Advertisement

Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology

, Volume 52, Issue 5, pp 424–430 | Cite as

Assessment of normal and tumor tissue uptake of MAG-CPT, a polymer-bound prodrug of camptothecin, in patients undergoing elective surgery for colorectal carcinoma

  • Nenad Sarapa
  • Margaret R. Britto
  • William Speed
  • MariaGabriella Jannuzzo
  • Massimo Breda
  • Christopher A. James
  • MariaGrazia Porro
  • Maurizio Rocchetti
  • Alkvin Wanders
  • Haile Mahteme
  • Peter Nygren
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

MAG-camptothecin (MAG-CPT) is the lead compound of a novel drug delivery system in which an active cytotoxic moiety, camptothecin (CPT), is covalently linked to a soluble polymeric carrier (MAG) to form an inactive prodrug. The mechanism of action of CPT remains unaltered, but the delivery system is thought to allow the carrier-bound drug to accumulate in tumor tissues and release the active CPT locally. This proof-of-concept clinical study was designed to determine whether MAG-CPT was preferentially delivered to or retained in tumor tissue compared to adjacent normal tissue or plasma, and to estimate the degree of intratissue release of CPT.

Methods

This was an open, non-randomized study in ten adult patients scheduled for elective surgery for colorectal cancer. Patients received a single dose of 60 mg/m2 (CPT equivalent) of MAG-CPT 24 h, 3 days or 7 days prior to surgery. Plasma, tumor, and adjacent normal tissue samples were collected simultaneously at the time of surgery and analyzed for MAG-bound and released CPT concentrations.

Results

MAG-bound and free CPT concentrations in plasma, tumor, and normal tissue achieved equilibrium by 24 h after dosing, declining in parallel up to 7 days after dosing. MAG-bound CPT was delivered to similar levels to tumor and normal tissue. At 24 h after dosing, the mean±SD MAG-bound CPT concentrations were 861±216 ng/g in tumor and 751±215 ng/g in adjacent normal tissue, and free CPT concentrations were lower in tumor than in normal tissue (12.2±4.7 ng/g and 21.9±6.7 ng/g, respectively). At 24 h after dosing, mean±SD ratios of MAG-bound and free CPT in tumor and plasma were 0.13±0.03 and 0.22±0.09, respectively, and the ratios did not change for up to 7 days after dosing, indicating a lack of preferential retention of MAG-bound CPT or release of free CPT in tumor. These results are in marked contrast to previous data from animal tumor xenograft studies, where MAG-CPT levels were higher in tissue than in plasma at 3 and 7 days after a single i.v. dose.

Conclusions

Delivery of CPT to the target tumor tissue is achievable by means of the MAG-CPT polymer-bound delivery system, with the equilibrium between plasma and tumor tissue concentrations of released CPT being established within 24 h after dosing. However, preferential retention of MAG-bound or released CPT in the tumor relative to normal tissue or plasma was not detected during the 7 days after dosing. The methods employed in our study could be of use in making "go/no-go" decisions on further development of anticancer drugs.

Keywords

Camptothecin Polymer-bound Prodrug Pharmacokinetics Tissue concentrations MAG-CPT 

References

  1. 1.
    Batist G, Ramakrishnan G, Rao CS, Chandrasekharan A, Gutheil J, Guthrie T, Shah P, Khojasteh A, Nair MK, Hoelzer K, Tkaczuk K, Park YC, Lee LW (2001) Reduced cardiotoxicity and preserved antitumor efficacy of liposome-encapsulated doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide compared with conventional doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide in a randomized, multicenter trial of metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 19:1444Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baxter LT, Zhu H, Mackensen DG, Butler WF, Jain RK (1995) Biodistribution of monoclonal antibodies: scale-up from mouse to human using a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model. Cancer Res 55:4611PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bergh J (2002) Is pharmacokinetically guided chemotherapy dosage a better way forward? Ann Oncol 13:343CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brem H, Piantudosi S, Burger PC, Walker M, Selker R, Vick NA, Black K, Sisti M, Brem S, Mohr G, Muller P, Morawetz R, Schold SC (1995) Placebo-controlled trial of safety and efficacy of intraoperative controlled delivery by biodegradable polymers of chemotherapy for recurrent gliomas. Lancet 345:1008PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caiolfa VR, Zamai M, Fiorino A, Frigerio E, Pellizzoni C, d'Argy R, Ghiglieri A, Castelli MG, Farao M, Pesenti E, Gigli M, Angelucci F, Suarato A (2000) Polymer-bound camptothecin: initial biodistribution and antitumour activity studies. J Controlled Release 65:105Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Creaven PJ, Allen LM, Muggia FM (1972) Plasma camptothecin (NSC-100880) levels during a 5-day course of treatment: relation to dose and toxicity. Cancer Chemother Rep 56:573PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Bono JS, Bissett D, Twelves C, Cassidy M (2000) Phase I pharmacokinetic (PK) study of MAG-CPT (PNU-166148), a polymeric derivative of camptothecin (CPT) (abstract 771). Proc ASCO 19:198aGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fox E, Curt GA, Balis FM (2002) Clinical trial design for target-based therapy. Oncologist 7:401PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fraier D, Frigerio E, Brianceschi G, Casati M, Benecchi A, James C (2000) Determination of MAG-camptothecin, a new polymer-bound camptothecin derivative, and free camptothecin in dog plasma by HPLC with fluorimetric detection. J Pharm Biomed Anal 22:505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gerweck LE (1998) Tumor pH: implications for treatment and novel drug design. Semin Radiat Oncol 8:176PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gottlieb JA, Guarino AM, Call JB, Oliverio VT, Block JB (1970) Preliminary pharmacologic and clinical evaluation of camptothecin sodium (NSC-100880). Cancer Chemother Rep 54:461PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harrington KJ, Lewanski CR, Stewart JSW (2000) Liposomes as vehicles for targeted therapy of cancer. Part 2: clinical development. Clin Oncol 12:16Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Helmlinger G, Sckell A, Dellian M, Forbes NS, Jain RK (2002) Acid production in glycolysis-impaired tumors provides new insights into tumor metabolism. Clin Cancer Res 8:1284PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jain RK (1994) Barriers to drug delivery in solid tumors. Sci Am 271:58Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jain RK (1996) Delivery of molecular medicine to solid tumors. Science 271:1079PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jain RK (2001) Delivery of molecular and cellular medicine to solid tumors. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 46:149CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kehrer DFS, Soepenberg O, Loos WJ, Verweij J, Sparreboom A (2001) Modulation of camptothecin analogs in the treatment of cancer: a review. Anticancer Drugs 12:89PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koopmans PP (2002) Clinical endpoints in trials of drugs for cancer: time for a rethink? BMJ 324:1389CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kopeček J, Kopečková P, Minko T, Lu Z-R, Peterson CM (2001) Water soluble polymers in tumor targeted delivery. J Controlled Release 74:147Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Korn EL, Arbuck SG, Pluda JM, Simon R, Kaplan RS, Christian MC (2001) Clinical trial designs for cytostatic agents: are new approaches needed? J Clin Oncol 19:265PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Luo Y, Prestwich GD (2002) Cancer-targeted polymeric drugs. Curr Cancer Drug Targets 2:209PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Maeda H, Matsumura Y (1989) Tumoritropic and lymphotropic principles of macromolecular drugs. CRC Crit Ther Drug Carrier System 6:193Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mendichi R, Rizzo V, Gigli M, Schieroni AG (2002) Fractionation and characterization of a conjugate between a polymeric drug-carrier and the antitumor drug camptothecin. Bioconjug Chem 13:1253–1258CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moertel CG, Schutt AJ, Reitemeier RJ, Hahn RG (1972) Phase II study of camptothecin (NSC-100880) in the treatment of advanced gastrointestinal cancer. Cancer Chemother Rep 56:95PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Muggia FM, Creaven PJ, Hansen H, Cohen MH, Selawry OS (1972) Phase I clinical trial of weekly and daily treatment with camptothecin (NSC-100880): correlation with preclinical studies. Cancer Chemother Rep 56:515PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Napier MP, Sharma SK, Springer CJ, Bagshawe KD, Green AJ, Martin J, Stribbling SM, Cushen N, O'Malley D, Begent RH (2000) Antibody-directed enzyme prodrug therapy: efficacy and mechanism of action in colorectal carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 6:765PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rowinsky EK (2000) The pursuit of optimal outcomes in cancer therapy in a new age of rationally designed target-based anticancer agents. Drugs 60 [Suppl 1]:1Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Saijo N, Tamura T, Nishio K (2000) Problems in the development of target-based drugs. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 46:S43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schoemaker NE, Frigerio E, Fraier D, Shellens JHM, Rosing H, Jansen S, Beijnen JH (2001) High-performance liquid chromatographic analysis for the determination of a novel polymer-bound camptothecin derivative (MAG-camptothecin) and free camptothecin in human plasma. J Chromatogr 763:173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Skinner SA, Tutton PJ, O'Brien PE (1990) Microvascular architecture of experimental colon tumors in the rat. Cancer Res 50:2411PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Takakura Y, Hashida M (1995) Macromolecular drug carrier systems in cancer chemotherapy: macromolecular prodrugs. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 18:207CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tan AR, Swain SM (2001) Novel agents: clinical trial design. Semin Oncol 28:148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ulbrich K, Strohalm J, Kopecek J (1981) Polymers containing enzymatically degradable bonds. 3. Poly[N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide]chains connected by oligopeptide sequences cleavable by trypsin. Makromol Chem 182:1917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zamai M, vandeVen M, Farao M, Gratton E, Ghiglieri A, Castelli MG, Fontana E, d'Argy R, Fiorino A, Pesenti E, Suarato A, Caiolfa VR (2003) Camptothecin poly[N-(2-hydroxypropyl) methacrylamide] copolymers in antitopoisomerase-I tumor therapy: intratumor release and antitumor efficacy. Mol Cancer Ther 2:29PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nenad Sarapa
    • 1
  • Margaret R. Britto
    • 2
  • William Speed
    • 3
  • MariaGabriella Jannuzzo
    • 4
  • Massimo Breda
    • 3
  • Christopher A. James
    • 3
  • MariaGrazia Porro
    • 5
  • Maurizio Rocchetti
    • 3
  • Alkvin Wanders
    • 6
  • Haile Mahteme
    • 7
  • Peter Nygren
    • 8
  1. 1.Department of Clinical PharmacologyPharmacia CorporationSkokieUSA
  2. 2.Department of Clinical PharmacologyQuintiles Inc.Kansas CityUSA
  3. 3.Global Drug MetabolismPharmacia CorporationNervianoItaly
  4. 4.Clinical PharmacologyPharmacia CorporationNervianoItaly
  5. 5.Clinical Research/OncologyPharmacia CorporationNervianoItaly
  6. 6.Department of Genetics and PathologyUniversity HospitalUppsalaSweden
  7. 7.Department of Surgical SciencesUniversity HospitalUppsalaSweden
  8. 8.Department of Oncology, Radiology and Clinical ImmunologyUniversity HospitalUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations