Advertisement
help button home button The Oncologist
HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Oncologist, Vol. 11, No. 6, 694-703, June 2006; doi:10.1634/theoncologist.11-6-694
© 2006 AlphaMed Press

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow eLetters: Submit a response to this article
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Reprints/Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Widemann, B. C.
Right arrow Articles by Adamson, P. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Widemann, B. C.
Right arrow Articles by Adamson, P. C.

Pediatric Oncology

Understanding and Managing Methotrexate Nephrotoxicity

Brigitte C. Widemanna, Peter C. Adamsonb

a Pediatric Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA; b Division of Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

Key Words. Methotrexate toxicity • Renal dysfunction • Carboxypeptidase-G2 • Hemodialysis • Hemoperfusion • Thymidine • High-dose chemotherapy • Rescue agents

Correspondence: Brigitte C. Widemann, M.D., Pediatric Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, 10 Center Drive, Building 10 CRC Room 1-5750, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-1101, USA. Telephone: 301-496-2783; Fax: 301-480-2308; e-mail: widemanb{at}mail.nih.gov

Received January 20, 2006; accepted for publication April 21, 2006.


   LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Top
 Learning Objectives
Abstract
 Introduction
 Methotrexate Pharmacology
 Pathogenesis of MTX-Induced...
 Incidence
 Conventional Treatment...
 Investigational Treatment...
 Current Controversies
 Recommendations
 Disclosure of Potential...
 References
 
After completing this course, the reader will be able to:

  1. Discuss the pharmacology of methotrexate.
  2. Describe the current incidence and presentation of high-dose methotrexate-induced renal dysfunction.
  3. Discuss conventional and investigational treatment approaches to high-dose methotrexate-induced renal dysfunction.

Access and take the CME test online and receive 1 AMA PRA category 1 credit at CME.TheOncologist.com


   ABSTRACT
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
Introduction
 Methotrexate Pharmacology
 Pathogenesis of MTX-Induced...
 Incidence
 Conventional Treatment...
 Investigational Treatment...
 Current Controversies
 Recommendations
 Disclosure of Potential...
 References
 
Methotrexate (MTX) is one of the most widely used anti-cancer agents, and administration of high-dose methotrexate (HDMTX) followed by leucovorin (LV) rescue is an important component in the treatment of a variety of childhood and adult cancers. HDMTX can be safely administered to patients with normal renal function by the use of alkalinization, hydration, and pharmacokinetically guided LV rescue. Despite these measures, HDMTX-induced renal dysfunction continues to occur in approximately 1.8% of patients with osteosarcoma treated on clinical trials. Prompt recognition and treatment of MTX-induced renal dysfunction are essential to prevent potentially life-threatening MTX-associated toxicities, especially myelosuppression, mucositis, and dermatitis. In addition to conventional treatment approaches, dialysis-based methods have been used to remove MTX with limited effectiveness. More recently carboxypeptidase-G2 (CPDG2), a recombinant bacterial enzyme that rapidly hydrolyzes MTX to inactive metabolites, has become available for the treatment of HDMTX-induced renal dysfunction. CPDG2 administration has been well tolerated and resulted in consistent and rapid reductions in plasma MTX concentrations by a median of 98.7% (range, 84%–99.5%). The early administration of CPDG2 in addition to LV may be beneficial for patients with MTX-induced renal dysfunction and significantly elevated plasma MTX concentrations.


   INTRODUCTION
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
Methotrexate Pharmacology
 Pathogenesis of MTX-Induced...
 Incidence
 Conventional Treatment...
 Investigational Treatment...
 Current Controversies
 Recommendations
 Disclosure of Potential...
 References
 
Methotrexate (MTX), a classical antifolate, is one of the most widely used and studied anticancer agents [1–4]. Unlike other anticancer agents, MTX can be safely administered over a wide dose range, ranging from 20 mg/m2 per week in maintenance chemotherapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia and treatment of nononcologic diseases including rheumatoid arthritis or psoriasis [4–6], and when combined with leucovorin (LV) rescue, to doses of 1,000–33,000 mg/m2 [7]. The latter, termed high-dose methotrexate (HDMTX) is usually administered as a prolonged i.v. infusion and is an important component in the treatment regimens for a variety of cancers, including acute lymphoblastic leukemia, lymphoma, osteosarcoma, breast cancer, and head and neck cancer [3, 8–11]. HDMTX can be safely administered to patients with normal renal function by vigorously hydrating and alkalinizing the patient to enhance the solubility of MTX in urine and through the use of pharmacokinetically guided LV rescue to prevent potentially lethal MTX toxicity [2, 12].

Despite these preventive measures, MTX-induced nephrotoxicity continues to occur, albeit infrequently. As MTX is primarily cleared by renal excretion, MTX-induced renal dysfunction leads to delayed elimination of MTX, and the resulting sustained, elevated plasma MTX concentration may lead to ineffective rescue by LV and a marked enhancement of MTX’s other toxicities [3, 9, 13–15].

Since the introduction of HDMTX with LV rescue more than 25 years ago by Djerassi et al. [16], our ability to safely administer this regimen to patients has improved, and there have been a number of advances in the treatment of HDMTX-induced renal dysfunction over the past 20 years. This report reviews the etiology, incidence, presentation, and treatment of HDMTX-induced renal dysfunction.


   METHOTREXATE PHARMACOLOGY
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methotrexate Pharmacology
Pathogenesis of MTX-Induced...
 Incidence
 Conventional Treatment...
 Investigational Treatment...
 Current Controversies
 Recommendations
 Disclosure of Potential...
 References
 
Knowledge of MTX’s mechanism of action and metabolism are important for understanding MTX-associated toxicities and treatment. MTX enters the cell via the reduced folate carrier and undergoes polyglutamation catalyzed by folyl-polyglutamate synthetase. Once polyglutamated, MTX is retained in cells for prolonged periods of time. Methotrexate and its polyglutamates block de novo nucleotide synthesis primarily by depleting cells of reduced tetrahydrofolate cofactors through inhibition of dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR) (Fig. 1Go) [17]. MTX polyglutamates and dihydrofolates that accumulate as a result of DHFR inhibition also inhibit thymidylate synthase and other enzymes involved in the purine biosynthetic pathway [18, 19].


