The tyrosine kinase inhibitor E-3810 combined with paclitaxel inhibits the growth of advanced-stage triple-negative breast cancer xenografts.

E-3810 is a novel small molecule that inhibits VEGF receptor-1, -2, and -3 and fibroblast growth factor receptor-1 tyrosine kinases at nmol/L concentrations currently in phase clinical II. In preclinical studies, it had a broad spectrum of antitumor activity when used as monotherapy in a variety of human xenografts. We here investigated the activity of E-3810 combined with different cytotoxic agents in a MDA-MB-231 triple-negative breast cancer xenograft model. The molecule could be safely administered with 5-fluorouracil, cisplatin, and paclitaxel. The E-3810-paclitaxel combination showed a striking activity with complete, lasting tumor regressions; the antitumor activity of the combination was also confirmed in another triple-negative breast xenograft, MX-1. The activity was superior to that of the combinations paclitaxel+brivanib and paclitaxel+sunitinib. Pharmacokinetics studies suggest that the extra antitumor activity of the combination is not due to higher paclitaxel tumor levels, which in fact were lower in mice pretreated with all three kinase inhibitors, and the paclitaxel plasma levels excluded reduced drug availability. Pharmacodynamic studies showed that E-3810, brivanib, and sunitinib given as single agents or in combination with paclitaxel reduced the number of vessels, but did not modify vessel maturation. Reduced tumor collagen IV and increased plasma collagen IV, associated with increased matrix metalloproteinases (MMP), particularly host MMP-9, indicate a proteolytic remodeling of the extracellular matrix caused by E-3810 that in conjunction with the cytotoxic effect of paclitaxel on the tumor cells (caspase-3/7 activity) may contribute to the striking activity of their combination. These data support the therapeutic potential of combining E-3810 with conventional chemotherapy.

Chemotherapeutic activity of silymarin combined with doxorubicin or paclitaxel in sensitive and multidrug-resistant colon cancer cells.

PURPOSE: The milk thistle extract silymarin, alone or in combined chemotherapy, is now under investigation in anticancer research, with particular interest for its possible employ in the treatment of chemoresistant tumours. So far, the consequences of a silymarin pre-treatment have not been thoroughly investigated. We studied whether silymarin pre-treatment synergized with chemotherapy, exploring the dose-dependence of the interaction in sensitive and multidrug-resistant cells. METHODS: We studied cell cycle perturbations induced by silymarin in two colon carcinoma cell lines, LoVo and the multidrug-resistant isogenic LoVo/DX. Synergism/additivity/antagonism of silymarin-doxorubicin silymarin-paclitaxel combined treatments were evaluated by isobologram/combination index analysis, in the whole spectrum of active and sub-active concentrations of all drugs. The mechanisms of silymarin interaction with the other drugs were investigated by measuring drug uptake and cell cycle perturbations. RESULTS: Silymarin had similar antiproliferative activity against both cell lines. Pre-treatment with low silymarin concentrations synergised with both doxorubicin and paclitaxel in LoVo but not in LoVo/DX. Higher silymarin concentrations were additive with doxorubicin and paclitaxel in both cell lines. Silymarin favourably interfered with uptake and cell cycle effects of the chemotherapeutics in LoVo but not in LoVo/DX. CONCLUSION: These findings confirm activity of silymarin against colon carcinoma, including multidrug-resistant types, at relatively high but clinically achievable concentrations. In view of its low toxicity, two schedules based on low- and high-dose silymarin pre-treatment might offer a valuable option for combined treatment.

Antitumor activity and pharmacokinetics of oral gimatecan on pediatric cancer xenografts.

PURPOSE: This study compared the antitumor activity and the pharmacological profile of gimatecan given orally and irinotecan (CPT-11) on pediatric tumor xenografts. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Gimatecan was tested in two neuroblastoma cell lines (SK-N-DZ and SK-N-(BE)2c) and on TE-671 rhabdomyosarcoma cells using two different schedules. We characterized its pharmacokinetic profile in nude mice bearing human SK-N-DZ and TE-671 cell lines. RESULTS: Gimatecan appears to have high plasma disposition. The drug was present in plasma almost completely as the intact lactone form and showed substantial activity in all tumor models. Prolonged daily treatment with low doses of gimatecan produced significant tumor regression in all tumor xenografts. CONCLUSION: The antitumor activity and the promising pharmacological profile indicate gimatecan as an excellent candidate for clinical treatment of pediatric tumors.