Skip to main content

Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling and Tissue Distribution Characteristics of SHetA2 in Tumor-Bearing Mice

The AAPS Journal volume 22, Article number: 51 (2020) Cite this article

Abstract

The orally available novel small molecule SHetA2 is the lead sulfur-containing heteroarotinoid that selectively inhibits cancer cells over normal cells, and is currently under clinical development for anticancer treatment and cancer prevention. The objective of this study was to assess and characterize the tissue distribution of SHetA2 in tumor-bearing mice by developing a physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model. An orthotopic SKOV3 ovarian cancer xenograft mouse model was used to most accurately mimic the ovarian cancer tumor microenvironment in the peritoneal cavity. SHetA2 concentrations in plasma and 14 different tissues were measured at various time points after a single intravenous dose of 10 mg/kg and oral dose of 60 mg/kg, and these data were used to develop a whole-body PBPK model. SHetA2 exhibited a multi-exponential plasma concentration decline with an elimination half-life of 4.5 h. Rapid and extensive tissue distribution, which was best described by a perfusion rate–limited model, was observed with the tissue-to-plasma partition coefficients (kp = 1.4–21.2). The PBPK modeling estimated the systemic clearance (76.4 mL/h) from circulation as a main elimination pathway of SHetA2. It also indicated that the amount absorbed into intestine was the major determining factor for the oral bioavailability (22.3%), while the first-pass loss from liver and intestine contributed minimally (< 1%). Our results provide an insight into SHetA2 tissue distribution characteristics. The developed PBPK model can be used to predict the drug exposure at tumors or local sites of action for different dosing regimens and scaled up to humans to correlate with efficacy.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Benbrook DM, Nammalwar B, Long A, Matsumoto H, Singh A, Bunce RA, et al. SHetA2 interference with mortalin binding to p66shc and p53 identified using drug-conjugated magnetic microspheres. Investig New Drugs. 2014;32(3):412–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10637-013-0041-x.

  2. Liu S, Brown CW, Berlin KD, Dhar A, Guruswamy S, Brown D, et al. Synthesis of flexible sulfur-containing heteroarotinoids that induce apoptosis and reactive oxygen species with discrimination between malignant and benign cells. J Med Chem. 2004;47(4):999–1007. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm030346v.

  3. Benbrook DM, Kamelle SA, Guruswamy SB, Lightfoot SA, Rutledge TL, Gould NS, et al. Flexible heteroarotinoids (Flex-Hets) exhibit improved therapeutic ratios as anti-cancer agents over retinoic acid receptor agonists. Investig New Drugs. 2005;23:417–28.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Benbrook DM, Lightfoot S, Ranger-Moore J, Liu T, Chengedza S, Berry WL, et al. Gene expression analysis of biological systems driving an organotypic model of endometrial carcinogenesis and chemoprevention. Gene Regul Syst Biol. 2008;2:21–42.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Masamha CP, Benbrook DM. Cyclin D1 degradation is sufficient to induce G1 cell cycle arrest despite constitutive expression of cyclin E2 in ovarian cancer cells. Cancer Res. 2009;69(16):6565–72. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.can-09-0913.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Guruswamy S, Lighfoot S, Gold MA, Hassan R, Berlin KD, Ivey RT, et al. Effects of retinoids on cancerous phenotype and apoptosis in organotypic cultures of ovarian carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93(7):516–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/93.7.516.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Liu T, Masamha CP, Chengedza S, Berlin KD, Lightfoot S, He F, Benbrook DM. Development of flexible-heteroarotinoids for kidney cancer. Mol Cancer Ther. 2009;8(5):1227–38. https://doi.org/10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-08-1069.

