PURPOSE: Evaluation of vascular disruptive activity in orthotopic models as potential surrogate biomarkers of tumor response to the microtubule-stabilizing agent patupilone. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Mice bearing metastatic B16/BL6 melanoma and rats bearing mammary BN472 tumors received vehicle or efficacious patupilone doses (4 and 0.8-1.5 mg/kg i.v., respectively). Tumor vascularity assessment by dynamic contrast-enhanced or dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance imaging and interstitial fluid pressure (IFP) occurred at baseline, 2 days (mice and rats), and 6 days (rats) after treatment and were compared with histologic measurements and correlated with tumor response. RESULTS: In B16/BL6 metastases, patupilone (4 mg/kg) induced a 21 +/- 5% decrease (P < 0.001) in tumor blood volume and a 32 +/- 15% decrease (P = 0.02) in IFP after 2 days and reduced tumor growth and vessel density (>42%) after 2 weeks (P < or = 0.014). Patupilone dose-dependently inhibited BN472 tumor growth (day 6) and reduced IFP on days 2 and 6 (-21% to -70%), and the percentage change in IFP correlated (P < 0.01) with the change in tumor volume. In both models, histology and vascular casts confirmed decreases in tumor blood volume. One patupilone (0.8 mg/kg) administration decreased (P < 0.01) tumor IFP (54 +/- 4%), tumor blood volume (50 +/- 6%), and vessel diameter (40 +/- 11%) by day 6 but not the apparent diffusion coefficient, whereas histology showed that apoptosis was increased 2.4-fold and necrosis was unchanged. Apoptosis correlated negatively (P < 0.001) with IFP, tumor blood volume, and tumor volume, whereas tumor blood volume and IFP were correlated positively (P = 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Vascular disruptive effects of patupilone were detected in situ using dynamic contrast-enhanced or dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance imaging and IFP. Changes in IFP preceded and correlated with tumor response, suggesting that IFP may be a surrogate biomarker for patupilone efficacy.
PURPOSE: Evaluation of vascular disruptive activity in orthotopic models as potential surrogate biomarkers of tumor response to the microtubule-stabilizing agent patupilone. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:Mice bearing metastatic B16/BL6 melanoma and rats bearing mammary BN472 tumors received vehicle or efficacious patupilone doses (4 and 0.8-1.5 mg/kg i.v., respectively). Tumor vascularity assessment by dynamic contrast-enhanced or dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance imaging and interstitial fluid pressure (IFP) occurred at baseline, 2 days (mice and rats), and 6 days (rats) after treatment and were compared with histologic measurements and correlated with tumor response. RESULTS: In B16/BL6 metastases, patupilone (4 mg/kg) induced a 21 +/- 5% decrease (P < 0.001) in tumor blood volume and a 32 +/- 15% decrease (P = 0.02) in IFP after 2 days and reduced tumor growth and vessel density (>42%) after 2 weeks (P < or = 0.014). Patupilone dose-dependently inhibited BN472 tumor growth (day 6) and reduced IFP on days 2 and 6 (-21% to -70%), and the percentage change in IFP correlated (P < 0.01) with the change in tumor volume. In both models, histology and vascular casts confirmed decreases in tumor blood volume. One patupilone (0.8 mg/kg) administration decreased (P < 0.01) tumor IFP (54 +/- 4%), tumor blood volume (50 +/- 6%), and vessel diameter (40 +/- 11%) by day 6 but not the apparent diffusion coefficient, whereas histology showed that apoptosis was increased 2.4-fold and necrosis was unchanged. Apoptosis correlated negatively (P < 0.001) with IFP, tumor blood volume, and tumor volume, whereas tumor blood volume and IFP were correlated positively (P = 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Vascular disruptive effects of patupilone were detected in situ using dynamic contrast-enhanced or dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance imaging and IFP. Changes in IFP preceded and correlated with tumor response, suggesting that IFP may be a surrogate biomarker for patupilone efficacy.
Authors: Thomas E Yankeelov; Martin Lepage; Anuradha Chakravarthy; Elizabeth E Broome; Kenneth J Niermann; Mark C Kelley; Ingrid Meszoely; Ingrid A Mayer; Cheryl R Herman; Kevin McManus; Ronald R Price; John C Gore Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2006-11-21 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Kyrre E Emblem; Christian T Farrar; Elizabeth R Gerstner; Tracy T Batchelor; Ronald J H Borra; Bruce R Rosen; A Gregory Sorensen; Rakesh K Jain Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2014-08-12 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Michael Honer; Thomas Ebenhan; Peter R Allegrini; Simon M Ametamey; Mike Becquet; Catherine Cannet; Heidi A Lane; Terence M O'Reilly; Pius A Schubiger; Melanie Sticker-Jantscheff; Michael Stumm; Paul Mj McSheehy Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2010-08-01 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Christoph Oehler; André O von Bueren; Polina Furmanova; Angela Broggini-Tenzer; Katrin Orlowski; Stefan Rutkowski; Karl Frei; Michael A Grotzer; Martin Pruschy Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2011-07-09 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: T Baumgart; G Klautke; S Kriesen; S A Kuznetsov; D G Weiss; R Fietkau; G Hildebrandt; K Manda Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-01-12 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Patrick A Ott; Anne Hamilton; Amanda Jones; Naomi Haas; Tsiporah Shore; Sandra Liddell; Paul J Christos; L Austin Doyle; Michael Millward; Franco M Muggia; Anna C Pavlick Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-01-20 Impact factor: 3.240