BACKGROUND: Liposomal drug packaging is well established as an effective means for increasing drug half-life, sustaining drug activity, and increasing drug efficacy, whether administered locally or distally to the site of disease. However, information regarding the relative effectiveness of peripheral (distal) versus local administration of liposomal therapeutics is limited. This issue is of importance with respect to the treatment of central nervous system cancer, for which the blood-brain barrier presents a significant challenge in achieving sufficient drug concentration in tumors to provide treatment benefit for patients. METHODS: We compared the anti-tumor activity and efficacy of a nanoliposomal formulation of irinotecan when delivered peripherally by vascular route with intratumoral administration by convection-enhanced delivery (CED) for treating intracranial glioblastoma xenografts in athymic mice. RESULTS: Our results show significantly greater anti-tumor activity and survival benefit from CED of nanoliposomal irinotecan. In 2 of 3 efficacy experiments, there were animal subjects that experienced apparent cure of tumor from local administration of therapy, as indicated by a lack of detectable intracranial tumor through bioluminescence imaging and histopathologic analysis. Results from investigating the effectiveness of combination therapy with nanoliposomal irinotecan plus radiation revealed that CED administration of irinotecan plus radiation conferred greater survival benefit than did irinotecan or radiation monotherapy and also when compared with radiation plus vascularly administered irinotecan. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that liposomal formulation plus direct intratumoral administration of therapeutic are important for maximizing the anti-tumor effects of irinotecan and support clinical trial evaluation of this therapeutic plus route of administration combination.
BACKGROUND: Liposomal drug packaging is well established as an effective means for increasing drug half-life, sustaining drug activity, and increasing drug efficacy, whether administered locally or distally to the site of disease. However, information regarding the relative effectiveness of peripheral (distal) versus local administration of liposomal therapeutics is limited. This issue is of importance with respect to the treatment of central nervous system cancer, for which the blood-brain barrier presents a significant challenge in achieving sufficient drug concentration in tumors to provide treatment benefit for patients. METHODS: We compared the anti-tumor activity and efficacy of a nanoliposomal formulation of irinotecan when delivered peripherally by vascular route with intratumoral administration by convection-enhanced delivery (CED) for treating intracranial glioblastoma xenografts in athymic mice. RESULTS: Our results show significantly greater anti-tumor activity and survival benefit from CED of nanoliposomal irinotecan. In 2 of 3 efficacy experiments, there were animal subjects that experienced apparent cure of tumor from local administration of therapy, as indicated by a lack of detectable intracranial tumor through bioluminescence imaging and histopathologic analysis. Results from investigating the effectiveness of combination therapy with nanoliposomal irinotecan plus radiation revealed that CED administration of irinotecan plus radiation conferred greater survival benefit than did irinotecan or radiation monotherapy and also when compared with radiation plus vascularly administered irinotecan. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that liposomal formulation plus direct intratumoral administration of therapeutic are important for maximizing the anti-tumor effects of irinotecan and support clinical trial evaluation of this therapeutic plus route of administration combination.
Authors: Ryuta Saito; Michal T Krauze; Charles O Noble; Daryl C Drummond; Dmitri B Kirpotin; Mitchel S Berger; John W Park; Krystof S Bankiewicz Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2006-05-24 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Yoji Yamashita; Michal T Krauze; Tomohiro Kawaguchi; Charles O Noble; Daryl C Drummond; John W Park; Krystof S Bankiewicz Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2006-10-03 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Caterina Giannini; Jann N Sarkaria; Atsushi Saito; Joon H Uhm; Evanthia Galanis; Brett L Carlson; Mark A Schroeder; C David James Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: R H Bobo; D W Laske; A Akbasak; P F Morrison; R L Dedrick; E H Oldfield Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 1994-03-15 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Christoph Mamot; John B Nguyen; Micheal Pourdehnad; Piotr Hadaczek; Ryuta Saito; John R Bringas; Daryl C Drummond; Keelung Hong; Dmitri B Kirpotin; Tracy McKnight; Mitchel S Berger; John W Park; Krys S Bankiewicz Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Ajay Pandita; Kenneth D Aldape; Gelareh Zadeh; Abhijit Guha; C David James Journal: Genes Chromosomes Cancer Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 5.006
Authors: Michal T Krauze; Charles O Noble; Tomohiro Kawaguchi; Daryl Drummond; Dmitri B Kirpotin; Yoji Yamashita; Erika Kullberg; John Forsayeth; John W Park; Krystof S Bankiewicz Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2007-07-24 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Jonathan B Bell; Frank D Eckerdt; Kristen Alley; Lisa P Magnusson; Hridi Hussain; Yingtao Bi; Ahmet Dirim Arslan; Jessica Clymer; Angel A Alvarez; Stewart Goldman; Shi-Yuan Cheng; Ichiro Nakano; Craig Horbinski; Ramana V Davuluri; C David James; Leonidas C Platanias Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2016-06-30 Impact factor: 5.852