A Population Dynamic Energy Budget-Based Tumor Growth Inhibition Model for Etoposide Effects on Wistar Rats
This work aimed to develop a population PK/PD tumor-in-host model able to describe etoposide effects on both tumor cells and host in Walker-256 tumor-bearing rats.
Etoposide was investigated on thirty-eight Wistar rats randomized in five arms: two groups of tumor-free animals receiving either placebo or etoposide (10 mg/kg bolus for 4 days) and three groups of tumor-bearing animals receiving either placebo or etoposide (5 or 10 mg/kg bolus for 8 or 4 days, respectively). To analyze experimental data, a tumor-in-host growth inhibition (TGI) model, based on the Dynamic Energy Budget (DEB) theory, was developed. Total plasma and free-interstitial tumor etoposide concentrations were assessed as driver of tumor kinetics.
The model simultaneously describes tumor and host growths, etoposide antitumor effect as well as cachexia phenomena related to both the tumor and the drug treatment. The schedule-dependent inhibitory effect of etoposide is also well captured when the intratumoral drug concentration is considered as the driver of the tumor kinetics.
The DEB-based TGI model capabilities, up to now assessed only in mice, are fully confirmed in this study involving rats. Results suggest that well designed experiments combined with a mechanistic modeling approach could be extremely useful to understand drug effects and to describe all the dynamics characterizing in vivo tumor growth studies.
KEY WORDStumor-bearing rats etoposide intratumoral concentration PK/PD model tumor-in-host interactions DEB-theory
Akaike’s information criterion
Area under the curve
Bayesian information criterion
Below limit of quantification
Body weight loss
Coefficient of variation
Dynamic energy budget
Goodness of fit
Normalized prediction distribution errors
Residual standard error
Tumor Growth Inhibition
Visual predictive check
- 1.Carrara L, Lavezzi SM, Borella E, De Nicolao G, Magni P, Poggesi I. Current mathematical models for cancer drug discovery. Expert Opin Drug Discovery. 2017;12(8):785–99.Google Scholar
- 2.Bonate PL. Modeling tumor growth in oncology. In: Pharmacokinetics in drug development: Springer; 2011. p. 1–19.Google Scholar
- 3.Ribba B, Holford NH, Magni P, Trocóniz I, Gueorguieva I, Girard P, et al. A review of mixed-effects models of tumor growth and effects of anticancer drug treatment used in population analysis. CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology. 2014;3(5):1–10.Google Scholar
- 19.Brazil. Lei 11.794/2008: Procedimentos para Uso Cientifico de Animais; 2008. CXLV, 196, 1-2. Diario Oficial da Uniao, Secao 1 de 9 de outubro de 2008.Google Scholar
- 20.Brazil. Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnologia e Inovacao Conselho Nacional de Controle de Experimentacao Animal; 2013. -CONCEA. Diretriz Brasileira para o cuidado e a utilizacao de animais para fins cientificos e didaticos- DBCA. Brasilia - DF.Google Scholar
- 21.NCI. 2012 Frederick ACUC Guidelines Involving Experimental Neoplasia Proposals in Mice and Rats; https://es.scribd.com/document/139069470/ACUC14 (accessed 0.10.3.14).
- 26.Kooijman SALM. Dynamic energy budgets in biological systems. Cambridge university press; 1993.Google Scholar
- 27.Kooijman SALM. Dynamic energy and mass budgets in biological systems. Cambridge university press 2000.Google Scholar
- 29.Lixoft. Monolix version 2016 R; http://lixoft.com/products/monolix/.
- 30.Lavielle M. Mixed effects models for the population approach: models, tasks, methods and tools. CRC press; 2014.Google Scholar
- 32.Tannock IF, Lee CM, Tunggal JK, Cowan DS, Egorin MJ. Limited penetration of anticancer drugs through tumor tissue: a potential cause of resistance of solid tumors to chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2002;8(3):878–84.Google Scholar