Efficacy of Gemcitabine on Intracranial Erlich Tumor and its Determinants

Abstract

Gemcitabine is quite effective in the treatment of brain tumors, although this drug has a limited ability to overcome the blood-brain barrier (BBB). Aim of study is to assess the therapeutic efficacy of gemcitabine and other drugs with different permeability of BBB in the model of intracranial tumor. The therapeutic activity of gemcitabine, carmustine, cyclophosphamide and cisplatin was studied in mice with intracranially implanted Ehrlich tumor, and also gemcitabine in various doses - with intramuscularly implanted tumor. On intracranial tumor model gemcitabine (25 mg/kg) increased the life span (ILS) by 60−89% (p<0.001), despite the fact that its permeability of the BBB is about 10%. Therapeutic activity of carmustine, cyclophosphamide and cisplatin (ILS were 44, 22 and 11%, respectively) corresponds with the BBB permeability for these drugs (90, 20 and 8%, respectively). On intramuscular tumor model, gemcitabine showed significant antitumor effect at both 25 and 2.5 mg/kg, indicating a wide range of therapeutic doses of this drug. Pronounced therapeutic effect of gemcitabine on intracranial tumor most likely is due to the small but sufficient concentration of the drug that overcomes the BBB.

Key words

ehrlich tumor - brain - gemcitabine - carmustine - cyclophosphamide - cisplatin - blood-brain barrier

• References

• 1 BC Cancer Agency BC Cancer Agency Cancer Drug Manual©. Gemcitabine, 2015 Available at http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/drug-database-site/Drug%20Index/Gemcitabine_monograph_1Jan2015.pdf Accessed 20 December 2017
• 2 Bastiancich C, Bastiat G, Lagarce F. Gemcitabine and glioblastoma: challenges and current perspectives. Drug Discov Today 2018; 23: 416-423
• 3 Maraveyas A, Sgouros J, Upadhyay S. et al. Gemcitabine twice weekly as a radiosensitiser for the treatment of brain metastases in patients with carcinoma: a phase I study. Br J Cancer 2005; 92: 815-819
• 4 Sigmond J, Honeywell RJ, Postma TJ. et al. Gemcitabine uptake in glioblastoma multiforme: potential as a radiosensitizer. Ann Oncol 2009; 20: 182-187
• 5 Degen JW, Walbridge S, Vortmeyer AO. et al. Safety and efficacy of convection-enhanced delivery of gemcitabine or carboplatin in a malignant glioma model in rats. J Neurosurg 2003; 99: 893-898
• 6 Chambers R, Gillespie GY, Soroceanu L. et al. Comparison of genetically engineered herpes simplex viruses for the treatment of brain tumors in a scid mouse model of human malignant glioma. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1995; 92: 1411-1415
• 7 Tomayko MM, Reynolds CP. Determination of subcutaneous tumor size in athymic (nude) mice. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1989; 24: 148-154. doi:10.1007/BF00300234
• 8 Esumi Y, Mitsugi K, Takao A. et al. Disposition of gemcitabine in rat and dog after single and multiple dosings. Xenobiotica 1994; 24: 805-817
• 9 Apparaju SK. A Gudelsky GA, Desai PB. Pharmacokinetics of gemcitabine in tumor and non-tumor extracellular fluid of brain: An in vivo assessment in rats employing intracerebral microdialysis. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2008; 61: 223-229
• 10 Stukov AN, Filatova LV, Latipova DKh. et al. [Therapeutic activity of gemcitabine in intracranial tumors]. Vopr Onkol 2015; 61: 274-279 (in Russian)
• 11 Levin VA, Kabra PA, Freeman-Dove MA. Relationship of 1,3-bis(2-chloroethyl)-1-nitrosourea (BCNU) and 1-(2-chloroethyl)-3-cyclohexyl-1-nitrosourea (CCNU) pharmacokinetics of uptake, distribution, and tissue/plasma partitioning in rat organs and intracerebral tumors. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1978; 1: 233-242
• 12 Genka S, Deutsch J, Stahle PL. et al. Brain and plasma pharmacokinetics and anticancer activities of cyclophosphamide and phosphoramide mustard in the rat. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1990; 27: 1-7
• 13 Ginos JZ, Cooper AJL, Dhawan V. et al. [13N]cisplatin pet to assess pharmacokinetics of intra-arterial versus intravenous chemotherapy for malignant brain tumors. J Nucl Med 1987; 28: 1844-1852
• 14 Lee SW, Kim WJ, Park JA. et al. Blood-brain barrier interfaces and brain tumors. Arch Pharm Res 2006; 29: 265-275