ABSTRACT: The fastest growing segment of the US population is the group over the age of 65 years. In the next 30 years, this group will comprise over 20% of the population. Because 60% of all cancers occur in this age group, there will be an expected rise in the total cancer burden. Emerging data will better guide the use of chemotherapy in older patients. Studies will be presented discussing the pharmacokinetics of a number of chemotherapeutic agents, with an emphasis on those that have come into use over the past few years. Many of these agents seem to have a beneficial therapeutic index, particularly in regard to elderly patients. There has also been a rising trend in the use of oral chemotherapy. This change was fueled by patient preferences, quality-of-life issues, and the need to decrease the cost of chemotherapy administration. Factors that must be taken into consideration with oral administration of chemotherapy include limitations of the saturability of absorption, patient compliance, and the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes that occur in elderly patients. Interpatient variability and drug metabolism, particularly age-related changes in drug metabolism, have been studied. The cytochrome P450 system is particularly important in this context. Safe administration of chemotherapy requires careful attention to the physiologic changes occurring with age and dose adjustments to compensate for end-organ (ie, renal and hepatic) dysfunction. These adjustments will be discussed for specific drugs. Complementary and alternative therapies will also be presented. [ONCOLOGY 14(12): 1743-1763, 2000]
Approximately 60% of all cancers occur in persons over the age of 65 years. Increasing age is directly associated with increasing rates of cancer, corresponding to an 11-fold greater incidence in persons over the age of 65 years vs those under 65. Consequently, the older population comprises a majority of cancer patients. Persons 65 years of age and older are the fastest-growing segment of the US population and will account for an estimated 20% of Americans by the year 2030. The over-75-year-old group will triple by 2030, and the over-85-year-old group will double in the same period. The average life expectancy of a 75-year-old person is currently 10 years, and of an 85-year-old, 6 years.[3-6] Together, these statistics outline a population that, in the future, will increasingly require specific management for various cancers.
The definition of "elderly" or "geriatric" patient groups is arbitrary and does not necessarily reflect the underlying health status of an individual. Following Medicare and Social Security regulations, the definition of "elderly" is most often based on an age over 65 years. Investigators have recently begun isolating the over-75 population for data analysis as well.[7,8] A special group, the "frail elderly" patient, is characterized by an age of 85 years or older, mild impairment of activities of daily living, significant comorbidity, and the presence of a geriatric syndrome.
Treatment decisions change significantly with increasing patient age.[9,10] Older patients are more likely to be undertreated with chemotherapy because of physician fear of toxicity and lack of data supporting efficacy in this population.[11,12] Studies that have addressed chemotherapy toxicity in older patients have shown that they can tolerate such regimens as well as younger patients.[13-20] Lack of data on older persons has been a serious concern for physicians in their decision-making process. Future studies will need to incorporate more elderly patients, in order to yield meaningful data that will support evidence-based decisions. As the elderly population continues to grow, there will be an increasing need for studies, physician education, and therapies for this group. This article will review the differences and similarities of older and younger populations with respect to pharmacology, toxicity, and management.
As practitioners treat more older patients, the question of whether pharmacokinetic data from patients in their 60s can be applied to patients in their 70s or 80s will become a more important issue. Throughout their lifetime, individuals experience subtle and gradual age-related changes that are difficult to identify. Older persons, compared to younger populations, typically have more disease states, take more medications, experience more adverse effects and drug interactions, and have more variability in nutritional status and underlying chronic health status that may contribute to pharmacokinetic differences.[22-24] Pharmacokinetic data on older patients are limited because only a small number of these individuals are included in studies with a wide range of patient ages. Consequently, the majority of data are inferred from the small number of older patients enrolled in trials that are not specifically targeted at an older age group.[25-27]
The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of various drugs may differ significantly between older and younger patients, as the result of physical, biochemical, and nutritional factors. Absorption may be affected by treatment toxicities as well by prior therapies such as surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. The distribution of agents may be affected by differences in body fat, muscle, and protein and by fluid differences seen most often with aging, cancer cachexia syndromes, obesity, ascites, or pleural effusions. Protein binding may be altered by hypoalbuminemia, leading to an increase in free fractions of agents. The metabolism of agents may also be affected by changes in hepatic or renal function.[22-27]
Aging, cancer, other disease states, or other medications may alter renal and hepatic metabolism and the elimination of chemotherapy agents in the elderly. Renal function typically declines in a steady fashion. Studies of hepatic drug metabolizing enzyme activity, particularly the cytochrome P450 microsomal system, show a decline in activity of approximately 30% among healthy elderly men and women, compared with younger individuals. Cytochrome P450 1A2 also shows a decline in activity of 20% to 25% in healthy elderly subjects.[28,29] Due to the large metabolic capacity of the liver, age-related changes and their clinical significance are difficult to measure.
