Literature DB >> 11320672

Impact of carrier solutions on pharmacokinetics of intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

S R Pestieau1, K J Schnake, O A Stuart, P H Sugarbaker.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In the treatment of gastrointestinal malignancies with dissemination to peritoneal surfaces the principal advantage of intraperitoneal chemotherapy over intravenous chemotherapy is the high drug concentration achieved locally with low systemic toxicity. This advantage can be optimized by maintaining a large area of contact between the chemotherapy solution and the surfaces within the abdomen and pelvis over a prolonged time period. Using a rat model we compared the pharmacokinetics of two drugs infused intraperitoneally, 5-fluorouracil and gemcitabine, in five different carrier solutions.
METHODS: A total of 120 Sprague Dawley rats were randomized into groups according to the carrier solution and the drug administered. Rats were given a single dose of intraperitoneal 5-fluorouracil (20 mg/kg) or gemcitabine (12.5 mg/kg) in 0.1 ml/g body weight of each carrier solution. The carrier solutions used varied in their tonicity (0.3%, 0.9% or 3% sodium chloride), or were isotonic and varied in molecular weight (0.9% sodium chloride, 4% icodextrin and 6% hetastarch). With the hypotonic, isotonic and hypertonic sodium chloride solutions, only 5-fluorouracil was used. Each group was further randomized according to the intraperitoneal dwell period (1, 3 or 6 h). At the end of the procedure the rats were killed, the peritoneal fluid was withdrawn completely and the blood was sampled using a standardized protocol. The volume of the peritoneal fluid was recorded, and the drug concentrations in the peritoneal fluid and plasma were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography.
RESULTS: Measurements of peritoneal fluid volume showed a more rapid clearance of hypotonic and isotonic sodium chloride solutions from the peritoneal cavity as compared to hypertonic sodium chloride and high molecular weight solutions. When comparing the remaining intraperitoneal volumes at 6 h, the differences were statistically significant for both 5-fluorouracil and gemcitabine when hetastarch (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.0004) and icodextrin (P = 0.002 and 0.008) were compared with isotonic sodium chloride solution. Similarly, there was a significant difference in the volumes recorded at 6 h when hypotonic (P < 0.0001) and isotonic sodium chloride solutions (P = 0.0002) were compared with hypertonic sodium chloride solution. The concentrations of chemotherapy in the different carrier solutions varied little. The total amount of drug in the peritoneal cavity decreased with all solutions and more quickly with 5-fluorouracil than with gemcitabine. There was a significant difference in the total intraperitoneal 5-fluorouracil between hypotonic and isotonic sodium chloride solutions at 1 h (P = 0.0003) and 3 h (P = 0.0043), as well as between the isotonic and hypertonic sodium chloride solutions at 1 h (P = 0.03) and 3 h (P < 0.0001). Similarly, there was a significant difference in the total peritoneal gemcitabine at 6 h between icodextrin and isotonic sodium chloride solution (P = 0.01) and between hetastarch and isotonic sodium chloride solution (P = 0.05). There were no significant differences in plasma 5-fluorouracil and plasma gemcitabine concentrations obtained with the five solutions.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings show that the clearance of 5-fluorouracil and gemcitabine from the peritoneal cavity can be significantly modified by varying the tonicity or the molecular weight of the carrier solution. Peritoneal fluid clearance was slower with hypertonic sodium chloride and high molecular weight solutions and this resulted in a reduced clearance of chemotherapy. By using a high molecular weight carrier solution the exposure of intraperitoneal cancer cells to gemcitabine was prolonged and drug availability at the peritoneal surface was increased. Similarly, by using a hypertonic carrier solution the exposure to 5-fluorouracil was prolonged and drug availability at the peritoneal surface was also increased.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11320672     DOI: 10.1007/s002800000214

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol        ISSN: 0344-5704            Impact factor:   3.333


  10 in total

1.  A pharmacological review on intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal malignancy.

Authors:  Tristan D Yan; Christopher Qian Cao; Stine Munkholm-Larsen
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2010-02-15

2.  HIPEC Methodology and Regimens: The Need for an Expert Consensus.

Authors:  Aditi Bhatt; Ignace de Hingh; Kurt Van Der Speeten; Martin Hubner; Marcello Deraco; Naoual Bakrin; Laurent Villeneuve; Shigeki Kusamura; Olivier Glehen
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-06-17       Impact factor: 5.344

3.  Pharmacologic rationale for treatments of peritoneal surface malignancy from colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Paul H Sugarbaker; Kurt Van der Speeten; O Anthony Stuart
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2010-01-15

4.  Pharmacokinetics and tissue distribution of intraperitoneal 5-fluorouracil with a novel carrier solution in rats.

Authors:  Zhi-Gang Wei; Guo-Xin Li; Xiang-Cheng Huang; Li Zhen; Jiang Yu; Hai-Jun Deng; Shan-Hua Qing; Ce Zhang
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-04-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 5.  Chemotherapy for intraperitoneal use: a review of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy and early post-operative intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

Authors:  Martin D Goodman; Sarah McPartland; Danielle Detelich; Muhammad Wasif Saif
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2016-02

6.  Safety of perioperative hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy with gemcitabine in patients with resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a pilot study of the clinical trial EudraCT 2016-004298-41.

Authors:  David Padilla-Valverde; Esther García-Santos; Susana Sanchez; Carmen Manzanares; Marta Rodriguez; Lucia González; Alfonso Ambrós; Juana M Cano; Leticia Serrano; Raquel Bodoque; Teresa Vergara; Jesus Martin
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2021-04

Review 7.  Using pharmacologic data to plan clinical treatments for patients with peritoneal surface malignancy.

Authors:  Kurt Van der Speeten; Oswald Anthony Stuart; Paul H Sugarbaker
Journal:  Curr Drug Discov Technol       Date:  2009-03

Review 8.  Optimization of drug delivery systems for intraperitoneal therapy to extend the residence time of the chemotherapeutic agent.

Authors:  L De Smet; W Ceelen; J P Remon; C Vervaet
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2013-03-25

9.  A Comparison of Intravenous plus Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy with Intravenous Chemotherapy Alone for the Treatment of Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Sheng Yang; Rui Feng; Zhang-Chi Pan; Tao Jiang; Qian Xu; Qiang Chen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-07-29       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 10.  Early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for lower gastrointestinal neoplasms with peritoneal metastasis: a systematic review and critical analysis.

Authors:  Mikael L Soucisse; Winston Liauw; Gabrielle Hicks; David L Morris
Journal:  Pleura Peritoneum       Date:  2019-10-04
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.