  8. Doppalapudi RS, Riccio ES, Davis Z, Menda S, Wang A, Du N, et al. Genotoxicity of the cancer chemopreventive drug candidates CP-31398, SHetA2, and phospho-ibuprofen. Mutat Res. 2012;746(1):78–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrgentox.2012.03.009.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Mic FA, Molotkov A, Benbrook DM, Duester G. Retinoid activation of retinoic acid receptor but not retinoid X receptor is sufficient to rescue lethal defect in retinoic acid synthesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100(12):7135–40. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231422100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Kabirov KK, Kapetanovic IM, Benbrook DM, Dinger N, Mankovskaya I, Zakharov A, et al. Oral toxicity and pharmacokinetic studies of SHetA2, a new chemopreventive agent, in rats and dogs. Drug Chem Toxicol. 2013;36(3):284–95. https://doi.org/10.3109/01480545.2012.710632.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Benbrook DM, Guruswamy S, Wang Y, Sun Z, Mohammed A, Zhang Y, et al. Chemoprevention of colon and small intestinal tumorigenesis in APC(min/+) mice by SHetA2 (NSC721689) without toxicity. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2013;6(9):908–16. https://doi.org/10.1158/1940-6207.capr-13-0171.

  12. Zhang Y, Hua Y, Benbrook DM, Covey JM, Dai G, Liu Z, et al. High performance liquid chromatographic analysis and preclinical pharmacokinetics of the heteroarotinoid antitumor agent, SHetA2. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2006;58(5):561–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-006-0211-z.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sharma A, Benbrook DM, Woo S. Pharmacokinetics and interspecies scaling of a novel, orally-bioavailable anti-cancer drug, SHetA2. PLoS One. 2018;13(4):e0194046. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194046.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Jones HM, Chen Y, Gibson C, Heimbach T, Parrott N, Peters SA, et al. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling in drug discovery and development: a pharmaceutical industry perspective. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2015;97(3):247–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ibrahim M, Hatipoglu MK, Garcia-Contreras L. SHetA2 dry powder aerosols for tuberculosis: formulation, design, and optimization using quality by design. Mol Pharm. 2018;15(1):300–13. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.7b01062.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sharma A, Thavathiru E, Benbrook DM, Woo S. Bioanalytical method development and validation of HPLCUV assay for the quantification of SHetA2 in mouse and human plasma: application to pharmacokinetics study. J Pharmaceut Technol Drug Res. 2017;6(1):2. https://doi.org/10.7243/2050-120X-6-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Brown RP, Delp MD, Lindstedt SL, Rhomberg LR, Beliles RP. Physiological parameter values for physiologically based pharmacokinetic models. Toxicol Ind Health. 1997;13(4):407–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/074823379701300401.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gerlowski LE, Jain RK. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling: principles and applications. J Pharm Sci. 1983;72(10):1103–27.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Davies B, Morris T. Physiological parameters in laboratory animals and humans. Pharm Res. 1993;10(7):1093–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Liu Z, Zhang Y, Hua YF, Covey JM, Benbrook DM, Chan KK. Metabolism of a sulfur-containing heteroarotionoid antitumor agent, SHetA2, using liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2008;22(21):3371–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcm.3744.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Pawaskar DK, Straubinger RM, Fetterly GJ, Hylander BH, Repasky EA, Ma WW, et al. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic models for everolimus and sorafenib in mice. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2013;71(5):1219–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-013-2116-y.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Laurence T, Baxter HZ, Mackensen DG, Jain RK. Physiologicaly based pharmacokinetic model for specific and nonspecific monoclonal antibodies and fragments in normal tisues and human tumor xenografts in nude mice. Cancer Res. 1994;54:1517–28.

    Google Scholar 

  23. D'Argenio DZ, Schumitzky A, Wang X. ADAPT 5 User’s guide: pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic systems analysis software. Los Angeles: Biomedical Simulations Resource; 2009.

  24. Banerjee AK, Frost S, Frost K, Thomas S, Metcalfe P, Kapetanovic IM, et al. Development of more bioavailable orally absorbed chemopreventive agents from leads derived from natural sources Potential challenges. Presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Society of Toxicology, March 7–11, 2010, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. 2010.

