Hong-Jian Wei1, Pavan S Upadhyayula2, Antonios N Pouliopoulos3, Zachary K Englander2, Xu Zhang4, Chia-Ing Jan5, Jia Guo6, Angeliki Mela7, Zhiguo Zhang4, Tony J C Wang8, Jeffrey N Bruce9, Peter D Canoll10, Neil A Feldstein2, Stergios Zacharoulis11, Elisa E Konofagou3, Cheng-Chia Wu12. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York. 2. Department of Neurological Surgery, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Columbia University, New York, New York. 4. Institute for Cancer Genetics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York; Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York. 5. Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York; Division of Molecular Pathology, Department of Pathology, China Medical University and Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan; Department of Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan; Translational Cell Therapy Center, Department of Medical Research, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan. 6. Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, New York. 7. Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York; Department of Neurological Surgery, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York, New York. 9. Department of Neurological Surgery, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York, New York. 10. Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York, New York. 11. Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York. 12. Department of Radiation Oncology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York, New York. Electronic address: cw2666@cumc.columbia.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Glioblastoma (GBM) is a devastating disease. With the current treatment of surgery followed by chemoradiation, outcomes remain poor, with median survival of only 15 months and a 5-year survival rate of 6.8%. A challenge in treating GBM is the heterogeneous integrity of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), which limits the bioavailability of systemic therapies to the brain. There is a growing interest in enhancing drug delivery by opening the BBB with the use of focused ultrasound (FUS). We hypothesize that an FUS-mediated BBB opening can enhance the delivery of etoposide for a therapeutic benefit in GBM. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A murine glioma cell line (Pdgf+, Pten-/-, P53-/-) was orthotopically injected into B6(Cg)-Tyrc-2J/J mice to establish the syngeneic GBM model for this study. Animals were treated with FUS and microbubbles to open the BBB to enhance the delivery of systemic etoposide. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging was used to evaluate the BBB opening and tumor progression. Liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry was used to measure etoposide concentrations in the intracranial tumors. RESULTS: The murine glioma cell line is sensitive to etoposide in vitro. MR imaging and passive cavitation detection demonstrate the safe and successful BBB opening with FUS. The combined treatment of an FUS-mediated BBB opening and etoposide decreased tumor growth by 45% and prolonged median overall survival by 6 days: an approximately 30% increase. The FUS-mediated BBB opening increased the brain tumor-to-serum ratio of etoposide by 3.5-fold and increased the etoposide concentration in brain tumor tissue by 8-fold compared with treatment without ultrasound. CONCLUSIONS: The current study demonstrates that BBB opening with FUS increases intratumoral delivery of etoposide in the brain, resulting in local control and overall survival benefits.
PURPOSE: Glioblastoma (GBM) is a devastating disease. With the current treatment of surgery followed by chemoradiation, outcomes remain poor, with median survival of only 15 months and a 5-year survival rate of 6.8%. A challenge in treating GBM is the heterogeneous integrity of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), which limits the bioavailability of systemic therapies to the brain. There is a growing interest in enhancing drug delivery by opening the BBB with the use of focused ultrasound (FUS). We hypothesize that an FUS-mediated BBB opening can enhance the delivery of etoposide for a therapeutic benefit in GBM. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A murine glioma cell line (Pdgf+, Pten-/-, P53-/-) was orthotopically injected into B6(Cg)-Tyrc-2J/J mice to establish the syngeneic GBM model for this study. Animals were treated with FUS and microbubbles to open the BBB to enhance the delivery of systemic etoposide. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging was used to evaluate the BBB opening and tumor progression. Liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry was used to measure etoposide concentrations in the intracranial tumors. RESULTS: The murine glioma cell line is sensitive to etoposide in vitro. MR imaging and passive cavitation detection demonstrate the safe and successful BBB opening with FUS. The combined treatment of an FUS-mediated BBB opening and etoposide decreased tumor growth by 45% and prolonged median overall survival by 6 days: an approximately 30% increase. The FUS-mediated BBB opening increased the brain tumor-to-serum ratio of etoposide by 3.5-fold and increased the etoposide concentration in brain tumor tissue by 8-fold compared with treatment without ultrasound. CONCLUSIONS: The current study demonstrates that BBB opening with FUS increases intratumoral delivery of etoposide in the brain, resulting in local control and overall survival benefits.
Authors: Manabu Kinoshita; Nathan McDannold; Ferenc A Jolesz; Kullervo Hynynen Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2006-07-25 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Santosh Kesari; David Schiff; Lisa Doherty; Debra C Gigas; Tracy T Batchelor; Alona Muzikansky; Alison O'Neill; Jan Drappatz; Alice S Chen-Plotkin; Naren Ramakrishna; Stephanie E Weiss; Brenda Levy; Joanna Bradshaw; Jean Kracher; Andrea Laforme; Peter McL Black; Judah Folkman; Mark Kieran; Patrick Y Wen Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2007-04-23 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: D A Reardon; A Desjardins; J J Vredenburgh; S Gururangan; J H Sampson; S Sathornsumetee; R E McLendon; J E Herndon; J E Marcello; J Norfleet; A H Friedman; D D Bigner; H S Friedman Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-11-17 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Christopher P Pacia; Jinyun Yuan; Yimei Yue; Lu Xu; Arash Nazeri; Rupen Desai; H Michael Gach; Xiaowei Wang; Michael R Talcott; Aadel A Chaudhuri; Gavin P Dunn; Eric C Leuthardt; Hong Chen Journal: Theranostics Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 11.600
Authors: Antonios N Pouliopoulos; Nancy Kwon; Greg Jensen; Anna Meaney; Yusuke Niimi; Mark T Burgess; Robin Ji; Alicia J McLuckie; Fabian A Munoz; Hermes A S Kamimura; Andrew F Teich; Vincent P Ferrera; Elisa E Konofagou Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Andrei Molotkov; Patrick Carberry; Martin A Dolan; Simon Joseph; Sidney Idumonyi; Shunichi Oya; John Castrillon; Elisa E Konofagou; Mikhail Doubrovin; Glenn J Lesser; Francesca Zanderigo; Akiva Mintz Journal: Pharmaceutics Date: 2021-03-18 Impact factor: 6.321