Abstract
Irinotecan (CPT-11) is used to treat advanced colorectal cancer as an intravenous therapy. Depending on pH, CPT-11 exists in either a lactone (active) or carboxylate (inactive) form, or both. In this investigation, the feasibility for systemic delivery of CPT-11 through the buccal route was evaluated. Permeation of CPT-11 across porcine buccal mucosa was studied in vitro using side-by-side flow through diffusion cells at 37°C. Experiments were performed over a pH range from 4 to 9, and the permeability of both the lactone and carboxylate forms of CPT-11 was measured. CPT-11 steady state flux was determined over a range of donor concentrations at pH 4 (0.5, 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 mg/ml) and pH 6.8 (0.5, 5, 10 mg/ml). Steady state flux increased linearly with increasing donor concentration of CPT-11 at pH 4 (r 2 = 0.9935) and at pH 6.8 (r 2 = 0.9886). CPT-11 permeability was independent of pH, although the distribution coefficient increased with increasing pH. Estimates of permeability for the lactone and carboxylate forms were 4.16 × 10−5 cm/s and 2.6 × 10−5 cm/s, respectively. These calculated permeability values were in agreement with the in vitro experimental data. Overall, CPT-11 was found to permeate through porcine buccal mucosa via passive diffusion. CPT-11 permeability was independent of pH, suggesting that the compound was transported mainly via a paracellular route. Overall, the results of this research suggest that the buccal route is a potential extravascular mode of delivery for CPT-11.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Saijo N. Preclinical and clinical trials of topoisomerase inhibitors. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2000;922:92–9.
Kunimoto T et al. Antitumor activity of 7-ethyl-10-[4-(1-piperidino)-1-piperidino]carbonyloxy-camptothec in, a novel water-soluble derivative of camptothecin, against murine tumors. Cancer Res. 1987;47(22):5944–7.
Sawada S et al. Synthesis and antitumor activity of 20(S)-camptothecin derivatives: carbamate-linked, water-soluble derivatives of 7-ethyl-10-hydroxycamptothecin. Chem Pharm Bull (Tokyo). 1991;39(6):1446–50.
Luo FR et al. Intestinal transport of irinotecan in Caco-2 cells and MDCK II cells overexpressing efflux transporters Pgp, cMOAT, and MRP1. Drug Metab Dispos. 2002;30(7):763–70.
Mathijssen RH et al. Clinical pharmacokinetics and metabolism of irinotecan (CPT-11). Clin Cancer Res. 2001;7(8):2182–94.
Dodds HM et al. Identification of a new metabolite of CPT-11 (irinotecan): pharmacological properties and activation to SN-38. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1998;286(1):578–83.
Haaz MC et al. Biosynthesis of an aminopiperidino metabolite of irinotecan [7-ethyl-10-[4-(1-piperidino)-1-piperidino]carbonyloxycamptothecine] by human hepatic microsomes. Drug Metab Dispos. 1998;26(8):769–74.
Gupta E et al. Metabolic fate of irinotecan in humans: correlation of glucuronidation with diarrhea. Cancer Res. 1994;54(14):3723–5.
Inaba M et al. Pharmacokinetics of CPT-11 in rhesus monkeys. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1998;41(2):103–8.
Rothenberg ML et al. Phase I and pharmacokinetic trial of weekly CPT-11. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11(11):2194–204.
Chabot GG et al. Population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of irinotecan (CPT-11) and active metabolite SN-38 during phase I trials. Ann Oncol. 1995;6(2):141–51.
Slatter JG et al. Pharmacokinetics, metabolism, and excretion of irinotecan (CPT-11) following I.V. infusion of [(14)C]CPT-11 in cancer patients. Drug Metab Dispos. 2000;28(4):423–33.
Canal P et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of irinotecan during a phase II clinical trial in colorectal cancer. Pharmacology and Molecular Mechanisms Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14(10):2688–95.
Isobe T, Ishikawa N, Oguri T. CPT-11 (irinotecan)—evidence from molecular and pharmacological studies and clinical applications. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 2000;27(8):1267–78.
Rothenberg ML. CPT-11: an original spectrum of clinical activity. Semin Oncol. 1996;23(1 Suppl 3):21–6.
Morise M, Niho S, Umemura S, Matsumoto S, Yoh K, Goto K, et al. Low-dose irinotecan as a second-line chemotherapy for recurrent small cell lung cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2014;44(9):846–51.
Bharthuar A, Saif Ur Rehman S, Black JD, Levea C, Malhotra U, Mashtare TL, et al. Breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP) and excision repair cross complement-1 (ERCC1) expression in esophageal cancers and response to cisplatin and irinotecan based chemotherapy. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2014;5(4):253–58.
Burtness B, Powell M, Catalano P, Berlin J, Liles DK, Chapman AE, et al. Randomized Phase II Trial of Irinotecan/Docetaxel or Irinotecan/Docetaxel Plus Cetuximab for Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study. Am J Clin Oncol. 2014. doi:10.1097/COC.0000000000000068
Sridharan M, Hubbard JM, Grothey A. Colorectal cancer: how emerging molecular understanding affects treatment decisions. Oncology (Williston Park). 2014;28(2): 110–8.
