BACKGROUND: Reduced CYP2D6 metabolism and low Z-endoxifen (ENDX) concentrations may increase the risk of breast cancer recurrence in tamoxifen (TAM)-treated women. Little is known regarding the differences between TAM and ENDX murine pharmacokinetics or the effect of administration route on plasma concentrations of each drug. METHODS: The pharmacokinetics of TAM and ENDX were characterized in female mice. RESULTS: For subcutaneous [s.c.] and oral TAM (4, 10 and 20 mg/kg), TAM AUC increased in a linear manner, but concentrations of the active metabolites [ENDX and 4-hydroxytamoxifen (4HT)] remained low. For oral TAM (20 mg), 4HT concentrations were tenfold greater (>25 ng/ml) than achievable in TAM-treated humans. Both oral (10-200 mg/kg) and s.c. (2.5-25 mg/kg) ENDX·HCl resulted in a greater than dose-proportional increase in AUC, with eightfold greater ENDX concentrations than an equivalent TAM dose. ENDX accumulated in plasma after 5-day dosing of 25 or 100 mg/kg ENDX·HCl and exceeded target concentrations of 0.1 and 1.0 μM, respectively, by twofold to fourfold. CONCLUSIONS: In murine models, oral ENDX yields substantially higher ENDX concentrations, compared to TAM. The low 4HT and ENDX concentrations observed in mice receiving s.c. TAM mirror the TAM pharmacokinetics in humans with impaired CYP2D6 metabolism. These data support the ongoing development of ENDX as a novel agent for the endocrine treatment of ER-positive breast cancer.
BACKGROUND: Reduced CYP2D6 metabolism and low Z-endoxifen (ENDX) concentrations may increase the risk of breast cancer recurrence in tamoxifen (TAM)-treated women. Little is known regarding the differences between TAM and ENDX murine pharmacokinetics or the effect of administration route on plasma concentrations of each drug. METHODS: The pharmacokinetics of TAM and ENDX were characterized in female mice. RESULTS: For subcutaneous [s.c.] and oral TAM (4, 10 and 20 mg/kg), TAM AUC increased in a linear manner, but concentrations of the active metabolites [ENDX and 4-hydroxytamoxifen (4HT)] remained low. For oral TAM (20 mg), 4HT concentrations were tenfold greater (>25 ng/ml) than achievable in TAM-treated humans. Both oral (10-200 mg/kg) and s.c. (2.5-25 mg/kg) ENDX·HCl resulted in a greater than dose-proportional increase in AUC, with eightfold greater ENDX concentrations than an equivalent TAM dose. ENDX accumulated in plasma after 5-day dosing of 25 or 100 mg/kg ENDX·HCl and exceeded target concentrations of 0.1 and 1.0 μM, respectively, by twofold to fourfold. CONCLUSIONS: In murine models, oral ENDX yields substantially higher ENDX concentrations, compared to TAM. The low 4HT and ENDX concentrations observed in mice receiving s.c. TAM mirror the TAM pharmacokinetics in humans with impaired CYP2D6 metabolism. These data support the ongoing development of ENDX as a novel agent for the endocrine treatment of ER-positive breast cancer.
Authors: T E Mürdter; W Schroth; L Bacchus-Gerybadze; S Winter; G Heinkele; W Simon; P A Fasching; T Fehm; M Eichelbaum; M Schwab; H Brauch Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2011-03-30 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Vered Stearns; Michael D Johnson; James M Rae; Alan Morocho; Antonella Novielli; Pankaj Bhargava; Daniel F Hayes; Zeruesenay Desta; David A Flockhart Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2003-12-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Inna Y Gong; Wendy A Teft; Justin Ly; Yung-Hsiang Chen; Bruno Alicke; Richard B Kim; Edna F Choo Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-04-19 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Mahmud Hasan; Mohamed Akmal Marzouk; Saugat Adhikari; Thomas D Wright; Benton P Miller; Margarite D Matossian; Steven Elliott; Maryl Wright; Madlin Alzoubi; Bridgette M Collins-Burow; Matthew E Burow; Ulrike Holzgrabe; Darius P Zlotos; Robert E Stratford; Paula A Witt-Enderby Journal: Mol Pharmacol Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 4.436
Authors: Karen M Schweikart; Sandy R Eldridge; Stephanie L Safgren; Toufan Parman; Joel M Reid; Matthew M Ames; Matthew P Goetz; Myrtle A Davis Journal: Toxicol Pathol Date: 2014-03-26 Impact factor: 1.902
Authors: Alexis M Ceasrine; Nelmari Ruiz-Otero; Eugene E Lin; David N Lumelsky; Erica D Boehm; Rejji Kuruvilla Journal: Endocrinology Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 4.736
Authors: Emily J Koubek; Andrew T Ralya; Thomas R Larson; Renee M McGovern; Sarah A Buhrow; Joseph M Covey; Alex A Adjei; Naoko Takebe; Matthew M Ames; Matthew P Goetz; Joel M Reid Journal: J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2022-04-19 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Kelly A Rogers; Sarah E Moreno; Laurie A Smith; Hervé Husson; Nikolay O Bukanov; Steven R Ledbetter; Yeva Budman; Yuefeng Lu; Bing Wang; Oxana Ibraghimov-Beskrovnaya; Thomas A Natoli Journal: Physiol Rep Date: 2016-06
Authors: Paul Chen; Saifuddin Sheikh; Ateeq Ahmad; Shoukath M Ali; Moghis U Ahmad; Imran Ahmad Journal: Cell Mol Biol Lett Date: 2018-01-03 Impact factor: 5.787
Authors: Hannah M Jahn; Carmen V Kasakow; Andreas Helfer; Julian Michely; Alexei Verkhratsky; Hans H Maurer; Anja Scheller; Frank Kirchhoff Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Matthew P Goetz; Vera J Suman; Joel M Reid; Don W Northfelt; Michael A Mahr; Andrew T Ralya; Mary Kuffel; Sarah A Buhrow; Stephanie L Safgren; Renee M McGovern; John Black; Travis Dockter; Tufia Haddad; Charles Erlichman; Alex A Adjei; Dan Visscher; Zachary R Chalmers; Garrett Frampton; Benjamin R Kipp; Minetta C Liu; John R Hawse; James H Doroshow; Jerry M Collins; Howard Streicher; Matthew M Ames; James N Ingle Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-08-30 Impact factor: 50.717