Summary
The epipodophyllotoxines VP-16 and VM-26 are chemically closely related. VM-26 has been found to be considerably more potent than VP-16 in vitro in a number of investigations. Although the drugs have been known for >20 years, they have not been compared at clearly defined equitoxic doses on an optimal schedule in vivo and it has not been clarified as to whether a therapeutic difference exists between them. A prolonged schedule is optimal for both drugs; accordingly we determined the toxicity in mice using a 5-day schedule. The dose killing 10% of the mice (LD10) was 9.4 mg/kg daily (95% confidence limits, 7.4–11.8) for VP-16 and 3.4 (2.5–4.5) mg/kg daily for VM-26. In vitro, we found VM-26 to be 6–10 times more potent than VP-16 in a clonogenic assay on murine tumors P388 and L1210 leukemia and Ehrlich ascites. This pattern was also demonstrated in a multidrug-resistant subline of Ehrlich selected for resistance to daunorubicin (Ehrlich/DNR+), as it was 30 times less sensitive than Ehrlich cells to both VP-16 and VM-26. Using 90%, 45%, and 22% of the LD10 on the same murine tumors in vivo, we found that the effect of the two drugs was equal as evaluated by both the increase in life span and the number of cures. The drugs were also compared in nude mice inoculated with human small-cell lung cancer lines OC-TOL and CPH-SCCL-123; however, they were more toxic to the nude mice and only a limited therapeutic effect was observed. In conclusion, the complete cross-resistance between the two drugs suggests that they have an identical antineoplastic spectrum. VM-26 was more potent than VP-16 in vitro; however, this was not correlated to a therapeutic advantage for VM-26 over VP-16 in vivo
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bork E, Hansen M, Dombernowsky P, Hansen SW, Pedersen AG, Hansen HH (1986) Teniposide (VM-26), an overlooked highly active agent in small-cell lung cancer. Results of a phase II trial in untreated patients. J Clin Oncol 4:524–527
Clark PI, Joel SP, Slevin ML (1989) A pharmacokinetic hypothesis for the clinical efficacy of etoposide in small cell lung cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 8:66
Colombo T, Broggini M, Vaghi M, Amato G, Erba E, D'Incalci M (1986) Comparison between VP-16 and VM-26 in Lewis lung carcinoma of the mouse. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 22:173–179
Corbett TH, Valeriote FA, Baker LH (1987) Is the P388 murine tumor no longer adequate as a drug discovery model? Invest New Drugs 5:3–20
Creaven PJ (1982) The clinical pharmacology of VM26 and VP16-213, A brief overview. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 7:133–140
Danø K (1971) Development of resistance to daunomycin (NSC-82 151) in Ehrlich ascites tumor. Cancer Chemother Rep 55: 133–141
Dombernowsky P, Nissen NI (1973) Schedule dependency of the antileukemic activity of the podophyllotoxin-derivative VP-16-213 (NSC-141 540) in L1210 leukemia. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand [A] 81:715–724
Double JA, Bibby MC (1989) Therapeutic index: a vital component in selection of anticancer agents for clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 81:988–994
Geran RI, Greenberg NH, Macdonald MM, Schumacher AM, Abbot BJ (1972) Protocols for screening chemical agents and natural products against animal tumors and other biological systems. Cancer Chemother Rep 3(2):1–87
Gupta RS (1983) Podophyllotoxin-resistant mutants of Chinese hamster ovary cells: cross-resistance studies with various microtubule inhibitors and podophyllotoxin analogues. Cancer Res 43:505–512
Hill BT, Bellamy AS (1984) Establishment of an etoposide-resistant human epithelial tumour cell line in vitro: characterization of patterns of cross-resistance and drug sensitivities. Int J Cancer 33:599–608
Hill BT, Hosking LK, Shellard SA, Whelan RDH (1989) Comparative effectiveness of mitoxantrone and doxorubicin in overcoming experimentally induced drug resistance in murine and human tumour cell lines in vitro. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 23:140–144
Jensen PB, Vindeløv L, Roed H, Demant EJF, Shested M, Skovsgaard T, Hansen HH (1989) In vitro evaluation of the potential of aclarubicin in the treatment of small cell carcinoma of the lung (SCCL). Br J Cancer 60:838–844
Leij L de, Postmus PE, Buys CHCM, Elema JD, Ramaekers F, Poppema S, Brower M, Veen AY van der, Mesander G, The TH (1985) Characterization of three new variant type cell lines derived from small cell carcinoma of the lung. Cancer Res 45:6024–6033
Long BH, Musial ST, Brattain MG (1985) Single- and double-strand DNA breakage and repair in human lung adenocarcinoma cells exposed to etoposide and teniposide. Cancer Res 45:3106–3112
Rivera G, Avery T, Roberts D (1975) Response of L1210 to combinations of cytosine arabinoside and VM-26 or VP-16-213. Eur J Cancer 11:639–647
Roed H, Vindeløv LL, Christensen IJ, Spang-Thomsen M, Hansen HH (1987) The effect of the two epipodophyllotoxin derivatives etoposide (VP-16) and teniposide (VM-26) on cell lines established from patients with small-cell carcinoma of the lung. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 19:16–20
Rozencweig M, Von Hoff DD, Henney JE, Muggia FM (1987) VM-26 and VP-16-213: a comparative analysis. Cancer 40: 334–342
Rygaard K, Spang-Thomsen M (1989) “Growth”, a computer program for determination of mean growth curves and calculation of response to therapy of solid tumor xenografts. In: Wu B-q, Zheng J (eds) Immune-deficient animals in experimental medicine. 6th International Workshop on Immune-deficient Animals, Beijing, 1988. Karger, Basel, pp 301–306
Sehested M, Simpson D, Skovsgaard T, Jensen PB (1989) Freezefracture study of plasma membranes in wild type and daunorubicinresistant Ehrlich ascites tumor and P388 leukemia cells. Virchows Arch [Cell Pathol] 56:327–335
Spang-Thomsen M, Nielsen A, Visfeldt J (1980) Growth curves of three human malignant tumors transplanted to nude mice. Exp Cell Biol 48:138–154
Spang-Thomsen M, Roed H, Vindeløv LL (1989) Effect of the two epipodophyllotoxins VP-16 and VM-26 on a small cell carcinoma of the lung xenograft grown in nude mice. In: Wu B-q, Zheng J (eds) Immune-deficient animals in experimental medicine. 6th International Workshop on Immune-deficient Animals, Beijing, 1988. Karger, Basel, pp 268–273
Stähelin H (1973) Activity of a new glycosidic lignan derivative (VP-16-213) related to podophyllotoxin in experimental tumors. Eur J Cancer 9:215–221
Vietti TJ, Valeriote FA, Kalish R, Coulter D (1978) Kinetics of cytotoxicity of VM-26 and VP-16 on L1210 leukemia and hematopoietic stem cells. Cancer Treat Rep 62:1313–1320
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This work was supported by grants from the Danish Cancer Society and the Lundbeck Foundation
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jensen, P.B., Roed, H., Skovsgaard, T. et al. Antitumor activity of the two epipodophyllotoxin derivatives VP-16 and VM-26 in preclinical systems: a comparison of in vitro and in vivo drug evaluation. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 27, 194–198 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00685712
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00685712