Combined Cabazitaxel and Carboplatin Treatment of Metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer Patients, With Innate or Acquired Resistance to Cabazitaxel Monotherapy.

BACKGROUND: There is new interest in platinum-based treatment of patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), to which a subgroup responds. Although platinum sensitivity is suggested to be associated with aggressive disease features and distinct molecular profiles, identification of responders is a clinical challenge. In this study, we selected patients who displayed PSA progression during cabazitaxel monotherapy, for combined cabazitaxel and carboplatin treatment. METHODS: In this retrospective study, mCRPC patients received carboplatin and cabazitaxel after biochemical progression following at least 2 cabazitaxel monotherapy cycles. We assessed PSA response, Time to PSA Progression (TTpsa) and Time to Radiographic Progression (TTrad). For a subset of patients, mutational analysis of BRCA-1, BRCA-2, ATM, PTEN, P53 and RB1 was performed. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were included, after a median of 4 (3-6) cycles of cabazitaxel monotherapy. Patients received a median of 3 (2-5) cycles of combined cabazitaxel and carboplatin, on which 12 (26.6%) patients had a PSA decline ≥ 50% from baseline. TTpsa was 2 (1-5) months and TTrad 3 (2-6) months. Adverse events were predominantly grade 1-2. Of the 29 (64.4%) patients evaluable for molecular signature, 6 (13.3%) had BRCA1, BRCA2 or ATM mutations and 12 (26.7%) had a PTEN, P53 or RB1 mutations. The occurrence of these mutations was not associated with any clinical outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: In this study we showed that patients with PSA progression during cabazitaxel monotherapy could benefit from the addition of carboplatin to cabazitaxel, while prospective identification of these patients remains a clinical challenge.

Validation of the Prognostic Utility of ESTRO/EORTC Oligometastatic Disease Classification: A Secondary Analysis From the Population-Based Phase II SABR-5 Trial.

PURPOSE: The recently developed European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) oligometastatic disease (OMD) classification has not been validated in terms of its prognostic significance. This study stratified patients from the phase II SABR-5 trial based on ESTRO/EORTC criteria and compared progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) to determine the prognostic significance of the classification scheme. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The SABR-5 trial was a single arm phase II study conducted at the 6 regional cancer centers across British Columbia (BC), Canada, where SABR for oligometastases was only offered on trial. Patients with up to 5 oligometastases (total or not controlled by prior treatment and including induced OMD) underwent SABR to all lesions. Patients were 18 years of age or older, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0 to 2, and life expectancy ≥6 months. PFS and OS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and differences between OMD groups were assessed with log-rank tests. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed using Cox regression modeling. RESULTS: Between November 2016 and July 2020, 381 patients underwent SABR on trial. Median follow-up was 27 months (interquartile range, 18-36). The most frequent OMD group was de novo OMD (69%), followed by repeat (16%) and induced (13%). OMD groups differed significantly in PFS (P < .001) but not OS (P = .069). The OMD classification was an independent predictor of both PFS (P = .005) and OS (P = .002). Of the 5 classification factors, only chronicity (synchronous, hazard ratio, 0.52; P = .027) and oligoprogression (hazard ratio, 2.05; P = .004) were independently prognostic for OS. CONCLUSIONS: In this large prospective cohort, the ESTRO/EORTC classification was an independent predictor of PFS and OS and should be used to identify specific patient groups for clinical trials. In this trial population, the prognostic power is largely attributable to chronicity and oligoprogression. Simplification of the framework may be possible in the future and allow for greater ease of use; however, further data on underrepresented OMD groups and histologies will be required.

The effects of new life-prolonging drugs for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients in a real-world population.

