Clinical Cancer Research Infection and Cancer: Biology, Therapeutics, and Prevention
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Houghton, P. J.
Right arrow Articles by Brent, T. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Houghton, P. J.
Right arrow Articles by Brent, T. P.
Clinical Cancer Research Vol. 6, 4110-4118, October 2000
© 2000 American Association for Cancer Research

Experimental Therapeutics, Preclinical Pharmacology

Antitumor Activity of Temozolomide Combined with Irinotecan Is Partly Independent of O6-Methylguanine-DNA Methyltransferase and Mismatch Repair Phenotypes in Xenograft Models1

Peter J. Houghton2, Clinton F. Stewart, Pamela J. Cheshire, Lois B. Richmond, Mark N. Kirstein, Catherine A. Poquette, Ming Tan, Henry S. Friedman and Thomas P. Brent

Departments of Molecular Pharmacology [P. J. H., T. P. B.], Pharmaceutical Science [C. F. S., P. J. C., L. B. R., M. N. K.], and Biostatistics and Epidemiology [C. A. P., M. T.], St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee 38105, and Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710 [H. S. F.]


   ABSTRACT
Top
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The activity of temozolomide combined with irinotecan (CPT-11) was evaluated against eight independent xenografts (four neuroblastomas, three rhabdomyosarcomas, and one glioblastoma). In all studies, temozolomide was administered p.o. daily for 5 consecutive days/cycle, found in preliminary studies to be the optimal schedule for administration. Irinotecan was administered i.v. for 5 days for 2 consecutive weeks/cycle. Treatment cycles were repeated every 21 days for a total of three cycles over 8 weeks. In combination, temozolomide and CPT-11 induced complete responses in four neuroblastomas, two rhabdomyosarcomas, and the glioblastoma line. The activity of the combination was significantly greater than the activity of either agent administered alone in four tumor lines. Of interest, the interaction appeared independent of tumor MGMT or mismatch repair phenotype, suggesting that the mechanism of synergy may be independent of O6-methylation by temozolomide. Pharmacokinetic studies indicated no detectable interaction between these two agents. Further, coadministration of CPT-11 appeared to reduce the toxicity of temozolomide in tumor-bearing mice.


   INTRODUCTION
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Temozolomide is a methylating agent that has been approved for treatment of astrocytoma and is entering various phases of clinical evaluation against other tumors. Phase II trials in Europe have also confirmed some activity against melanoma (1) and suggest activity against high-grade gliomas (2) . Temozolomide is considered to exert its toxic effects primarily by generating O6-methylguanine in DNA (3 , 4) . This adduct is subject to a single-step, error-free repair reaction that simply transfers the methyl group to a cysteine residue within the repair protein MGMT,3 thus restoring the DNA to its intact state. Hence, MGMT is a major determinant of temozolomide cytotoxicity (4 , 5) . Furthermore, intact MMR function is critically required for the cytotoxicity of the methylating drugs. Recently, we reported the sensitivity of a series of pediatric tumor xenografts to temozolomide. Sensitivity correlated with MGMT deficiency and MMR proficiency (6) .

CPT-11 is a camptothecin prodrug activated by carboxylesterases to the active topoisomerase I poison SN-38. CPT-11 has demonstrated broad activity against both murine and human tumor xenograft models (reviewed in Ref. 7 ) and clinically significant activity against many types of cancer (reviewed in 8 , 9 ). Camptothecins have been reported to synergize with ionizing radiation (10 , 11) and chemical agents that damage DNA, including platinum and alkylating agents (12, 13, 14) . Potentially, modification to DNA can lead to recruitment of topoisomerase I, thus potentially increasing the probability of a camptothecin drug stabilizing the DNA-enzyme covalent complex (15 , 16) . Because topoisomerase I preferentially cuts DNA between T and G residues, we speculated that methylation of O6-guanine would lead to recruitment of topoisomerase I and potentially enhance the probability of inducing camptothecin-mediated damage. This formed the biochemical rationale for combining temozolomide with a camptothecin. Recently, Pourquier et al. (17) demonstrated that O6-alkylation of guanine induces topoisomerase-I DNA covalent complexes in N-methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine-treated cells. Conceptually, this would increase the probability of a collision with the advancing replication fork and generation of a double-strand DNA break, considered the initiating event in inducing cell death (reviewed in Ref. 18 ).

