Individualized dosing with axitinib: rationale and practical guidance.
Affiliation
1 Clinical Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine I & Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 2 Department of Clinical & Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. 3 Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, The Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, UK. 4 Department of Medical Oncology, St Vincent's University Hospital & The Adelaide & Meath Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. 5 Renal Cancer Unit, Department of Medicine, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK. 6 Department of Hematology & Oncology, Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA. 7 Medical Oncology Department, University of Lyon, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France.Issue Date
2018-04-01Keywords
VEGF inhibitoradvanced
axitinib
metastatic
renal cell carcinoma
second-line treatment
targeted therapy
CANCER, RENAL
CHEMOTHERAPY
Metadata
Show full item recordPublisher
Future Science GroupJournal
Future oncologyDOI
10.2217/fon-2017-0455PubMed ID
29264944Abstract
Axitinib is a potent, selective, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor with demonstrated efficacy as second-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Analyses of axitinib drug exposures have demonstrated high interpatient variability in patients receiving the 5 mg twice-daily (b.i.d.) starting dose. Clinical criteria can be used to assess whether individual patients may benefit further from dose modifications, based on their safety and tolerability data. This review provides practical guidance on the 'flexible dosing' method, to help physicians identify who would benefit from dose escalations, dose reductions or continuation with manageable toxicity at the 5 mg b.i.d. dose. This flexible approach allows patients to achieve the best possible outcomes without compromising safety.Item Type
ArticleLanguage
enISSN
1744-8301Sponsors
This review was sponsored by Pfizer Pharma GmbH. M Schmidinger has received speaker honoraria and consultancy fees from Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Novartis and Astellas. R Danesi has received honoraria and consultancy fees from Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Amgen, Roche, Novartis, Lilly and Celgene and research funding from Pfizer Pharma GmbH and Roche. R Jones has received publication support, speaker honoraria, advisory board membership and research funding from Pfizer Pharma GmbH and GSK, speaker honoraria and research funding from Novartis, advisory board membership from Bristol-Myers Squibb, and advisory board membership and research funding from Roche. R McDermott has received honoraria and research funding from Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Novartis, GSK and Roche. L Pyle has received honorarium from Pfizer Pharma GmbH. B Rini has received research funding and consultancy fees from Pfizer Pharma GmbH. S Negrier has received honoraria from Pfizer Pharma GmbH, ´ Novartis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed. Writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript. In development of the manuscript, medical writing support was provided by H Attisha, PhD of Chameleon Communications, with the financial support of Pfizer Pharma GmbH.Scopus Count
Collections
The following license files are associated with this item:
- Creative Commons
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States