BACKGROUND: In 2004 docetaxel was the first life-prolonging drug (LPD) registered for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. Between 2011 and 2014 new LPDs for mCRPC (cabazitaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, and radium-223) were introduced in the Netherlands. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of the introduction of new LPDs on treatment patterns and overall survival (OS) over time. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CRPC patients diagnosed in the years 2010-2016 in the observational, retrospective CAPRI registry (20 hospitals) were included and followed up to 2018. Two subgroups were analyzed: treatment-naïve patients (subgroup 1, n = 3600) and post-docetaxel patients (subgroup 2, n = 1355). RESULTS: In both subgroups, the use of any LPD increased: from 57% (2010-2011) to 69% (2014-2015) in subgroup 1 and from 65% (2011-2012) to 79% (2015-2016) in subgroup 2. Chemotherapy as first mCRPC-treatment (i.e., docetaxel) and first post-docetaxel treatment (i.e., cabazitaxel or docetaxel rechallenge) decreased (46-29% and 20-9% in subgroup 1 and 2, respectively), while the use of androgen-receptor targeting treatments (ART) increased from 11% to 39% and 46% to 64% in subgroup 1 and 2, respectively. In subgroup 1, median OS (mOS) from diagnosis CRPC increased from 28.5 months to 31.0 months (p = 0.196). In subgroup 2, mOS from progression on docetaxel increased from 7.9 months to 12.5 months (p < 0.001). After multiple imputations of missing values, in multivariable cox-regression analysis with known prognostic parameters, the treatment period was independent significant for OS in subgroup 1 (2014-2015 vs. 2010-2011 with HR 0.749, p < 0.001) and subgroup 2 (2015-2016 vs. 2011-2012 with HR 0.811, p = 0.037). CONCLUSION: Since 2010, a larger proportion of mCRPC patients was treated with LPDs, which was related to an increased mOS.

Pim1 regulates androgen-dependent survival signaling in prostate cancer cells.

INTRODUCTION: Pim1 overexpression was found to be associated with more advanced prostate cancer. Interleukin-6 (IL-6) induces Pim1 expression and is often found elevated after androgen-ablative therapy. METHODS: Tumor tissue from 31 selected prostate cancer patients and cell lines were studied immunohistochemically for c-myc, Pim1, STAT3, pSTAT3-Tyr705, and androgen receptor (AR) expression. The effect of Pim1 on androgen dependence in prostate cancer was studied in transgene cell lines. RESULTS: Pim1 expression was increased in high-grade prostate tumors (Gleason >7), irrespective of androgen status, was highest in hormone refractory prostate cancer and correlated to pSTAT3-Tyr705 expression levels. Co-expression of Pim1 and MYC was observed specifically after androgen ablation. Pim1 expression could be induced in LNCaP and PC3 cells by IL-6. Pim1 overexpression in PC3 and PNCaP increased the transcriptional activity of the AR at low levels of dihydrotestosterone. Consequently, Pim1 expression increased LNCaP cell survival specifically at castrate levels of androgen. CONCLUSIONS: Pim1 expression was increased in primary tumor samples after androgen ablation. Pim1 overexpression increased AR transcriptional activity in a ligand-dependent manner in prostate cancer cell lines, resulting in enhanced cell survival at castrate levels of androgen.

Exposure-response analyses of abiraterone and its metabolites in real-world patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate is an oral 17α-hydroxylase/C17,20-lyase (CYP17) inhibitor approved for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCPRC) patients. Previously, a prospective observational trial demonstrated a relationship between abiraterone trough concentrations (Cmin) in plasma and treatment efficacy. The aim of our study was to investigate the exposure-response relationship of abiraterone and its metabolites, and to study if the proposed target for abiraterone of 8.4 ng/mL is feasible in a "real-world" patient cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: mCRPC patients who had at least one abiraterone plasma concentration at steady-state were included in this study. Plasma abiraterone and its metabolites levels were analyzed using a validated liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry method. Using calculated Cmin values of abiraterone and its active metabolite Δ(4)-abiraterone (D4A), univariate, and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were included in this retrospective analysis, of which 42% were underexposed (mean abiraterone Cmin ≤ 8.4 ng/mL). In multivariable analysis, Cmin ≥ 8.4 ng/mL was associated with longer prostate-specific antigen (PSA) independent progression-free survival (16.9 vs 6.1 months; p = 0.033), which resulted in a hazard ratio of 0.44 (95% confidence interval: 0.23-0.82, p = 0.01). D4A Cmin did not show a relationship with treatment efficacy. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that mCRPC patients with an abiraterone Cmin ≥ 8.4 ng/mL have a better prognosis compared with patients with low Cmin. Monitoring Cmin of abiraterone can help to identify those patients at risk of suboptimal treatment for whom treatment optimization may be appropriate.

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.

Androgen receptor moonlighting in the prostate cancer microenvironment.