Figure 1
View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Folate pathway. Sites of action of methotrexate (MTX) and of the rescue agents leucovorin and thymidine. MTX primarily inhibits dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR). This results in the depletion of reduced folates (FH4), which are required for deoxythymidine monophosphate (dTMP) synthesis from deoxyuridine monophosphate (dUMP), and in accumulation of dihydrofolates (FH2), which inhibit purine synthesis. The MTX rescue agent leucovorin restores the reduced folate pool after conversion to its active metabolite 5-methyltetrahydrofolate (5-CH3-FH4). Thymidine is directly converted to thymidine monophosphate by the enzyme thymidine kinase (TK), thereby circumventing blockade of the de novo pathway by MTX.

 
Similar to other antimetabolites, critical determinants of MTX cytotoxicity are not only drug concentration but also duration of exposure. High concentrations of MTX may be well tolerated for brief periods of time, whereas prolonged exposure to low concentrations can result in life-threatening toxicity. The type of toxicity observed with MTX is also a function of this concentration–time dependence. Exposure to millimolar concentrations of MTX for minutes to hours may lead to acute renal, central nervous system, and liver toxicity; exposure to MTX concentrations as low as 0.01 and 0.005 µM for >24 hours may result in bone marrow and gastrointestinal epithelial toxicity, respectively [20].

Following administration of HDMTX, two metabolites, 7-hydroxy-methotrexate (7-OH-MTX) and 2,4-diamino-N10-methylpteroic acid (DAMPA), are observed in plasma. Within 12–24 hours of the start of a HDMTX infusion, the plasma concentration of 7-OH-MTX, formed by the action of the enzyme aldehyde oxidase, exceeds the concentration of MTX [21, 22]. Intracellular polyglutamation of 7-OH-MTX results in prolonged retention and enhanced cytotoxicity [23]. DAMPA, a minor, inactive [24–26] metabolite of MTX, accounting for <5% of the total dose of drug that is excreted in urine [24], is presumably formed from MTX that is excreted into the intestinal tract, hydrolyzed by bacterial carboxypeptidases, and then reabsorbed.


   PATHOGENESIS OF MTX-INDUCED RENAL DYSFUNCTION
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methotrexate Pharmacology
 Pathogenesis of MTX-Induced...
Incidence
 Conventional Treatment...
 Investigational Treatment...
 Current Controversies
 Recommendations
 Disclosure of Potential...
 References
 
The etiology of MTX-induced renal dysfunction is believed to be mediated by the precipitation of MTX and its metabolites in the renal tubules [21, 22, 27] or via a direct toxic effect of MTX on the renal tubules [17]. More than 90% of MTX is cleared by the kidneys [13]. MTX is poorly soluble at acidic pH, and its metabolites, 7-OH-MTX and DAMPA, are six- to tenfold less soluble than MTX, respectively [21, 24]. An increase in the urine pH from 6.0 to 7.0 results in a five- to eightfold greater solubility of MTX and its metabolites, a finding that underlies the recommendation of i.v. hydration (2.5–3.5 liters of fluid per m2 per 24 hours, beginning 12 hours before MTX infusion and continuing for 24–48 hours) and urine alkalinization (40–50 mEq sodium bicarbonate per liter of i.v. fluid) prior to, during, and after the administration of HDMTX.

Shorter durations of HDMTX infusions with resultant higher plasma and urinary MTX concentrations may carry an increased risk for renal dysfunction.

Several drugs have been associated with increased toxicity when coadministered with MTX. The most significant interactions involve agents that interfere with MTX excretion, primarily by competing for renal tubular secretion, such as probenecid, salicylates, sulfisoxazole, penicillins, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents [28–31].

MTX-induced renal dysfunction results in sustained, elevated plasma MTX concentrations, which in turn may lead to ineffective rescue by LV and a marked enhancement of MTX’s other toxicities, especially myelosuppression, mucositis, hepatitis, and dermatitis [2, 3, 9, 14, 15].

Vomiting and diarrhea during or shortly after the administration of MTX have been observed in patients who developed MTX toxicity [32, 33], but the majority of patients with renal dysfunction are initially asymptomatic, and most present with nonoliguric renal dysfunction [14, 32, 34]. An abrupt rise in serum creatinine during or shortly after MTX infusion indicates the development of renal dysfunction and can result in significantly elevated plasma MTX concentrations. Although the risk for MTX toxicity is dependent upon the dose and schedule of administration, plasma MTX concentrations should be ≤1.0 µM at 42 hours after the start of the HDMTX infusion, and plasma MTX concentrations ≥10 µM at this time point are associated with a high risk for the development of toxicities [2, 32, 33].

In the absence of early diagnosis based on urine output, serum creatinine, and plasma MTX determination, coupled with intervention that includes pharmacokinetically guided increase in LV rescue, patients present following a delay of several days with severe mucositis, profound bone marrow suppression, and less commonly, dermatitis. Rescue attempts with even very high doses of LV at this symptomatic stage have a small likelihood of relieving MTX toxicities. Significantly elevated liver function tests have been associated with HDMTX administration but do not appear to be associated with the development of renal failure.


   INCIDENCE
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methotrexate Pharmacology
 Pathogenesis of MTX-Induced...
 Incidence
Conventional Treatment...
 Investigational Treatment...
 Current Controversies
 Recommendations
 Disclosure of Potential...
 References
 
In the 1970s, prior to routine monitoring of plasma MTX concentrations and pharmacokinetically guided adjustment of LV, the mortality associated with HDTMX infusions ranged between 4.6% and 6% [35–37]. Data from a number of studies performed in the 1970s found that elevated plasma MTX concentrations were predictive for the development of renal toxicities (Table 1Go). These studies demonstrated that: (a) sustained elevation of plasma MTX concentrations at 24 hours (>5–10 µM), 48 hours (>1.0 µM), and 72 hours (>0.1 µM) after administration of MTX are predictive for the development of toxicity; (b) in the absence of elevated plasma MTX concentrations, the risk for the development of MTX-associated toxicities is minimal; (c) in most circumstances, the development of MTX-associated toxicities can be ameliorated or prevented when patients with elevated plasma MTX concentrations receive pharmacokinetically guided doses of LV rescue. These studies resulted in uniform institution of aggressive hydration, alkalinization, and pharmacokinetically guided LV. Nomograms guiding the duration and degree of rescue with LV based upon plasma MTX concentrations as a function of time of drug administration were developed and are being used in ongoing clinical trials that administer HDMTX (Fig. 2Go) [38].


