Free Access
Med Sci (Paris)
Volume 35, Number 12, Décembre 2019
Anticorps monoclonaux en thérapeutique
Page(s) 1121 - 1129
Section Anticorps monoclonaux : de la complexité du passage du laboratoire à l’homme
Published online 06 January 2020
  1. Le Tourneau C, Lee JJ, Siu LL. Dose escalation methods in phase I cancer clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009 ; 101: 708–720. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Le Tourneau C, Stathis A, Vidal L, et al. Choice of starting dose for molecularly targeted agents evaluated in first-in-human phase I cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2010 ; 28: 1401–1407. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Tosi D, Laghzali Y, Vinches M, et al. Clinical development strategies and outcomes in first-in-human trials of monoclonal antibodies. J Clin Oncol 2015 ; 33: 2158–2165. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Viala M, Vinches M, Alexandre M, et al. Strategies for clinical development of monoclonal antibodies beyond first-in-human trials: tested doses and rationale for dose selection. Br J Cancer 2018 ; 118: 679–697. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Jardim DL, Hess KR, LoRusso P, et al. Predictive value of phase I trials for safety in later trials and final approved dose: analysis of 61 approved cancer drugs. Clin Cancer Res 2014 ; 20: 281–288. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Mager DE. Target-mediated drug disposition and dynamics. Biochem Pharmacol 2006 ; 72: 1–10. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Tabrizi MA, Tseng C-ML, Roskos LK. Elimination mechanisms of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. Drug Discov Today 2006 ; 11: 81–88. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Golay J, Semenzato G, Rambaldi A, et al. Lessons for the clinic from rituximab pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. mAbs 2013; 5: 826–37. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Dayde D, Ternant D, Ohresser M, et al. Tumor burden influences exposure and response to rituximab: pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling using a syngeneic bioluminescent murine model expressing human CD20. Blood 2009 ; 113: 3765–3772. [Google Scholar]
  10. Dostalek M, Gardner I, Gurbaxani BM, et al. Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modelling of monoclonal antibodies. Clin Pharmacokinet 2013 ; 52: 83–124. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Azzopardi N, Lecomte T, Ternant D, et al. Cetuximab pharmacokinetics influences progression-free survival of metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 2011 ; 17: 6329–6337. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cartron G, Hourcade-Potelleret F, Morschhauser F, et al. Rationale for optimal obinutuzumab/GA101 dosing regimen in B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Haematologica 2016 ; 101: 226–234. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Thurber G, Schmidt M, Wittrup K. Factors determining antibody distribution in tumors. Trends PharmacolSci 2008 ; 29: 57–61. [Google Scholar]
  14. Thurber GM, Schmidt MM, Wittrup KD. Antibody tumor penetration: transport opposed by systemic and antigen-mediated clearance. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2008 ; 60: 1421–1434. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Topalian SL, Sznol M, McDermott DF, et al. Survival, durable tumor remission, and long-term safety in patients with advanced melanoma receiving nivolumab. J Clin Oncol 2014 ; 32: 1020–1030. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Patnaik A, Kang SP, Rasco D, et al. Phase I study of pembrolizumab (MK-3475; anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody) in patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res 2015 ; 21: 4286–4293. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Agrawal S, Feng Y, Roy A, et al. Nivolumab dose selection: challenges, opportunities, and lessons learned for cancer immunotherapy. J Immunother Cancer 2016 ; 4: 72. [Google Scholar]
  18. Lindauer A, Valiathan C, Mehta K, et al. Translational pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling of tumor growth inhibition supports dose-range selection of the anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab: Translational pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol 2017; 6 h 11–20. [Google Scholar]
  19. Liu C, Yu J, Li H, et al. Association of time-varying clearance of nivolumab with disease dynamics and its implications on exposure response analysis. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2017 ; 101: 657–666. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Oude Munnink T, Henstra M, Segerink L, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring of monoclonal antibodies in inflammatory and malignant disease: translating TNF-α experience to oncology. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2016; 99: 419–31. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Ratain MJ, Goldstein DA. Time is money: optimizing the scheduling of nivolumab. J Clin Oncol 2018 ; 36: 3074–3076. [Google Scholar]
  22. Tibbitts J, Canter D, Graff R, et al. Key factors influencing ADME properties of therapeutic proteins: a need for ADME characterization in drug discovery and development. mAbs 2016; 8: 229–45. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Azzopardi N, Dupuis-Girod S, Ternant D, et al. Dose-response relationship of bevacizumab in hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia. mAbs 2015; 7: 630–7. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.