Androgen receptor (AR) signaling is vital for the normal development of the prostate and is critically involved in prostate cancer (PCa). AR is not only found in epithelial prostate cells but is also expressed in various cells in the PCa-associated stroma, which constitute the tumor microenvironment (TME). In the TME, AR is expressed in fibroblasts, macrophages, lymphocytes and neutrophils. AR expression in the TME was shown to be decreased in higher-grade and metastatic PCa, suggesting that stromal AR plays a protective role against PCa progression. With that, the functionality of AR in stromal cells appears to deviate from the receptor's classical function as described in PCa cells. However, the biological action of AR in these cells and its effect on cancer progression remains to be fully understood. Here, we systematically review the pathological, genomic and biological literature on AR actions in various subsets of prostate stromal cells and aim to better understand the consequences of AR signaling in the TME in relation to PCa development and progression.

Endogenous androgen receptor proteomic profiling reveals genomic subcomplex involved in prostate tumorigenesis.

Androgen receptor (AR) is a key player in prostate cancer development and progression. Here we applied immunoprecipitation mass spectrometry of endogenous AR in LNCaP cells to identify components of the AR transcriptional complex. In total, 66 known and novel AR interactors were identified in the presence of synthetic androgen, most of which were critical for AR-driven prostate cancer cell proliferation. A subset of AR interactors required for LNCaP proliferation were profiled using chromatin immunoprecipitation assays followed by sequencing, identifying distinct genomic subcomplexes of AR interaction partners. Interestingly, three major subgroups of genomic subcomplexes were identified, where selective gain of function for AR genomic action in tumorigenesis was found, dictated by FOXA1 and HOXB13. In summary, by combining proteomic and genomic approaches we reveal subclasses of AR transcriptional complexes, differentiating normal AR behavior from the oncogenic state. In this process, the expression of AR interactors has key roles by reprogramming the AR cistrome and interactome in a genomic location-specific manner.

The synergistic interaction of gemcitabine and cytosine arabinoside with the ribonucleotide reductase inhibitor triapine is schedule dependent.

Gemcitabine and ara-C have multiple mechanisms of action: DNA incorporation and for gemcitabine also ribonucleotide reductase (RNR) inhibition. Since dCTP competes with their incorporation into DNA, dCTP depletion can potentiate their cytotoxicity. We investigated whether additional RNR inhibition by Triapine (3-AP), a new potent RNR inhibitor, enhanced cytotoxicity of gemcitabine and ara-C in four non-small-cell-lung-cancer (NSCLC) cell lines, using the multiple-drug-effect analysis. Simultaneous and sequential exposure (preexposure to 3-AP for 24h) in a constant molar ratio of 3-AP and gemcitabine was antagonistic/additive in all cell lines. Preexposure to 3-AP at an IC(25) concentration for 24h before variable concentrations of gemcitabine was synergistic. RNR inhibition by 3-AP resulted in a more synergistic interaction in combination with ara-C, which does not inhibit RNR. Two cell lines with pronounced synergism (SW1573) or antagonism (H460) for gemcitabine/3-AP, were evaluated for accumulation of the active metabolites, dFdCTP and ara-CTP. Simultaneous exposure induced no or a small increase, but ara-CTP increased after pretreatment with 3-AP, 4-fold in SW1573 cells, but not in H460 (<1.5 fold). Ara-C and gemcitabine incorporation into DNA were more pronounced (about 2-fold increased) for sequential treatment in SW1573 compared to H460 cells (<1.5 fold). This was not related to the activity and expression of deoxycytidine kinase and the M2 subunit of RNR. In conclusion, RNR inhibition by 3-AP prior to gemcitabine or ara-C exposure stimulates accumulation of the active metabolites and incorporation into DNA. The combination 3-AP/Ara-C is more synergistic than 3-AP/gemcitabine possibly because gemcitabine already inhibits RNR, but ara-C does not.

Micro-array analysis of resistance for gemcitabine results in increased expression of ribonucleotide reductase subunits.

