Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Dosing of anticancer agents in adults

Keith D Eaton, MD, PhD
Gary H Lyman, MD, MPH, FASCO, FACP, FRCP (Edin)
Section Editor
Paul J Hesketh, MD
Deputy Editor
Sadhna R Vora, MD


Most anticancer agents have a steep dose response relationship and a narrow therapeutic index. Small variations in the administered dose can lead to severe and life-threatening toxicity in some individuals and underdosing in others, which may compromise cancer outcomes. Proper dose selection is of great importance, particularly in individuals with potentially curable diseases such as lymphoma or testicular cancer, and in the setting of adjuvant treatment (eg, breast and colon cancer). Selection of the right dose is complicated by the fact that individuals have a highly variable capacity to metabolize and eliminate drugs.

The most relevant pharmacokinetic parameter for drug exposure is the area under the curve (AUC) of plasma concentration x time following a single dose. During drug development, drug level sampling at multiple time points helps define the relationship between drug administration and the AUC. The AUC is influenced by external factors such as drug dose and schedule, as well as patient-specific factors such as age, gender, height, weight, concomitant medications and habits, genetics (inherited variations in drug metabolizing enzymes, drug transporters, and/or drug targets), and clearance (which depends upon renal and hepatic function). As a result, there is much interindividual variation in the AUC following a single dose of a drug [1]. For most anticancer agents, attempts to minimize interindividual variation have been limited to normalizing doses based on body size (weight, body surface area [BSA]).

This topic will address issues related to dosing of anticancer agents in adults, including BSA-based dosing, which is used for most cytotoxic agents, weight-based dosing (eg, as is done for some cytotoxic agents such as melphalan and several therapeutic monoclonal antibodies), fixed dose prescribing (as is done for oral targeted agents such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors [TKIs]), AUC-based dosing (as is done for carboplatin), and pharmacogenetic as well as pharmacokinetic-guided dosing, including therapeutic drug monitoring. Dosing of anticancer agents in patients with renal or hepatic failure, and issues pertinent to dosing in the elderly are discussed in detail elsewhere. (See "Chemotherapy nephrotoxicity, and dose modification in patients with renal insufficiency: Conventional cytotoxic agents" and "Chemotherapy nephrotoxicity and dose modification in patients with renal insufficiency: Molecularly targeted agents" and "Chemotherapy hepatotoxicity and dose modification in patients with liver disease" and "Systemic chemotherapy for cancer in elderly persons".)


Conventional cytotoxic agents — Appropriate dosing for cytotoxic anticancer agents has been largely determined from prospective and retrospective studies in which the goal was to maximize efficacy and minimize toxicity. The starting dose for conventional cytotoxic agents in phase I studies has generally been based upon animal studies, where doses are usually escalated until the LD10 is reached (the dose that results in lethality in 10 percent of the treated animals). By convention, in human phase I studies, the first dose employed has been one-tenth of the LD10.

Based upon the theory and intuitive belief that larger patients have a larger volume of distribution and a higher metabolizing capacity, it has been assumed that they require more drug to induce the same effects. In an attempt to minimize interindividual variation, dosing for most anticancer agents has generally been normalized using mg of drug per m2 of body surface area (BSA), which is calculated using a patient's height and weight.

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information on subscription options, click below on the option that best describes you:

Subscribers log in here

Literature review current through: Nov 2017. | This topic last updated: Aug 03, 2017.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2017 UpToDate, Inc.
  1. Thummel KE, Lin YS. Sources of interindividual variability. Methods Mol Biol 2014; 1113:363.
  2. Lyman GH. Impact of chemotherapy dose intensity on cancer patient outcomes. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2009; 7:99.
  3. Frei E 3rd, Canellos GP. Dose: a critical factor in cancer chemotherapy. Am J Med 1980; 69:585.
  4. Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, Moliterni A, et al. Adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in node-positive breast cancer: the results of 20 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med 1995; 332:901.