Creemers GJ, Lund B, Verweij J. Topoisomerase I inhibitors: topotecan and irenotecan. Cancer Treat Rev. 1994;20(1):73–96.
Carrillo JA, Munoz CA. Alternative chemotherapeutic agents: nitrosoureas, cisplatin, irinotecan. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2012;23(2):297–306.
Kelly H, Goldberg RM. Systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: current options, current evidence. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(20):4553–60.
Horowitz RW, Wadler S, Wiernik PH. A review of the clinical experience with irinotecan (CPT-11). Am J Ther. 1997;4(5–6):203–10.
Masuda N et al. CPT-11: a new derivative of camptothecin for the treatment of refractory or relapsed small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1992;10(8):1225–9.
Barbounis V et al. Control of irinotecan-induced diarrhea by octreotide after loperamide failure. Support Care Cancer. 2001;9(4):258–60.
Saliba F et al. Pathophysiology and therapy of irinotecan-induced delayed-onset diarrhea in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: a prospective assessment. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(8):2745–51.
Stringer AM et al. Irinotecan-induced mucositis manifesting as diarrhoea corresponds with an amended intestinal flora and mucin profile. Int J Exp Pathol. 2009;90(5):489–99.
Chu XY, Kato Y, Sugiyama Y. Multiplicity of biliary excretion mechanisms for irinotecan, CPT-11, and its metabolites in rats. Cancer Res. 1997;57(10):1934–8.
Pizzolato JF, Saltz LB. The camptothecins. Lancet. 2003;361(9376):2235–42.
Ahmed F et al. In vitro activation of irinotecan to SN-38 by human liver and intestine. Anticancer Res. 1999;19(3A):2067–71.
Gilhotra RM, Ikram M, Srivastava S, Gilhotra N. A clinical perspective on mucoadhesive buccal drug delivery systems. J Biomed Res. 2014;28(2):81–97.
Kobayashi K et al. pH-dependent uptake of irinotecan and its active metabolite, SN-38, by intestinal cells. Int J Cancer. 1999;83(4):491–6.
Ng SF, Rouse JJ, Sanderson FD, Meidan V, Eccleston GM. Validation of a static Franz diffusion cell system for in vitro permeation studies. AAPS Pharm Sci Tech. 2010;11(3):1432–41.
Dahan A, Miller JM. The solubility-permeability interplay and its implications in formulation design and development for poorly soluble drugs. AAPS J. 2012;14(2):244–51.
Avdeef A. Physicochemical profiling (solubility, permeability and charge state). Curr Top Med Chem. 2001;1(4):277–351.
Ghosh TK, Chiao CS, Gokhale RD. In-vitro permeation of some beta-blockers across the hairless mouse skin. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1993;45(3):218–9.
Miller JM, Beig A, Carr RA, Webster GK, Dahan A. The solubility-permeability interplay when using cosolvents for solubilization: revising the way we use solubility-enabling formulations. Mol Pharm. 2012;9(3):581–90.
Garcia-Carbonero R, Supko JG. Current perspectives on the clinical experience, pharmacology, and continued development of the camptothecins. Clin Cancer Res. 2002;8(3):641–61.
Sudhakar Y, Kuotsu K, Bandyopadhyay AK. Buccal bioadhesive drug delivery—a promising option for orally less efficient drugs. J Control Release. 2006;114(1):15–40.
Sugano K, Kansy M, Artursson P, Avdeef A, Bendels S, Di L, et al. Coexistence of passive and carriermediated processes in drug transport. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9(8):597–614.
Senel S, Hincal AA. Drug permeation enhancement via buccal route: possibilities and limitations. J Control Release. 2001;72(1–3):133–44.
Nagahara N, Tavelin S, Artursson P. Contribution of the paracellular route to the pH-dependent epithelial permeability to cationic drugs. J Pharm Sci. 2004;93(12):2972–84.
Renukuntla J, Vadlapudi AD, Patel A, Boddu SH, Mitra AK. Approaches for enhancing oral bioavailability of peptides and proteins. Int J Pharm. 2013;447(1–2):75–93.
Qin SY, Peng MY, Rong L, Li B, Wang SB, Cheng SX, et al. Self-defensive nano-assemblies from camptothecin-based antitumor drugs. Regen Biomater. 2015;2(3)159–66.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring 2016. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2002/20571s16lbl.pdf .Accessed 19 February 2016.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shah, V., Bellantone, R.A. & Taft, D.R. Evaluating the Potential for Delivery of Irinotecan via the Buccal Route: Physicochemical Characterization and In Vitro Permeation Assessment Across Porcine Buccal Mucosa. AAPS PharmSciTech 18, 867–874 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1208/s12249-016-0578-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1208/s12249-016-0578-z