To study in detail the relation between gene expression and resistance against gemcitabine, a cell line was isolated from a tumor for which gemcitabine resistance was induced in vivo. Similar to the in vivo tumor, resistance in this cell line, C 26-G, was not related to deficiency of deoxycytidine kinase (dCK). Micro-array analysis showed increased expression of ribonucleotide reductase (RR) subunits M1 and M2 as confirmed by real time PCR analysis (28- and 2.7-fold, respectively). In cell culture, moderate cross-resistance (about 2-fold) was observed to 1-ss-D-arabinofuranosylcytosine (ara-C), 2-chloro-2'deoxyadenosine (CdA), LY231514 (ALIMTA), and cisplatin (CDDP), and pronounced cross-resistance (>23-fold) to 2',2'-difluorodeoxyuridine (dFdU) and 2',2'-difluorodeoxyguanosine (dFdG). Culture in the absence of gemcitabine reduced resistance as well as RRM1 RNA expression, demonstrating a direct relationship of RRM1 RNA expression with acquired resistance to gemcitabine.

Differential effects of gemcitabine on ribonucleotide pools of twenty-one solid tumour and leukaemia cell lines.

To gain a more detailed insight into the metabolism of 2', 2'-difluoro-2'-deoxycytidine (dFdC, gemcitabine, Gemzar) and its effect on normal ribonucleotide (NTP) metabolism in relation to sensitivity, we studied the accumulation of dFdCTP and the changes in NTP pools after dFdC exposure in a panel of 21 solid tumour and leukaemia cell lines. Both sensitivity to dFdC and accumulation of dFdCTP were clearly cell line-dependent: in this panel of cell lines, the head and neck cancer (HNSCC) cell line 22B appeared to be the most sensitive, whereas the small cell lung cancer (SCLC) cell lines were the least sensitive to dFdC. The human leukaemia cell line CCRF-CEM accumulated the highest concentration of dFdCTP, whereas the non-SCLC cell lines accumulated the least. Not only the amount of dFdCTP accumulation was clearly related to the sensitivity for dFdC (R=-0.61), but also the intrinsic CTP/UTP ratio (R=0.97). NTP pools were affected considerably by dFdC treatment: in seven cell lines dFdC resulted in a 1.7-fold depletion of CTP pools, in two cell lines CTP pools were unaffected, but in 12 cell lines CTP pools increased about 2-fold. Furthermore, a 1.6-1.9-fold rise in ATP, UTP and GTP pools was shown in 20, 19 and 20 out of 21 cell lines, respectively. Only the UTP levels after treatment with dFdC were clearly related to the amount of dFdCTP accumulating in the cell (R=0.64 (P<0.01)), but not to the sensitivity to dFdC treatment. In conclusion, we demonstrate that besides the accumulation of dFdCTP, the CTP/UTP ratio was clearly related to the sensitivity to dFdC. Furthermore, the UTP levels and the CTP/UTP ratio after treatment were related to dFdCTP accumulation. Therefore, both the CTP and UTP pools appear to play an important role in the sensitivity to dFdC.

Basis for effective combination cancer chemotherapy with antimetabolites.

Most current chemotherapy regimens for cancer consist of empirically designed combinations, based on efficacy and lack of overlapping toxicity. In the development of combinations, several aspects are often overlooked: (1) possible metabolic and biological interactions between drugs, (2) scheduling, and (3) different pharmacokinetic profiles. Antimetabolites are used widely in chemotherapy combinations for treatment of various leukemias and solid tumors. Ideally, the combination of two or more agents should be more effective than each agent separately (synergism), although additive and even antagonistic combinations may result in a higher therapeutic efficacy in the clinic. The median-drug effect analysis method is one of the most widely used methods for in vitro evaluation of combinations. Several examples of classical effective antimetabolite-(anti)metabolite combinations are discussed, such as that of methotrexate with 6-mercaptopurine or leucovorin in (childhood) leukemia and 5-fluorouracil (5FU) with leucovorin in colon cancer. More recent combinations include treatment of acute-myeloid leukemia with fludarabine and arabinosylcytosine. Other combinations, currently frequently used in the treatment of solid malignancies, include an antimetabolite with a DNA-damaging agent, such as gemcitabine with cisplatin and 5FU with the cisplatin analog oxaliplatin. The combination of 5FU and the topoisomerase inhibitor irinotecan is based on decreased repair of irinotecan-induced DNA damage. These combinations may increase induction of apoptosis. The latter combinations have dramatically changed the treatment of incurable cancers, such as lung and colon cancer, and have demonstrated that rationally designed drug combinations offer new possibilities to treat solid malignancies.

