PURPOSE: The source of the pharmacokinetic variability of 9-nitrocamptothecin (9NC) and its 9-aminocamptothecin (9AC) metabolite is unknown. ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporters have been reported to modulate camptothecin analogues, are associated with camptothecin resistance, and might also affect 9NC and 9AC pharmacokinetics. The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional consequence of known single nucleotide polymorphisms in the transporter genes ABCB1, ABCC2, and ABCG2 on the pharmacokinetic disposition of 9NC and 9AC. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Pharmacokinetic and genotyping studies were performed in 55 patients as part of two phase I studies of 9NC in patients with refractory solid tumors, a phase II study of 9NC in patients with advanced colon cancer, and a study evaluating the disposition of 9NC after administration of a single dose under fasting conditions. DNA was isolated from plasma and analyzed for variants in ABCB1, ABCC2, and ABCG2 genes. The ABCB1 1236C>T (n = 43), ABCB1 2677G>T/A (n = 43), ABCB1 3435C>T (n = 43), ABCC2 3972C>T (n = 39), and ABCG2 421C>A (n = 42) variants were analyzed using Pyrosequencing. RESULTS: The ABCG2 421C>A genotype significantly affected the pharmacokinetics of 9AC. The mean 9AC lactone AUC/dose for wild-type (n = 25) and heterozygous (n = 2) patients were 14.3 ng/mL x h and 51.1 ng/mL x h, respectively (P = 0.032). The mean +/- SD 9AC total AUC/dose for wild-type (n = 39) and heterozygous (n = 3) patients were 91.9 +/- 78.3 ng/mL x h and 129.0 +/- 90.5 ng/mL x h, respectively (P = 0.40). 9NC and 9AC disposition were not significantly influenced by variants in ABCB1, ABCC2, and ABCG2, and ABCB1 and ABCC2, respectively (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that inter-individual variability in 9AC disposition, but not 9NC, may be influenced, in part, by ABCG2 genotype. In contrast, there was no evidence for a relationship between ABCG2 and the disposition of 9NC, or for relationships between ABCB1 and ABCC2 genotypes and the disposition of 9NC or 9AC.
PURPOSE: The source of the pharmacokinetic variability of 9-nitrocamptothecin (9NC) and its 9-aminocamptothecin (9AC) metabolite is unknown. ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporters have been reported to modulate camptothecin analogues, are associated with camptothecin resistance, and might also affect 9NC and 9AC pharmacokinetics. The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional consequence of known single nucleotide polymorphisms in the transporter genes ABCB1, ABCC2, and ABCG2 on the pharmacokinetic disposition of 9NC and 9AC. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Pharmacokinetic and genotyping studies were performed in 55 patients as part of two phase I studies of 9NC in patients with refractory solid tumors, a phase II study of 9NC in patients with advanced colon cancer, and a study evaluating the disposition of 9NC after administration of a single dose under fasting conditions. DNA was isolated from plasma and analyzed for variants in ABCB1, ABCC2, and ABCG2 genes. The ABCB1 1236C>T (n = 43), ABCB1 2677G>T/A (n = 43), ABCB1 3435C>T (n = 43), ABCC2 3972C>T (n = 39), and ABCG2 421C>A (n = 42) variants were analyzed using Pyrosequencing. RESULTS: The ABCG2 421C>A genotype significantly affected the pharmacokinetics of 9AC. The mean 9AC lactone AUC/dose for wild-type (n = 25) and heterozygous (n = 2) patients were 14.3 ng/mL x h and 51.1 ng/mL x h, respectively (P = 0.032). The mean +/- SD 9AC total AUC/dose for wild-type (n = 39) and heterozygous (n = 3) patients were 91.9 +/- 78.3 ng/mL x h and 129.0 +/- 90.5 ng/mL x h, respectively (P = 0.40). 9NC and 9AC disposition were not significantly influenced by variants in ABCB1, ABCC2, and ABCG2, and ABCB1 and ABCC2, respectively (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that inter-individual variability in 9AC disposition, but not 9NC, may be influenced, in part, by ABCG2 genotype. In contrast, there was no evidence for a relationship between ABCG2 and the disposition of 9NC, or for relationships between ABCB1 and ABCC2 genotypes and the disposition of 9NC or 9AC.
Authors: Nadja E Schoemaker; Ron A A Mathôt; Patrick Schöffski; Hilde Rosing; Jan H M Schellens; Jos H Beijnen Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2002-11-05 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: E A Natelson; B C Giovanella; C F Verschraegen; K M Fehir; P D De Ipolyi; N Harris; J S Stehlin Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 1996-12-13 Impact factor: 5.691
Authors: P Schöffski; A Herr; J B Vermorken; J Van den Brande; J H Beijnen; H Rosing; J Volk; A Ganser; S Adank; H J Botma; J Wanders Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Floris A de Jong; Sharon Marsh; Ron H J Mathijssen; Cristi King; Jaap Verweij; Alex Sparreboom; Howard L McLeod Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2004-09-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: C M F Kruijtzer; J H Beijnen; H Rosing; W W ten Bokkel Huinink; M Schot; R C Jewell; E M Paul; J H M Schellens Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-07-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Robert W Robey; Kenneth K K To; Orsolya Polgar; Marius Dohse; Patricia Fetsch; Michael Dean; Susan E Bates Journal: Adv Drug Deliv Rev Date: 2008-12-16 Impact factor: 15.470
Authors: Erin R Gardner; Christoph M Ahlers; Suneet Shukla; Tristan M Sissung; Sandra B Ockers; Douglas K Price; Akinobu Hamada; Robert W Robey; Seth M Steinberg; Suresh V Ambudkar; William L Dahut; William D Figg Journal: BJU Int Date: 2008-08-14 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Mark F Rosenberg; Zsolt Bikadi; Eszter Hazai; Tobias Starborg; Lawrence Kelley; Naomi E Chayen; Robert C Ford; Qingcheng Mao Journal: Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr Date: 2015-07-31
Authors: T D Nguyen; S Markova; W Liu; J M Gow; R M Baldwin; M Habashian; M V Relling; M J Ratain; D L Kroetz Journal: Pharmacogenomics J Date: 2012-06-05 Impact factor: 3.550