Decreases in the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of approximately 1 mL/min for every year over age 40 are well known. The age-related decrease in GFR correlates with pharmacokinetic alterations of drugs that are excreted renally. Due to the physiologic decline in renal function with age, chemotherapeutic agents, which are primarily excreted renally, must be used with extreme care in the elderly. Dose adjustments may be needed, particularly in the frail elderly, in whom chemotherapy is often contraindicated. Dosing modifications for these declines have been suggested (Table 1).[8,31,32]
1. Kennedy BJ, Bushhouse SA, Bender AP: Minnesota population cancer risk. Cancer 73:724-729, 1994.
2. Yancik R: Cancer burden in the aged: An epidemiologic and demographic overview. Cancer 80:1273-1283, 1997.
3. Barry P, Katz PR: On cancer screening in the elderly (editorial). J Am Geriatr Soc 37:913-914, 1989.
4. Black JS, Kapoor W: Health promotion and disease prevention in older people. Our current state of ignorance. J Am Geriatr Soc 38:168-172, 1990.
5. Robie PW: Cancer screening in the elderly. J Am Geriatr Soc 37:888-893, 1989.
6. Yancik R, Ries LG: Caring for elderly cancer patients. Quality assurance considerations. Cancer 64(1 suppl):335-341, 1989.
7. Balducci L, Corcoran MB: Antineoplastic chemotherapy of the older cancer patient. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 14:193-212, 2000.
8. Balducci L, Stanta G: Cancer in the frail patient. A coming epidemic. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 14: 235-250, 2000.
9. Newcomb PA, Carbone PP: Cancer treatment and age: Patient perspectives. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:1580-1584, 1993.
10. Samet J, Hunt WC, Key C, et al: Choice of cancer therapy varies with age of patient. JAMA 255:3385-3390, 1986.
11. Fentiman IS, Tirelli U, Monfardini S, et al: Cancer in the elderly: Why so badly treated? Lancet 355:1020-1022, 1990.
12. Dixon DO, Neilan B, Jones S, et al: Effect of age on therapeutic outcome in advanced diffuse histocytic lymphoma: The Southwest Oncology Group experience. J Clin Oncol 4:295-305, 1986.
13. Gelman RS, Taylor SGT: Cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy in women more than 65 years old with advanced breast cancer: The elimination of age trends in toxicity by using doses based on creatinine clearance. J Clin Oncol 2:1404-1413, 1984.
14. Giovanazzi-Bannon S, Rademaker A, Lai G, et al: Treatment tolerance of elderly cancer patients entered onto phase II clinical trials: An Illinois Cancer Center Study. J Clin Oncol 12:2447-2452, 1994.
15. Lichtman SM, Buchholtz M, Marino J, et al: Use of cisplatin for elderly patients. Age Ageing 21:202-204, 1992.
16. Becouarn Y, Nguyen B, Brunet R, et al: Cancer chemotherapy in the elderly: A series of 51 patients aged > 70 years. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 29:159-163, 1992.
17. Begg CB, Carbone PP: Clinical trials and drug toxicity in the elderly: The experience of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Cancer 52:1986-1992, 1983.