Synergistic interaction between cisplatin and gemcitabine in vitro.

2',2'-Difluorodeoxycytidine (dFdC; gemcitabine) is a new antineoplastic agent that is active against ovarian carcinoma, non-small-cell lung carcinoma, and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. cis-diamminedichloroplatinum (CDDP; cisplatin) is used commonly for the treatment of these tumors. Because the two drugs have mechanisms of action that might be complementary, we investigated a possible synergism between dFdC and CDDP on growth inhibition. The combination was tested in the human ovarian carcinoma cell line A2780, its CDDP-resistant variant ADDP and its dFdC-resistant variant AG6000, the human head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cell line UMSCC-22B, and the murine colon carcinoma cell line C26-10. The cells were exposed to dFdC and CDDP as single agents and to combinations in a molar ratio of 1:500 for 1, 4, 24, and 72 h with a total culture time of 72 h. Synergy was evaluated using the multiple drug effect analysis. In A2780 and ADDP cells, simultaneous exposure to the drugs for 24 and 72 h resulted in synergism, but shorter exposure times were antagonistic. No synergism was found in the UMSCC-22B and C26-10 cell lines at prolonged simultaneous exposure. However, a preincubation with CDDP for 4 h followed by a dFdC incubation for 1, 4, 24, and 72 h was synergistic in all cell lines except C26-10 cells. A 4-h preincubation with dFdC followed by an incubation with the combination for 20 and 68 h was synergistic in all cell lines. Initial studies of the mechanism of interaction concentrated on the effect of CDDP on dFdCTP accumulation and DNA strand break formation. In all cell lines, CDDP failed to increase dFdCTP accumulation at 4- or 24-h exposure to dFdC; in two cell lines, CDDP even tended to decrease dFdCTP accumulation. Neither dFdC nor CDDP caused more than 25% double strand break formation, whereas in the combination, CDDP even tended to decrease this type of DNA damage. The synergistic interaction between the two drugs is possibly the result of dFdC incorporation into DNA and/or CDDP-DNA adduct formation, which may be affected by each other.

The influence of prior novel androgen receptor targeted therapy on the efficacy of cabazitaxel in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment armamentarium for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) has expanded with the introduction of several new therapies. In this treatment continuum, it is unclear whether the efficacy of cabazitaxel is affected by prior novel androgen receptor targeted therapies (ART) such as abiraterone and enzalutamide. In this study, we investigated the influence of prior ART on the efficacy of cabazitaxel in men with mCRPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from an ongoing multicentre, phase II trial were used comprising 114 men with mCRPC treated with cabazitaxel in the post-docetaxel setting. The primary endpoints of the current analysis were prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (⩾ 50%), and overall survival (OS). Univariate and multivariable analyses were conducted to investigate the influence of prior ART on the efficacy of cabazitaxel. RESULTS: From the 114 patients included in this analysis, 44 men received prior ART and 70 men did not receive prior ART before treatment with cabazitaxel. PSA response rates while on cabazitaxel treatment were similar in patients with and without prior ART (34% versus 40%, respectively, P = 0.53). Likewise, median OS was not significantly different between men with and without prior ART (13.0 versus 14.0 months, respectively, logrank P = 0.65). In multivariable analysis, the only variables significantly associated with OS were performance status, serum albumin and alkaline phosphatase. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that prior treatment with ART may not influence the efficacy of cabazitaxel in men with mCRPC. With emerging evidence of cross-resistance in the treatment of mCRPC, cabazitaxel provides a good treatment option irrespective of prior ART.

Cross-resistance in the 2',2'-difluorodeoxycytidine (gemcitabine)-resistant human ovarian cancer cell line AG6000 to standard and investigational drugs.

