Advertisement

Drug Safety

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 367–387 | Cite as

A Risk-Benefit Assessment of Amifostine in Cytoprotection

  • May Mabro
  • Sandrine Faivre
  • Eric Raymond
Review Article

Abstract

Recent advances in chemotherapy have focused on the benefit of high dose regimens, increasing the dose intensity of conventional chemotherapy and using intensified chemotherapy with or without autologous bone marrow rescue. Dose intensity usually increases objective response rates of antineoplastic drugs and might, in some circumstances, improves survival. However, unacceptable acute and/or cumulative toxicity often impairs the proper management of patients, leading to dose reduction or treatment delay, thus reducing the efficacy and potentially the quality of life of patients. Therefore, considerable efforts have been made to manage, to prevent, and to delay many acute and cumulative treatment-related toxicities.

Amifostine (WR-2721) is a multiorgan cytoprotector which has demonstrated cytoprotective effects, in vitro and in vivo, against the most common cytotoxic drug-related toxicities and against radiation-induced adverse effects in healthy tissues. In vitro and in vivo, cytoprotection was observed in several organs including kidney, haematopoietic stem cells, myocardial cells, neural cells, and mucosa, without detectable protection of malignant cells. In addition, in preclin-ical studies, amifostine appeared to be able to reduce the risk of radiation-induced secondary neoplasms. Phase I studies showed that nausea/vomiting and hypotension are the dose-limiting toxicities of amifostine and these may be controlled by reducing the duration of injection of amifostine. Phase II and randomised studies have confirmed the efficacy of amifostine in protecting against radiotherapy-induced mucositis, cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity, cyclophosphamide-induced neutropenia and carboplatin-induced thrombocytopenia. Importantly, the cytoprotection of healthy tissues occurred without any significant deleterious effect on response rate, time to progression, and survival of patients receiving amifostine.

However, in addition to the potential quality of life benefit, the most important question of whether the use of a cytoprotective agent might translate into the possibility of maintaining the dose intensity of anticancer therapies has still to be answered. The real benefit of amifostine in the overall management of patients with cancer requires additional studies to determine whether this chemoprotective approach can be of benefit to patients by increasing response rate, time to progression, and long term survival in patients receiving the more recent combination therapies involving new drugs such as the taxanes and oxaliplatin.

