Advertisement
Journal Home
Search for

Volume 46, Issue 1, Pages 21-32 (January 2010)


View previous. 5 of 28 View next.

Modelling the genesis and treatment of cancer: The potential role of physiologically based pharmacodynamics

Jean-Louis Steimera, Svein G. Dahlb, Dinesh P. De Alwisc, Ursula Gundert-Remyd, Mats O. Karlssone, Jirina Martinkovaf, Leon AaronsgCorresponding Author Informationemail address, Hans-Jürgen Ahrh, Jean Clairambaulti, Gilles Freyerj, Lena E. Friberge, Steven E. Kernk, Annette Kopp-Schneiderl, Wolf-Dieter Ludwigm, Giuseppe De Nicolaon, Maurizio Rocchettio, Iñaki F. Troconizp

Received 16 April 2009; received in revised form 30 September 2009; accepted 9 October 2009. published online 02 December 2009.

Abstract 

Physiologically based modelling of pharmacodynamics/toxicodynamics requires an a priori knowledge on the underlying mechanisms causing toxicity or causing the disease. In the context of cancer, the objective of the expert meeting was to discuss the molecular understanding of the disease, modelling approaches used so far to describe the process, preclinical models of cancer treatment and to evaluate modelling approaches developed based on improved knowledge.

Molecular events in cancerogenesis can be detected using ‘omics’ technology, a tool applied in experimental carcinogenesis, but also for diagnostics and prognosis. The molecular understanding forms the basis for new drugs, for example targeting protein kinases specifically expressed in cancer. At present, empirical preclinical models of tumour growth are in great use as the development of physiological models is cost and resource intensive. Although a major challenge in PKPD modelling in oncology patients is the complexity of the system, based in part on preclinical models, successful models have been constructed describing the mechanism of action and providing a tool to establish levels of biomarker associated with efficacy and assisting in defining biologically effective dose range selection for first dose in man. To follow the concentration in the tumour compartment enables to link kinetics and dynamics. In order to obtain a reliable model of tumour growth dynamics and drug effects, specific aspects of the modelling of the concentration–effect relationship in cancer treatment that need to be accounted for include: the physiological/circadian rhythms of the cell cycle; the treatment with combinations and the need to optimally choose appropriate combinations of the multiple agents to study; and the schedule dependence of the response in the clinical situation.

a Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland

b Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Medical Biology, University of Tromsø, Norway

c Eli Lilly & Company, Surrey, UK

d Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung, Berlin, Germany

e Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

f Charles University of Prague, Faculty of Medicine in Hradec Kralove, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic

g University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

h Bayer Health Care, Leverkusen, Germany

i INRIA, Paris, France

j Medical Oncology Unit, Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Pierre-Bénite, France

k College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, USA

l Department of Biostatistics, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany

m Robert-Rössle-Klinik Oncology and Tumorimmunology, Berlin-Buch, Germany

n Department of Computer Engineering and Systems Science, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy

o Accelera, Milan, Italy

p Departamento de Farmacia y Tecnología Farmacéutica, University Navarra, Pamplona, Spain

Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author: Address: University of Manchester, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Oxford Road, M13 9PL Manchester, United Kingdom. Tel.: +44 161 275 2357; fax: +44 161 275 2396.

 This paper is based in part on discussions at a COST B25 expert meeting held in Prague, Czech Republic, on 20–21st September 2007. Participating experts were Leon Aarons (UK), Hans-Jürgen Ahr (Germany), Jean Clairambault (France), Svein G. Dahl (Norway), Dinesh De Alwis (UK), Gilles Freyer (France), Lena Friberg (Sweden), Ursula Gundert Remy (Germany), Steve Kern (US), Anette Kopp-Schneider (Germany), Wolf-Dieter Ludwig (Germany), Jirina Martinkova (Czech Republic), Maurizio Rocchetti (Italy), Giuseppe De Nicolao (Italy), Jean-Louis Steimer (Switzerland), Iñaki F. Troconiz (Spain).

PII: S0959-8049(09)00758-8

doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2009.10.011


View previous. 5 of 28 View next.