  5. Hryniuk W, Levine MN. Analysis of dose intensity for adjuvant chemotherapy trials in stage II breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1986; 4:1162.
  6. Budman DR, Berry DA, Cirrincione CT, et al. Dose and dose intensity as determinants of outcome in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. The Cancer and Leukemia Group B. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998; 90:1205.
  7. Mayers C, Panzarella T, Tannock IF. Analysis of the prognostic effects of inclusion in a clinical trial and of myelosuppression on survival after adjuvant chemotherapy for breast carcinoma. Cancer 2001; 91:2246.
  8. Citron ML, Berry DA, Cirrincione C, et al. Randomized trial of dose-dense versus conventionally scheduled and sequential versus concurrent combination chemotherapy as postoperative adjuvant treatment of node-positive primary breast cancer: first report of Intergroup Trial C9741/Cancer and Leukemia Group B Trial 9741. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21:1431.
  9. Di Maio M, Gridelli C, Gallo C, et al. Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and treatment efficacy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis of three randomised trials. Lancet Oncol 2005; 6:669.
  10. Rankin EM, Mill L, Kaye SB, et al. A randomised study comparing standard dose carboplatin with chlorambucil and carboplatin in advanced ovarian cancer. Br J Cancer 1992; 65:275.
  11. Gurney H. Dose calculation of anticancer drugs: a review of the current practice and introduction of an alternative. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14:2590.
  12. Gurney H. How to calculate the dose of chemotherapy. Br J Cancer 2002; 86:1297.
  13. Gurney H. I don't underdose my patients...do I? Lancet Oncol 2005; 6:637.
  14. Gao B, Klumpen HJ, Gurney H. Dose calculation of anticancer drugs. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2008; 4:1307.
  15. Schellens JH, Beijnen JH. Novel clinical trial designs for innovative therapies. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2009; 85:212.
  16. Sparreboom A, Verweij J. Advances in cancer therapeutics. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2009; 85:113.
  17. Fong PC, Boss DS, Yap TA, et al. Inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase in tumors from BRCA mutation carriers. N Engl J Med 2009; 361:123.
  18. Fong PC, Yap TA, Boss DS, et al. Poly(ADP)-ribose polymerase inhibition: frequent durable responses in BRCA carrier ovarian cancer correlating with platinum-free interval. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:2512.
  19. Gao B, Yeap S, Clements A, et al. Evidence for therapeutic drug monitoring of targeted anticancer therapies. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30:4017.
  20. von Mehren M, Widmer N. Correlations between imatinib pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, adherence, and clinical response in advanced metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST): an emerging role for drug blood level testing? Cancer Treat Rev 2011; 37:291.
  21. Felici A, Verweij J, Sparreboom A. Dosing strategies for anticancer drugs: the good, the bad and body-surface area. Eur J Cancer 2002; 38:1677.
  23. BAKER RJ, KOZOLL DD, MEYER KA. The use of surface area as a basis for establishing normal blood volume. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1957; 104:183.
  24. PINKEL D. The use of body surface area as a criterion of drug dosage in cancer chemotherapy. Cancer Res 1958; 18:853.
  25. Grochow LB, Baraldi C, Noe D. Is dose normalization to weight or body surface area useful in adults? J Natl Cancer Inst 1990; 82:323.
  26. de Jongh FE, Verweij J, Loos WJ, et al. Body-surface area-based dosing does not increase accuracy of predicting cisplatin exposure. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19:3733.
  27. 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 1999; 44:453.
  28. Dobbs NA, Twelves CJ. What is the effect of adjusting epirubicin doses for body surface area? Br J Cancer 1998; 78:662.
  29. Etienne MC, Chatelut E, Pivot X, et al. Co-variables influencing 5-fluorouracil clearance during continuous venous infusion. A NONMEM analysis. Eur J Cancer 1998; 34:92.
  30. Mathijssen RH, Verweij J, de Jonge MJ, et al. Impact of body-size measures on irinotecan clearance: alternative dosing recommendations. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20:81.
  31. Teresi ME, Riggs CE, Webster PM, et al. Bioequivalence of two methotrexate formulations in psoriatic and cancer patients. Ann Pharmacother 1993; 27:1434.
  32. Loos WJ, Gelderblom H, Sparreboom A, et al. Inter- and intrapatient variability in oral topotecan pharmacokinetics: implications for body-surface area dosage regimens. Clin Cancer Res 2000; 6:2685.
  33. Freyer G, Tranchand B, Ligneau B, et al. Population pharmacokinetics of doxorubicin, etoposide and ifosfamide in small cell lung cancer patients: results of a multicentre study. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 50:315.
  34. Ratain MJ, Mick R, Schilsky RL, et al. Pharmacologically based dosing of etoposide: a means of safely increasing dose intensity. J Clin Oncol 1991; 9:1480.
  35. Baker SD, Verweij J, Rowinsky EK, et al. Role of body surface area in dosing of investigational anticancer agents in adults, 1991-2001. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94:1883.
  36. Sawyer M, Ratain MJ. Body surface area as a determinant of pharmacokinetics and drug dosing. Invest New Drugs 2001; 19:171.
  37. Ratain MJ. Body-surface area as a basis for dosing of anticancer agents: science, myth, or habit? J Clin Oncol 1998; 16:2297.
  38. Smorenburg CH, Sparreboom A, Bontenbal M, et al. Randomized cross-over evaluation of body-surface area-based dosing versus flat-fixed dosing of paclitaxel. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21:197.
  39. Chatelut E, White-Koning ML, Mathijssen RH, et al. Dose banding as an alternative to body surface area-based dosing of chemotherapeutic agents. Br J Cancer 2012; 107:1100.
  40. Sparreboom A, Wolff AC, Mathijssen RH, et al. Evaluation of alternate size descriptors for dose calculation of anticancer drugs in the obese. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:4707.
  41. Morgan DJ, Bray KM. Lean body mass as a predictor of drug dosage. Implications for drug therapy. Clin Pharmacokinet 1994; 26:292.
  42. Green B, Duffull SB. What is the best size descriptor to use for pharmacokinetic studies in the obese? Br J Clin Pharmacol 2004; 58:119.
  43. Han PY, Duffull SB, Kirkpatrick CM, Green B. Dosing in obesity: a simple solution to a big problem. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2007; 82:505.
  44. Mathijssen RH, Sparreboom A. Influence of lean body weight on anticancer drug clearance. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2009; 85:23; author reply 24.
  45. Du Bois D, Du Bois EF. A formula to estimate the approximate surface area if height and weight be known. Archives of Internal Medicine 1916; 17:863.
  46. Mosteller RD. Simplified calculation of body-surface area. N Engl J Med 1987; 317:1098.
  47. Verbraecken J, Van de Heyning P, De Backer W, Van Gaal L. Body surface area in normal-weight, overweight, and obese adults. A comparison study. Metabolism 2006; 55:515.
  48. Griggs JJ, Mangu PB, Anderson H, et al. Appropriate chemotherapy dosing for obese adult patients with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30:1553.
  49. Livingston EH, Lee S. Body surface area prediction in normal-weight and obese patients. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2001; 281:E586.
  50. Renehan AG, Harvie M, Cutress RI, et al. How to Manage the Obese Patient With Cancer. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34:4284.
  51. Reeves GK, Pirie K, Beral V, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality in relation to body mass index in the Million Women Study: cohort study. BMJ 2007; 335:1134.
  52. Lyman GH, Dale DC, Crawford J. Incidence and predictors of low dose-intensity in adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy: a nationwide study of community practices. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21:4524.