In addition to the biochemical rationale for the interaction between temozolomide and CPT-11, in clinical trials these agents have relatively nonoverlapping toxicities. The limiting toxicity of temozolomide is noncumulative, transient myelosuppression (19) , whereas when CPT-11 is given as protracted daily dosing, the limiting toxicity is primarily diarrhea (20) . Here we report the significant activity of CPT-11 in combination with temozolomide. Of interest is the finding that the combination of each agent at dose levels that as monotherapy have minimal antitumor activity resulted in complete regressions of several tumors. This occurred in tumors that were MGMT proficient and MMR deficient, suggesting that the interaction between these agents may in part be independent of temozolomide-induced O6-methylation of guanine. In the companion paper, Patel et al. (21) have examined the sequence dependence of this combination in brain tumor xenografts.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Tumor Models
Each of the xenografts used has been described previously (22, 23, 24) . Studies used four lines of neuroblastoma, three rhabdomyosarcomas, and one glioblastoma. Tumors were grown in the s.c. space of immune-deprived, female CBA/CaJ mice, as described (25) . Previously, we have reported the MGMT, MMR, and p53 phenotype of each tumor and related this to temozolomide sensitivity (6) . The phenotype determined from tumor tissue for each tumor is summarized in Table 1Citation .


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1 %MGMT, MMR, and p53 phenotypes of xenografts

 
Tumor Response and Tumor Failure Time
For individual tumors, partial response was defined as a volume regression >50% but with measurable tumor (>=0.10 cm3 ) at all times. CR was defined as a disappearance of measurable tumor mass (<0.10 cm3 ) at some point within 12 weeks after initiation of therapy. A maintained complete response was CR without tumor regrowth within a 12-week study time frame. Methods for statistical analysis of data, and evaluation of tumor responses have been reported previously (25) . Animal care was in accord with institution guidelines.

Drug Formulation and Administration
Initial studies were designed to determine the optimal schedule for administration of temozolomide and to determine any schedule-dependent antitumor activity. Tumor-bearing mice were treated with temozolomide by oral gavage for 5 days (days 1–5) or two 5-day courses (1–5 and 8–12) per 21-day cycle. Alternatively, mice received three 5-day courses per 28-day cycle. The cumulative dose in all groups was 630 mg/kg. In subsequent combination studies, temozolomide was administered daily for 5 consecutive days (days 1–5) of each cycle, because this was found optimal in initial studies. Temozolomide was administered 1 h prior to administration of CPT-11. Cycles of therapy were repeated twice at 21-day intervals. CPT-11, at doses listed for individual experiments, was administered i.v. daily for 5 consecutive days for 2 consecutive weeks, shown previously to be an optimal schedule (days 1–5 and 8–12). Temozolomide and CPT-11 were generously supplied by Schering-Plough and Upjohn-Pharmacia, respectively.

Pharmacokinetic Studies
Pharmacokinetics of Temozolomide and MTIC in Mice.
We conducted pharmacokinetic studies of the combination of temozolomide and CPT-11 to determine whether a pharmacokinetic interaction existed between the two drugs. Temozolomide was administered as a single oral dose (66 mg/kg), followed by a single i.v. dose of irinotecan (10 mg/kg). To measure temozolomide and MTIC, blood samples were collected from mice (three animals/point) at 0, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, and 6 h. Samples were immediately centrifuged at 5.5 x g for 2 min in a tabletop refrigerated centrifuge at 4°C. Plasma was then divided into aliquots for processing to assay either temozolomide or MTIC by isocratic high-performance liquid chromatography as described previously in detail (6) . Temozolomide and MTIC were quantitated by UV detection at 325 and 318 nm, respectively. The lower levels of quantitation for temozolomide and MTIC were 0.25 and 0.5 µg/ml, respectively. All calibrators and controls were prepared in murine plasma (Hill Top Lab Animals, Inc., Scottdale, PA).

Pharmacokinetics of Irinotecan and SN-38 in Mice.
The disposition of irinotecan and SN-38 was evaluated after administration of a single oral dose of temozolomide (66 mg/kg), followed by a single i.v. dose of irinotecan (10 mg/kg). Heparinized blood samples (~1 ml) were collected (three animals/time point) pre, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 6 h after i.v. irinotecan administration. Samples were immediately centrifuged at 5.5 x g for 2 min. Plasma was separated, and proteins were precipitated by the addition of 200 µl of plasma to 800 µl of cold methanol (-30°C), followed by vigorous agitation with a vortex mixer, and centrifuged again at 5.5 x g for 2 min. The supernatant was decanted and stored at -70°C until analysis.