18. Begg CB, Elson PJ, Carbone PP: A study of excess hematologic toxicity in elderly patients treated on cancer chemotherapy protocols, in Yancik R, Yates JW (eds): Cancer in the Elderly: An Approach to Early Detection and Treatment, pp 149-163. New York, Springer, 1989.
19. Christman K, Muss HB, Case LD, et al: Chemotherapy of metastatic breast cancer in the elderly. The Piedmont Oncology Association experience. JAMA 268:57-62, 1992.
20. Lichtman SM, Zaheer W, Gal D, et al: No increased risk of Taxol toxicity in older patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 44:472-474, 1996.
21. Lichtman SM: Integration of geriatrics in oncology training—the relationship between the academic center and the community. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 33:57-59, 2000.
22. Evers BM, Townsend CMJ, Thompson JC: Organ physiology of aging. Surg Clin North Am 74:23-39, 1994.
23. Sekine I, Fukuda H, Kunitoh H, et al: Cancer chemotherapy in the elderly. Jpn J Clin Oncol 28:463-473, 1998.
24. Lichtman SM: Physiological aspects of aging. Implications for the treatment of cancer. Drugs Aging 7:212-225, 1995.
25. Loadman PM, Bibby MC: Pharmacokinetic drug interactions with anticancer drugs. Clin Pharmacokinet 26:486-500, 1994.
26. McLeod HL: Clinically relevant drug-drug interactions in oncology. Br J Clin Pharmacol 45: 539-544, 1998.
27. Kivisto KT, Kroemer HK, Eichelbaum M: The role of human cytochrome P450 enzymes in the metabolism of anticancer agents: Implications for drug interactions. Br J Clin Pharmacol 40:523-530, 1995.
28. Sotaniemi EA, Arranto AJ, Pelkonen O, et al: Age and cytochrome P450-linked drug metabolism in humans: An analysis of 226 subjects with equal histopathologic conditions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 61:331-339, 1997.
29. Vestal RE: Aging and pharmacology. Cancer 80:1302-1310, 1997.
30. Cockcroft DW, Gault MH: Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine. Nephron 16:31-41, 1976.
31. Balducci L, Extermann M: Cancer chemotherapy in the older patient: what the medical oncologist needs to know. Cancer 80:1317-1322, 1997.
32. Balducci L, Extermann M: Management of cancer in the older person: A practical approach. Oncologist 5:224-237, 2000.
33. Bunn PA Jr, Kelly K: New chemotherapeutic agents prolong survival and improve quality of life in non-small cell lung cancer: A review of the literature and future directions. Clin Cancer Res 4:1087-1100, 1998.
34. Stadler WM, Kuzel T, Roth B, et al: Phase II study of single-agent gemcitabine in previously untreated patients with metastatic urothelial cancer. J Clin Oncol 15:3394-3398, 1997.
35. Shepherd FA, Abratt RP, Anderson H, et al: Gemcitabine in the treatment of elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Semin Oncol 24 (2 suppl 7):S50-S55, 1997.
36. Venook AP, Egorin MJ, Rosner GL, et al: Phase I and pharmacokinetic trial of gemcitabine in patients with hepatic or renal dysfunction: Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9565. J Clin Oncol 18:2780-2787, 2000.
37. Crivellari D, Bonetti M, Castiglione-Gertsch M, et al: Burdens and benefits of adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil and tamoxifen for elderly patients with breast cancer: The International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial VII. J Clin Oncol 18:1412-1422, 2000.
38. Iyer L, Ratain MJ: 5-fluorouracil pharmacokinetics: Causes for variability and strategies for modulation in cancer chemotherapy. Cancer Invest 17:494-506, 1999.
39. Diasio RB: Clinical implications of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase inhibition. Oncology 13:17-21, 1999.
40. Diasio RB: The role of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) modulation in 5-FU pharmacology. Oncology 12:23-27, 1998.
