Cell cycle effects and increased adduct formation by temozolomide enhance the effect of cytotoxic and targeted agents in lung cancer cell lines.

Temozolomide (TMZ) exerts its cytotoxic effects by methylating guanine in DNA, resulting in a mismatch with thymine. We studied possible enhancement of the cytotoxic activity of several other targeted drugs in four lung cancer cell lines by TMZ. the data are in relation to O(6)-alkylguanine-DNA-alkyltransferase (AGT) expression, gene methylation, cell cycle distribution and adduct formation. Synergism/additivity was found with O(6)-BG), gemcitabine, lonafarnib and paclitaxel, but not with platinum analogs and topoisomerase-inhibitors. O(6)-BG enhanced TMZ-induced accumulation in the G2/m-phase by increasing formation and retention of the O(6)-methyldeoxyguanosine adducts. TMZ combinations with drugs showing a different individual effect on the cell cycle (e.g. gemcitabine-induced S-phase) were most effective. The results show that O(6)-BG enhanced the TMZ effect in all cell lines. TMZ enhanced the cytotoxicity of gemcitabine, paclitaxel and lonafarnib in most cell lines, possibly by affecting the cell cycle, supporting possible application of TMZ in the treatment of lung cancer.

Gemcitabine uptake in glioblastoma multiforme: potential as a radiosensitizer.

Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), the most frequent malignant brain tumor, has a poor prognosis, but is relatively sensitive to radiation. Both gemcitabine and its metabolite difluorodeoxyuridine (dFdU) are potent radiosensitizers. The aim of this phase 0 study was to investigate whether gemcitabine passes the blood-tumor barrier, and is phosphorylated in the tumor by deoxycytidine kinase (dCK) to gemcitabine nucleotides in order to enable radiosensitization, and whether it is deaminated by deoxycytidine deaminase (dCDA) to dFdU. Gemcitabine was administered at 500 or 1000 mg/m(2) just before surgery to 10 GBM patients, who were biopsied after 1-4 h. Plasma gemcitabine and dFdU levels varied between 0.9 and 9.2 microM and 24.9 and 72.6 microM, respectively. Tumor gemcitabine and dFdU levels varied from 60 to 3580 pmol/g tissue and from 29 to 72 nmol/g tissue, respectively. The gene expression of dCK (beta-actin ratio) varied between 0.44 and 2.56. The dCK and dCDA activities varied from 1.06 to 2.32 nmol/h/mg protein and from 1.51 to 5.50 nmol/h/mg protein, respectively. These enzyme levels were sufficient to enable gemcitabine phosphorylation, leading to 130-3083 pmol gemcitabine nucleotides/g tissue. These data demonstrate for the first time that gemcitabine passes the blood-tumor barrier in GBM patients. In tumor samples, both gemcitabine and dFdU concentrations are high enough to enable radiosensitization, which warrants clinical studies using gemcitabine in combination with radiation.

Mechanism of trifluorothymidine potentiation of oxaliplatin-induced cytotoxicity to colorectal cancer cells.

Oxaliplatin (OHP) is an anticancer agent that acts by formation of Platinum-DNA (Pt-DNA) adducts resulting in DNA-strand breaks and is used for the treatment of colorectal cancer. The pyrimidine analog trifluorothymidine (TFT) forms together with a thymidine phosphorylase inhibitor (TPI) the anticancer drug formulation TAS-102, in which TPI enhances the bioavailability of TFT in vivo. In this in vitro study the combined cytotoxic effects of OHP with TFT were investigated in human colorectal cancer cells as a model for TAS-102 combinations. In a panel of five colon cancer cell lines (WiDr, H630, Colo320, SNU-C4 and SW1116) we evaluated the OHP-TFT drug combinations using the multiple drug-effect analysis with CalcuSyn software, in which the combination index (CI) indicates synergism (CI<0.9), additivity (CI=0.9-1.1) or antagonism (CI>1.1). Drug target analysis was used for WiDr, H630 and SW1116 to investigate whether there was an increase in Pt-DNA adduct formation, DNA damage induction, cell cycle delay and apoptosis. Trifluorothymidine combined with OHP resulted in synergism for all cell lines (all CI<0.9). This was irrespective of schedule in which either one of the drugs was kept at a constant concentration (using variable drug ratio) or when the two drugs were added in a 1 : 1 IC(50)-based molar ratio. Synergism could be increased for WiDr using sequential drug treatment schedules. Trifluorothymidine increased Pt-DNA adduct formation significantly in H630 and SW1116 (14.4 and 99.1%, respectively; P<0.05). Platinum-DNA adducts were retained best in SW1116 in the presence of TFT. More DNA-strand breaks were induced in SW1116 and the combination increased DNA damage induction (>20%) compared with OHP alone. Exposure to the drugs induced a clear cell-cycle S-phase arrest, but was dose schedule and cell line dependent. Trifluorothymidine (TFT) and OHP both induced apoptosis, which increased significantly for WiDr and SW1116 after TFT-OHP exposure (18.8 and 20.6% respectively; P<0.05). The basal protein levels of ERCC1 DNA repair enzyme were not related to the DNA damage that was induced in the cell lines. In conclusion, the combination of TFT with the DNA synthesis inhibitor OHP induces synergism in colorectal cancer cells, but is dependent on the dose and treatment schedule used.