Irinotecan and SN-38 lactone plasma concentrations were determined by an isocratic high-performance liquid chromatography assay with fluorescence detection, as described previously in detail (24 , 26) . The excitation and emission wavelengths were 375 and 520 nm, respectively. The lower level of quantitation was 1 ng/ml for irinotecan and SN-38. All calibrators and controls were prepared in murine plasma (Hill Top Lab Animals, Inc.).

Temozolomide and MTIC Pharmacokinetic Analysis.
Temozolomide and MTIC plasma concentration-time data from oral administration were modeled using maximum likelihood estimation as implemented in ADAPT II (27) . A first-order absorption, one-compartment linear model, which included first-order MTIC formation and elimination, was used to simultaneously describe temozolomide and MTIC disposition (28) . AUC was calculated from the model parameters. The apparent time of maximum concentration (tmax) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) were also noted.

Irinotecan and SN-38 Pharmacokinetic Analysis.
The disposition of irinotecan and SN-38 was evaluated using a three-compartment model with linear distribution and elimination (29) . Pharmacokinetic parameters for each set of data were initially fit by maximum likelihood estimation, as implemented in ADAPT II. Pharmacokinetic parameters calculated from these estimates included systemic clearance (CL) and AUC. The maximum observed irinotecan and SN-38 plasma concentrations (Cmax) and time to maximum plasma concentration (Tmax) were determined.


   RESULTS
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Previously, we and others have shown that the antitumor activity of camptothecins is highly schedule dependent. For example, the same total dose of CPT-11 given over 10 days was significantly more active than when administered over 5 days or as a single administration. To determine whether there was similar schedule dependency for temozolomide, we examined the antitumor activity of this agent given daily for 5 days, 2 x 5 days per 21-day cycle or 3 x 5 days per 28-day cycle. The total dose per cycle was constant. Results for NB-1382 xenografts are presented in Fig. 1Citation and demonstrate the most pronounced schedule-dependent activity of temozolomide. In this experiment, mice received a cumulative dose of 210 mg/kg per cycle. Mice received three cycles of treatment (total cumulative dose was 630 mg/kg). When temozolomide was given over 5 days (42 mg/kg/dose), CRs were achieved in all mice and were maintained at week 12. Lower doses given over more protracted periods were progressively less effective. Far less schedule-dependent antitumor activity was observed in five other xenograft lines (data not shown); however, in all experiments, administration of temozolomide in the most intensive schedule (daily for 5 consecutive days/cycle) was either more active or equally active compared with the other schedules. Consequently, for combination studies we selected the daily x 5 schedule for combination with CPT-11.



View larger version (33K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. Schedule-dependent antitumor activity of temozolomide against NB-1382 neuroblastoma xenografts. Tumor-bearing mice received either no treatment (control) or a cumulative dose of 210 mg/kg per cycle. Schedules used were daily for 5 days [(dx5)1], two 5-day courses on consecutive weeks [(dx5)2] with cycles repeated every 21 days over 8 weeks. Alternatively, mice received temozolomide for three 5-day courses on consecutive weeks [(dx5)3], and cycles were repeated every 28 days over 11 weeks. Each curve shows the growth of an individual tumor.

