Literature DB >> 16510602

Novel nanoliposomal CPT-11 infused by convection-enhanced delivery in intracranial tumors: pharmacology and efficacy.

Charles O Noble1, Michal T Krauze, Daryl C Drummond, Yoji Yamashita, Ryuta Saito, Mitchel S Berger, Dmitri B Kirpotin, Krystof S Bankiewicz, John W Park.   

Abstract

We hypothesized that combining convection-enhanced delivery (CED) with a novel, highly stable nanoparticle/liposome containing CPT-11 (nanoliposomal CPT-11) would provide a dual drug delivery strategy for brain tumor treatment. Following CED in rat brains, tissue retention of nanoliposomal CPT-11 was greatly prolonged, with >20% injected dose remaining at 12 days for all doses. Tissue residence was dose dependent, with doses of 60 microg (3 mg/mL), 0.8 mg (40 mg/mL), and 1.6 mg (80 mg/mL) resulting in tissue half-life (t(1/2)) of 6.7, 10.7, and 19.7 days, respectively. In contrast, CED of free CPT-11 resulted in rapid drug clearance (tissue t(1/2) = 0.3 day). At equivalent CED doses, nanoliposomal CPT-11 increased area under the time-concentration curve by 25-fold and tissue t(1/2) by 22-fold over free CPT-11; CED in intracranial U87 glioma xenografts showed even longer tumor retention (tissue t(1/2) = 43 days). Plasma levels were undetectable following CED of nanoliposomal CPT-11. Importantly, prolonged exposure to nanoliposomal CPT-11 resulted in no measurable central nervous system (CNS) toxicity at any dose tested (0.06-1.6 mg/rat), whereas CED of free CPT-11 induced severe CNS toxicity at 0.4 mg/rat. In the intracranial U87 glioma xenograft model, a single CED infusion of nanoliposomal CPT-11 at 1.6 mg resulted in significantly improved median survival (>100 days) compared with CED of control liposomes (19.5 days; P = 4.9 x 10(-5)) or free drug (28.5 days; P = 0.011). We conclude that CED of nanoliposomal CPT-11 greatly prolonged tissue residence while also substantially reducing toxicity, resulting in a highly effective treatment strategy in preclinical brain tumor models.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16510602     DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-3535

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Res        ISSN: 0008-5472            Impact factor:   12.701


  57 in total

1.  Investigation of intravenous delivery of nanoliposomal topotecan for activity against orthotopic glioblastoma xenografts.

Authors:  Laura P Serwer; Charles O Noble; Karine Michaud; Daryl C Drummond; Dmitri B Kirpotin; Tomoko Ozawa; Michael D Prados; John W Park; C David James
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2011-09-27       Impact factor: 12.300

Review 2.  Promising approaches to circumvent the blood-brain barrier: progress, pitfalls and clinical prospects in brain cancer.

Authors:  Iason T Papademetriou; Tyrone Porter
Journal:  Ther Deliv       Date:  2015-08-25

Review 3.  Real-time imaging and quantification of brain delivery of liposomes.

Authors:  Michal T Krauze; John Forsayeth; John W Park; Krystof S Bankiewicz
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2006-09-14       Impact factor: 4.200

4.  Intra and inter-molecular interactions dictate the aggregation state of irinotecan co-encapsulated with floxuridine inside liposomes.

Authors:  Awa Dicko; April A Frazier; Barry D Liboiron; Anne Hinderliter; Jeff F Ellena; Xiaowei Xie; Connie Cho; Tom Weber; Paul G Tardi; Donna Cabral-Lilly; David S Cafiso; Lawrence D Mayer
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2008-03-05       Impact factor: 4.200

5.  Safety of real-time convection-enhanced delivery of liposomes to primate brain: a long-term retrospective.

Authors:  Michal T Krauze; Scott R Vandenberg; Yoji Yamashita; Ryuta Saito; John Forsayeth; Charles Noble; John Park; Krystof S Bankiewicz
Journal:  Exp Neurol       Date:  2007-12-27       Impact factor: 5.330

Review 6.  Extravascular use of drug-eluting beads: a promising approach in compartment-based tumor therapy.

Authors:  Simon Binder; Andrew L Lewis; J-Matthias Löhr; Michael Keese
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-11-21       Impact factor: 5.742

7.  Local DNA Repair Inhibition for Sustained Radiosensitization of High-Grade Gliomas.

Authors:  Amanda R King; Christopher D Corso; Evan M Chen; Eric Song; Paul Bongiorni; Zhe Chen; Ranjini K Sundaram; Ranjit S Bindra; W Mark Saltzman
Journal:  Mol Cancer Ther       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 6.261

Review 8.  Nanoparticles for imaging and treating brain cancer.

Authors:  Joseph D Meyers; Tennyson Doane; Clemens Burda; James P Basilion
Journal:  Nanomedicine (Lond)       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 5.307

9.  Local delivery of ferrociphenol lipid nanocapsules followed by external radiotherapy as a synergistic treatment against intracranial 9L glioma xenograft.

Authors:  Emilie Allard; Delphine Jarnet; Anne Vessières; Sandrine Vinchon-Petit; Gérard Jaouen; Jean-Pierre Benoit; Catherine Passirani
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2009-11-12       Impact factor: 4.200

10.  Treatment of glioblastoma using multicomponent silica nanoparticles.

Authors:  O Turan; P A Bielecki; V Perera; M Lorkowski; G Covarrubias; K Tong; A Yun; Georgia Loutrianakis; S Raghunathan; Y Park; T Moon; S Cooley; D Dixit; M A Griswold; K B Ghaghada; P M Peiris; J N Rich; E Karathanasis
Journal:  Adv Ther (Weinh)       Date:  2019-09-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.