title: Influence of the duration of intravenous drug administration on tumor uptake.
abstract: Enhancing tumor uptake of anticancer drugs is an important therapeutic goal, because insufficient drug accumulation is now considered to be an important reason for unresponsiveness or resistance to antitumor therapy. Based on a mechanistic tumor uptake model describing tumor exposure to molecules of different molecular size after bolus administration, we have investigated the influence of the duration of intravenous administration on tumor uptake. The model integrates empirical relationships between molecular size and drug disposition (capillary permeability, interstitial diffusivity, available volume fraction, and plasma clearance), together with a compartmental pharmacokinetics model and a drug/target binding model. Numerical simulations were performed using this model for protracted intravenous drug infusion, a common mode of administration of anticancer drugs. The impact of mode of administration on tumor uptake is described for a large range of molecules of different molecular size. Evaluation was performed not only for the maximal drug concentration achieved in the tumor, but also for the dynamic profile of drug concentration. It is shown that despite a lower maximal uptake for a given dose, infusion allows for a prolonged exposure of tumor tissues to both small- and large-sized molecules. Moreover, infusion may allow higher doses to be administered by reducing Cmax-linked toxicity, thereby achieving a similar maximal uptake compared to bolus administration.
authors.affiliation: Clinical Pharmacokinetics Department, Institut de Recherches Internationales Servier , Suresnes , France.
authors.forename: Sylvain
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Fouliard
authors.forename: Marylore
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Chenel
authors.forename: Fabrizio
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Marcucci
keywords: affinity; infusion; size; tumor; uptake
references.citation: Drug Discov Today. 2012 Oct;17(19-20):1139-46
references.pmid: 22706017
references.citation: J Biophys Biochem Cytol. 1955 Nov 25;1(6):551-66
references.pmid: 13278366
references.citation: Nat Rev Cancer. 2004 Oct;4(10):806-13
references.pmid: 15510161
references.citation: Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2012 Jan;64(1):53-68
references.pmid: 21983328
references.citation: Cancer Cell. 2012 Mar 20;21(3):418-29
references.pmid: 22439937
references.citation: Cancer Res. 1999 Aug 15;59(16):4136-41
references.pmid: 10463619
references.citation: Immunol Res. 2002;25(2):97-113
references.pmid: 11999172
references.citation: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Oct 3;99(19):1441-54
references.pmid: 17895480
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2001 May 1;19(9):2413-21
references.pmid: 11331320
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2011 Jun 20;29(18):2493-8
references.pmid: 21576633
references.citation: Nat Rev Cancer. 2005 Jul;5(7):516-25
references.pmid: 15965493
references.citation: Clin Cancer Res. 2012 Jun 15;18(12):3340-51
references.pmid: 22535153
references.citation: Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2001 Nov;281(5):F860-8
references.pmid: 11592944
references.citation: Physiol Rev. 1999 Jul;79(3):703-61
references.pmid: 10390517
references.citation: MAbs. 2013 Jan-Feb;5(1):34-46
references.pmid: 23211740
references.citation: Mol Cancer Ther. 2009 Oct;8(10):2861-71
references.pmid: 19825804
references.citation: Science. 2008 Aug 15;321(5891):974-7
references.pmid: 18703743
references.citation: Biophys J. 1975 Oct;15(10):1087-91
references.pmid: 1203442
references.citation: Microvasc Res. 1984 Sep;28(2):270-4
references.pmid: 6209533
references.citation: Cancer Res. 2006 Jan 15;66(2):1033-9
references.pmid: 16424039
references.citation: Mol Cancer Ther. 2011 Jul;10(7):1289-99
references.pmid: 21551263