  53. Lyman GH, Dale DC, Friedberg J, et al. Incidence and predictors of low chemotherapy dose-intensity in aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: a nationwide study. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22:4302.
  54. Field KM, Kosmider S, Jefford M, et al. Chemotherapy dosing strategies in the obese, elderly, and thin patient: results of a nationwide survey. J Oncol Pract 2008; 4:108.
  55. Hunter RJ, Navo MA, Thaker PH, et al. Dosing chemotherapy in obese patients: actual versus assigned body surface area (BSA). Cancer Treat Rev 2009; 35:69.
  56. Griggs JJ, Sorbero ME, Lyman GH. Undertreatment of obese women receiving breast cancer chemotherapy. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165:1267.
  57. Madarnas Y, Sawka CA, Franssen E, Bjarnason GA. Are medical oncologists biased in their treatment of the large woman with breast cancer? Breast Cancer Res Treat 2001; 66:123.
  58. Morrish GA, Pai MP, Green B. The effects of obesity on drug pharmacokinetics in humans. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2011; 7:697.
  59. The World Health Organization. Overweight/obesity, 2008. http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/ncd/risk_factors/overweight_obesity/atlas.html (Accessed on June 18, 2014).
  60. Healthy weight, overweight, and obesity among adults aged 20 and over, by selected characteristics: United States, selected years 1960–1962 through 2009–2012. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2013/069.pdf (Accessed on June 18, 2014).
  61. Berclaz G, Li S, Price KN, et al. Body mass index as a prognostic feature in operable breast cancer: the International Breast Cancer Study Group experience. Ann Oncol 2004; 15:875.
  62. Rosner GL, Hargis JB, Hollis DR, et al. Relationship between toxicity and obesity in women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: results from cancer and leukemia group B study 8541. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14:3000.
  63. Colleoni M, Li S, Gelber RD, et al. Relation between chemotherapy dose, oestrogen receptor expression, and body-mass index. Lancet 2005; 366:1108.
  64. Au-Yeung G, Webb PM, DeFazio A, et al. Impact of obesity on chemotherapy dosing for women with advanced stage serous ovarian cancer in the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study (AOCS). Gynecol Oncol 2014; 133:16.
  65. Horowitz NS, Wright AA. Impact of obesity on chemotherapy management and outcomes in women with gynecologic malignancies. Gynecol Oncol 2015; 138:201.
  66. Bandera EV, Lee VS, Rodriguez-Rodriguez L, et al. Impact of Chemotherapy Dosing on Ovarian Cancer Survival According to Body Mass Index. JAMA Oncol 2015; 1:737.
  67. Dignam JJ, Polite BN, Yothers G, et al. Body mass index and outcomes in patients who receive adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98:1647.
  68. Hourdequin KC, Schpero WL, McKenna DR, et al. Toxic effect of chemotherapy dosing using actual body weight in obese versus normal-weight patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Oncol 2013; 24:2952.
  69. Martin L, Birdsell L, Macdonald N, et al. Cancer cachexia in the age of obesity: skeletal muscle depletion is a powerful prognostic factor, independent of body mass index. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31:1539.
  70. Prado CM, Baracos VE, McCargar LJ, et al. Sarcopenia as a determinant of chemotherapy toxicity and time to tumor progression in metastatic breast cancer patients receiving capecitabine treatment. Clin Cancer Res 2009; 15:2920.
  71. Antoun S, Baracos VE, Birdsell L, et al. Low body mass index and sarcopenia associated with dose-limiting toxicity of sorafenib in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Ann Oncol 2010; 21:1594.
  72. Mir O, Coriat R, Blanchet B, et al. Sarcopenia predicts early dose-limiting toxicities and pharmacokinetics of sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. PLoS One 2012; 7:e37563.
  73. Huillard O, Mir O, Peyromaure M, et al. Sarcopenia and body mass index predict sunitinib-induced early dose-limiting toxicities in renal cancer patients. Br J Cancer 2013; 108:1034.
