PURPOSE: Paclitaxel is active and widely used to treat multiple types of solid tumors. The commercially available paclitaxel formulation uses Cremophor/ethanol (C/E) as the solubilizers. Other formulations including nanoparticles have been introduced. This study evaluated the effects of nanoparticle formulation of paclitaxel on its tissue distribution. METHODS: We compared the plasma and tissue pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel-loaded gelatin nanoparticles and the C/E formulation. Mice were given paclitaxel-equivalent doses of 10 mg/kg by intravenous injection. RESULTS: The nanoparticle and C/E formulations showed significant differences in paclitaxel disposition; the nanoparticles yielded 40% smaller area under the blood concentration-time curve and faster blood clearance of total paclitaxel concentrations (sum of free, protein-bound, and nanoparticle-entrapped drug). The two formulations also showed different tissue specificity. The rank order of tissue-to-blood concentration ratios was liver > small intestine > kidney >> large intestine > spleen = stomach > lung > heart for the nanoparticles, and liver > small intestine > large intestine > stomach > lung > or = kidney > spleen > heart for the C/E formulation. The nanoparticles also showed longer retention and higher accumulation in organs and tissues (average of 3.2 +/- 2.3-fold), especially in the liver, small intestine, and kidney. The most striking difference was an 8-fold greater drug accumulation and sustained retention in the kidney. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that formulation of paclitaxel affects its clearance and distribution into tissues, with preferential accumulation of nanoparticles in the liver, spleen, small intestine, and kidney.
PURPOSE:Paclitaxel is active and widely used to treat multiple types of solid tumors. The commercially available paclitaxel formulation uses Cremophor/ethanol (C/E) as the solubilizers. Other formulations including nanoparticles have been introduced. This study evaluated the effects of nanoparticle formulation of paclitaxel on its tissue distribution. METHODS: We compared the plasma and tissue pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel-loaded gelatin nanoparticles and the C/E formulation. Mice were given paclitaxel-equivalent doses of 10 mg/kg by intravenous injection. RESULTS: The nanoparticle and C/E formulations showed significant differences in paclitaxel disposition; the nanoparticles yielded 40% smaller area under the blood concentration-time curve and faster blood clearance of total paclitaxel concentrations (sum of free, protein-bound, and nanoparticle-entrapped drug). The two formulations also showed different tissue specificity. The rank order of tissue-to-blood concentration ratios was liver > small intestine > kidney >> large intestine > spleen = stomach > lung > heart for the nanoparticles, and liver > small intestine > large intestine > stomach > lung > or = kidney > spleen > heart for the C/E formulation. The nanoparticles also showed longer retention and higher accumulation in organs and tissues (average of 3.2 +/- 2.3-fold), especially in the liver, small intestine, and kidney. The most striking difference was an 8-fold greater drug accumulation and sustained retention in the kidney. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that formulation of paclitaxel affects its clearance and distribution into tissues, with preferential accumulation of nanoparticles in the liver, spleen, small intestine, and kidney.
Authors: Nuhad K Ibrahim; Neil Desai; Sewa Legha; Patrick Soon-Shiong; Richard L Theriault; Edgardo Rivera; Bita Esmaeli; Sigrid E Ring; Agop Bedikian; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Julie A Ellerhorst Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: B Damascelli; G Cantù; F Mattavelli; P Tamplenizza; P Bidoli; E Leo; F Dosio; A M Cerrotta; G Di Tolla; L F Frigerio; F Garbagnati; R Lanocita; A Marchianò; G Patelli; C Spreafico; V Tichà; V Vespro; F Zunino Journal: Cancer Date: 2001-11-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: R B Weiss; R C Donehower; P H Wiernik; T Ohnuma; R J Gralla; D L Trump; J R Baker; D A Van Echo; D D Von Hoff; B Leyland-Jones Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1990-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jie Wang; Ze Lu; Junfeng Wang; Minjian Cui; Bertrand Z Yeung; David J Cole; M Guillaume Wientjes; Jessie L-S Au Journal: J Control Release Date: 2015-08-10 Impact factor: 9.776
Authors: Sandra M Axiak-Bechtel; Senthil R Kumar; Kristin K Dank; Nicole A Clarkson; Kim A Selting; Jeffrey N Bryan; Thomas J Rosol; Jahna Espinosa; Charles J Decedue Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2013-09-13 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: Annemieke J M Nieuweboer; Shuiying Hu; Chunshan Gui; Bruno Hagenbuch; Inge M Ghobadi Moghaddam-Helmantel; Alice A Gibson; Peter de Bruijn; Ron H J Mathijssen; Alex Sparreboom Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2014-04-22 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Amy J Chien; Julie A Illi; Andrew H Ko; Wolfgang M Korn; Lawrence Fong; Lee-may Chen; Mohammed Kashani-Sabet; Charles J Ryan; Jonathan E Rosenberg; Sarita Dubey; Eric J Small; Thierry M Jahan; Nola M Hylton; Benjamin M Yeh; Yong Huang; Kevin M Koch; Mark M Moasser Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-08-25 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Zhuang Liu; Kai Chen; Corrine Davis; Sarah Sherlock; Qizhen Cao; Xiaoyuan Chen; Hongjie Dai Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2008-08-15 Impact factor: 12.701