41. Grem JL: 5-Fluoropyrimidines, in Chabner BA, Longo DL (eds): Cancer Chemotherapy and Biotherapy: Principles and Practice, 2nd ed, pp 149-211. Philadelphia, Lippincott-Raven, 1996.
42. Stein BN, Petrelli NJ, Douglass HO, et al: Age and sex are independent predictors of 5-fluorouracil toxicity. Analysis of a large scale phase III trial. Cancer 75:11-17, 1995.
43. Popescu RA, Norman A, Ross PJ, et al: Adjuvant or palliative chemotherapy for colorectal cancer in patients 70 years or older. J Clin Oncol 17: 2412-2418, 1999.
44. Abad A, Navarro M, Sastre J, et al: A preliminary report of a phase II trial. UFT plus oral folinic acid as therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer in older patients. Spanish Group for the Treatment of Gastrointestinal Tumors (TTd Group). Oncology 11:53-57, 1997.
45. Baker SD, Diasio RB, O’Reilly S, et al: Phase I and pharmacologic study of oral fluorouracil on a chronic daily schedule in combination with the dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase inactivator eniluracil. J Clin Oncol 18: 915, 2000.
46. Van Cutsem E, Findlay M, Osterwalder B, et al: Capecitabine, an oral fluoropyrimidine carbamate with substantial activity in advanced colorectal cancer: Results of a randomized phase II study. J Clin Oncol 18:1337-1345, 2000.
47. O’Shaughnessy J, Moiseyenko V, Bell DV, et al: A randomized phase II study of Xeloda (capecitabine) vs CMF as first-line chemotherapy of breast cancer in women aged 55 years (abstract 398). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 17:103, 1998.
48. Cassidy J, Twelves C, Cameron D, et al: Bioequivalence of two tablet formulations of capecitabine and exploration of age, gender, body surface area, and creatinine clearance as factors influencing systemic exposure in cancer patients. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 44:453-460, 1999.
49. Twelves C, Glynne-Jones R, Cassidy J, et al: Effect of hepatic dysfunction due to liver metastases on the pharmacokinetics of capecitabine and its metabolites. Clin Cancer Res 5:1696-1702, 1999.
50. Reigner B, Verweij J, Dirix L, et al: Effect of food on the pharmacokinetics of capecitabine and its metabolites following oral administration in cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 4:941-948, 1998.
51. Adkins JC, Peters DH, Markham A: Fludarabine: An update of its pharmacology and use in the treatment of haematological malignancies. Drugs 53:1005-1037, 1997.
52. Williams G, Cascella P, Lichtman SM, et al: Development of a fludarabine phosphate dosing formulation in patients with renal insufficiency based on a pharmacokinetic study in patients with and without renal impairment (abstract 845). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 17:219a, 1998.
53. Beran M, Kantarjian H, O’Brien S, et al: Topotecan, a topoisomerase I inhibitor, is active in the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia. Blood 88:2473-2479, 1996.
54. Relias V, Skirvin JA: Topoisomerase I inhibitors: 1. Topotecan. J Oncol Pharm Practice 3:173-185, 1997.
55. Herben VM, Rosing H, ten Bokkel Huinink WW, et al: Oral topotecan: Bioavailablity and effect of food co-administration. Br J Cancer 80:1380-1386, 1999.
56. O’Reilly S, Armstrong DK, Grochow LB: Life-threatening myelosuppression in patients with occult renal impairment receiving topotecan [letter]. Gynecol Oncol 67:329-330, 1997.
57. Friedman HS, Petros WP, Friedman AH, et al: Irinotecan therapy in adults with recurrent or progressive malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol 17:1516-1525, 1999.
58. Saltz LB, Douillard J-Y, Pirotta N, et al: Combined analysis of two phase 3 randomized trials comparing irinotecan (C), fluorouracil (F), leucovorin (L) vs F alone as first-line therapy of previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) (abstract 938). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 19:242a, 2000.