  74. Anandavadivelan P, Brismar TB, Nilsson M, et al. Sarcopenic obesity: A probable risk factor for dose limiting toxicity during neo-adjuvant chemotherapy in oesophageal cancer patients. Clin Nutr 2016; 35:724.
  75. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: Estimating the maximum safe starting dose in initial clinical trials for therapeutics in adult healthy volunteers. www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidance/UCM078932.pdf (Accessed on June 18, 2014).
  76. Wang DD, Zhang S, Zhao H, et al. Fixed dosing versus body size-based dosing of monoclonal antibodies in adult clinical trials. J Clin Pharmacol 2009; 49:1012.
  77. Klümpen HJ, Samer CF, Mathijssen RH, et al. Moving towards dose individualization of tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Cancer Treat Rev 2011; 37:251.
  78. Beumer JH. Without therapeutic drug monitoring, there is no personalized cancer care. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2013; 93:228.
  79. Jabbour EJ, Kantarjian H, Eliasson L, et al. Patient adherence to tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in chronic myeloid leukemia. Am J Hematol 2012; 87:687.
  80. Darkow T, Henk HJ, Thomas SK, et al. Treatment interruptions and non-adherence with imatinib and associated healthcare costs: a retrospective analysis among managed care patients with chronic myelogenous leukaemia. Pharmacoeconomics 2007; 25:481.
  81. Noens L, van Lierde MA, De Bock R, et al. Prevalence, determinants, and outcomes of nonadherence to imatinib therapy in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia: the ADAGIO study. Blood 2009; 113:5401.
  82. Marin D, Bazeos A, Mahon FX, et al. Adherence is the critical factor for achieving molecular responses in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia who achieve complete cytogenetic responses on imatinib. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:2381.
  83. Koch KM, Reddy NJ, Cohen RB, et al. Effects of food on the relative bioavailability of lapatinib in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27:1191.
  84. Ratain MJ, Cohen EE. The value meal: how to save $1,700 per month or more on lapatinib. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:3397.
  85. Tanaka C, Yin OQ, Sethuraman V, et al. Clinical pharmacokinetics of the BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitor nilotinib. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2010; 87:197.
  86. Ling J, Fettner S, Lum BL, et al. Effect of food on the pharmacokinetics of erlotinib, an orally active epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine-kinase inhibitor, in healthy individuals. Anticancer Drugs 2008; 19:209.
  87. Heath EI, Chiorean EG, Sweeney CJ, et al. A phase I study of the pharmacokinetic and safety profiles of oral pazopanib with a high-fat or low-fat meal in patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2010; 88:818.
  88. Prasad V, Massey PR, Fojo T. Oral anticancer drugs: how limited dosing options and dose reductions may affect outcomes in comparative trials and efficacy in patients. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32:1620.
  89. Flaherty KT, Puzanov I, Kim KB, et al. Inhibition of mutated, activated BRAF in metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med 2010; 363:809.
  90. Bedard PL, Siu LL. Tilting the balance of dose modification for oral anticancer drugs? J Clin Oncol 2014; 32:1537.
  91. Tiseo M, Andreoli R, Gelsomino F, et al. Correlation between erlotinib pharmacokinetics, cutaneous toxicity and clinical outcomes in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Lung Cancer 2014; 83:265.
  92. Brahmer JR, Lee JW, Traynor AM, et al. Dosing to rash: a phase II trial of the first-line erlotinib for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study (E3503). Eur J Cancer 2014; 50:302.
  93. Mita AC, Papadopoulos K, de Jonge MJ, et al. Erlotinib 'dosing-to-rash': a phase II intrapatient dose escalation and pharmacologic study of erlotinib in previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 2011; 105:938.
  94. Calvert AH, Newell DR, Gumbrell LA, et al. Carboplatin dosage: prospective evaluation of a simple formula based on renal function. J Clin Oncol 1989; 7:1748.
