Advertisement

Micropharmacology: An In Silico Approach for Assessing Drug Efficacy Within a Tumor Tissue

  • Aleksandra Karolak
  • Katarzyna A. Rejniak
Special Issue: Mathematics to Support Drug Discovery and Development

Abstract

Systemic chemotherapy is one of the main anticancer treatments used for most kinds of clinically diagnosed tumors. However, the efficacy of these drugs can be hampered by the physical attributes of the tumor tissue, such as tortuous vasculature, dense and fibrous extracellular matrix, irregular cellular architecture, tumor metabolic gradients, and non-uniform expression of the cell membrane receptors. This can impede the transport of therapeutic agents to tumor cells in sufficient quantities. In addition, tumor microenvironments undergo dynamic spatio-temporal changes during tumor progression and treatment, which can also obstruct drug efficacy. To examine ways to improve drug delivery on a cell-to-tissue scale (single-cell pharmacology), we developed the microscale pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (microPKPD) modeling framework. Our model is modular and can be adjusted to include only the mathematical equations that are crucial for a biological problem under consideration. This modularity makes the model applicable to a broad range of pharmacological cases. As an illustration, we present two specific applications of the microPKPD methodology that help to identify optimal drug properties. The hypoxia-activated drugs example uses continuous drug concentrations, diffusive–advective transport through the tumor interstitium, and passive transmembrane drug uptake. The targeted therapy example represents drug molecules as discrete particles that move by diffusion and actively bind to cell receptors. The proposed modeling approach takes into account the explicit tumor tissue morphology, its metabolic landscape and/or specific receptor distribution. All these tumor attributes can be assessed from patients’ diagnostic biopsies; thus, the proposed methodology can be developed into a tool suitable for personalized medicine, such as neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Keywords

Drug penetration microPKPD Single-cell pharmacology Tumor tissue architecture Targeted therapeutics Hypoxia-activated pro-drugs 