Pharmacology of the paclitaxel-cisplatin, gemcitabine-cisplatin, and paclitaxel-gemcitabine combinations in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare the pharmacology of the paclitaxel-cisplatin, gemcitabine-cisplatin and paclitaxel-gemcitabine combinations in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-four chemo-naive patients with advanced NSCLC were randomized to receive one of the three regimens. Plasma pharmacokinetics and pharmacologic parameters in mononuclear cells were compared and related to toxicity and efficacy. RESULTS: Pharmacological parameters of gemcitabine and cisplatin were not influenced by the combination with one of the other agents, while the paclitaxel clearance was significantly lower for the combination with cisplatin as compared to gemcitabine (P=0.024). The percentage decrease in platelets was significantly higher for the gemcitabine combinations (P=0.004) and related to the dFdCTP-Cmax (P=0.030). Pharmacologic parameters were not related to response or survival. CONCLUSIONS: Gemcitabine and cisplatin pharmacology were not influenced by the combination with one of the other agents, while paclitaxel has a lower clearance in combination with cisplatin as compared to gemcitabine.

No evidence of gemcitabine accumulation during weekly administration.

Some anticancer agents tend to accumulate during repeated administration. We determined whether gemcitabine or its metabolites would accumulate during repeated administration. Gemcitabine was administered over two courses with each course consisting of a 30-min infusion at 1000 mg/m(2) weekly for 3 weeks followed by 1 week of rest. In 14 patients we evaluated eventual accumulation by comparing the concentrations in blood samples taken before, and at 30 and 60 min after the start of infusion on days 1, 8 and 15, in both cycles. At the end of the infusion gemcitabine concentrations at day 1 of both courses varied between 18 and 77 microM and at day 15 between 13 and 90 microM. The mean ratios day 8/day 1 and day 15/day 1 varied from 0.94 to 1.18. For the inactive metabolite 2',2'-difluoro-2'-deoxyuridine (dFdU) these values varied between 54 and 152 microM and 55 and 157, respectively, and the ratios from 0.96 to 1.08. The concentration of the active metabolite of gemcitabine, gemcitabine triphosphate (dFdCTP) in peripheral white blood cells, ranged between 37 and 283 pmol/10(6) cells at the end of infusion on day 1 and 35 and 115 pmol/10(6) cells on day 15. Potential accumulation was evaluated using a mixed effects model and no evidence was observed of accumulation for either gemcitabine or its metabolites. Gemcitabine can be administered safely without the risk that the drug will accumulate.

Role of platelet derived endothelial cell growth factor/thymidine phosphorylase in fluoropyrimidine sensitivity and potential role of deoxyribose-1-phosphate.

Thymidine phosphorylase (TP) catalyzes the phosphorolytic cleavage of thymidine (TdR) to thymine and deoxyribose-1-phosphate (dR-1-P). TP, which is overexpressed in a wide variety of solid tumors, is involved in the activation and inactivation of fluoropyrimidines. We investigated the role of TP in 5'-deoxy-5-fluorouridine (5'DFUR), 5-fluorouracil (5FU) and trifluorothymidine (TFT) sensitivity. TP had no effect on TFT while it activated 5'DFUR and to a lesser extent 5FU. In order to provide an explanation for this difference in activation of 5'DFUR and 5FU, we studied the role of the 5FU co-substrate, dR-1-P, needed for its activation.

Intravesical administration of gemcitabine in superficial bladder cancer: a phase I study with pharmacodynamic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To determine, in a phase I trial, the local and systemic toxicity and pharmacodynamics of intravesical gemcitabine in patients with superficial bladder cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twelve patients with histologically confirmed carcinoma localized to the bladder wall (stage T1 or Ta) resistant to previous administration of anticancer drugs and/or of bacille Calmette-Guérin were enrolled. They initially received intravesical gemcitabine starting at 500 mg and increased in 500 mg increments to 2000 mg. Three patients were treated at each dose level. RESULTS: There was no evidence of systemic toxicity and local toxicity was minimal. A pharmacological evaluation showed that gemcitabine was undetectable in plasma and its inactive metabolite (2',2'-difluorodeoxyuridine) was present at a mean (SD) concentration of 1.39 (1.05) mumol/L Deoxycytidine kinase was present in tumour tissue samples, and its activity was 27.3 (12.6) pmol/h/mg tissue; deoxycytidine deaminase activity varied from undetectable to 616 pmol/h/mg tissue. CONCLUSION: Intravesical gemcitabine appears to be well tolerated with no systemic and minimal local toxicity even at the highest dose (2000 mg). A phase II trial of intravesical gemcitabine at 2000 mg given weekly for six consecutive weeks is now in progress in patients with superficial bladder cancer.

