BACKGROUND: Rodent studies are a vital step in the development of novel anticancer therapeutics and are used in pharmacokinetic (PK), toxicology, and efficacy studies. Traditionally, anticancer drug development has relied on xenograft implantation of human cancer cell lines in immunocompromised mice for efficacy screening of a candidate compound. The usefulness of xenograft models for efficacy testing, however, has been questioned, whereas genetically engineered mouse models (GEMMs) and orthotopic syngeneic transplants (OSTs) may offer some advantages for efficacy assessment. A critical factor influencing the predictability of rodent tumor models is drug PKs, but a comprehensive comparison of plasma and tumor PK parameters among xenograft models, OSTs, GEMMs, and human patients has not been performed. METHODS: In this work, we evaluated the plasma and tumor dispositions of an antimelanoma agent, carboplatin, in patients with cutaneous melanoma compared with four different murine melanoma models (one GEMM, one human cell line xenograft, and two OSTs). RESULTS: Using microdialysis to sample carboplatin tumor disposition, we found that OSTs and xenografts were poor predictors of drug exposure in human tumors, whereas the GEMM model exhibited PK parameters similar to those seen in human tumors. CONCLUSIONS: The tumor PKs of carboplatin in a GEMM of melanoma more closely resembles the tumor disposition in patients with melanoma than transplanted tumor models. GEMMs show promise in becoming an improved prediction model for intratumoral PKs and response in patients with solid tumors.
BACKGROUND: Rodent studies are a vital step in the development of novel anticancer therapeutics and are used in pharmacokinetic (PK), toxicology, and efficacy studies. Traditionally, anticancer drug development has relied on xenograft implantation of humancancer cell lines in immunocompromised mice for efficacy screening of a candidate compound. The usefulness of xenograft models for efficacy testing, however, has been questioned, whereas genetically engineered mouse models (GEMMs) and orthotopic syngeneic transplants (OSTs) may offer some advantages for efficacy assessment. A critical factor influencing the predictability of rodent tumor models is drug PKs, but a comprehensive comparison of plasma and tumor PK parameters among xenograft models, OSTs, GEMMs, and humanpatients has not been performed. METHODS: In this work, we evaluated the plasma and tumor dispositions of an antimelanoma agent, carboplatin, in patients with cutaneous melanoma compared with four different murinemelanoma models (one GEMM, one human cell line xenograft, and two OSTs). RESULTS: Using microdialysis to sample carboplatintumor disposition, we found that OSTs and xenografts were poor predictors of drug exposure in humantumors, whereas the GEMM model exhibited PK parameters similar to those seen in humantumors. CONCLUSIONS: The tumor PKs of carboplatin in a GEMM of melanoma more closely resembles the tumor disposition in patients with melanoma than transplanted tumor models. GEMMs show promise in becoming an improved prediction model for intratumoral PKs and response in patients with solid tumors.
Authors: J G Morrison; P White; S McDougall; J W Firth; S G Woolfrey; M A Graham; D Greenslade Journal: J Pharm Biomed Anal Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 3.935
Authors: N E Sharpless; N Bardeesy; K H Lee; D Carrasco; D H Castrillon; A J Aguirre; E A Wu; J W Horner; R A DePinho Journal: Nature Date: 2001-09-06 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: M J Egorin; D A Van Echo; S J Tipping; E A Olman; M Y Whitacre; B W Thompson; J Aisner Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1984-11 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: William C Zamboni; Anne C Gervais; Merrill J Egorin; Jan H M Schellens; Elleanor G Zuhowski; Dick Pluim; Erin Joseph; Deborah R Hamburger; Peter K Working; Gail Colbern; Margaret E Tonda; Douglas M Potter; Julie L Eiseman Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2003-12-12 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Hashmat Sikder; David L Huso; Hong Zhang; Binghe Wang; Byungwoo Ryu; Sam T Hwang; Jonathan D Powell; Rhoda M Alani Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Marianna B Ruzinova; Rebecca A Schoer; William Gerald; James E Egan; Pier Paolo Pandolfi; Shahin Rafii; Katia Manova; Vivek Mittal; Robert Benezra Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Christopher C DuFort; Kathleen E DelGiorno; Markus A Carlson; Ryan J Osgood; Chunmei Zhao; Zhongdong Huang; Curtis B Thompson; Robert J Connor; Christopher D Thanos; J Scott Brockenbrough; Paolo P Provenzano; Gregory I Frost; H Michael Shepard; Sunil R Hingorani Journal: Biophys J Date: 2016-05-10 Impact factor: 4.033
Authors: Christin E Burd; Wenjin Liu; Minh V Huynh; Meriam A Waqas; James E Gillahan; Kelly S Clark; Kailing Fu; Brit L Martin; William R Jeck; George P Souroullas; David B Darr; Daniel C Zedek; Michael J Miley; Bruce C Baguley; Sharon L Campbell; Norman E Sharpless Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2014-09-24 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: Andrew J Madden; Sumit Rawal; Katie Sandison; Ryan Schell; Allison Schorzman; Allison Deal; Lan Feng; Ping Ma; Russell Mumper; Joseph DeSimone; William C Zamboni Journal: J Nanopart Res Date: 2014-11-01 Impact factor: 2.253
Authors: Marc P Kai; Amanda W Keeler; Jillian L Perry; Kevin G Reuter; J Christopher Luft; Sara K O'Neal; William C Zamboni; Joseph M DeSimone Journal: J Control Release Date: 2015-03-03 Impact factor: 9.776
Authors: Marc P Kai; Hailey E Brighton; Catherine A Fromen; Tammy W Shen; J Christopher Luft; Yancey E Luft; Amanda W Keeler; Gregory R Robbins; Jenny P Y Ting; William C Zamboni; James E Bear; Joseph M DeSimone Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2015-12-02 Impact factor: 15.881
Authors: Robert E Hurst; Paul J Hauser; Youngjae You; Lora C Bailey-Downs; Anja Bastian; Stephen M Matthews; Jessica Thorpe; Christine Earle; Lilly Y W Bourguignon; Michael A Ihnat Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-05-14 Impact factor: 4.430