59. Saltz LB: Irinotecan in the first-line treatment of colorectal cancer. Oncology 12:54-58, 1998.
60. Rougier P, Van Cutsem E, Bajetta E, et al: Randomised trial of irinotecan vs fluorouracil by continuous infusion after fluorouracil failure in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer [see comments] [published erratum appears in Lancet 1998 Nov 14;352(9140):1634]. Lancet 352:1407-1412, 1998.
61. Skirvin J, Relias V: Topoisomerase inhibitors: 2. Irinotecan. J Oncol Pharm Practice 4:103-116, 1998.
62. Pazdur R, Zinner R, Rothernberg ML, et al: Age as a risk factor in irinotecan treatment of 5-FU-refractory colorectal cancer (abstract 921). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 16:260a, 1997.
63. Singal PK, Iliskovic N: Doxorubicin-induced cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med 339:900-905, 1998.
64. Swain SM, Whaley FS, Gerber MC, et al: Cardioprotection with dexrazoxane for doxorubicin-containing therapy in advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 15:1318-1332, 1997.
65. Doroshow JH: Anthracyclines and Anthracenediones, in Chabner BA, Longo DL (eds): Cancer Chemotherapy and Biotherapy: Principles and Practice, 2nd ed, pp 409-434. Philadelphia, Lippincott-Raven, 1996.
66. Doroshow JH: Doxorubicin-induced cardiac toxicity. N Engl J Med 324: 843-845, 1991.
67. McEvoy GK: AHFS 98: Drug Information. Bethesda, Md, American Society of Health System Pharmacists, 1998.
68. Dorr RT, Von Hoff DD: Cancer Chemotherapy Handbook. Norwalk, Conn, Appleton & Lange, 1994.
69. Rodvold KA, Rushing DA, Tewksbury DA: Doxorubicin clearance in the obese. J Clin Oncol 6:1321-1327, 1988.
70. Buckley MM, Lamb HM, Friedman RL, et al: Oral idarubicin: A review of its pharmacological properties and clinical efficacy in the treatment of haematological malignancies and advanced breast cancer. Drugs Aging 11:61-86, 1997.
71. Platel D, Pouna P, Bonoron-Adele S, et al: Comparative cardiotoxicity of idarubicin and doxorubicin using the isolated perfused rat heart model. Anticancer Drugs 10:671-676, 1999.
72. Robieux I, Spazzapan S, Fratino L, et al: Pharmacokinetics and safety of idarubicin containing infusion (CIV) in elderly patients with aggressive lymphoma (abstract 854). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 17:222a, 1998.
73. Anderlini P, Benjamin RS, Wong FC, et al: Idarubicin cardiotoxicity: A retrospective study in acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplasia. J Clin Oncol 13:2827-2834, 1995.
74. Italian Multicentre Breast Study with Epirubicin: Phase III randomized study of fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide vs fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide in advanced breast cancer: An Italian multicentre trial. J Clin Oncol 6:976-982, 1988.
75. Praga C, Trave F, Petroccione A, et al: Anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity and its relevance in cancer treatment, in Nimmo W, Tucker G (eds): Clinical Measurement in Drug Evaluation, pp 131-142. Boca Raton, Fla, CRC Press, 1991
76. Nicolella D, Grimaldi G, Colantuoni G, et al: Weekly low-dose epirubicin in elderly cancer patients. Tumori 82:369-371, 1996.
77. Ranson MR, Carmichael J, O’Byrne K, et al: Treatment of advanced breast cancer with sterically stabilized liposomal doxorubicin: Results of a multicenter phase II trial [see comments]. J Clin Oncol 15:3185-3191, 1997.
78. Muggia FM: Clinical efficacy and prospects for use of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in the treatment of ovarian and breast cancers. Drugs 54(suppl 4):22-29, 1997.
79. Thomas X, Archimbaud E: Mitoxantrone in the treatment of acute myelogenous leukemia: A review. Hematol Cell Ther 39:63-74, 1997.
