Advertisement

Neuro-Oncology pp 209-211 | Cite as

Rabbit Brain Concentrations of Doxorubicin During Intraarterial Infusions

  • Samuel J. Hassenbusch
Part of the Developments in Oncology book series (DION, volume 66)

Abstract

This study was undertaken to evaluate hydrophilic antitumor agents administered in intraarterial (IA) infusions. Brain distributions of doxorubicin (Adriamycin, ADR) after IA infusions were determined in rabbit VX-2 brain tumor model. With right carotid infusions of ADR (8 rabbits), tumor center concentrations averaged 3.3 ± 1.42 μg/g (mean ± 1 SE), concentrations at least 100 times greater than in vitro inhibitory concentrations (IC50) of ADR for human gliomas. ADR concentrations in brain-around-tumor averaged 2.43 ± 0.81 μg/g, but were only 0.104 ± 0.019 μg/g in non-tumor-bearing hemisphere. In 15 rabbits with VX-2 brain tumors, carotid artery infusions of ADR increased mean survival times by 20.9 ± 8.3%. These findings are supported by animal study using IA infusions of ADR after hyperosmotic blood-brain barrier (BBB) disruption and study in brain tumor patients using IA infusions of ADR. These results show that significant amounts of relatively non-lipophilic drugs, with IA infusions, can penetrate brain tumor areas but still spare normal areas from toxic drug exposure.

Keywords

Brain Tumor Patient Glioma Cell Sensitivity Carotid Artery Flow Microculture Tetrazolium Assay Brain Tumor Chemotherapy 
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.
    Alley, M.C., Scudiero, D.A., Monks, A., et al. (1988) ‘Feasibility of drug screening with panels of human tumor cell lines using a microculture tetrazolium assay’, Cancer Res. 48, 589–601.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blum, R.H. and Carter, S.K. (1974) ‘Adriamycin. A new anticancer drug with significant clinical activity’, Ann. Intern. Med. 80, 249–259.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Collins, J.M. (1984) ‘Pharmacologic rationale for regional drug delivery’, J. Clin. Oncol. 2, 498–504.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nakazawa, S., Itoh, Y., Shimura, T., et al. (1983) ‘New management of brain neoplasms’, No Shinkei Geka 11, 821–827.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Neuwelt, E.A., Pagel, M., Barnett, P., et al. (1981) ‘Pharmacology and toxicity of intracarotid adriamycin administration following osmotic blood-brain barrier modification’, Cancer Res. 41, 4466–4470.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sakai, N., Kondo, H., Shikinami, A., et al. (1984) ‘Postoperative treatment for malignant intracranial tumors – especially concerning intermittent intra-carotid administration of adriamycin’, No Shinkei Geka 12(3 Suppl), 237–243.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samuel J. Hassenbusch
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryThe Cleveland Clinic FoundationClevelandU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations