threshold for activity in preclinical tumor models, at all dose levels. Sigmoidal E(max) models could be fit to the relationship between AUC and the degree of hematologic toxicity. A partial response was observed in small-cell lung cancer. CONCLUSION: 9-AC CD administered as a 30-minute IV infusion daily times 5 every three weeks is safe and feasible. The recommended phase II dose is 1. 1 mg/m(2)/d.

Pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel administered in combination with cisplatin, etoposide and bleomycin in patients with advanced solid tumours.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel and cisplatin administered in combination with bleomycin and etoposide and Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) in patients with advanced solid tumours. METHODS: Patients were recruited to a phase I trial where escalating doses of paclitaxel (125 to 200 mg/m(2)) were administered in combination with etoposide 100 or 120 mg/m(2), and fixed dose of cisplatin 20 mg/m(2) and bleomycin 30 mg, with the concomitant use of G-CSF. Paclitaxel (3-h infusion) was followed by 1-h etoposide, 4-h cisplatin and 30-min bleomycin infusions, respectively. Pharmacokinetics sampling for paclitaxel analysis was performed in ten patients from dose levels II-V. RESULTS: The mean paclitaxel area under the plasma concentration-versus-time curves (AUC) for the 125-mg/m(2) dose level (II) was 7.0 +/- 3.6 h micromol(-1) l(-1), for the 175-mg/m(2) dose level (III) 10.6 +/- 2. 8 h micromol(-1) l(-1), for the 200-mg/m(2) dose level (IV) it was 16.0 +/- 5.0 h micromol(-1) l(-1), and for the 175-mg/m(2) dose level (V) it was 12.5 +/- 6.1 h micromol(-1) l(-1). The mean peak plasma concentration (C(max)) values for dose levels II-V were 1.9 +/- 1.1 micromol/l, 3.4 +/- 1.2 micromol/l, 4.3 +/- 1.0 micromol/l and 3.8 +/- 1.2 h micromol/l, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this study, relevant pharmacokinetic parameters of paclitaxel like AUC, C(max) and the paclitaxel plasma concentration above the pharmacologically relevant 0.1-micromol/l threshold concentration (t > 0.1 microM) when administered in combination with cisplatin, etoposide and bleomycin (PEB) were not statistically different from paclitaxel data of historical controls. However, given the trial design, pharmacokinetic interactions between the agents cannot be excluded.