80. Wiseman LR, Spencer CM: Mitoxantrone. A review of its pharmacology and clinical efficacy in the management of hormone-resistant advanced prostate cancer. Drugs Aging 10:473-485, 1997.
81. Small EJ: Prostate cancer. Curr Opin Oncol 9:277-286, 1997.
82. Cortes JE, Pazdur R: Docetaxel. J Clin Oncol 13:2643-2655, 1995.
83. Kreis W, Budman DR, Fetten J, et al: Phase I trial of the combination of daily estramustine phosphate and intermittent docetaxel in patients with metastatic hormone refractory prostate carcinoma. Ann Oncol 10:33-38, 1999.
84. Lichtman SM, Rosner G, Egorin M, et al: Clinical pharmacology of paclitaxel in relation to patient age: CALGB 9762 (abstract 732). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 18:190a, 1999.
85. Akerley W, Glantz M, Choy H, et al: Phase I trial of weekly paclitaxel in advanced lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 16:153-158, 1998.
86. Taylor CW, Wang LM, List AF, et al: Amifostine protects normal tissues from paclitaxel toxicity while cytotoxicity against tumour cells is maintained. Eur J Cancer 33:1693-1698, 1997.
87. Hainsworth JD, Burris HA 3rd, Erland JB, et al: Phase I trial of docetaxel administered by weekly infusion in patients with advanced refractory cancer. J Clin Oncol 16:2164-2168, 1998.
88. Venook AP, Egorin MJ, Rosner GL, et al: Phase I and pharmacokinetic trial of paclitaxel in patients with hepatic dysfunction: Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9264. J Clin Oncol 16:1811-1819, 1998.
89. Burris H: Optimal use of docetaxel (Taxotere): Maximizing its potential. Anticancer Drugs 7(suppl 2):25-28, 1996.
90. Bruno R, Hille D, Riva A, et al: Population pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of docetaxel in phase II studies in patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 16:187-196, 1998.
91. Reed E, Dabholkar M, Chabner BA: Platinum analogues, in Chabner BA, Longo DL (eds): Cancer Chemotherapy and Biotherapy: Principles and Practice, 2nd ed, pp 357-378. Philadelphia, Lippincott-Raven, 1996.
92. Hesketh PJ: Treatment of chemotherapy-induced emesis in the 1990s: Impact of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Support Care Cancer 2:286-292, 1994.
93. Lofters W, Pater J, Zee B, et al: Phase III double-blind comparison of dolasetron mesylate and ondansetron and an evaluation of the additive role of dexamethasone in the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting due to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 15:2966-2973, 1997.
94. Blanchley JD, Hill JB: Renal and electrolyte disturbances associated with cisplatin. Ann Intern Med 95:628-632, 1981.
95. Daugaard G, Abildgaard U: Cisplatin nephrotoxicity. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 25:1-9, 1988.
96. Hrushesky WJM, Shimp W, Kennedy BJ: Lack of age-dependent cisplatin nephrotoxicity. Am J Med 76:579-584, 1984.
97. Thyss A, Saudes L, Otto J, et al: Renal tolerance of cisplatin in patients more than 80 years old. J Clin Oncol 12:2121-2125, 1994.
98. Kemp G, Rose P, Lurain J, et al: Amifostine pretreatment for protection against cyclophosphamide-induced and cisplatin-induced toxicities: Results of a randomized control trial in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 14:2101-2112, 1996.
99. Calvert AH, Newell DR, Gumbrell LA, et al: Carboplatin dosage: Prospective evaluation of a simple formula based. J Clin Oncol 7:1748-1756, 1989.
100. Kearns CM, Egorin MJ: Considerations regarding the less-than-expected thrombocytopenia encountered with combination paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy. Semin Oncol 24:S2-91-S92-96, 1997.