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Plasma methotrexate concentrations indicating a high risk for the development of methotrexate (MTX)-associated toxicities

 

Figure 2
View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. Example of a nomogram for pharmacokinetically guided leucovorin rescue after high-dose methotrexate(MTX) administration. Adapted from Bleyer WA. Therapeutic drug monitoring of methotrexate and other antineoplastic drugs. In: Baer DM, Dita WR, eds. Interpretations in Therapeutic Drug Monitoring. Chicago: American Society of Clinical Pathology, 1981:169–181. ©1981 American Society of Clinical Pathologists.

 
Reports of significant morbidity and mortality secondary to HDMTX-induced renal dysfunction, however, continue to appear in the literature [15, 32, 39–41].

With the advent of new therapeutic strategies, we recently reassessed the current incidence of HDMTX-induced renal dysfunction in patients with osteosarcoma, a population that usually is treated with HDMTX administered as a short i.v. infusion separate from cycles that contain other cytotoxic drugs. Our review of the recent literature after 1980, a time during which hydration and alkalinization were administered routinely as part of HDMTX administration, and of clinical trials estimated the incidence of renal dysfunction following HDMTX to be 1.8%. Of 3,887 patients, 68 developed grade ≥2 (World Health Organization criteria) nephrotoxicity. The mortality among patients who developed renal dysfunction was 4.4% [42]. Of note, this estimate only included patients entered in clinical trials, who likely receive optimal supportive care. The incidence of HDMTX-induced renal dysfunction in all patients receiving HDMTX may be higher outside clinical trials and in older patients, as the likelihood of reduced renal function resulting from physiological aging processes and acquisition of comorbidities increases with age. No comparable overview in adult/ elderly patients (e.g., patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma) exists, but some available data indicate that the incidence of HDMTX-related nephrotoxicity may be considerably higher in this subgroup of patients [43].


   CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT APPROACHES
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methotrexate Pharmacology
 Pathogenesis of MTX-Induced...
 Incidence
 Conventional Treatment...
Investigational Treatment...
 Current Controversies
 Recommendations
 Disclosure of Potential...
 References
 
The cornerstones of preventing HDMTX toxicity—alkalinization, maintaining urine output, monitoring serum creatinine and plasma MTX concentrations, and pharmacokinetically guided LV rescue—are also the cornerstones of management of the patient who develops early signs of renal dysfunction. Renal dysfunction, recognized by a rise in serum creatinine and elevated plasma MTX concentrations, should be initially addressed by promptly increasing the LV dose or schedule based on the time-dependent concentration of MTX (Fig. 2Go) [2]. Similar to MTX, LV (5-formyltetrahydrofolate) enters the cell via the reduced folate carrier and is converted to its active metabolite 5-methyltetrahydrofolate (5-mTHF) (Fig. 1Go). The reversal of MTX by LV is competitive, with relatively higher concentrations of LV required as the MTX concentration increases [2, 4]. Hydration and alkalinization should be continued or increased, provided that adequate urine output can be maintained. Other supportive care measures include administering antibiotics, management of fluid and electrolytes, and transfusion of blood products as necessary.

The concern that patients remain at risk for severe MTX toxicity as long as elevated concentrations of MTX persist in the circulation is reflected in the scientific literature, in which methods that attempt to address the underlying problem of impaired MTX elimination have been reported. We reviewed 30 publications published in 1980–2002 on the use and efficacy of dialysis-based methods of MTX removal in 49 patients with HDMTX-induced renal dysfunction [42]. The most frequently used single methods were hemodialysis (n = 10), high-flux hemodialysis (n = 9), and charcoal hemoperfusion or charcoal hemofiltration (n = 7), and 16 patients were treated with multiple modalities. Peritoneal dialysis alone resulted in a minimal decrease in plasma MTX concentrations [44, 45]. The use of other single-modality methods of MTX removal resulted in a median decrease in plasma MTX concentration of 52% (range, 26%–82%). Dialysis-based methods were used for up to 14 days. The use of high-flux hemodialysis resulted in the greatest decrease in plasma MTX concentrations (median, 75.7%; range, 42%–94%) within the shortest period of time (median, 4 hours; range, 4–12 hours). Only three patients had a >90% decrease in MTX concentration with the use of a single method in one dialysis session [46–48].

A major limitation on the use of dialysis-based methods is the marked rebound in plasma MTX concentrations that can occur when the dialysis is stopped. Rebound increases in the postdialysis plasma MTX concentration were in the range of 10%–221% of the postprocedure MTX level [44, 49, 50] and 90%–100% of the preprocedure MTX level [51–54]. Further limitations of these methods are the accompanying risks for complications from these invasive procedures. Reported complications include cardiac arrest in one patient after plasma exchange [51], bleeding from the catheter exit site [52], anemia [52, 55], thrombocytopenia [52, 56], and hypokalemia and severe hypophosphatemia [48].


   INVESTIGATIONAL TREATMENT APPROACHES
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methotrexate Pharmacology
 Pathogenesis of MTX-Induced...
 Incidence
 Conventional Treatment...
 Investigational Treatment...
Current Controversies
 Recommendations
 Disclosure of Potential...
 References
 
Thymidine (Thd) is an endogenous nucleoside that can effectively circumvent MTX toxicity in patients with normal renal function [57]. Unlike LV, Thd does not compete with MTX for transport into the cell butis directly converted to thymidine monophosphate by the salvage enzyme thymidine kinase, thereby circumventing blockade of the de novo pathway by MTX (Fig. 3Go) [58]. Repletion of deoxythymidine monophosphate (dTMP) and consequently of thymidine triphosphate pools allows restoration of DNA synthesis.


Figure 3
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 3. Carboxypeptidase-G2 (CPDG2) hydrolyzes methotrexate to 2,4-diamino-N10-methylpteroic acid (DAMPA) and glutamic acid.

 
In humans, the half-life of Thd is approximately 10 minutes, and thus this investigational drug needs to be administered as a continuous i.v. infusion in order to maintain effective plasma concentrations [59]. Thd has been used in 16 patients with MTX-induced renal dysfunction as a rescue agent in combination with LV [14, 58]. Severe toxicity was observed in only three patients, in whom Thd was initiated 5, 12, and 13 days after the start of MTX infusion. The development of Thd as an investigational agent by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) was recently discontinued, and thus Thd is currently not available for investigational use.

