Skip to main content
Log in

Implications of dose rounding of chemotherapy to the nearest vial size

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Goals of work

There are practical implications of preparing cytotoxic doses calculated to the exact milligram. The objective here was to explore the magnitude of the effect of dose rounding to the nearest whole vial strength for some newly marketed expensive cytotoxic chemotherapy agents.

Patients and methods

Body surface areas (BSA) of 2838 adult patients presenting for chemotherapy at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre between May 1996 and December 2000 were calculated by using the DuBois and DuBois linear equation to two decimal places. Each individual dose of docetaxel, liposomal doxorubicin, gemcitabine, oxaliplatin and vinorelbine was calculated from the actual BSA based on the dose recommended in the approved drug product information. This calculated dose was then rounded upwards to the full next vial if the calculated dose exceeded above 50% of the next appropriate vial strength and was rounded downwards to the full previous vial if the calculated dose did not exceed above 50% of the next appropriate vial strength. Potential impacts on cost were calculated in Australian dollars for each drug for both the calculated and rounded dose on those instances where the difference was no greater than ±5%.

Main results

The proportion of patients in whom the dose rounded to the nearest vial strength varied by not more than ±5% was 89.5% for docetaxel, 60.4% for liposomal doxorubicin, 99.4% for gemcitabine, 34% for oxaliplatin and 56.3% for vinorelbine. The implications of dose rounding in financial terms are significant and project savings of 4–14.2%.

Conclusions

The judicious application of dose rounding of chemotherapy agents is possible without any negative clinical effect. It is feasible to dose round to the nearest vial for those cytotoxic agents that are available in multiple vial sizes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Baker SD, Diasio RB, O’Reilly, Lucas VS, Khor SP, Sartorius SE, Donehower RC, Grochow LB, Spector T, Hohneker JA, Rowinsky EK (2000) Phase I and pharmacologic study of oral fluorouracil on a chronic daily schedule in combination with the dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase inactivator eniluracil. J Clin Oncol 18:915–926

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Briars GL, Bailey BJ (1994) Surface area estimation: pocket calculator v nomogram. Arch Dis Child 70:246–247

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Desoize G, Robert J (1994) Individual dose adaptation of anticancer drugs. Eur J Cancer 30A:844–851

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Du Bois D, Du Bois EF (1916) A formula to estimate the approximate surface area if height and weight are known. Arch Intern Med 17:863–871

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Felici A, Verweij A, Sparreboom A (2002) Dosing strategies for anticancer drugs: the good, the bad and body-surface area. Eur J Cancer 38:1677–1684

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gehan EA, George SL (1970) Estimation of human body surface area from height and weight. Cancer Chemother Rep 54:225–235

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gurney H (1996) Dose calculation of anticancer drugs: a review of the current practice and introduction of an alternative J Clin Oncol 14:2590–2611

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hammond LA, Eckardt JR, Baker SD, Eckhardt SG, Dugan M, Forral K, Reidenberg P, Statkevich P, Weiss GR, Rinaldi DA, Von Hoff DD, Rowinsky EK (1999) Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of temozolomide on a daily-for-5-days schedule in patients with advanced solid malignancies J Clin Oncol 17:2604–2613

    Google Scholar 

  9. Haycock GB, Schwartz GJ, Wisotsky DH (1978) Geometric method for measuring body surface area: a height–weight formula validated in infants, children, and adults. J Pediatr 93:62–66

    Google Scholar 

  10. Plumridge RJ, Sewell GJ (2001) Dose-banding of cytotoxic drugs: a new concept in cancer chemotherapy. Am J Health Syst Pharm 58:1760–1764

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ratain MJ (1998) Body-surface area as a basis for dosing of anticancer agents: science, myth, or habit. J Clin Oncol 16:2297–2298

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Reilly JJ, Workman P (1993) Normalisation of anti-cancer drug dosage using body weight and surface area: is it worthwhile? Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 32:411–418

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Smorenburg CH, Sparreboom A, Bantenbal M, Stoter G, Nooter K, Verweij J (2003) Randomized cross-over evaluation of body-surface area-based dosing versus flat-fixed dosing of paclitaxel. J Clin Oncol 21:197–202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Thomas J (ed) (2002) Australian prescription products guide. Australian Pharmaceutical Publishing Company, Hawthorn, Victoria

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Joseph Dooley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dooley, M.J., Singh, S. & Michael, M. Implications of dose rounding of chemotherapy to the nearest vial size. Support Care Cancer 12, 653–656 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-004-0606-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-004-0606-5

Keywords

Navigation