Keywords

Adis International Limited Carboplatin Clin Oncol Small Cell Lung Cancer Amifostine 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Schuchter LM, Meropol N, Glick JH. Radiation and chemotherapy protectors. In: De Vita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, editors. Cancer principles and practice of oncology. 5th ed. Philadelphia, New York: Lippincott-Raven, 3087–92Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Speyer JL, Green MD, Kramer E, et al. Protective effect of the bispiperazinedione ICRF-187 against doxorubicin-induced cardiac toxicity in women with advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1988; 319: 745–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Speyer JL, Green MD, Zeleniuch-Jacquotte A, et al. ICRF-187 permits longer treatment with doxorubicin in women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1992; 10: 117–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yuhas JM, Storer JB. Differential chemoprotection of normal and malignant tissues. J Nat Cancer Inst 1969; 42: 331–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Utley JF, Marlowe C, Waddell WJ. Distribution of 35S-labeled WR-2721 in normal and malignant tissues of the mouse. Radiat Res 1976; 68: 284–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Utley JF, Seaver N, Newton GL, et al. Pharmacokinetics of WR-1065 in mouse tissue following treatment with WR-2721. Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phys 1984; 10: 1525–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yuhas JM. Active versus passive absorption kinetics as the basis for selective protection of normal tissues by S-2-(3-aminopropylamino)-ethylphosphorothioic acid. Cancer Res 1980; 41: 1519–24Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Calabro-Jones PM, Fahey RC, Smoluk GD, et al. Alkaline phosphatase promotes radioprotection and accumulation of WR-1065 in V79-171 cells incubated in medium containing WR-2721. Int J Rad Biol 1985; 47: 23–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Calabro-Jones PM, Aguilera JA, Ward JF, et al. Uptake of WR-2721 derivatives by cells in culture: identification of the transported form of the drug. Cancer Res 1988; 48: 3634–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yang JL, Fernandes DJ, Speicher L, et al. Biochemical determinants of the cytoprotective effect of amifostine [abstract]. Proc Annu Meet Am Assoc Cancer Res 1995; 36: A1725Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fichtner I, Lemm M, Becker M, et al. Effects of amifostine (WR-2721, ethyol) on tumor growth and pharmacology of cytotoxic drugs in human xenotransplanted neuroblastomas. Anticancer Drugs 1997; 8: 174–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shaw LM, Turrisi AT, Glover DJ, et al. Human pharmacokinetics of WR-2721. Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phys 1986; 12: 1501–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Treskes M, Nijtmans LG, Fichtinger-Schepman AM, et al. Effects of the modulating agent WR-2721 and its main metabolites on the formation and stability of cisplatin-DNA adduct in vitro in comparison to the effect of thiosulfate and diethyldithiocarbamate. Biochem Pharmacol 1992; 43: 1013–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Treskes M, Boven E, Holwerda U, et al. Time dependence of the selective modulation of cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity by WR2721 in the mouse. Cancer Res 1992; 52: 2257–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Korst AEC, Boven E, van der Sterre MLT, et al. Influence of single and multiple dose of amifostine on the efficacy and the pharmacokinetics of carboplatin in mice. Br J Cancer 1997; 75: 1439–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Korst AEC, van der Sterre MLT, Gall HE, et al. Influence of amifostine on the pharmacokinetics of cisplatin in cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 1998; 4: 331–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Korst AEC, van der Sterre MLT, Eeltink CN, et al. Pharmacokinetics of carboplatin with and without amifostine in patients with solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res 1997; 3: 697–703PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van der Vijgh WJ, Stieltjes H, Dijkstra RJ, et al. Influence of amifostine (Ethyol) on the pharmacokinetics of epirubicin [abstract]. Proc Annu Meet Am Assoc Cancer Res 1997; 38: A18Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schuller J, Czejka M, Pietrzak C, et al. Doxorubicin pharmacokinetics is altered by the cytoprotective agent amifostine [abstract]. Proc Annu Meet Am Assoc Cancer Res 1996; 37: A1221Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thompson DC, Holbrook DJ, Chaney SG. Effects of WR-2721 on ormaplatin biotransformations in tumor-bearing Fisher 344 rats [abstract]. Proc Annu Meet Am Assoc Cancer Res 1995; 36: A2386Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thompson DC, Holbrook DJ, Chaney SG. HPLC characterization of organ-specific biotransformation of ormaplatin in tumor-bearing rats protected with WR-2721 [abstract]. Proc Annu Meet Am Assoc Cancer Res 1994; 35: A2621Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yuhas JM, Spellman JM, Jordan SW, et al. Treatment of tumors with the combination of WR-2721 and cisdichlorodiamineplatinum or cyclophosphamide. Br J Cancer 1980; 42; 574–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yuhas JM, Spellman JM, Culo F. The role of WR-2721 in radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. Cancer Clin Trials 1980; 3: 211–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yuhas JM. Differential protection of normal and malignant tissues against the cytotoxic effects of mechlorethamine. Cancer Treat Rep 1979; 63: 971–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Valeriote F, Tolen S. Protection and potentiation of nitrogen mustard cytotoxicity by WR-2721. Cancer Res 1982; 42: 4330–1PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Treskes M, Boven E, van de Loosdrecht AA, et al. Effects of the modulating agent WR2721 on myelotoxicity and antitumor activity in carboplatin-treated mice. Eur J Cancer 1994; 30A: 183–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Taylor CW, Wang LM, List AF, et al. Amifostine protects normal tissues from paclitaxel toxicity while cytotoxicity against tumor cells is maintained. Eur J Cancer 1997; 33: 1693–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wittenkeller J, Bittner G, Schiller JH. Amifostine (WR-2721) enhances cisplatin/vinblastine effect on non-small cell lung carcinoma cells in vivo but not in vitro [abstract]. Proc Annu Meet Am Assoc Cancer Res 1994; 35: A2298Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dunn TA, Schmol HJ, Grünwald V, et al. Amifostine does not alter the antitumor activity of cisplatin in a pre-clinical model of testicular cancer. Anticancer Drugs 1996; 7: 795–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Alberts DS, Speicher LA, Krutzsch M, et al. WR-1065, the active metabolite of amifostine (Ethyol), does not inhibit the cytotoxic effects of a broad range of standard anticancer drugs against human ovarian and breast cancer cells. Eur J Cancer 1996; 32A Suppl. 4: 17–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fulda S, Oster W, Berthold F. Effects of WR-2721 (amifostine) and its metabolite WR-1065 on the antiproliferative activity of chemotherapeutic agents on neuroblastoma cells in vitro. Anticancer Drugs 1997; 8: 34–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kemp G, Rose P, Lurain J, et al. Amifostine pre-treatment for protection against cyclophosphamide-induced and cisplatin-induced toxicities: results of a randomized control trial in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 2101–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Budd GT, Ganapathi R, Adelstein DJ, et al. Randomized trial of carboplatin plus amifostine versus carboplatin alone in patients with advanced solid tumors. Cancer 1997; 80: 1134–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Anderson H, Mercer V, Thatcher N. A phase III randomised trial of carboplatin and amifostine versus carboplatin and G-CSF in patients with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), [abstract]. Proc Annu Meet Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998; 17: A1787Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Betticher DC, Anderson H, Ranson M, et al. Carboplatin combined with amifostine, a bone marrow protectant, in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomised phase II study. Br J Cancer 1995; 72: 1551–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Glover D, Glick JH, Weiler C, et al. WR-2721 protects against the hematologic toxicity of cyclophosphamide: a controlled phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 1986; 4: 584–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Aviles A, Diaz-Maqueo JC, Talavera A, et al. Bone marrow protection with amifostine in the treatment of high risk malignant lymphoma. Eur J Cancer 1997; 33: 1323–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Brizel D, Sauer R, Wannenmacher M, et al. Randomized phase III trial of radiation ± amifostine in patients with head and neck cancer [abstract]. Proc Annu Meet Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998; 17: A1487Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Büntzel J, Schuth J, Küttner K, et al. Radiochemotherapy with amifostine cytoprotection for head and neck cancer. Support Care Cancer 1998; 6: 155–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Liu T, Liu Y, He S, et al. Use of radiation with or without WR-2721 in advanced rectal cancer. Cancer 1992; 69: 2820–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Poplin EA, LoRusso P, Lokich JJ, et al. Randomized clinical trial of mitomycin-C with or without pretreatment with WR-2721 in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1994; 33: 415–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Planting AS, Vermorken JB, Catimel G, et al. Randomized phase II study of weekly cisplatin with or without amifostine in patients with head and neck cancer [abstract]. Proc Annu Meet Am Soc Clin Oncol 1996; 15: A887Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Turrisi AT, Glover DJ, Hurwitz S, et al. Final report of the phase I trial of single dose WR-2721, S-2-(aminopropylamino) ethylphosphorothioic acid. Cancer Treat Rep 1986; 70: 1389–93PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wadler S, Beitler JJ, Rubin JS, et al. Pilot trial of cisplatin, radiation, and WR-2721 in carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a New York Gynecologic Group Study. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11: 1511–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Klastersky J, Sculier JP, Ravez P, et al. A randomized study comparing a high and a standard dose of cisplatin in combination with etoposide in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1986; 4: 1780–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gandara DR, Crowley J, Livingston RB, et al. Evaluation of cisplatin in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III study of the Southwest Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11: 873–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sculier JP, Klastersky J, Giner V, et al. Phase II randomized trial comparing high-dose cisplatin with moderate-dose cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 1994; 12: 353–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hayes DM, Cvitkovic E, Golbey RB, et al. High dose cis-platinum diammine dichloride: amelioration of renal toxicity by mannitol diuresis. Cancer 1977; 39: 1372–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dentino M, Luft FC, Nahm Yum M, et al. Long term effect of cis-diamminedichloride platinum on renal function and structure in man. Cancer 1978; 41: 1274–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Fjeldborg P, Sorensen J, Helkjaer PE. The long term effect of cisplatin on renal function. Cancer 1986; 58: 2214–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Glover D, Glick JH, Weiler C, et al. WR-2721 and high dose cisplatin: an active combination in the treatment of metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol 1987; 5: 574–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Capizzi RL, Scheffler BS, Oster W, et al. Amifostine reduces cumulative cisplatin nephrotoxicty [abstract]. Eur J Cancer 1995; 31A Suppl. 5: S123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Schiller JH, Storer B, Berlin J, et al. Amifostine, cisplatin, and vinblastine in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: a report of high response rates and prolonged survival. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 1913–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Tannehil SP, Mehta MP, Larson M, et al. Effect of amifostine on toxicities associated with sequential chemotherapy and radiation therapy for unresectable non-small cell lung cancer: results of a phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 2850–7Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Breier S, Lebedinsky C, Peleryest L, et al. Amifostine, cisplatin and vinorelbine in non-small cell lung cancer [abstract]. Proc Annu Meet Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997; 16: A1664Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Demchak PA, Mier JW, Robert BJ, et al. Intereukin-2 and high-dose cisplatin in patients with metastatic melanoma: a pilot study. J Clin Oncol 1991; 9: 1821–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    De la Garza SJ. Cisplatin, radiotherapy, and amifostine (WR-2721) in advanced and previously untreated cervival cancer: phase II study [abstract]. Proc Annu Meet Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997; 16: A1317Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wasserman TH, Phillips TL, Ross G, et al. Differential protection against cytotoxic chemotherapeutic effects on bone marrow CFUs by WR-2721. Cancer Clin Trial 1981; 4: 3–6Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    List AF, Heaton R, Glinsman-Gibson B. Amifostine is a potent stimulant of hematopoietic progenitors [abstract]. Proc Annu Meet Am Assoc Cancer Res 1995; 36: A1732Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    List AF, Heaton R, Glinsmann-Gibson B, et al. Amifostine stimulates formation of multipotent progenitors and generates macroscopic colonies in normal and myelodysplastic bone marrow [abstract]. Proc Annu Meet Am Soc Clin Oncol 1996; 15: A1403Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Bokemeyer C, Hartmann JT, Fels L, et al. Amifostine protects against early cisplatin-induced renal damage and enhances CD34+ cell numbers for PBSC collection [abstract]. Proc Annu Meet Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997; 16: A166Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wooley PV, Ayoob MJ, Smith FP, et al. Clinical trial of the effect of S-2-(3-aminopropylamino)-ethylphosphorothioic acid (WR-2721) (NSC 296961) on the toxicity of cyclophosphamide. J Clin Oncol 1983; 1: 198–203Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    List AF, Brasfield F, Heaton R, et al. Stimulation of hematopoiesis by amifostine in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome. Blood 1997; 90: 3364–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Vandenberghe EA, Goldstone AH. Autologous stem cell transplants in lymphomas. Ann Med 1996; 28(2): 137–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Douay L, Hu C, Giarratana MC, et al. Comparative effects of amifostine (Ethyol) on normal hematopoietic stem cells versus human leukemic cells during ex vivo purging in autologous bone marrow transplants. Semin Oncol 1994; 21 Suppl. 11: 16–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Douay L, Hu C, Giarratana MC, et al. Amifostine improves the antileukemic therapeutic index of mafosfamide: implications for bone marrow purging. Blood 1995; 86: 2849–55PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Shpall EJ, Stemmer SM, Hami L, et al. Amifostine (WR-2721) shortens the engraftment period of 4-hydroperoxycyclophosphamide-purged bone marrow in breast cancer patients receiving high dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow support. Blood 1994; 83: 3132–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Van der Hoop RG, van der Burg MEL, ten Bokkel Huinink WW, et al. Incidence of neuropathy in 395 patients with ovarian cancer treated with or without cisplatin. Cancer 1990; 66: 1697–702PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Mollmann JE, Glover DJ, Hogan WM, et al. Cisplatin neuropathy. Risk factors, prognosis, and protection by WR-2721. Cancer 1988; 61: 2192–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Mitchell RB. Amifostine to ameliorate the neurotoxicity of carboplatin/paclitaxel for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer [abstract]. Proc Annu Meet Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998; 17: A1906Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Gelmon K, Tomiak E, Tolcher A, et al. Randomized trial of high dose paclitaxel plus/minus amifostine in recurrent breast cancer: a study of the NCIC Clinical Trials Group [abstract]. Proc Annu Meet Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998; 17: A546Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    McDonald S, Meyerowitz C, Smudzin T, et al. Preliminary results of a pilot study using WR-2721 before fractionated irradiation of the head and neck to reduce salivary gland dysfunction. Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phys 1994; 29: 747–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Büntzel J, Glatzel M, Fröhlich D, et al. Intensification of radiochemotherapy with amifostine in head and neck cancer [abstract]. Proc Annu Meet Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998; 17: A1555Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Kataoka Y, Basic I, Perrin J, et al. Antimutagenic effects of radioprotector WR-2721 against fission-spectrum neurons and 60Co gamma-rays in mice. Int J Radiat Biol 1992; 61: 387–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Kataoka Y, Perrin J, Hunter N, et al. Antimutagenic effects of amifostine: clinical implications. Semin Oncol 1996; 4 Suppl. 8: 53–7Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Grdina DJ, Shigematsu N, Dale P, et al. Thiol and disulfide metabolites of the radiation protector and potential chemopreventive agent WR-2721 are linked to both its anti-cytotoxic and anti-mutagenic mechanisms of action. Carcinogenesis 1995; 16: 767–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Liu SC, Murley JS, Woloschak G, et al. Repression of c-myc gene expression by the thiol and disulfide forms of the cytoprotector amifostine. Carcinogenesis 1997; 18: 2457–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Bennett CL, Golub RM, Calhoun EA, et al. Cost-utility assessment of amifostine as first-line therapy for ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 1998; 8: 64–72Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département de Médecine Interne et d’OncologieHôpital Saint AntoineParisFrance
  2. 2.Department of MedicineInstitut Gustave-RoussyVillejuif CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations