Literature DB >> 7083456

Combination chemotherapy of the epipodophyllotoxin derivatives, teniposide and etoposide. A pharmacodynamic rationale?

L M Allen, F Tejada, A D Okonmah, S Nordqvist.   

Abstract

Previous studies in vitro on the influence of extracellular protein binding of Teniposide (VM26) and Etoposide (VP16-213) on subsequent cellular uptake by experimental murine tumor cells [Cancer Res 38:2549 (1978); Drug Metab Rev 8:119 (1978)] suggested that a timed-sequential combination of VM26 and VP16-213 may increase the bioavailability of VP16-213. This was studied clinically in six cancer patients with ascites (five ovarian, one rectal) whereby VM26 (20 mg/m2) was given i.p. 2 h prior to VP16-213 (100 mg/m2; i.p.) In some patients, this regimen was administered i.v. The i.v. regimen was found to be more toxic (myelosuppression, nausea, vomiting) than i.p. regimen at same doses of drugs. Several patients remained stable to disease during 1-2 courses of therapy (3 weeks per course), one patient had partial remission, and has been stable in her disease for more than 4 months. In two patients, plasma and ascites fluid was analyzed for VP16-213 and VM26 by a new reverse-phase high performance liquid chromatography method. Both VM26 and VP16-213 could be eluted isocratically (28% v/v acetonitrile in water) from a c18 column with retention times of 6.6 and 13.3 min, respectively. Subsequent pharmacokinetic analysis of one patient suggests that protein binding displacement of VP16-213 in plasma and perhaps ascites fluid increased the pharmacokinetic volume of distribution (28 l) and reduced the elimination half-life (12 h). The data suggests that VP16-213 is distributed more widely in the body and is represented by a single compartment pharmacokinetic model. Analysis of VM26 in ascites and plasma suggests that the so-called "deep pharmacokinetic compartment" represents ascites equivalent space and that the plasma concentration represents VM26 as free and protein-bound drug in kinetic distinguishable compartments. Determinants of drug action are potentially composed of a multiplicity of physiological, biochemical, and other factors. The potential for manipulating the pharmacodynamic properties of drugs to achieve greater therapeutic potential needs further study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1982        PMID: 7083456     DOI: 10.1007/BF00254538

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol        ISSN: 0344-5704            Impact factor:   3.333


  6 in total

1.  Comparison of the human pharmacokinetics of VM-26 and VP-16, two antineoplastic epipodophyllotixin glucopyranoside derivatives.

Authors:  L M Allen; P J Creaven
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1975-10       Impact factor: 9.162

2.  The PROPHET system and resource sharing.

Authors:  W F Raub
Journal:  Fed Proc       Date:  1974-12

3.  Analysis of 4'-demethylepipodophyllotoxin-9-(4,6-O-ethylidene-beta-D-glucopyranoside) by high-pressure liquid chromatography.

Authors:  L M Allen
Journal:  J Pharm Sci       Date:  1980-12       Impact factor: 3.534

4.  The role of drug disposition kinetics on cellular transport of the antineoplastic agent VM-26.

Authors:  L Allen
Journal:  Drug Metab Rev       Date:  1978       Impact factor: 4.518

5.  Comparison of uptake and binding of two epipodophyllotoxin glucopyranosides, 4'-demethyl epipodophyllotoxin thenylidene-beta-D-glucoside and 4'-demethyl epipodophyllotoxin ethylidene-beta-D-glucoside, in the L1210 leukemia cell.

Authors:  L M Allen
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1978-08       Impact factor: 12.701

6.  Multicompartment pharmacokinetic model of 4'-demethylepipodophyllotoxin 9-(4,6-O-ethylidene-beta-D-glucopyranoside) in humans.

Authors:  F R Pelsor; L M Allen; P J Creaven
Journal:  J Pharm Sci       Date:  1978-08       Impact factor: 3.534

  6 in total
  8 in total

1.  Pharmacokinetics of VM 26 given intrapericardially or intravenously in patients with malignant pericardial effusion.

Authors:  F Figoli; M L Zanette; U Tirelli; R Sorio; C Lestuzzi; R Urso; S Monfardini; M D'Incalci
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 3.333

Review 2.  Antineoplastic drugs in 1990. A review (Part II).

Authors:  D J Black; R B Livingston
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 9.546

3.  Pharmacokinetics of teniposide (VM 26) after IV administration in serum and malignant ascites of patients with ovarian carcinoma.

Authors:  P Canal; R Bugat; C Michel; H Roche; G Soula; P F Combes
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 3.333

Review 4.  Pharmacokinetics of anticancer drugs in children.

Authors:  W R Crom; A M Glynn-Barnhart; J H Rodman; M E Teresi; R E Kavanagh; M L Christensen; M V Relling; W E Evans
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  1987-03       Impact factor: 6.447

Review 5.  The clinical pharmacology of etoposide and teniposide.

Authors:  P I Clark; M L Slevin
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 6.447

6.  The effect of dose on the bioavailability of oral etoposide: confirmation of a clinically relevant observation.

Authors:  M L Slevin; S P Joel; R Whomsley; K Devenport; V J Harvey; R J Osborne; P F Wrigley
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 3.333

7.  Pharmacokinetics and toxicity of the epipodophyllotoxin derivative etoposide (VP 16-213) in patients with gestational choriocarcinoma and malignant teratoma.

Authors:  C J Brindley; P Antoniw; E S Newlands; K D Bagshawe
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 3.333

8.  Instability of the anticancer agent etoposide under in vitro culture conditions.

Authors:  R M Mader; G G Steger; K Moser; H Rainer; P Krenmayr; C Dittrich
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 3.333

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.