The carboxypeptidase-G class of enzymes hydrolyze the terminal glutamate from naturally occurring folates and folate analogs, such as MTX [60]. Carboxypeptidase-Grapidly converts MTX to the inactive metabolites DAMPA and glutamic acid, thus providing an alternate route of elimination to renal excretion. In the 1970s carboxypeptidase-G1, extracted from Pseudomonas stutzeri [61, 62], effectively lowered plasma MTX concentrations in a small number of patients with brain tumors who had been treated with HDMTX [63, 64]. The bacterial source of CPDG1, however, was lost, and no additional patients were treated [65].

Subsequently, carboxypeptidase-G2 (CPDG2, glucarpidase), a recombinant form of the bacterial enzyme CPDG2, cloned from Pseudomonas strain RS-16, has become available and is being developed by CTEP and by Protherics Inc. (Brentwood, TN). It hydrolyzes the glutamate residue from naturally occurring and synthetic folate analogues [66, 67]. When administered to patients with HDMTX-induced renal dysfunction, CPDG2 metabolizes circulating MTX to the inactive metabolite DAMPA (Fig. 3Go), thus providing an alternate route of elimination to renal excretion. In 21 patients with MTX-induced renal dysfunction treated on a compassionate-use protocol of the NCI, CPDG2 lowered plasma MTX concentrations within 15 minutes of administration by > 98% [34, 68]. This group of patients received Thd in addition to CPDG2, because of the concern that CPDG2 could hydrolyze both LV and its active metabolite, 5-mTHF. CPDG2 and Thd rescue were well tolerated in these patients, and MTX-related toxicities were mild to moderate.

To assess the role of Thd in these patients, this study was subsequently amended to restrict Thd administration to patients with prolonged (>96 hours) exposure to MTX or with severe toxicity at study entry. MTX-associated toxicities and outcome were compared in 44 patients who did and 56 patients who did not receive Thd. That study demonstrated that CPDG2 and LV rescue without Thd effectively rescued patients with HDMTX-induced renal dysfunction, provided CPDG2 was administered within 96 hours of the start of the MTX infusion [69].

The efficacy in rapidly lowering plasma MTX concentrations was confirmed in a European study [70], in which LV and CPDG2 were administered to 82 patients with HDMTX-induced renal dysfunction. CPDG2 was administere data median of 52 hours (range, 25–178 hours)following the start of the MTX infusion and resulted in a 97% (range, 73%–99%) reduction in plasma MTX concentrations.

While CPDG2 preferentially hydrolyzes MTX (Km of 8 µM), it can also hydrolyze LV (Km of 120 µM) and its active metabolite 5-mTHF (Km of 35 µM). The effect of CPDG2 on MTX, LV, and 5-mTHF plasma concentrations was assessed in 11 patients using reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography [71]. Although LV concentrations were maintained following CPDG2 administration, LV was likely in the form of the inactive d-isomer. The active metabolite of LV, 5-mTHF, was indeed a substrate for CPDG2 and was effectively hydrolyzed. These findings formed the basis for the recommendation to continue with the administration of high doses of LV (250 mg/m2 every 6 hours) for 48 hours after CPDG2 to allow for restoration of the intracellular reduced folate pool. Hempel et al. [72] recently evaluated the effect of CPDG2 on the inactive d-isomer and the active l-isomer of LV in vitro, and demonstrated that the active l-isomer was degraded much faster than the d-isomer.

After systemic CPDG2 administration, DAMPA plasma concentrations are similar to pre-CPDG2 MTX concentrations. Persistently high concentrations of the poorly water soluble DAMPA could theoretically lead to further renal toxicity by precipitation in the renal tubules. To evaluate whether DAMPA could contribute to a delay in renal recovery, we studied 20 patients who received CPDG2 and Thd for MTX-induced renal dysfunction. In this population, serum creatinine returned to normal values at a median of 22 days after administration of MTX [34]. This time period is similar to the time to renal recovery seen in patients with HDMTX-induced renal dysfunction and a comparable degree of renal injury who were treated with conventional dialysis-based methods [42]. CPDG2 administration, therefore, does not appear to impact negatively upon the recovery of renal function.

Interestingly, following administration of CPDG2 for MTX-induced renal dysfunction, plasma DAMPA concentrations decline more rapidly than MTX concentrations, suggesting a nonrenal elimination of DAMPA [34]. In a nonhuman primate study of DAMPA metabolism, DAMPA was found to be metabolized to hydroxy-DAMPA, DAMPA-glucuronide, and hydroxy-DAMPA-glucuronide [25]. These metabolites were also identified in patients who received CPDG2 for MTX-induced renal toxicity. Metabolism of DAMPA thus likely underlies the more rapid elimination of DAMPA relative to MTX in patients with MTX-induced renal dysfunction treated with CPDG2 [25].


   CURRENT CONTROVERSIES
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methotrexate Pharmacology
 Pathogenesis of MTX-Induced...
 Incidence
 Conventional Treatment...
 Investigational Treatment...
 Current Controversies
Recommendations
 Disclosure of Potential...
 References
 
Is Current Supportive Treatment of HDMTX-Induced Renal Failure Adequate?
Although the use of alkalinization and hydration with HDMTX greatly diminishes the risk for significant nephrotoxicity, we have estimated that approximately 1.8% of patients treated with HDMTX on clinical studies with optimal supportive care still develop renal dysfunction that may prove life threatening. With supportive treatment only, patients remain at risk for severe toxicity as long as elevated concentrations of MTX persist in the circulation. High concentrations of LV may be inadequate in this situation. This clinical observation is supported by laboratory studies that demonstrated that reversal of MTX by LV is competitive, with relatively higher concentrations of LV required as the MTX concentration increases. When concentrations of MTX reached 100 µM, even tenfold higher LV concentrations (1,000 µM) were unable to protect bone marrow cells from toxicity [73].