  95. Duffull SB, Robinson BA. Clinical pharmacokinetics and dose optimisation of carboplatin. Clin Pharmacokinet 1997; 33:161.
  96. Egorin MJ, Van Echo DA, Olman EA, et al. Prospective validation of a pharmacologically based dosing scheme for the cis-diamminedichloroplatinum(II) analogue diamminecyclobutanedicarboxylatoplatinum. Cancer Res 1985; 45:6502.
  97. Latz JE, Chaudhary A, Ghosh A, Johnson RD. Population pharmacokinetic analysis of ten phase II clinical trials of pemetrexed in cancer patients. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2006; 57:401.
  98. Chatelut E, Puisset F. The scientific basis of body surface area-based dosing. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2014; 95:359.
  99. Dooley MJ, Poole SG. Poor correlation between body surface area and glomerular filtration rate. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2000; 46:523.
  100. Alberts DS, Dorr RT. New Perspectives on an Old Friend: Optimizing Carboplatin for the Treatment of Solid Tumors. Oncologist 1998; 3:15.
  101. Shepherd ST, Gillen G, Morrison P, et al. Performance of formulae based estimates of glomerular filtration rate for carboplatin dosing in stage 1 seminoma. Eur J Cancer 2014; 50:944.
  102. Cathomas R, Klingbiel D, Geldart TR, et al. Relevant risk of carboplatin underdosing in cancer patients with normal renal function using estimated GFR: lessons from a stage I seminoma cohort. Ann Oncol 2014; 25:1591.
  103. Lauritsen J, Gundgaard MG, Mortensen MS, et al. Reliability of estimated glomerular filtration rate in patients treated with platinum containing therapy. Int J Cancer 2014; 135:1733.
  104. Nagao S, Fujiwara K, Imafuku N, et al. Difference of carboplatin clearance estimated by the Cockroft-Gault, Jelliffe, Modified-Jelliffe, Wright or Chatelut formula. Gynecol Oncol 2005; 99:327.
  105. Jelliffe RW. Letter: Creatinine clearance: bedside estimate. Ann Intern Med 1973; 79:604.
  106. Dubs A, Taverna C. In reply. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:3650.
  107. Motzer RJ, Mazumdar M, Sheinfeld J, et al. Sequential dose-intensive paclitaxel, ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide salvage therapy for germ cell tumor patients. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18:1173.
  108. Ekhart C, de Jonge ME, Huitema AD, et al. Flat dosing of carboplatin is justified in adult patients with normal renal function. Clin Cancer Res 2006; 12:6502.
  109. http://nkdep.nih.gov/labprofessionals/Clinical_Laboratories.htm (Accessed on August 18, 2011).
  110. FDA safety alert available online at http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm228974.htm (Accessed on October 14, 2010).
  111. Ekhart C, Rodenhuis S, Schellens JH, et al. Carboplatin dosing in overweight and obese patients with normal renal function, does weight matter? Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2009; 64:115.
  112. De Jonge ME, Mathôt RA, Van Dam SM, et al. Extremely high exposures in an obese patient receiving high-dose cyclophosphamide, thiotepa and carboplatin. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2002; 50:251.
  113. Herrington JD, Tran HT, Riggs MW. Prospective evaluation of carboplatin AUC dosing in patients with a BMI>or=27 or cachexia. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2006; 57:241.
  114. Innocenti F, Schilsky RL, Ramírez J, et al. Dose-finding and pharmacokinetic study to optimize the dosing of irinotecan according to the UGT1A1 genotype of patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32:2328.
  115. Paci A, Veal G, Bardin C, et al. Review of therapeutic drug monitoring of anticancer drugs part 1--cytotoxics. Eur J Cancer 2014; 50:2010.
  116. Iyer L, Das S, Janisch L, et al. UGT1A1*28 polymorphism as a determinant of irinotecan disposition and toxicity. Pharmacogenomics J 2002; 2:43.