  25. Plowchalk DR, Andersen ME, Bogdanffy MS. Physiologically based modeling of vinyl acetate uptake, metabolism, and intracellular pH changes in the rat nasal cavity. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1997;142(2):386–400. https://doi.org/10.1006/taap.1996.8052.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cheng H, Staubus AE, Shum L. An area function method for estimating the apparent absorption rate constant. Pharm Res. 1988;5(1):57–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Davda JP, Jain M, Batra SK, Gwilt PR, Robinson DH. A physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model to characterize and predict the disposition of monoclonal antibody CC49 and its single chain Fv constructs. Int Immunopharmacol. 2008;8(3):401–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intimp.2007.10.023.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Baxter LT, Zhu H, Mackensen DG, Jain RK. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for specific and nonspecific monoclonal antibodies and fragments in normal tissues and human tumor xenografts in nude mice. Cancer Res. 1994;54(6):1517–28.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kim SG, Ackerman JJ. Quantitative determination of tumor blood flow and perfusion via deuterium nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy in mice. Cancer Res. 1988;48(12):3449–53.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rogers W, Edlich RF, Aust JB. Tumor blood flow. II. Distribution of blood flow in experimental tumors. Angiology. 1969;20(7):374–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/000331976902000702.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Liu S, Zhou G, Lo SNH, Louie M, Rajagopalan V. SHetA2, a new cancer-preventive drug candidate. Anti-cancer Drugs: Nature, Synthesis and Cell 2016;67.

  32. Shugarts S, Benet LZ. The role of transporters in the pharmacokinetics of orally administered drugs. Pharm Res. 2009;26(9):2039–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-009-9924-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Sigurdsson HH, Kirch J, Lehr CM. Mucus as a barrier to lipophilic drugs. Int J Pharm. 2013;453(1):56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2013.05.040.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Steinkamp M, Kanigel-Winner K, Davies S, Muller C, Zhang Y, Shirinifard A, et al. Ovarian tumor attachment, invasion, and vascularization reflect unique microenvironments in the peritoneum: insights from xenograft and mathematical models. Front Oncol. 2013;3:97. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2013.00097.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Liu T, Hannafon B, Gill L, Kelly W, Benbrook D. Flex-Hets differentially induce apoptosis in cancer over normal cells by directly targeting mitochondria. Mol Cancer Ther. 2007;6(6):1814–22. https://doi.org/10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-06-0279.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to Dr. Anil Sood, MD Anderson Cancer Center, for providing the SKOV3-luc cells.

Funding

This work was made possible in part by the College of Pharmacy, Stephenson Cancer Center Gynecologic Cancer Program, and NIH R01s (1R01CA196200 and 1R01CA200126).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy, The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA

    Ankur Sharma, Mengjie Li, Mariam Ibrahim, Lucila Garcia-Contreras & Sukyung Woo

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA

    Elangovan Thavathiru & Doris M Benbrook

  3. Peggy and Charles Stephenson Cancer Center, The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA

    Doris M Benbrook & Sukyung Woo

Authors
  1. Ankur Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mengjie Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elangovan Thavathiru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mariam Ibrahim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lucila Garcia-Contreras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Doris M Benbrook
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sukyung Woo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Participated in research design: Sharma, Woo, and Benbrook

Conducted experiments: Sharma, Thavathiru, Ibrahim, Woo, and Benbrook

Contributed new reagents or analytical tools: Sharma, Woo, and Benbrook

Performed data analysis: Sharma, Li, and Woo

Wrote or contributed to the writing of the manuscript: Sharma, Li, Ibrahim, and Woo

Reviewed and edited the writing of the manuscript: Sharma, Li, Thavathiru, Ibrahim, Garcia-Contreras, Woo, and Benbrook

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sukyung Woo.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic Supplementary Material

ESM 1

(DOCX 544 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sharma, A., Li, M., Thavathiru, E. et al. Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling and Tissue Distribution Characteristics of SHetA2 in Tumor-Bearing Mice. AAPS J 22, 51 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-020-0421-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-020-0421-z

KEY WORDS

  • PBPK model
  • SHetA2
  • tissue distribution