Gemcitabine (2'-2'-difluorodeoxycytidine; dFdC) is a deoxycytidine analogue which is effective against solid tumours, including lung cancer and ovarian cancer. dFdC requires phosphorylation by deoxycytidine kinase (dCK) for activation. In the human ovarian cancer cell line A2780 and its 30,000-fold dFdC-resistant variant AG6000 (P<0.001), we investigated the cross-resistance profile to several drugs. AG6000, which has a complete dCK deficiency, was approximately 1000-10,000-fold resistant to other deoxynucleoside analogues such as 1-beta-D-arabinofuranosyl cytosine, 2-chloro-deoxyadenosine, aza-deoxycytidine and 2', 2'-difluorodeoxyguanosine (dFdG) (P<0.001). dFdG can be activated by dCK and deoxyguanosine kinase (dGK), but the latter enzyme was not altered in AG6000 cells. Thus dFdG resistance was only due to dCK deficiency. AG6000 was 1.6- and 46.7-fold resistant to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and ZD1694, respectively (the latter was significant; P<0.01), which may be due to the 1.7-fold higher thymidylate synthase (TS) activity, but AG6000 cells were also 2. 7-fold resistant to the lipophilic TS inhibitor AG337 (P<0.05). Remarkably, AG6000 cells were 2.5-fold more sensitive to methotrexate (MTX) (P<0.01) than A2780 cells, but 1.6-fold more resistant to trimetrexate (TMQ) (P<0.10). However, no differences in reduced folate carrier activity, folylpolyglutamate synthetase (FPGS) activity and polyglutamation of MTX were found between the cell lines. AG6000 cells were approximately 2 to 7.5-fold more resistant to doxorubicin (DOX), daunorubicin (DAU), epirubicin and vincristine (VCR) (the latter was significant; P<0.02) and approximately 4-fold more resistant to the microtubule inhibitors paclitaxel and docetaxel (P<0.001). Fluorescent activated cell sorter (FACS) analysis revealed no P-glycoprotein (Pgp) or multidrug resistance-associated protein (MRP) expression, but less fluorescence of intercalated DAU in AG6000 cells. An approximately 2-fold resistance to the topoisomerase I and II inhibitors etoposide, CPT-11 and SN38 was found in AG6000 cells. Topoisomerase I and IIalpha RNA expression was decreased in AG6000 cells. AG6000 was 2.4, 2.4, 2.3 and 3.7-fold more resistant to EO9 (P<0.02), mitomycin-C (MMC) (P<0.05), cisplatin (CDDP) (P<0.10) and maphosphamide (MAPH), respectively. DT-diaphorase (DTD), which activates EO9, was 2.2-fold lower in AG6000 cells. CDDP resistance might be related to a reduced retention of DNA adducts in AG6000. However, glutathione levels were equal in A2780 and AG6000 cells. A 24 h exposure to DOX, VCR and paclitaxel at equimolar and equitoxic concentrations, resulted in more double-strand breaks (1.5- to 2-fold) in A2780 than in AG6000 cells. MAPH at 1120 nM and 17 nM of EO9 did not cause DNA damage in either cell line. In conclusion, AG6000 is a cell line highly cross-resistant to a wide variety of drugs. This cross-resistance might be related to altered enzyme activities and/or increased DNA repair.

Combination chemotherapy studies with gemcitabine.

Gemcitabine (2',2'-difluorodeoxycytidine) is an antineoplastic agent with clinical activity against ovarian carcinoma, small cell and non-small cell lung cancers, head and neck cancer, bladder cancer, breast cancer, and pancreatic cancer. Cisplatin (CDDP), etoposide (VP-16), and mitomycin C (MMC) are well-known anticancer agents that are also active against many of these types of cancer. Because of the low toxicity profile of gemcitabine and the differences in mechanism of cytotoxicity, combinations of these drugs with gemcitabine were studied in vitro and in vivo. Cells were exposed in vitro for 1, 4, 24, or 72 hours to gemcitabine in combination with these drugs, either simultaneously or sequentially in a constant ratio. Another approach consisted of exposure to a combination of the approximate IC25 of one drug and varying concentrations of the other drug. Synergism for several of these combinations was found in the human ovarian cancer cell line A2780, its CDDP-resistant variant ADDP, its gemcitabine-resistant variant AG6000, and in the non-small cell lung cancer cell lines H322 and Lewis lung (LL) after a 72-hour drug treatment. Studies of the possible mechanisms of action initially focused on the major metabolic features of each drug. CDDP did not enhance the accumulation of gemcitabine triphosphate and caused only marginal changes in the extent of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) induced by gemcitabine in these cell lines. Gemcitabine increased platinum accumulation only in the ADDP cell line, but the DNA platination was enhanced in the A2780, ADDP, AG6000, and LL cell lines. MMC did not influence the formation of DSBs by gemcitabine in the LL cell line. The combination of VP-16 and gemcitabine, however, resulted in the formation of more DSBs in this cell line than each drug alone. This effect was even more pronounced when cells were exposed to VP-16 4 hours before gemcitabine. In vivo, the antitumor activity of a combination of 50 mg/kg gemcitabine and 6 mg/kg CDDP was more effective against LL tumors than each compound alone. In conclusion, gemcitabine is an attractive drug to combine with a wide range of anticancer drugs; synergism is often schedule dependent.