Role of platelet-derived endothelial cell growth factor/thymidine phosphorylase in fluoropyrimidine sensitivity.

Platelet-derived endothelial cell growth factor (PD-ECGF)/thymidine phosphorylase (TP) catalyses the reversible phosphorolysis of thymidine to thymine and 2-deoxyribose-1-phosphate and is involved in the metabolism of fluoropyrimidines. It can also activate 5'-deoxyfluorouridine (5'DFUR) and possibly 5-fluorouracil (5FU) and Ftorafur (Ft), but inactivates trifluorothymidine (TFT). We studied the contribution of TP activity to the sensitivity for these fluoropyrimidines by modulating its activity and/or expression level in colon and lung cancer cells using a specific inhibitor of TP (TPI) or by overproduction of TP via stable transfection of human TP. Expression was analysed using competitive template-RT-PCR (CT-RT-PCR), Western blot and an activity assay. TP activity ranged from nondetectable to 70678 pmol h(-1) 10(-6) cells, in Colo320 and a TP overexpressing clone Colo320TP1, respectively. We found a good correlation between TP activity and mRNA expression (r=0.964, P&<0.01) in our cell panel. To determine the role of TP in the sensitivity to 5FU, 5'DFUR, Ft and TFT, cells were cultured with the various fluoropyrimidines with or without TPI and differences in IC(50)'s were established. TPI modified 5'DFUR, increasing the IC(50)'s 2.5- to 1396-fold in WiDR and Colo320TP1, respectively. 5-Fluorouracil could be modified by inhibiting TP but to a lesser extent than 5'DFUR: IC(50)'s increased 1.9- to 14.7-fold for WiDR and Colo320TP1, respectively. There was no effect on TFT or Ft. There appears to be a threshold level of TP activity to influence the 5'DFUR and 5FU sensitivity, which is higher for 5FU. Even high levels of TP overexpression only had a moderate effect on 5FU sensitivity.

Patient preference and pharmacokinetics of oral modulated UFT versus intravenous fluorouracil and leucovorin: a randomised crossover trial in advanced colorectal cancer.

The aim of this study was to determine the patient's preference for oral UFT/leucovorin (LV) or intravenous (i.v.) 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/LV chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer and to compare 5-FU exposure with these two treatment options. A total of 37 previously untreated patients with advanced colorectal cancer were randomised to start treatment with either oral UFT 300 mg/m2/day plus oral LV 90 mg/day for 28 days every 5 weeks or i.v. 5-FU 425 mg/m2/day plus LV 20 mg/m2/day for 5 days every 4 weeks. For the second treatment cycle, patients were crossed-over to the alternative treatment regimen. Prior to the first and after the second therapy cycle, patients were required to complete a therapy preference questionnaire (TPQ). The pharmacokinetics of 5-FU were determined by taking blood samples on days 8, 15 or 22 and 28 for UFT and on days 1 and 5 for i.v. 5-FU. 36 patients were eligible. 84% of the patients preferred oral UFT over i.v. 5-FU. After having experienced both treatment modalities, patients indicated taking the medication at home, less stomatitis and diarrhoea, and pill over injection as the most important reasons for their preference. The area under the plasma concentration curve (AUC) for 5-FU after UFT administration was 113 microM x min on day 8, 114 on day 15 and 98 on day 28; the peak levels (Cmax) were 1.2, 1.3 and 1.0 microM, respectively. The AUC for the 5-FU/LV courses was 3083 microM x min for day 1 and 3809 for day 5 (P=0.002). The Cmax was 170.1 and 196.2 microM (P=0.06) and the clearance 2.6 and 1.9 l/min, respectively (P=0.002). Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer clearly preferred oral over i.v. chemotherapy treatment. This choice was most importantly influenced by convenience and toxicity considerations. Although i.v. bolus 5-FU leads to higher peak 5-FU concentrations and AUC values compared with oral UFT, this pharmacokinetic advantage of i.v. 5-FU seems to translate mainly into higher toxicity as seen in large randomised studies comparing oral UFT/LV with i.v. 5-FU/LV. Oral UFT/LV compares favourably with i.v. 5-FU/LV in terms of toxicity and patient's preference and leads to prolonged 5-FU exposure, which is comparable to continuous i.v. 5-FU treatment.