101. Vaughn DJ, Malkowicz SB, Zoltick B, et al: Paclitaxel plus carboplatin in advanced carcinoma of the urothelium: An active and tolerable outpatient regimen. J Clin Oncol 16:255-260, 1998.
102. Extra JM, Marty M, Brienza S, et al: Pharmacokinetics and safety profile of oxaliplatin. Semin Oncol 25:13-22, 1998.
103. Tew KD, Colvin M, Chabner BA: Alkylating agents, in Chabner BA, Longo DL (eds): Cancer Chemotherapy and Biotherapy: Principles and Practice, 2nd ed, pp 297-332. Philadelphia, Lippincott-Raven, 1996.
104. Baker SD, Grochow LB: Pharmacology of cancer chemotherapy in the older person. Clin Geriatr Med 13:169-183, 1997.
105. Middleton MR, Grob JJ, Aaronson N, et al: Randomized phase III study of temozolomide vs dacarbazine in the treatment of patients with advanced metastatic malignant melanoma. J Clin Oncol 18:158, 2000.
106. Newlands ES, O’Reilly SM, Glaser MG, et al: The Charing Cross Hospital experience with temozolomide in patients with gliomas. Eur J Cancer 32A:2236-2241, 1996.
107. O’Reilly SM, Newlands ES, Glaser MG, et al: Temozolomide: A new oral cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agent with promising activity against primary brain tumours. Eur J Cancer 29A:940-942, 1993.
108. Yung WK, Prados MD, Yaya-Tur R, et al: Multicenter phase II trial of temozolomide in patients with anaplastic astrocytoma or anaplastic oligoastrocytoma at first relapse. Temodal Brain Tumor Group. J Clin Oncol 17:2762-2771,
109. Brada M, Judson I, Beale P, et al: Phase I dose-escalation and pharmacokinetic study of temozolomide (SCH 52365) for refractory or relapsing malignancies. Br J Cancer 81:1022-1030, 1999.
110. Hammond LA, Eckardt JR, Baker SD, et al: Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of temozolomide on a daily-for-5-days schedule in patients with advanced solid malignancies. J Clin Oncol 17:2604-2613, 1999.
111. Dhodapkar M, Rubin J, Reid JM, et al: Phase I trial of temozolomide (NSC 362856) in patients with advanced cancer. Clin Cancer Res 3:1093-1100, 1997.
112. Miller AA, Rosner GL, Ratain MJ, et al: Pharmacology of 21-day oral etoposide given in combination with IV cisplatin in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: A Cancer and Leukemia Group B study (CALGB 9062). Clin Cancer Res: 719-725, 1997.
113. de Jong RS, Hofstra LS, Willemse PH, et al: Effect of low-dose oral etoposide on serum CA-125 in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 66:197-201, 1997.
114. Fleming GF, Waggoner SE, Rotmensch J, et al: Phase II study of 96-hr continuous-infusion etoposide and doxorubicin with bolus cyclophosphamide in refractory epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 65:42-45, 1997.
115. Niitsu N, Umeda M: Evaluation of long-term daily administration of oral low-dose etoposide in elderly patients with relapsing or refractory non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Am J Clin Oncol 20:311-314, 1997.
116. Gridelli C, Rossi A, Scognamiglio F, et al: Carboplatin plus oral etoposide in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. A phase II study. Anticancer Res 17:4755-4758, 1997.
117. Souhami RL, Spiro SG, Rudd RM, et al: Five-day oral etoposide treatment for advanced small-cell lung cancer: Randomized comparison with intravenous chemotherapy [see comments]. J Natl Cancer Inst 89:577-580, 1997.
118. McEvoy G: AHFS 2000: Drug Information. Bethesda, Md, American Society of Health System Pharmacists, 2000.
119. Pommier Y, Fesen MR, Goldwasser F: Topoisomerase II inhibitors: The epipodophyllotoxins, m-AMSA, and the ellipticine derivatives, in Chabner BA, Longo DL (eds): Cancer Chemotherapy and Biotherapy: Principles and Practice, 2nd ed, pp 435-461. Philadelphia, Lippincott-Raven, 1996.
