This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kirichenko, A. V. Articles by Travis, E. L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kirichenko, A. V. Articles by Travis, E. L.

Potentiation of Murine MCa-4 Carcinoma Radioresponse by 9-Amino-20(S)-camptothecin¹

Departments of Experimental Radiation Oncology [A. V. K., E. L. T.], Clinical Investigation [R. A. N.], and Clinical Radiation Oncology [T. A. R.], The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030-4059

9-Amino-20(S)-camptothecin (9-AC) has demonstrated efficacy against several human cancer xenografts, including cancers of the colon, breast, lung, ovary, and stomach and malignant melanoma, and is currently undergoing Phase I clinical trials. In vitro data indicate that the addition of topoisomerase I inhibitors shortly after irradiation causes conversion of single-strand breaks to double-strand breaks, resulting in synergistic lethality to cultured log-phase or quiescent malignant cells. In our study, the efficacy of 9-AC as a potential radiosensitizing agent in vivo was assessed in C3Hf/Kam female mice bearing 7.6–8-mm MCa-4 mammary tumors implanted i.m. into the right posterior thigh. In one series of experiments to determine the dose dependence of 9-AC, mice were injected twice a week with either 0.5, 1.0, or 2.0 mg/kg 9-AC (total doses of 2, 4, and 8 mg/kg, respectively) either alone or 1 h before irradiation. In a second series of experiments, the schedule dependence of 9-AC was determined by giving a constant total dose of 4 mg/kg 9-AC once (2 mg/kg), twice (1 mg/kg every third day), or four (0.5 mg/kg every other day) times per week for 2 weeks, either alone or combined with radiation. The same radiation regimen was used in all experiments: 2-Gy fractions daily for 14 consecutive days, giving a total dose of 28 Gy to the tumorbearing leg only. Tumor response was assessed by regrowth delay and dose modification factors (DMFs) obtained by comparing regrowth delay in the groups given 9-AC alone with those given the same dose of 9-AC and radiation. 9-AC significantly delayed tumor growth when combined with radiation, and this effect was dependent on drug dose; DMFs of 2.4 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.0–3.1], 3.7 (95% CI, 3.1–4.6), and 3.3 (95% CI, 2.7–4.1) were obtained for groups treated with total drug doses of 2.0, 4.0, and 8.0 mg/kg 9-AC, respectively. In addition, the same total dose of 4 mg/kg 9-AC was more effective when given either twice or four times a week compared with once a week, giving DMFs of 2.8 (95% CI, 2.2–3.9), 2.6 (95% CI, 2.0–3.6), and 1.7 (95% CI, 1.3–2.4), respectively. The effect of 9-AC and radiation on normal tissue toxicity was assessed in two normal tissues, jejunum and skin, in separate groups of mice. Jejunal crypt cell survival was decreased in those mice given single doses of 9-AC ranging from 0.5–4.0 mg/kg and 12.5 Gy of total body radiation compared with those given 12.5 Gy of total body irradiation alone. The same regimen of drug and radiation did not modify acute skin reactions. These results suggest that 9-AC is an effective in vivo radiosensitizing agent when given in divided doses with fractionated irradiation. In addition, the gastrointestinal tract but not skin could be a critical target tissue for the use of 9-AC combined with radiation.

¹ Supported by A Conversation with a Living Legend — Palmer Allocation, the R. W. Fair Foundation; NIH Grants CA-06294 (to E. L. T.), CA62461 (to R. A. N.), and CA70172 (to R. A. N.); and Pharmacia, Inc.

² To whom requests for reprints should be addressed, at Department of Experimental Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030-4059.

Received 11/13/96. Accepted 3/21/97.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R.-D. Hofheinz, B. von Gerstenberg-Helldorf, F. Wenz, U. Gnad, U. Kraus-Tiefenbacher, A. Muldner, R. Hehlmann, S. Post, A. Hochhaus, and F. Willeke Phase I Trial of Capecitabine and Weekly Irinotecan in Combination With Radiotherapy for Neoadjuvant Therapy of Rectal Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., March 1, 2005; 23(7): 1350 - 1357. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Lammering, T. H. Hewit, M. Holmes, K. Valerie, W. Hawkins, P.-S. Lin, R. B. Mikkelsen, and R. K. Schmidt-Ullrich Inhibition of the Type III Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Variant Mutant Receptor by Dominant-Negative EGFR-CD533 Enhances Malignant Glioma Cell Radiosensitivity Clin. Cancer Res., October 1, 2004; 10(19): 6732 - 6743. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Pyo, H. Choy, G. P. Amorino, J.-s. Kim, Q. Cao, S. K. Hercules, and R. N. DuBois A Selective Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitor, NS-398, Enhances the Effect of Radiation in Vitro and in Vivo Preferentially on the Cells That Express Cyclooxygenase-2 Clin. Cancer Res., October 1, 2001; 7(10): 2998 - 3005. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. A. RICH and A. V. KIRICHENKO Camptothecin Dose, Schedule, and Timing of Administration for Clinical Radiation Sensitization Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., December 1, 2000; 922(1): 334 - 339. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. J. Houghton, C. F. Stewart, P. J. Cheshire, L. B. Richmond, M. N. Kirstein, C. A. Poquette, M. Tan, H. S. Friedman, and T. P. Brent Antitumor Activity of Temozolomide Combined with Irinotecan Is Partly Independent of O6-Methylguanine-DNA Methyltransferase and Mismatch Repair Phenotypes in Xenograft Models Clin. Cancer Res., October 1, 2000; 6(10): 4110 - 4118. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				P. Chastagner, J. L. Merlin, C. Marchal, S. Hoffstetter, M. Barberi-Heyob, G. Vassal, and A. Duprez In Vivo Potentiation of Radiation Response by Topotecan in Human Rhabdomyosarcoma Xenografted into Nude Mice Clin. Cancer Res., August 1, 2000; 6(8): 3327 - 3333. [Abstract] [Full Text]