In a recent single-institution retrospective review, administration of high doses of LV within 24–48 hours of HDMTX administration rescued 13 patients with HDMTX-induced renal dysfunction [74]. A significant proportion of the 13 patients developed neutropenia (n = 8) (absolute neutrophil count [ANC] <1,000/µl), thrombocytopenia (n = 7) (platelet count <100,000/µl), and mucositis (n = 6). The authors concluded that treatment with high doses of LV administered within 24–48 hours after the start of the MTX infusion is sufficient therapy in patients with MTX-induced renal dysfunction. Based on a lower median MTX plasma concentration at 48 hours (16.3 µM) and a lower median peak serum creatinine concentration (2.0 mg/dl), compared with 20 patients who received CPDG2 as a rescue agent (median MTX concentration at 46 hours, 201 µM; median peak serum creatinine, 3.7 mg/dl) [34], the patients reported by Flombaum and Meyers [74] may have suffered from less severe MTX-associated nephrotoxicity. Close monitoring and the ability to intervene early at this single institution likely contributed to the relative success of this approach, although it must be recognized that, despite this early intervention, significant toxicities occurred.

The development of renal dysfunction following MTX administration remains a significant management challenge. The multitude of dialysis-based methods directed at lowering plasma MTX concentrations following development of nephrotoxicity attests to the difficulty encountered by clinicians caring for such patients. The dialysis based methods are relatively inefficient at reducing plasma MTX concentrations, and sole reliance on administering elevated doses of LV is not sufficient treatment for many patients. More effective management strategies could result in better outcomes for these patients.

Risk Versus Benefits of CPDG2
Current treatment for patients who develop HDMTX-induced renal dysfunction relies on high doses of LV to reduce the risk for toxicity, and with markedly elevated plasma MTX concentrations, the use of a dialysis-based methods of drug removal is often attempted. These charcoal hemodialysis/filtration-based methods must be continuously applied, or repeated on a daily basis in order to reduce plasma MTX concentrations to a range in which standard doses of oral LV can be administered. The risks associated with charcoal hemodialysis/filtration-based methods include the risks associated with the insertion of vascular access devices, the risk for bleeding secondary to heparinization and thrombocytopenia, and the risks associated with multiple transfusions of blood products.

The benefits of CPDG2 administration include a >98% decrease in plasma MTX concentration within minutes of enzyme administration. Patients can then be safely managed with LV rescue alone. Early administration of CPDG2 may diminish the risk for serious to life-threatening MTX toxicity. Furthermore, patients avoid the risks associated with charcoal hemodialysis/filtration-based methods of MTX removal, which may not be readily available outside of major medical centers.

The risks of CPDG2 administration appear to be infrequent and minor in nature. Four of 21 patients treated with CPDG2 described readily reversible side effects consisting of a feeling of warmth (n = 2), tingling in the fingers (n = 1), flushing (n = 2), shaking (n = 1), and head pressure (n = 1) [34], and only 2 of 82 patients in a European study of CPDG2 for HDMTX-induced renal dysfunction described mild and completely reversible symptoms of flushing (n = 2) and shaking (n = 1) [70]. The theoretical risk for a worsening of renal function secondary to accumulation of the poorly water soluble MTX metabolite DAMPA has not been borne out, as the time to renal recovery is no different than that of historical controls treated with charcoal hemodialysis/filtration-based methods [42]. Even though CPDG2 hydrolyzes MTX preferentially, 5-mTHF, the active metabolite of LV, is also hydrolyzed. Continuing to administer higher doses of LV for 48 hours after administration of CPDG2 is therefore currently recommended and appears effective.


   RECOMMENDATIONS
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methotrexate Pharmacology
 Pathogenesis of MTX-Induced...
 Incidence
 Conventional Treatment...
 Investigational Treatment...
 Current Controversies
 Recommendations
Disclosure of Potential...
 References
 
The lack of early clinical symptoms predicting the development of renal dysfunction emphasizes the need for routine daily monitoring of plasma MTX concentrations and serum creatinine after the administration of HDMTX, until MTX has declined to levels allowing discontinuation of LV (<0.05 to 0.1 µM). After the diagnosis of renal dysfunction has been established, a prompt increase in LV based on plasma MTX concentrations is critical for successful management.

Patients who develop renal dysfunction and have plasma MTX concentrations ≤10 µM at 42–48 hours after the start of the MTX infusion can likely be successfully managed with LV administration and supportive care. Although very early institution of high-dose LV alone may be sufficient for patients with MTX concentrations >10 µM at 42–48 hours, CPDG2 offers a rapid means of decreasing plasma MTX concentrations by 1–2 logarithms within minutes of administration. The risks of CPDG2 toxicity appear minimal, but as with any foreign protein, anaphylactic reactions could theoretically occur. Continuation of high-dose LV for 48 hours following CPDG2 administration is advised to replete intracellular reduced folate pools. After that time, LV rescue should be modified based on the lowered plasma MTX concentrations. The most commonly used commercially available fluorescence polarization immunoassay and all immunoassays significantly overestimate plasma MTX concentrations after administration of CPDG2, because of the crossreactivity of DAMPA in these assays, and results obtained with these assays will not fully reflect the ability of CPDG2 to hydrolyze MTX [26]. As DAMPA is cleared more rapidly than MTX in patients with renal dysfunction, the accuracy of immunoassay results increases within a few days of CPDG2 administration.

For patients with HDMTX-induced renal dysfunction with sustained MTX concentrations >10 µM at 42–48 hours after the start of the MTX infusion, we would recommend that CPDG2 be administered in addition to LV. For patients with renal dysfunction and plasma MTX concentrations of 1–10 µM, administration of CPDG2 may be considered, but fewer data are available for this population. CPDG2 is an investigational drug that can be obtained on a compassionate use protocol from CTEP at the following address: Pharmaceutical Management Branch, CTEP, NCI, Executive Plaza North, Room 7147, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-7422, USA. Telephone: 301-496-5725.


   DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methotrexate Pharmacology
 Pathogenesis of MTX-Induced...
 Incidence
 Conventional Treatment...
 Investigational Treatment...
 Current Controversies
 Recommendations
 Disclosure of Potential...
References
 
Peter Adamson has acted as a consultant for and received support from Protherics, the manufacturer of CPDG2.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methotrexate Pharmacology
 Pathogenesis of MTX-Induced...
 Incidence
 Conventional Treatment...
 Investigational Treatment...
 Current Controversies
 Recommendations
 Disclosure of Potential...
 References
 
We thank Dr. Dale Shoemaker, Matthew Boron, Dr. Aiman Shalabi, and Dr. Percy Ivy at the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, National Cancer Institute, for their assistance in making CPDG2 and Thd available for investigational use, and Dr. Roger Melton and the late Dr. Roger Sherwood of Duramed, Ltd., Oxford, UK, for their research efforts and commitment to the development of CPDG2.

This research was supported (in part) by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research.


   REFERENCES
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methotrexate Pharmacology
 Pathogenesis of MTX-Induced...
 Incidence
 Conventional Treatment...
 Investigational Treatment...
 Current Controversies
 Recommendations
 Disclosure of Potential...
 References
 

  1. Allegra CJ. Antifolates. In: Chabner BA, Collins JM, eds. Cancer Chemotherapy. Philadelphia: Lippincott Company, 1990:110–153.
  2. Bleyer WA. Methotrexate: clinical pharmacology, current status and therapeutic guidelines. Cancer Treat Rev 1977;4:87–101.[CrossRef][Medline]
  3. Djerassi I. High-dose methotrexate (NSC-740) and citrovorum factor (NSC-3590) rescue: background and rationale. Cancer Chemother Rep 1975;6:3–6.[Medline]
  4. Jolivet J, Cowan KH, Curt GA et al. The pharmacology and clinical use of methotrexate. N Engl J Med 1983;309:1094–1104.[Medline]
  5. Albertioni F, Flato B, Seideman P et al. Methotrexate in juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Evidence of age dependent pharmacokinetics. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1995;47:507–511.[Medline]
  6. Bright RD. Methotrexate in the treatment of psoriasis. Cutis 1999;64: 332–334.[Medline]
  7. Balis FM, Savitch JL, Bleyer WA et al. Remission induction of meningeal leukemia with high-dose intravenous methotrexate. J Clin Oncol 1985;3:485–489.[Abstract]
  8. Ackland SP, Schilsky RL. High-dose methotrexate: a critical reappraisal. J Clin Oncol 1987;5:2017–2031.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Frei E 3rd, Blum RH, Pitman SW et al. High dose methotrexate with leucovorin rescue. Rationale and spectrum of antitumor activity. Am J Med 1980;68:370–376.[CrossRef][Medline]
  10. Djerassi I. Methotrexate infusions and intensive supportive care in the management of children with acute lymphocytic leukemia: follow-up report. Cancer Res 1967;27:2561–2564.[Medline]
  11. Yap HY, Blumenschein GR, Yap BS et al. High-dose methotrexate for advanced breast cancer. Cancer Treat Rep 1979;63:757–761.[Medline]
  12. Stoller RG, Hande KR, Jacobs SA et al. Use of plasma pharmacokinetics to predict and prevent methotrexate toxicity. N Engl J Med 1977;297: 630–634.[Abstract]
  13. Bleyer WA. The clinical pharmacology of methotrexate: new applications of an old drug. Cancer 1978;41:36–51.[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Abelson HT, Fosburg MT, Beardsley GP et al. Methotrexate-induced renal impairment: clinical studies and rescue from systemic toxicity with high-dose leucovorin and thymidine. J Clin Oncol 1983;1:208–216.[Abstract]
  15. Stark AN, Jackson G, Carey PJ et al. Severe renal toxicity due to intermediate-dose methotrexate. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1989;24:243–245.[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. Djerassi I, Kim JS, Nayak NP et al. High-dose methotrexate with citrovorum factor rescue: a new approach to cancer chemotherapy. Recent advances in cancer treatment. Tagnon HJ, Staquet MJ, ed. New York: Raven Press, Monograph Series of the European Organization for Research on Treatment of Cancer 1977;3:3–6.
  17. Messmann R, Allegra C. Antifolates. In Chabner B, Longo D, eds. Cancer Chemotherapy and Biotherapy. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2001:139–184.
  18. Chabner BA, Allegra CJ, Curt GA et al. Polyglutamation of methotrexate: Is methotrexate a prodrug? J Clin Invest 1985;76:907–912.[Medline]
  19. Allegra CJ, Chabner BA, Drake JC et al. Enhanced inhibition of thymidylate synthase by methotrexate polyglutamates. J Biol Chem 1985;260:9720–9726.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Chabner BA, Young RC. Threshold methotrexate concentration for in vivo inhibition of DNA synthesis in normal and tumorous target tissues. J Clin Invest 1973;52:1804–1811.[CrossRef][Medline]
  21. Jacobs SA, Stoller RG, Chabner BA et al. 7-Hydroxymethotrexate as a urinary metabolite in human subjects and rhesus monkeys receiving high dose methotrexate. J Clin Invest 1976;57:534–538.[Medline]
  22. Lankelma J, van der Klein E, Ramaekers F. The role of 7-hydroxymethotrexate during methotrexate anti-cancer therapy. Cancer Lett 1980;9: 133–142.[CrossRef][Medline]
  23. Sholar PW, Baram J, Seither Retal. Inhibition of folate-dependent enzymes by 7-OH-methotrexate. Biochem Pharmacol 1988;37:3531–3534.[CrossRef][Medline]
  24. Donehower RC, Hande KR, Drake JC et al. Presence of 2,4-diamino-N10-methylpteroic acid after high-dose methotrexate. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1979;26:63–72.[Medline]
  25. Widemann BC, Sung E, Anderson L et al. Pharmacokinetics and metabolism of the methotrexate metabolite, 2,4-diamino-N10-methylpteroic acid. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2000;294:894–901.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Widemann BC, Balis FM, Adamson PC. Dihydrofolate reductase enzyme inhibition assay for plasma methotrexate determination using a 96-well microplate reader. Clin Chem 1999;45:223–228.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Smeland E, Fuskevåg OM, Nymann K et al. High-dose 7-hydroxymethotrexate: acute toxicity and lethality in a rat model. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1996;37:415–422.[CrossRef][Medline]
  28. Balis FM. Pharmacokinetic drug interactions of commonly used anticancer drugs. Clin Pharmacokinet 1986;11:223–235.[Medline]
  29. Basin KS, Escalante A, Beardmore TD. Severe pancytopenia in a patient taking low dose methotrexate and probenecid. J Rheumatol 1991;18: 609–610.[Medline]
  30. Cassano WF. Serious methotrexate toxicity caused by interaction with ibuprofen. Am J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 1989;11:481–482.[Medline]
  31. Furst DE, Herman RA, Koehnke R et al. Effect of aspirin and sulindac on methotrexate clearance. J Pharm Sci 1990;79:782–786.[Medline]
  32. Lawrenz-Wolf B, Wolfrom C, Frickel C et al. [Severe renal impairment of methotrexate elimination after high dose therapy]. Klin Padiatr 1994;206:319–326. German.[Medline]
  33. Relling MV, Fairclough D, Ayers D et al. Patient characteristics associated with high-risk methotrexate concentrations and toxicity. J Clin Oncol 1994;12:1667–1672.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Widemann BC, Balis FM, Murphy RF et al. Carboxypeptidase-G2, thymidine, and leucovorin rescue in cancer patients with methotrexate-induced renal dysfunction. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:2125–2134.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Von Hoff DD, Penta JS, Helman LJ et al. Incidence of drug-related deaths secondary to high-dose methotrexate and citrovorum factor administration. Cancer Treat Rep 1977;61:745–748.[Medline]
  36. Chan H, Evans WE, Pratt CB. Recovery from toxicity associated with high-dose methotrexate: prognostic factors. Cancer Treat Rep 1977;61:797–804.[Medline]
  37. Jaffe N, Traggis D. Toxicity of high-dose methotrexate (NSC-740) and citrovorum factor (NSC-3590) in osteogenic sarcoma. Cancer Chemother Rep 1975;6:31–36.
  38. Bleyer WA. Therapeutic drug monitoring of methotrexate and other antineoplastic drugs. In: Baer DM, Dita WR, eds. Interpretations in Therapeutic Drug Monitoring. Chicago,: American Society of Clinical Pathology, 1981:169–181.
  39. Takami M, Kuniyoshi Y, Oomukai T et al. Severe complications after high-dose methotrexate treatment. Acta Oncol 1995;34:611–612.[Medline]
  40. Jürgens H, Beron G, Winkler K. Toxicity associated with combination chemotherapy for osteosarcoma: a report of the cooperative osteosarcoma study (COSS 80). J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1983;106(suppl):14–18.[CrossRef][Medline]
  41. Haim N, Kedar A, Robinson E. Methotrexate-related deaths in patients previously treated with cis-diamminedichloride platinum. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1984;13:223–225.[Medline]
  42. Widemann BC, Balis FM, Kempf-Bielack B et al. High-dose methotrexate-induced nephrotoxicity in patients with osteosarcoma. Cancer 2004;100:2222–2232.[CrossRef][Medline]
  43. Hoang-Xuan K, Taillandier L, Chinot O et al. Chemotherapy alone as initial treatment for primary CNS lymphoma in patients older than 60 years: a multicenter phase II study (26952) of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Brain Tumor Group. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:2726–2731.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Hande KR, Balow JE, Drake JC et al. Methotrexate and hemodialysis [letter]. Ann Intern Med 1977;87:495–496.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Ahmad S, Shen FH, Bleyer WA. Methotrexate-induced renal failure and ineffectiveness of peritoneal dialysis. Arch Intern Med 1978;138: 1146–1147.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Djerassi I, Ciesielka W, Kim JS. Removal of methotrexate by filtration-adsorption using charcoal filters or by hemodialysis. Cancer Treat Rep 1977;61:751–752.[Medline]
  47. Wall SM, Johansen MJ, Molony DA et al. Effective clearance of methotrexate using high-flux hemodialysis membranes. Am J Kidney Dis 1996;28:846–854.[Medline]
  48. Saland JM, Leavey PJ, Bash RO et al. Effective removal of methotrexate by high-flux hemodialysis. Pediatr Nephrol 2002;17:825–829.[Medline]
  49. Gibson TP, Reich SD, Krumlovsky FA et al. Hemoperfusion for methotrexate removal. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1977;23:351–355.
  50. Greil J, Wyss PA, Ludwig K et al. Continuous plasma resin perfusion for detoxification of methotrexate. Eur J Pediatr 1997;156:533–536.[Medline]
  51. Bouffet E, Frappaz D, Laville M et al. Charcoal haemoperfusion and methotrexate toxicity. Lancet 1986;1:1497.[Medline]
  52. Relling MV, Stapleton FB, Ochs J et al. Removal of methotrexate, leucovorin, and their metabolites by combined hemodialysis and hemoperfusion. Cancer 1988;62:884–888.[CrossRef][Medline]
  53. Kawabata K, Makino H, Nagake Y et al. A case of methotrexate-induced acute renal failure successfully treated with plasma perfusion and sequential hemodialysis. Nephron 1995;71:233–234.[Medline]
  54. Jambou P, Levraut J, Favier C et al. Removal of methotrexate by continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration. Contrib Nephrol 1995;116:48–52.[Medline]
  55. Grimes DJ, Bowles MR, Buttsworth JA et al. Survival after unexpected high serum methotrexate concentrations in a patient with osteogenic sarcoma. Drug Saf 1990;5:447–454.[Medline]
  56. Frappaz D, Bouffet E, Biron P et al. [Methotrexate poisoning: value of exchange transfusion]. Pediatrie 1987;42:257–260. French.[Medline]
  57. Howell SB, Herbst K, Boss GR et al. Thymidine requirements for the rescue of patients treated with high-dose methotrexate. Cancer Res 1980;40:1824–1829.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  58. Grem JL, King SA, Sorensen JM et al. Clinical use of thymidine as a rescue agent from methotrexate toxicity. Invest New Drugs 1991;9:281–290.[Medline]
  59. Ensminger WD, Frei E 3rd. The prevention of methotrexate toxicity by thymidine infusions in humans. Cancer Res 1977;37:1857–1863.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  60. Albrecht AM, Boldizsar E, Hutchison DJ. Carboxypeptidase displaying differential velocity in hydrolysis of methotrexate, 5-methyltetrahydrofolic acid, and leucovorin. J Bacteriol 1978;134:506–513.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  61. McCullough JL, Chabner BA, Bertino JR. Purification and properties of carboxypeptidase G 1. J Biol Chem 1974;246:7207–7213.
  62. Chabner BA, Johns DG, Bertino JR. Enzymatic cleavage of methotrexate provides a method for prevention of drug toxicity. Nature 1972;239: 395–397.[Medline]
  63. Abelson HT, Ensminger W, Kufe D et al. High-dose methotrexate-carboxypeptidase G1 - a selective approach to the therapy of central nervous system tumors. In: Kisliuk RL, Brown GM, eds. Chemistry and Biology of Pteridines. New York: Elsevier North Holland, Inc., 1979:629–633.