120. Greco FA: Future directions for etoposide therapy. Cancer 67:315, 1991.
121. Aita P, Robieux I, Sorio R, et al: Pharmacokinetics of oral etoposide in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 43:287-294, 1999.
122. LeChevalier T, Brisgand D, Douilland J-Y, et al: Randomized study of vinorelbine and cisplatin vs vindesine and cisplatin vs vinorelbine alone in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Results of a European Multicenter Trial including 612 patients. J Clin Oncol 12:360-367, 1994.
123. Burger RA, Burman S, White R, et al: Phase II trial of navelbine in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (abstract 779). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 15:286, 1996.
124. Budman DR: Vinorelbine (Navelbine): A third-generation vinca alkaloid. Cancer Invest 15:475-490, 1997.
125. Frasci G, Lorusso V, Panza N, et al: Gemcitabine plus vinorelbine vs vinorelbine alone in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 18:2529-2536, 2000.
126. Sorio R, Robieux I, Galligioni E, et al: Pharmacokinetics and tolerance of vinorelbine in elderly patients with metastatic breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 33:301-303, 1997.
127. Burger RA, DiSaia PJ, Roberts JA, et al: Phase II trial of vinorelbine in recurrent and progressive epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 72:148-153, 1999.
128. D’Amato RJ, Loughnan MS, Flynn E, et al: Thalidomide is an inhibitor of angiogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91:4082-4085, 1994.
129. Moller DR, Wysocka M, Greenlee BM, et al: Inhibition of IL-12 production by thalidomide. J Immunol 159:5157-5161, 1997.
130. Burton E, Prados M: New chemotherapy options for the treatment of malignant gliomas. Curr Opin Oncol 11:157-161, 1999.
131. Singhal S, Mehta J, Desikan R, et al: Antitumor activity of thalidomide in refractory multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 341:1565-1571, 1999.
132. Fine HA, Figg WD, Jaeckle K, et al: Phase II trial of the antiangiogenic agent thalidomide in patients with recurrent high-grade gliomas. J Clin Oncol 18:708, 2000.
133. Piscitelli SC, Figg WD, Hahn B, et al: Single-dose pharmacokinetics of thalidomide in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 41:2797-2799, 1997.
134. Jacobson JS, Workman SB, and Kronenberg F: Research on complementary and alternative therapies for cancer: Issues and methodological considerations. J Am Med Womens Assoc 54:177-180, 183, 1999.
135. Ernst E, Cassileth BR: The prevalence of complementary/alternative medicine in cancer: A systematic review. Cancer 83:777-782, 1998.
136. Johne A, Brockmoller J, Bauer S, et al: Pharmacokinetic interaction of digoxin with an herbal extract from St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum). Clin Pharmacol Ther 66:338-345, 1999.
137. Ernst E: Second thoughts about safety of St. John’s wort. Lancet 354:2014-2016, 1999.
138. Piscitelli SC, Burstein AH, Chaitt D, et al: Indinavir concentrations and St. John’s wort [letter]. Lancet 355:547-548, 2000.
139. Ruschitzka F, Meier PJ, Turina M, et al: Acute heart transplant rejection due to St. John’s wort [letter]. Lancet 355:548-549, 2000.
140. Dresser GK, Spence JD, Bailey DG: Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic consequences and clinical relevance of cytochrome P450 3A4 inhibition. Clin Pharmacokinet 38:41-57, 2000.
141. Yue QY, Bergquist C, Gerden B: Safety of St John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum) [letter]. Lancet 355:576-577, 2000.
142. Trimble EL, Carter CL, Cain D, et al: Representation of older patients in cancer treatment trials. Cancer 74:2208-2214, 1994.
143. Extermann M, Overcash J, Lyman GH, et al: Comorbidity and functional status are independent in older cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 16:1582-1587, 1998.