Hannah Yejin Kim1, Gareth J Veal2, Fanfan Zhou3, Alan V Boddy3. 1. School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. hkim0212@uni.sydney.edu.au. 2. Northern Institute of Cancer Research, Newcastle University, Newcastle, Tyne, UK. 3. School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Actinomycin D is used for treatment of paediatric cancers; however, a large inter-patient pharmacokinetic (PK) variability and hepatotoxicity are significant limitations to its use and warrant further investigation. Elimination of actinomycin D may be mediated by transporters, as the drug does not seem to undergo significant metabolism. We investigated the role of solute carrier (SLC) transporters in actinomycin D PK. METHODS: Fourteen key SLCs were screened through probe substrate uptake inhibition by actinomycin D in HEK293 cells. Uptake of actinomycin D was further studied in candidate SLCs by measuring intracellular actinomycin D using a validated LCMS assay. Pharmacogenetic analysis was conducted for 60 patients (Clinical trial: NCT00900354), who were genotyped for SNPs for OAT4 and PEPT2. RESULTS: OAT4, OCT2, OCT3 and PEPT2 showed significantly lower probe substrate uptake (mean ± SD 75.0 ± 3.5% (p < 0.0001), 74.8 ± 11.2% (p = 0.001), 81.2 ± 14.0% (p = 0.0083) and 70.7 ± 5.7% (p = 0.0188)) compared to that of control. Intracellular accumulation of actinomycin D was greater compared to vector control in OAT4-transfected cells by 1.5- and 1.4-fold at 10 min (p = 0.01) and 20 min (p = 0.03), and in PEPT2-transfected cells by 1.5- and 1.7-fold at 10 min (p = 0.047) and 20 min (p = 0.043), respectively. Subsequent clinical study did not find a significant association between OAT4 rs11231809 and PEPT2 rs2257212 genotypes, and actinomycin D PK parameters such as clearance (CL) and volume of distribution (Vd). CONCLUSION: Transport of actinomycin D was mediated by OAT4 and PEPT2 in vitro. There was a lack of clinical significance of OAT4 and PEPT2 genotypes as predictors of actinomycin D disposition in paediatric cancer patients.
BACKGROUND:Actinomycin D is used for treatment of paediatric cancers; however, a large inter-patient pharmacokinetic (PK) variability and hepatotoxicity are significant limitations to its use and warrant further investigation. Elimination of actinomycin D may be mediated by transporters, as the drug does not seem to undergo significant metabolism. We investigated the role of solute carrier (SLC) transporters in actinomycin D PK. METHODS: Fourteen key SLCs were screened through probe substrate uptake inhibition by actinomycin D in HEK293 cells. Uptake of actinomycin D was further studied in candidate SLCs by measuring intracellular actinomycin D using a validated LCMS assay. Pharmacogenetic analysis was conducted for 60 patients (Clinical trial: NCT00900354), who were genotyped for SNPs for OAT4 and PEPT2. RESULTS:OAT4, OCT2, OCT3 and PEPT2 showed significantly lower probe substrate uptake (mean ± SD 75.0 ± 3.5% (p < 0.0001), 74.8 ± 11.2% (p = 0.001), 81.2 ± 14.0% (p = 0.0083) and 70.7 ± 5.7% (p = 0.0188)) compared to that of control. Intracellular accumulation of actinomycin D was greater compared to vector control in OAT4-transfected cells by 1.5- and 1.4-fold at 10 min (p = 0.01) and 20 min (p = 0.03), and in PEPT2-transfected cells by 1.5- and 1.7-fold at 10 min (p = 0.047) and 20 min (p = 0.043), respectively. Subsequent clinical study did not find a significant association between OAT4rs11231809 and PEPT2rs2257212 genotypes, and actinomycin D PK parameters such as clearance (CL) and volume of distribution (Vd). CONCLUSION: Transport of actinomycin D was mediated by OAT4 and PEPT2 in vitro. There was a lack of clinical significance of OAT4 and PEPT2 genotypes as predictors of actinomycin D disposition in paediatric cancerpatients.
Authors: M F Tournade; C Com-Nougué; J de Kraker; R Ludwig; A Rey; J M Burgers; B Sandstedt; J Godzinski; M Carli; R Potter; J M Zucker Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-01-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M Whirl-Carrillo; E M McDonagh; J M Hebert; L Gong; K Sangkuhl; C F Thorn; R B Altman; T E Klein Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Suman Lal; Zee Wan Wong; Edwin Sandanaraj; Xiaoqiang Xiang; Peter Cher Siang Ang; Edmund J D Lee; Balram Chowbay Journal: Cancer Sci Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 6.716
Authors: Christopher R Hill; David Jamieson; Huw D Thomas; Colin D A Brown; Alan V Boddy; Gareth J Veal Journal: Biochem Pharmacol Date: 2012-10-11 Impact factor: 5.858