Julian S Rechberger1, Erica A Power1,2, Victor M Lu1, Liang Zhang1, Jann N Sarkaria3, David J Daniels1,4. 1. 1Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic. 2. 2Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences. 3. 3Department of Radiation Oncology; and. 4. 4Department of Molecular Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Convection-enhanced delivery (CED) and osmotic pump delivery both have been promoted as promising techniques to deliver drugs to pediatric diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas (DIPGs). Correspondingly, the aim of this study was to understand how infusate molecular weight (MW), duration of delivery, and mechanism of delivery (CED or osmotic pump) affect volume of distribution (Vd) in the brainstem, to better inform drug selection and delivery in future DIPG investigations. METHODS: A series of in vivo experiments were conducted using rat models. CED and osmotic pump delivery systems were surgically implanted in the brainstem, and different MW fluorescent dextran beads were infused either once (acute) or daily for 5 days (chronic) in a volume infused (Vi). Brainstems were harvested after the last infusion, and Vd was quantified using serial sectioning and fluorescence imaging. RESULTS: Fluorescence imaging showed infusate uptake within the brainstem for both systems without complication. A significant inverse relationship was observed between infusate MW and Vd in all settings, which was distinctly exponential in nature in the setting of acute delivery across the 570-Da to 150-kDa range. Chronic duration and CED technique resulted in significantly greater Vd compared to acute duration or osmotic pump delivery, respectively. When accounting for Vi, acute infusion yielded significantly greater Vd/Vi than chronic infusion. The distribution in CED versus osmotic pump delivery was significantly affected by infusate MW at higher weights. CONCLUSIONS: Here the authors demonstrate that infusate MW, duration of infusion, and infusion mechanism all impact the Vd of an infused agent and should be considered when selecting drugs and infusion parameters for novel investigations to treat DIPGs.
OBJECTIVE: Convection-enhanced delivery (CED) and osmotic pump delivery both have been promoted as promising techniques to deliver drugs to pediatric diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas (DIPGs). Correspondingly, the aim of this study was to understand how infusate molecular weight (MW), duration of delivery, and mechanism of delivery (CED or osmotic pump) affect volume of distribution (Vd) in the brainstem, to better inform drug selection and delivery in future DIPG investigations. METHODS: A series of in vivo experiments were conducted using rat models. CED and osmotic pump delivery systems were surgically implanted in the brainstem, and different MW fluorescent dextran beads were infused either once (acute) or daily for 5 days (chronic) in a volume infused (Vi). Brainstems were harvested after the last infusion, and Vd was quantified using serial sectioning and fluorescence imaging. RESULTS: Fluorescence imaging showed infusate uptake within the brainstem for both systems without complication. A significant inverse relationship was observed between infusate MW and Vd in all settings, which was distinctly exponential in nature in the setting of acute delivery across the 570-Da to 150-kDa range. Chronic duration and CED technique resulted in significantly greater Vd compared to acute duration or osmotic pump delivery, respectively. When accounting for Vi, acute infusion yielded significantly greater Vd/Vi than chronic infusion. The distribution in CED versus osmotic pump delivery was significantly affected by infusate MW at higher weights. CONCLUSIONS: Here the authors demonstrate that infusate MW, duration of infusion, and infusion mechanism all impact the Vd of an infused agent and should be considered when selecting drugs and infusion parameters for novel investigations to treat DIPGs.
Authors: A Charlotte P Sewing; Viola Caretti; Tonny Lagerweij; Pepijn Schellen; Marc H A Jansen; Dannis G van Vuurden; Sander Idema; Carla F M Molthoff; W Peter Vandertop; Gertjan J L Kaspers; David P Noske; Esther Hulleman Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2014-09-27 Impact factor: 2.390
Authors: Mark M Souweidane; Kim Kramer; Neeta Pandit-Taskar; Zhiping Zhou; Sofia Haque; Pat Zanzonico; Jorge A Carrasquillo; Serge K Lyashchenko; Sunitha B Thakur; Maria Donzelli; Ryan S Turner; Jason S Lewis; Nai-Kong V Cheung; Steven M Larson; Ira J Dunkel Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: David Castel; Cathy Philippe; Raphaël Calmon; Ludivine Le Dret; Nathalène Truffaux; Nathalie Boddaert; Mélanie Pagès; Kathryn R Taylor; Patrick Saulnier; Ludovic Lacroix; Alan Mackay; Chris Jones; Christian Sainte-Rose; Thomas Blauwblomme; Felipe Andreiuolo; Stephanie Puget; Jacques Grill; Pascale Varlet; Marie-Anne Debily Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2015-09-23 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Julian S Rechberger; Kendra A Porath; Liang Zhang; Cody L Nesvick; Randy S Schrecengost; Jann N Sarkaria; David J Daniels Journal: Pharmaceutics Date: 2022-04-24 Impact factor: 6.525
Authors: Chibueze D Nwagwu; Amanda V Immidisetti; Michael Y Jiang; Oluwasegun Adeagbo; David C Adamson; Anne-Marie Carbonell Journal: Pharmaceutics Date: 2021-04-15 Impact factor: 6.321
Authors: Kendra A Porath; Michael S Regan; Jessica I Griffith; Sonia Jain; Sylwia A Stopka; Danielle M Burgenske; Katrina K Bakken; Brett L Carlson; Paul A Decker; Rachael A Vaubel; Sonja Dragojevic; Ann C Mladek; Margaret A Connors; Zeng Hu; Lihong He; Gaspar J Kitange; Shiv K Gupta; Thomas M Feldsien; Didier R Lefebvre; Nathalie Y R Agar; Jeanette E Eckel-Passow; Edward B Reilly; William F Elmquist; Jann N Sarkaria Journal: Neurooncol Adv Date: 2022-08-24