  117. Innocenti F, Undevia SD, Iyer L, et al. Genetic variants in the UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 gene predict the risk of severe neutropenia of irinotecan. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22:1382.
  118. McLeod HL, Sargent DJ, Marsh S, et al. Pharmacogenetic predictors of adverse events and response to chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: results from North American Gastrointestinal Intergroup Trial N9741. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:3227.
  119. Carlini LE, Meropol NJ, Bever J, et al. UGT1A7 and UGT1A9 polymorphisms predict response and toxicity in colorectal cancer patients treated with capecitabine/irinotecan. Clin Cancer Res 2005; 11:1226.
  120. Toffoli G, Cecchin E, Corona G, et al. The role of UGT1A1*28 polymorphism in the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of irinotecan in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24:3061.
  121. Côté JF, Kirzin S, Kramar A, et al. UGT1A1 polymorphism can predict hematologic toxicity in patients treated with irinotecan. Clin Cancer Res 2007; 13:3269.
  122. Liu CY, Chen PM, Chiou TJ, et al. UGT1A1*28 polymorphism predicts irinotecan-induced severe toxicities without affecting treatment outcome and survival in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 2008; 112:1932.
  123. Palomaki GE, Bradley LA, Douglas MP, et al. Can UGT1A1 genotyping reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan? An evidence-based review. Genet Med 2009; 11:21.
  124. Stewart CF, Panetta JC, O'Shaughnessy MA, et al. UGT1A1 promoter genotype correlates with SN-38 pharmacokinetics, but not severe toxicity in patients receiving low-dose irinotecan. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:2594.
  125. Hoskins JM, Goldberg RM, Qu P, et al. UGT1A1*28 genotype and irinotecan-induced neutropenia: dose matters. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99:1290.
  126. Hu ZY, Yu Q, Zhao YS. Dose-dependent association between UGT1A1*28 polymorphism and irinotecan-induced diarrhoea: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46:1856.
  127. Hu ZY, Yu Q, Pei Q, Guo C. Dose-dependent association between UGT1A1*28 genotype and irinotecan-induced neutropenia: low doses also increase risk. Clin Cancer Res 2010; 16:3832.
  128. Deeken JF, Slack R, Marshall JL. Irinotecan and uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 pharmacogenetics: to test or not to test, that is the question. Cancer 2008; 113:1502.
  129. Shulman K, Cohen I, Barnett-Griness O, et al. Clinical implications of UGT1A1*28 genotype testing in colorectal cancer patients. Cancer 2011; 117:3156.
  130. O'Dwyer PJ, Catalano RB. Uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase (UGT) 1A1 and irinotecan: practical pharmacogenomics arrives in cancer therapy. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24:4534.
  131. Innocenti F, Vokes EE, Ratain MJ. Irinogenetics: what is the right star? J Clin Oncol 2006; 24:2221.
  132. Toffoli G, Cecchin E, Gasparini G, et al. Genotype-driven phase I study of irinotecan administered in combination with fluorouracil/leucovorin in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:866.
  133. Innocenti F, Kroetz DL, Schuetz E, et al. Comprehensive pharmacogenetic analysis of irinotecan neutropenia and pharmacokinetics. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27:2604.
  134. Cecchin E, Innocenti F, D'Andrea M, et al. Predictive role of the UGT1A1, UGT1A7, and UGT1A9 genetic variants and their haplotypes on the outcome of metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27:2457.
  135. Haaz MC, Rivory L, Riché C, et al. Metabolism of irinotecan (CPT-11) by human hepatic microsomes: participation of cytochrome P-450 3A and drug interactions. Cancer Res 1998; 58:468.
  136. van der Bol JM, Mathijssen RH, Creemers GJ, et al. A CYP3A4 phenotype-based dosing algorithm for individualized treatment of irinotecan. Clin Cancer Res 2010; 16:736.