Interaction between cisplatin and gemcitabine in vitro and in vivo.

Both gemcitabine (2',2'-difluorodeoxycytidine; dFdC) and cisplatin (cis-diammine dichloroplatinum; CDDP) are active against several solid malignancies, including ovarian cancer and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Because of differences in mechanisms of action and toxicity profiles, combination of the two drugs has enormous clinical potential. We studied possible synergism between the drugs: in vitro using three variants of the human ovarian cancer cell line A2780, and in vivo using gemcitabine- and cisplatin-sensitive and -resistant tumors, the head and neck cancer xenografts HNX-22B and HNX-14C and the murine syngeneic colon 26-10 tumor. In vitro, cells were cultured for 72 hours and exposed to the drugs for 1 to 72 hours; synergy was evaluated by multiple drug-effect analysis. In wild-type A2780 and cisplatin-resistant ADDP cells, simultaneous exposure for 24 and 72 hours was synergistic, as well as preincubation with cisplatin for 4 hours followed by gemcitabine. Preincubation with gemcitabine for 4 hours followed by gemcitabine and cisplatin was synergistic in ADDP and A2780 cells. Cisplatin did not enhance the accumulation of gemcitabine triphosphate in A2780 and ADDP cells. Cisplatin caused a marginal decrease of the number of double strand breaks in the DNA caused by gemcitabine. In vivo, gemcitabine at the maximum tolerated dose of 100 or 120 mg/kg could be combined with cisplatin at 4 mg/kg. When injected simultaneously this resulted in at least additive anti-tumor activity in HNX-22B, but not in HNX-14C and colon 26-10 tumors. Cisplatin, injected 4 hours before or after gemcitabine, was equally active as the simultaneous schedule in HNX-22B tumors, but more toxic. In conclusion, the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin can be synergistic in vitro and at least additive in vivo; this synergism is schedule dependent. The mechanism cannot be explained by gemcitabine triphosphate accumulation or DNA damage studies.

Preclinical combination therapy with gemcitabine and mechanisms of resistance.

Cisplatin and gemcitabine both have activity in solid tumors, such as non-small cell lung, ovarian, and head and neck cancers. These drugs have the desired features needed to obtain synergistic activity, different side effect profiles, and mechanisms of action. Cisplatin acts by forming DNA-DNA cross-links (both intrastrand and interstrand) and DNA-protein cross-links; resistance to cisplatin is thought to be due to excision repair of the affected DNA. Gemcitabine acts by its incorporation into nucleic acids, leading to masked chain termination. By combining gemcitabine with cisplatin, it might be possible to achieve a better therapeutic effect than either drug alone and to bypass resistance to one or both drugs. Acquired resistance to gemcitabine was associated with a deoxycytidine kinase deficiency in vitro, but this was difficult to achieve in vivo. Proper scheduling may overcome intrinsic and transient resistance due to physiologic circumstances or aberrant biochemical properties. Preclinical in vitro and in vivo combination studies with cisplatin showed schedule- and model-dependent synergistic and additive effects between cisplatin and gemcitabine. Incorporation of gemcitabine into DNA might facilitate cisplatin-DNA adduct formation. Combining gemcitabine and cisplatin inhibited the DNA excision-repair process more than gemcitabine alone. This implies that if gemcitabine nucleotide is incorporated into the DNA strand, the action of the proofreading exonucleases is less efficient. In addition, both deoxyribonucleotide and ribonucleotide pools, essential for good functioning of DNA repair, are seriously depleted by gemcitabine. It is concluded that combining gemcitabine with cisplatin can be at least additive providing the right schedule is chosen, giving the best balance between acceptable toxicity and an enhanced antitumor activity.