  64. Abelson HT, Kufe DW, Skarin AT et al. Treatment of central nervous system tumors with methotrexate. Cancer Treat Rep 1981;65(suppl 1): 137–140.[Medline]
  65. Adamson PC, Balis FM, McCully CL et al. Methotrexate pharmacokinetics following administration of recombinant carboxypeptidase-G2 in rhesus monkeys. J Clin Oncol 1992;10:1359–1364.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  66. Sherwood RF, Melton RG, Alwan SM et al. Purification and properties of carboxypeptidase G2 from Pseudomonas sp. strain RS-16. Use of a novel triazine dye affinity method. Eur J Biochem 1985;148:447–453.[Medline]
  67. Minton NP, Atkinson T, Sherwood RF. Molecular cloning of the Pseudomonas carboxypeptidase G2 gene and its expression in Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas putida. J Bacteriol 1983;156:1222–1227.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  68. Widemann BC, Hetherington ML, Murphy RF et al. Carboxypeptidase-G2 rescue in a patient with high dose methotrexate-induced nephrotoxicity. Cancer 1995;76:521–526.[CrossRef][Medline]
  69. Adamson P, Balis F, Boron M, et al. Carboxypeptidase-G2 (CPDG2) and leucovorin (LV) rescue with and without addition of thymidine (Thd) for high-dose methotrexate (HDMTX) induced renal dysfunction Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2005;23:153s.
  70. Buchen S, Ngampolo D, Melton RG et al. Carboxypeptidase G2 rescue in patients with methotrexate intoxication and renal failure. Br J Cancer 2005;92:480–487.[Medline]
  71. Widemann B, Balis F, O’Brien M et al. Rescue with carboxypeptidase-G2 (CPDG2) and leucovorin (LV) for patients with high-dose methotrexate (HDMTX) induced renal failure. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998;17:222a.
  72. Hempel G, Lingg R, Boos J. Interactions of carboxypeptidase G2 with 6S-leucovorin and 6R-leucovorin in vitro: implications for the application in case of methotrexate intoxications. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2005;55:347–353.[CrossRef][Medline]
  73. Pinedo HM, Zaharko DS, Bull JM et al. The reversal of methotrexate cytotoxicity to mouse bone marrow cells by leucovorin and nucleosides. Cancer Res 1976;36:4418–4424.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  74. Flombaum CD, Meyers PA. High-dose leucovorin as sole therapy for methotrexate toxicity. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1589–1594.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  75. Tattersall M, Parker L, Pitman S et al. Clinical pharmacology of high-dose methotrexate (NSC-740). Cancer Chemother Rep 1975;6:25–29.[Medline]
  76. Pitman SW, Parker LM, Tattersall MH et al. Clinical trial of high-dose methotrexate (NSC-740) with citrovorum factor (NSC-3590)-toxicologic and therapeutic observations. Cancer Chemother Rep 1975;6:43–49.
  77. Nirenberg A, Mosende C, Mehta BM et al. High-dose methotrexate with citrovorum factor rescue: predictive value of serum methotrexate concentrations and corrective measures to avert toxicity. Cancer Treat Rep 1977;61:779–783.[Medline]
  78. Isacoff WH, Eilber F, Tabbarah H et al. Phase II clinical trial with high-dose methotrexate therapy and citrovorum factor rescue. Cancer Treat Rep 1978;62:1295–1304.[Medline]
  79. Evans WE, Pratt CB, Taylor RH et al. Pharmacokinetic monitoring of high-dose methotrexate. Early recognition of high-risk patients. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1979;3:161–166.[Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Toxicol SciHome page
S. W. Smith
Chiral Toxicology: It's the Same Thing...Only Different
Toxicol. Sci., July 1, 2009; 110(1): 4 - 30.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
D. de Miguel, J. Garcia-Suarez, Y. Martin, J. J. Gil-Fernandez, and C. Burgaleta
Severe acute renal failure following high-dose methotrexate therapy in adults with haematological malignancies: a significant number result from unrecognized co-administration of several drugs
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., December 1, 2008; 23(12): 3762 - 3766.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Rheumatology (Oxford)Home page
S. Karie, F. Gandjbakhch, N. Janus, V. Launay-Vacher, S. Rozenberg, C. U. Mai Ba, P. Bourgeois, and G. Deray
Kidney disease in RA patients: prevalence and implication on RA-related drugs management: the MATRIX study
Rheumatology, March 1, 2008; 47(3): 350 - 354.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
S. Lundgren, B. Andersen, J. Piskur, and D. Dobritzsch
Crystal Structures of Yeast -Alanine Synthase Complexes Reveal the Mode of Substrate Binding and Large Scale Domain Closure Movements
J. Biol. Chem., December 7, 2007; 282(49): 36037 - 36047.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Drug Metab. Dispos.Home page
W.-N. Chang, J.-N. Tsai, B.-H. Chen, H.-S. Huang, and T.-F. Fu
Serine Hydroxymethyltransferase Isoforms Are Differentially Inhibited by Leucovorin: Characterization and Comparison of Recombinant Zebrafish Serine Hydroxymethyltransferases
Drug Metab. Dispos., November 1, 2007; 35(11): 2127 - 2137.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 The OncologistHome page
S. Schwartz, K. Borner, K. Muller, P. Martus, L. Fischer, A. Korfel, T. Auton, and E. Thiel
Glucarpidase (Carboxypeptidase G2) Intervention in Adult and Elderly Cancer Patients with Renal Dysfunction and Delayed Methotrexate Elimination After High-Dose Methotrexate Therapy
Oncologist, November 1, 2007; 12(11): 1299 - 1308.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow eLetters: Submit a response to this article
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Reprints/Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Widemann, B. C.
Right arrow Articles by Adamson, P. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Widemann, B. C.
Right arrow Articles by Adamson, P. C.

HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE ONCOLOGIST STEM CELLS CME ALPHAMED PRESS JOURNALS