  137. Raymond E, Boige V, Faivre S, et al. Dosage adjustment and pharmacokinetic profile of irinotecan in cancer patients with hepatic dysfunction. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20:4303.
  138. van der Bol JM, Mathijssen RH, Loos WJ, et al. Cigarette smoking and irinotecan treatment: pharmacokinetic interaction and effects on neutropenia. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:2719.
  139. Corona G, Vaccher E, Sandron S, et al. Lopinavir-ritonavir dramatically affects the pharmacokinetics of irinotecan in HIV patients with Kaposi's sarcoma. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2008; 83:601.
  140. Kweekel D, Guchelaar HJ, Gelderblom H. Clinical and pharmacogenetic factors associated with irinotecan toxicity. Cancer Treat Rev 2008; 34:656.
  141. Gold HT, Hall MJ, Blinder V, Schackman BR. Cost effectiveness of pharmacogenetic testing for uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 before irinotecan administration for metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer 2009; 115:3858.
  142. Gamelin E, Delva R, Jacob J, et al. Individual fluorouracil dose adjustment based on pharmacokinetic follow-up compared with conventional dosage: results of a multicenter randomized trial of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26:2099.
  143. Fety R, Rolland F, Barberi-Heyob M, et al. Clinical impact of pharmacokinetically-guided dose adaptation of 5-fluorouracil: results from a multicentric randomized trial in patients with locally advanced head and neck carcinomas. Clin Cancer Res 1998; 4:2039.
  144. Gamelin E, Boisdron-Celle M, Guérin-Meyer V, et al. Correlation between uracil and dihydrouracil plasma ratio, fluorouracil (5-FU) pharmacokinetic parameters, and tolerance in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: A potential interest for predicting 5-FU toxicity and determining optimal 5-FU dosage. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17:1105.
  145. Saam J, Critchfield GC, Hamilton SA, et al. Body surface area-based dosing of 5-fluoruracil results in extensive interindividual variability in 5-fluorouracil exposure in colorectal cancer patients on FOLFOX regimens. Clin Colorectal Cancer 2011; 10:203.
  146. Saif MW, Choma A, Salamone SJ, Chu E. Pharmacokinetically guided dose adjustment of 5-fluorouracil: a rational approach to improving therapeutic outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101:1543.
  147. Kaldate RR, Haregewoin A, Grier CE, et al. Modeling the 5-fluorouracil area under the curve versus dose relationship to develop a pharmacokinetic dosing algorithm for colorectal cancer patients receiving FOLFOX6. Oncologist 2012; 17:296.
  148. Fang L, Xin W, Ding H, et al. Pharmacokinetically guided algorithm of 5-fluorouracil dosing, a reliable strategy of precision chemotherapy for solid tumors: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep 2016; 6:25913.
  149. Capitain O, Asevoaia A, Boisdron-Celle M, et al. Individual fluorouracil dose adjustment in FOLFOX based on pharmacokinetic follow-up compared with conventional body-area-surface dosing: a phase II, proof-of-concept study. Clin Colorectal Cancer 2012; 11:263.
  150. Freeman K, Saunders MP, Uthman OA, et al. Is monitoring of plasma 5-fluorouracil levels in metastatic / advanced colorectal cancer clinically effective? A systematic review. BMC Cancer 2016; 16:523.
  151. Teng JF, Mabasa VH, Ensom MH. The role of therapeutic drug monitoring of imatinib in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia and metastatic or unresectable gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Ther Drug Monit 2012; 34:85.
  152. Demetri GD, Wang Y, Wehrle E, et al. Imatinib plasma levels are correlated with clinical benefit in patients with unresectable/metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27:3141.
  153. Cortes JE, Egorin MJ, Guilhot F, et al. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic correlation and blood-level testing in imatinib therapy for chronic myeloid leukemia. Leukemia 2009; 23:1537.