OBJECTIVE: Treosulfan is a prodrug with a specific clinical activity in ovarian carcinoma and other solid tumors. Due to its myeloablative and immunosuppressive effects, its use in conditioning regimens prior to allogeneic stem cell treatment (SCT) has been proposed. In the present preclinical study, myeloablative as well as immunosuppressive properties of treosulfan were compared with those of busulfan and cyclophosphamide. METHODS: Three groups of BALB/c mice were treated with treosulfan, cyclophosphamide, or busulfan at sublethal doses that maintained survival without bone marrow support. The control group was left untreated. At different intervals, colony-forming unit granulocyte macrophage assay was performed on marrow cells. Additionally, immunological analyses were performed using spleen cells. RESULTS: We found that treosulfan and busulfan induced a high and persisting degree of myeloablation, as compared with cyclophosphamide. Moreover, treosulfan was more effective in depletion of splenic B and T cells in comparison with busulfan and cyclophosphamide. Furthermore, T cells isolated from the spleens of treosulfan- or busulfan-treated mice were not responsive to allogeneic cells compared with that observed in controls and cyclophosphamide-treated mice. Treatment with treosulfan induced only interleukin-2 production in spleen cells for a short time and had no significant effect on synthesis of tumor necrosis factor-alpha and/or interferon-gamma as compared with that observed in splenic T cells isolated from mice treated with either busulfan or cyclophosphamide. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that treosulfan possesses both myeloablative and immunosuppressive properties and may be used as a single agent for conditioning prior to bone marrow transplantation.
OBJECTIVE:Treosulfan is a prodrug with a specific clinical activity in ovarian carcinoma and other solid tumors. Due to its myeloablative and immunosuppressive effects, its use in conditioning regimens prior to allogeneic stem cell treatment (SCT) has been proposed. In the present preclinical study, myeloablative as well as immunosuppressive properties of treosulfan were compared with those of busulfan and cyclophosphamide. METHODS: Three groups of BALB/c mice were treated with treosulfan, cyclophosphamide, or busulfan at sublethal doses that maintained survival without bone marrow support. The control group was left untreated. At different intervals, colony-forming unit granulocyte macrophage assay was performed on marrow cells. Additionally, immunological analyses were performed using spleen cells. RESULTS: We found that treosulfan and busulfan induced a high and persisting degree of myeloablation, as compared with cyclophosphamide. Moreover, treosulfan was more effective in depletion of splenic B and T cells in comparison with busulfan and cyclophosphamide. Furthermore, T cells isolated from the spleens of treosulfan- or busulfan-treated mice were not responsive to allogeneic cells compared with that observed in controls and cyclophosphamide-treated mice. Treatment with treosulfan induced only interleukin-2 production in spleen cells for a short time and had no significant effect on synthesis of tumor necrosis factor-alpha and/or interferon-gamma as compared with that observed in splenic T cells isolated from mice treated with either busulfan or cyclophosphamide. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that treosulfan possesses both myeloablative and immunosuppressive properties and may be used as a single agent for conditioning prior to bone marrow transplantation.
Authors: Tanuja L Gutti; Jaclyn S Knibbe; Edward Makarov; Jinjin Zhang; Govardhana R Yannam; Santhi Gorantla; Yimin Sun; David F Mercer; Hiroshi Suemizu; James L Wisecarver; Natalia A Osna; Tatiana K Bronich; Larisa Y Poluektova Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2013-11-06 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Fredrik Sjöö; Ibrahim El-Serafi; Jon Enestig; Jonas Mattsson; Johan Liwing; Moustapha Hassan Journal: Clin Drug Investig Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 2.859
Authors: Belén P Solans; Robert Chiesa; Bilyana Doncheva; Helen Prunty; Paul Veys; Iñaki F Trocóniz; Joseph F Standing Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2020-03-03 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Tapani Ruutu; Liisa Volin; Dietrich W Beelen; Rudolf Trenschel; Juergen Finke; Marc Schnitzler; Jerzy Holowiecki; Sebastian Giebel; Miroslaw Markiewicz; Lutz Uharek; Igor W Blau; Joachim Kienast; Matthias Stelljes; Kajsa Larsson; Axel R Zander; Martin Gramatzki; Roland Repp; Hermann Einsele; Gernot Stuhler; Joachim Baumgart; Heidrun A Mylius; Uwe Pichlmeier; Mathias Freund; Jochen Casper Journal: Haematologica Date: 2011-06-09 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Santhi Gorantla; Edward Makarov; Jennifer Finke-Dwyer; Antonio Castanedo; Adelina Holguin; Catherine L Gebhart; Howard E Gendelman; Larisa Poluektova Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2010-11-18 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: M A Slatter; H Boztug; U Pötschger; K-W Sykora; A Lankester; I Yaniv; P Sedlacek; E Glogova; P Veys; A R Gennery; C Peters Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2015-08-10 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: Heinz Wiendl; Bernd C Kieseier; Robert Weissert; Heidrun A Mylius; Uwe Pichlmeier; Hans-Peter Hartung; Arthur Melms; Wilhelm Kuker; Michael Weller Journal: J Neurol Date: 2007-04-20 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Lauri M Burroughs; Eneida R Nemecek; Troy R Torgerson; Barry E Storer; Julie-An Talano; Jennifer Domm; Roger H Giller; Akiko Shimamura; Colleen Delaney; Suzanne Skoda-Smith; Monica S Thakar; K Scott Baker; David J Rawlings; Janet A Englund; Mary E D Flowers; H Joachim Deeg; Rainer Storb; Ann E Woolfrey Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2014-09-06 Impact factor: 5.742