Schedule-dependent drug effects of oral 5-iodo-2-pyrimidinone-2'-deoxyribose as an in vivo radiosensitizer in U251 human glioblastoma xenografts.

PURPOSE: 5-Iodo-2-pyrimidinone-2'-deoxyribose (IPdR) is an oral prodrug of 5-iodo-2'-deoxyuridine (IUdR), an in vitro/in vivo radiosensitizer. IPdR can be rapidly converted to IUdR by a hepatic aldehyde oxidase. Previously, we found that the enzymatic conversion of IPdR to IUdR could be transiently reduced using a once daily (q.d.) treatment schedule and this may affect IPdR-mediated tumor radiosensitization. The purpose of this study is to measure the effect of different drug dosing schedules on tumor radiosensitization and therapeutic index in human glioblastoma xenografts. EXPERIMENTAL
DESIGN: Three different IPdR treatment schedules (thrice a day, t.i.d.; every other day, q.o.d.; every 3rd day, q.3.d.), compared with a q.d. schedule, were analyzed using athymic nude mice with human glioblastoma (U251) s.c. xenografts. Plasma pharmacokinetics, IUdR-DNA incorporation in tumor and normal proliferating tissues, tumor growth delay following irradiation, and body weight loss were used as end points.
RESULTS: The t.i.d. schedule with the same total daily doses as the q.d. schedule (250, 500, or 1,000 mg/kg/d) improved the efficiency of IPdR conversion to IUdR. As a result, the percentage of IUdR-DNA incorporation was higher using the t.i.d. schedule in the tumor xenografts as well as in normal small intestine and bone marrow. Using a fixed dose (500 mg/kg) per administration, the q.o.d. and q.3.d. schedules also showed greater IPdR conversion than the q.d. schedule, related to a greater recovery of hepatic aldehyde oxidase activity prior to the next drug dosing. In the tumor regrowth assay, all IPdR treatment schedules showed significant increases of regrowth delays compared with the control without IPdR (q.o.d., 29.4 days; q.d., 29.7 days; t.i.d., 34.7 days; radiotherapy alone, 15.7 days). The t.i.d. schedule also showed a significantly enhanced tumor growth delay compared with the q.d. schedule. Additionally, the q.o.d. schedule resulted in a significant reduction in systemic toxicity.
CONCLUSIONS: The t.i.d. and q.o.d. dosing schedules improved the efficiency of enzymatic activation of IPdR to IUdR during treatment and changed the extent of tumor radiosensitization and/or systemic toxicity compared with a q.d. dosing schedule. These dosing schedules will be considered for future clinical trials of IPdR-mediated human tumor radiosensitization.