References

  1. Bae YH, Park K (2011) Targeted drug delivery to tumors: myths, reality and possibility. J Control Release 153(3):198–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bloch N, Weiss G, Szekely S, Harel D (2015) An interactive tool for animating biology, and its use in spatial and temporal modeling of a cancerous tumor and its microenvironment. PLoS ONE 10(7):e0133484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Casciari JJ, Sotirchos SV, Sutherland RM (1992) Variations in tumor cell growth rates and metabolism with oxygen concentration, glucose concentration, and extracellular pH. J Cell Physiol 151(2):386–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chauhan VP, Stylianopoulos T, Boucher Y, Jain R (2011) Delivery of molecular and nanoscale medicine to tumors: transport barriers and strategies. Ann Rev Chem Biomol Eng 2:281–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Choi IK, Strauss R, Richter M, Yun CO, Lieber A (2013) Strategies to increase drug penetration in solid tumors. Front Oncol 3:193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cortez R (2001) The method of regularized stokeslets. SIAM J Sci Comput 23:1204–1225MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Cortez R, Fauci L, Medovikov A (2005) The method of regularized stokeslets in three dimensions: analysis, validation, and application to helical swimming. Phys Fluids 17:031504MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Curtis LT, Wu M, Lowengrub J, Decuzzi P, Frieboes HB (2015) Computational modeling of tumor response to drug release from vasculature-bound nanoparticles. PLoS ONE 10(12):e0144888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dewhirst MW, Secomb TW (2017) Transport of drugs from blood vessels to tumour tissue. Nat Rev Cancer 17:738–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dubach JM, Vinegoni C, Mazitschek R, Fumene-Feruglio P, Cameron LA, Weissleder R (2014) In vivo imaging of specific drug-target binding at subcellular resolution. Nat Commun 5:3946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dubach JM, Kim E, Yang K, Cuccarese M, Giedt RJ, Meimetis LG, Vinegoni C, Weissleder R (2017) Quantitating drug-target engagement in single cells in vitro and in vivo. Nat Chem Biol 13(2):168–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Durymanov MO, Rosenkranz AA, Sobolev AS (2015) Current approaches for improving intratumoral accumulation and distribution of nanomedicines. Theranostics 5(9):1007–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Finley RS (2003) Overview of targeted therapies for cancer. Am J Health-Syst Pharm 60(9):S4–S10Google Scholar
  14. Fisher R, Pusztai L, Swanton C (2013) Cancer heterogeneity: implications for targeted therapeutics. Br J Cancer 108:479–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Foehrenbacher A, Patel K, Abbattista MR, Guise CP, Secomb TW, Wilson WR, Hicks KO (2013a) The role of bystander effects in the antitumor activity of the hypoxia-activated pro-drug pr-104. Front Oncol 3:263Google Scholar
  16. Foehrenbacher A, Secomb TW, Wilson WR, Hicks KO (2013b) Design of optimized hypoxia-activated prodrugs using pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling. Front Oncol 3:214Google Scholar
  17. Fukumura D, Duda DG, Munn LL, Jain RK (2010) Tumor microvasculature and microenvironment: Novel insights through intravital imaging in pre-clinical models. Microcirculation 17(3):206–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gevertz JL (2011) Computational modeling of tumor response to vascular-targeting therapies, part I: validation. Comput Math Methods Med 2011:ID830515Google Scholar
  19. Huang M, Shen AJ, Ding J, Geng MY (2014) Molecularly targeted cancer therapy: some lessons from the past decade. Trends Pharmacol Sci 35:41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hunter FW, Wouters BG, Wilson WR (2016) Hypoxia-activated prodrugs: paths forward in the era of personalised medicine. Br J Cancer 114:1071–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jain RK, Stylianopoulos T (2010) Delivering nanomedicine to solid tumors. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 7:653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Junttila MR, de Sauvage FJ (2013) Influence of tumour micro-environment heterogeneity on therapeutic response. Nature 501(7467):346–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kanigel-Winner K, Steinkamp MP, Lee RJ, Swat M, Muller CY, Moses ME, Jiang Y, Wilson BS (2016) Spatial modeling of drug delivery routes for treatment of disseminated ovarian cancer. Cancer Res 76(6):1320–1334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Karolak A, Markov DA, McCawley LJ, Rejniak KA (2018) Toward personalized computational oncology: from spatial models of tumor spheroids, to organoids, to tissues. J R Soc Interface 15:20170703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kim M, Gillies RJ, Rejniak KA (2013) Current advances in mathematical modeling of anti-cancer drug penetration into tumor tissues. Front Oncol 3:278Google Scholar
  26. Laughney AM, Kim E, Sprachman MM, Miller MA, Kohler RH, Yang KS, Orth JD, Mitchison TJ, Weissleder R (2014) Single-cell pharmacokinetic imaging reveals a therapeutic strategy to overcome drug resistance to the microtubule inhibitor eribulin. Sci Transl Med 6(261):261ra152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lindsay D, Garvey CM, Mumenthaler SM, Foo J, Komarova NL (2016) Leveraging hypoxia-activated prodrugs to prevent drug resistance in solid tumors. PLoS Comput Biol 12:e1005077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lloyd MC, Rejniak KA, Brown JS, Gatenby RA, Minor E, Bui MM (2015) Pathology to enhance precision medicine in oncology: lessons of landscape ecology. Adv Anat Pathol 22:267–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mallarkey G, Coombes RC (2013) Targeted therapies in medical oncology: successes, failures and next steps. Ther Adv Med Oncol 5(1):5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marusyk A, Almendro V, Polyak K (2012) Intra-tumour heterogeneity: a looking glass for cancer? Nat Rev Cancer 12:323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McKeage MJ, Gu Y, Wilson WR, Hill A, Amies K, Melink TJ, Jameson MB (2011) A phase I trial of PR-104, a pre-prodrug of the bioreductive prodrug PR-104a, given weekly to solid tumour patients. BMC Cancer 11:432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Michor F, Weaver VM (2014) Understanding tissue context influences on intratumour heterogeneity. Nat Cell Biol 16(4):301–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mitchell MJ, Jain RK, Langer R (2017) Engineering and physical sciences in oncology: challenges and opportunities. Nat Rev Cancer 17:659–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Perez-Velazquez J, Gevertz JL, Karolak A, Rejniak KA (2016) Microenvironmental niches and sanctuaries: a route to acquired resistance. Adv Exp Med Biol 936:149–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Phillips RM (2016) Targeting the hypoxic fraction of tumours using hypoxia-activated prodrugs. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 77:441–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Powathil GG, Swat M, Chaplain MA (2015) Systems oncology: towards patient-specific treatment regimes informed by multiscale mathematical modelling. Cancer Biol 30:13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Prasetyanti PR, Medema JP (2017) Intra-tumor heterogeneity from a cancer stem cell perspective. Mol Cancer 16:41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rejniak KA, McCawley LJ (2010) Current trends in mathematical modeling of tumor-microenvironment interactions: a survey of tools and applications. Exp Biol Med 235:411–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rejniak KA, Estrella V, Chen T, Cohen AS, Lloyd MC, Morse DL (2013) The role of tumor tissue architecture in treatment penetration and efficacy: an integrative study. Front Oncol 3:111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rejniak KA, Lloyd MC, Reed DR, Bui MM (2015) Diagnostic assessment of osteosarcoma chemoresistance based on virtual clinical trials. Med Hypotheses 85:348–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robertson-Tessi M, Gillies RJ, Gatenby R, Anderson A (2015) Impact of metabolic heterogeneity on tumor growth, invasion, and treatment outcomes. Cancer Res 75(8):1567–1579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schmidt MM, Wittrup KD (2009) A modeling analysis of the effects of molecular size and binding affinity on tumor targeting. Mol Cancer Ther 8(10):2861–2871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sun JD, Liu Q, Wang J, Ahluwalia D, Ferraro D, Wang Y, Duan JX, Ammons WS, Curd JG, Matteucci MD, Hart CP (2011) Selective tumor hypoxia targeting by hypoxia-activated prodrug TH-302 inhibits tumor growth in preclinical models of cancer. Clin Cancer Res 18(3):758–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tannock IF, Lee CM, Tunggal JK, Cowan DSM, Egorin MJ (2002) Limited penetration of anticancer drugs through tumor tissue: a potential cause of resistance of solid tumors to chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 8(3):878–884Google Scholar
  45. Tellez-Gabriel M, Ory B, Lamoureux F, Heymann MF, Heymann D (2016) Tumour heterogeneity: the key advantages of single-cell analysis. Int J Mol Sci 17:2142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thomas GD, Chappell MJ, Dykes PW, Ramsden DB, Godfrey KR, Ellis JR, Bradwell AR (1989) Effect of dose, molecular size, affinity, and protein binding on tumor uptake of antibody or ligand: a biomathematical model. Cancer Res 49(12):3290–3296Google Scholar
  47. Thurber GM, Yang KS, Reiner T, Kohler RH, Sorger P, Mitchison T, Weissleder R (2013) Single-cell and subcellular pharmacokinetic imaging allows insight into drug action in vivo. Nat Commun 4:1504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thurber GM, Reiner T, Yang KS, Kohler RH, Weissleder R (2014) Effect of small-molecule modification on single-cell pharmacokinetics of PARP inhibitors. Mol Cancer Ther 13(4):986–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tlupova S, Cortez R (2009) Boundary integral solutions of coupled Stokes and Darcy flows. J Comput Phys 228:158–179MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. Vinegoni C, Dubach JM, Thurber GM, Miller MA, Mazitschek R, Weissleder R (2015) Advances in measuring single-cell pharmacology in vivo. Drug Discov Today 20(9):1087–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weiss GJ, Infante JR, Chiorean EG, Borad MJ, Bendell JC, Molina JR, Tibes R, Ramanathan RK, Lewandowski K, Jones SF, Lacouture ME, Langmuir VK, Lee H, Kroll S, Burris HA (2011) Phase 1 study of the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of TH-302, a hypoxia-activated prodrug, in patients with advanced solid malignancies. Clin Cancer Res 17(9):2997–3004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wilson WR, Hay MP (2011) Targeting hypoxia in cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer 11:393–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wilson WR, Hicks KO, Pullen SM, Ferry DM, Helsby NA, Patterson AV (2007) Bystander effects of bioreductive drugs: potential for exploiting pathological tumor hypoxia with dinitrobenzamide mustards. Radiat Res 167:625–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wojtkowiak JW, Cornnell HC, Matsumoto S, Saito K, Takakusagi Y, Dutta P, Kim M, Zhang X, Leos R, Bailey KM, Martinez G, Lloyd MC, Weber C, Mitchell JB, Lynch RM, Baker AF, Gatenby RA, Rejniak KA, Hart C, Krishna MC, Gillies RJ (2015) Pyruvate sensitizes pancreatic tumors to hypoxia-activated prodrug TH-302. Cancer Metab 3:2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yeh JJ, Kim WY (2015) Targeting tumor hypoxia with hypoxia-activated prodrugs. J Clin Oncol 33(13):1505–1508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yu X, Zhang Y, Chen C, Yao Q, Li M (2010) Targeted drug delivery in pancreatic cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta 1805(1):97Google Scholar
  57. Ziemys A, Klemm S, Milosevic M, Yokoi K, Ferrari M, Kojic M (2016) Computational analysis of drug transport in tumor microenvironment as a critical compartment for nanotherapeutic pharmacokinetics. Drug Deliv 23(23):2524–2531Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Mathematical Biology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Integrated Mathematical Oncology DepartmentH. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research InstituteTampaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Oncologic Sciences, Morsani College of MedicineUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations