This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mace, J. R. Articles by Baker, L. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Mace, J. R. Articles by Baker, L. H.

Crossover Randomized Comparison of Intravenous versus Intravenous/Oral Mesna in Soft Tissue Sarcoma Treated with High-Dose Ifosfamide

¹ Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan;
² Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University, New York, New York;
³ Biometrical Department, ASTA Medica AG Frankfurt, Germany;
⁴ University Hospital Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany; and
⁵ Division of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts

ABSTRACT

Purpose: We conducted our study to determine the pharmacokinetics (PK) and clinical efficacy of oral mesna in patients receiving ifosfamide for soft tissue sarcoma.

Experimental Design: Seventeen patients were enrolled in a randomized prospective Phase I/II study. Seventeen patients were exposed to study medication. Ifosfamide was given at a dose of 2 g/m²/day for 5 days on a 21-day cycle. Before the first cycle, all patients were randomized onto a crossover design and received either the approved i.v. or i.v./oral mesna regimen, with crossover for the second cycle of chemotherapy. The i.v. mesna regimen consisted of dosings (20% ifosfamide dose) at 0, 4, and 8 h. The i.v./oral arm consisted of an i.v. mesna dosing (20% ifosfamide dose) at 0 h, followed by oral tablet dosing (40% ifosfamide dose) at 2 and 6 h. In-patient clinical monitoring and phlebotomy and urine sampling for mesna, dimesna, and ifosfamide PK were performed on all chemotherapy days.

Results: Thirteen patients were evaluable for PK and 17 for efficacy and toxicity. No significant differences were detected in the plasma PK of the concomitantly infused ifosfamide. Rates of hemorrhagic cystitis were similar across mesna schedules.

Four of 10 evaluable patients demonstrated objective response.

Conclusion: On the basis of our study, an i.v./oral mesna regimen is at least as uroprotective as the approved i.v. regimen. The i.v./oral regimen will improve patient tolerance and convenience, allow for a reduction in elective hospitalizations for ifosfamide chemotherapy, reduce the potential morbidity associated with inpatient administration of chemotherapy, and likely result in decreased costs of care.