Antiproliferative activity and mechanism of action of fatty acid derivatives of arabinofuranosylcytosine in leukemia and solid tumor cell lines.

1-beta-D-arabinofuranosylcytosine (ara-C) is a deoxycytidine analog with activity in leukemia, which requires phosphorylation by deoxycytidine kinase (dCK) to allow formation of its active phosphate 1-beta-D-arabinofuranosylcytosine triphosphate, but can be deaminated by deoxycytidine deaminase. Altered membrane transport is also a mechanism of drug resistance. In order to facilitate ara-C uptake and prolong retention in the cell, lipophilic prodrugs were synthesized. Fatty acid groups with a varying acyl chain length and number of double bonds were esterified at the 5' position on the sugar moiety of ara-C. The compounds were tested in two pairs of ara-C resistant leukemic cell lines (murine L1210 and rat BCLO and their resistant variants L4A6 and Bara-C, respectively) and two pairs of cell lines with a resistance to gemcitabine, another deoxycytidine analog (human ovarian cancer A2780 and murine colon cancer C26-A and their resistant variants AG6000 and C26-G, respectively). L4A6, Bara-C and AG6000 have varying degrees of decreased dCK activity, while the mechanism for C26-G is not yet clear. In the parent cell lines, ara-C was more active, but in the resistant variants several of the analogs were more active, while the degree of cross-resistance varied. In AG6000 with a total dCK deficiency, all compounds were inactive. Structure-activity relation analysis showed that ara-C derivatives with shorter acyl chains and more double bonds were more active in the parental and drug resistant cells. Further mechanistic studies were performed with the elaidic acid derivative of ara-C (CP-4055). CP-4055 inhibited deamination of dCyd partly and induced DNA synthesis inhibition effectively in C26-A and C26-G cells, but the retention of inhibition was much longer for CP-4055 than for ara-C. In contrast to ara-C, CP-4055 inhibited RNA synthesis for 60% after drug exposure. In conclusion, CP-4055 seems to be a promising prodrug, whose effects were different and longer lasting than for the parent drug.

Decreased resistance to gemcitabine (2',2'-difluorodeoxycitidine) of cytosine arabinoside-resistant myeloblastic murine and rat leukemia cell lines: role of altered activity and substrate specificity of deoxycytidine kinase.

We determined the potential activity of 2',2'-difluorodeoxycytidine (gemcitabine, dFdC) in 1-beta-D-arabinofuranosylcytidine (ara-C)-sensitive and-resistant leukemia cell lines. Both drugs are phosphorylated by deoxycytidine kinase (dCK); the triphosphates, dFdCTP and ara-CTP, respectively, are incorporated into DNA. In the murine leukemia cell line L1210, induction of resistance to ara-C resulted in the 2200-fold resistant subline L4A6. The Brown Norway rat myelocytic leukemia ara-C-sensitive cell line (BCLO) was >300-fold more sensitive to ara-C than its variant Bara-C. In L1210 cells, gemcitabine was 8-fold more active than ara-C; in L4A6, BCLO, and Bara-C cells, gemcitabine was 16-, 28-, and more than 3-fold more active than ara-C, respectively. A partial explanation for these differences may be the higher dCK activity in the parental cell lines L1210 and BCLO with gemcitabine compared to ara-C as a substrate. DCK activity was not or hardly detectable in the resistant L4A6 and Bara-C cell. In the rat leukemia cell lines, deoxycytidine (dCyd) phosphorylation activity showed an aberrant pattern, since the activity with dCyd was 1.5-fold higher in the Bara-C cell line compared with BCLO, possibly due to thymidine kinase 2. The wild-type L1210 cells accumulated at least 3-fold more ara-CTP and dFdCTP than the rat leukemia cell line BCLO. The ara-C-resistant variants L4A6 and Bara-C did not accumulate dFdCTP or ara-CTP. In conclusion, gemcitabine was more active than ara-C in all leukemia cell lines tested. The sensitivity of the wild-type cell lines correlates with the accumulation of dFdCTP and ara-CTP, but is independent of dCK. However, both resistant variants had decreased dCK activities, but were relatively more sensitive to dFdC than to ara-C.