 
Dose levels of CPT-11 and temozolomide were chosen so that neither drug alone caused CR. For CPT-11 dose, levels between 2.5 and 0.18 mg/kg daily were administered, determined by the intrinsic sensitivity of any particular xenograft line. These dose levels give SN-38 systemic exposures consistent with those achieved in patients receiving CPT-11 using the same schedule of administration (20) . Temozolomide was administered at dose levels ranging from 66 to 19 mg/kg and are consistent with doses that in patients give achievable levels of parent drug and MTIC the active metabolite (6) . Statistical analysis of the antitumor activity of single agents and combination treatments are summarized in Table 2Citation . The activity of combinations was significantly better than the activity of either single agent used at the same dose level, with a few exceptions. For example, in studies where monotherapy with either CPT-11 or temozolomide at the doses used caused maintained CR, it was not possible to determine whether combinations were superior to monotherapy (e.g., Rh30 and NB-1643). However, against several tumor lines temozolomide combined with CPT-11 demonstrated significant activity against tumors at dose levels that had little activity when administered as monotherapy. For example, against NB-SD neuroblastoma xenografts, temozolomide had little activity at tolerated dose levels, and similarly tumors progressed in mice treated with CPT-11 at 0.4 mg/kg (Fig. 2)Citation . In combination these agents induced CR that was maintained at week 12. The glioblastoma line, SJ-GBM2, has a similar phenotype to NB-SD, except in this tumor MGMT is not detected (see Table 1Citation ). Although temozolomide induced some partial responses and an occasional CR during the 8 weeks of treatment at 66 or 42 mg/kg, the higher dose level was lethal during cycle 3 of treatment (Fig. 3)Citation . At 42 mg/kg, the overall effect of treatment was stasis, because at the end of treatment tumor volumes were similar to that at initiation of temozolomide. CPT-11 combined with temozolomide (66 or 42 mg/kg) resulted in CR of all tumors with no tumor regrowth during the period of observation (12 weeks). Furthermore, combination with CPT-11 decreased the toxicity of temozolomide (described below). NB-1771 tumors have detectable MGMT and appear to be MMR proficient. These tumors were relatively sensitive to temozolomide as a single agent (6) ; hence for this study the dose was reduced to 19 mg/kg. CPT-11 induced some CRs at 1.25 mg/kg and an occasional CR at 0.61 mg/kg; however, at week 12 all tumors had progressed. As shown in Fig. 4Citation , temozolomide combined with CPT-11 resulted in CRs of all tumors. In groups of mice receiving the higher dose of CPT-11, there was a single tumor that regrew, whereas at the lower dose, four tumors regrew during the period of observation. Rh18 rhabdomyosarcoma expresses high MGMT levels and is deficient in MLH1 expression. Consequently, this xenograft is poorly sensitive to temozolomide as a single agent (Fig. 5Citation ). Ineffective doses of temozolomide combined with doses of CPT-11, which alone induced few CRs, resulted in a high frequency of CRs.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2 %Time to tumor failure: results of log-rank and Gray’s tests

 


View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. Antitumor activity of temozolomide (TMZ) and CPT-11 as single agents and in combination against NB-SD neuroblastoma xenografts. Mice received TMZ p.o. for daily (days 1–5) and CPT-11 (days 1–5 and 8–12) i.v. of each treatment cycle. CPT-11 was administered 1 h after TMZ. Cycles of therapy were repeated every 21 days over 8 weeks. Each curve represents growth of an individual tumor.

 


View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. Antitumor activity of temozolomide (TMZ) and CPT-11 as single agents and in combination against SJ-GBM2 glioblastoma xenografts deficient in MGMT expression. Drugs were administered as described in Fig. 2Citation . Each curve represents growth of an individual tumor, and mice were observed for up to 12 weeks.

 


View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 4. Antitumor activity of temozolomide (TMZ) and CPT-11 as single agents and in combination against NB-1771 neuroblastoma xenografts proficient in MMR and expressing MGMT. Each curve represents growth of an individual tumor, and mice were observed for up to 12 weeks.

 


View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 5. Antitumor activity of temozolomide (TMZ) and CPT-11 as single agents and in combination against Rh18 rhabdomyosarcoma xenografts deficient in MMR and expressing high MGMT levels. Each curve represents growth of an individual tumor, and mice were observed for up to 12 weeks.

 
To determine whether the antitumor activity observed with the drug combination could be a result of one agent altering the systemic exposure to the other, detailed pharmacokinetic studies were performed. Temozolomide and MTIC concentrations exceeded the limit of assay sensitivity for the duration of the study. After administration, the apparent tmax was 30 min for temozolomide and 1 h for MTIC. The Cmax for temozolomide and MTIC were 36 and 0.8 µg/ml, respectively. The plasma AUC0->{infty} for temozolomide and MTIC were 47 and 1.3 mg/L-hr, respectively. Irinotecan and SN-38 concentrations exceeded the limit of assay sensitivity for the duration of the study. After administration, the apparent tmax was 15 min for both irinotecan and SN-38. The Cmax for irinotecan and SN-38 was 764 and 192 µg/ml, respectively. The plasma AUC0->{infty} for irinotecan and SN-38 was 993 and 463 mg/L-hr, respectively.


   DISCUSSION
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
CPT-11 has demonstrated significant activity against various human cancers including refractory pediatric neoplasms (20) . In vitro, camptothecins have demonstrated synergy with various DNA-damaging agents, including alkylating agents, cisplatin, and ionizing radiation. In vivo, 9-aminocamptothecin acts as a radiation sensitizer, and a single report indicates synergy between topotecan and temozolomide (30) . Recently, we reported the activity of temozolomide in xenografts where the MGMT and MMR status had been determined (6) . In the current study, we evaluated the antitumor activity of temozolomide, a DNA methylating agent, combined with CPT-11, the prodrug form of SN-38, a topoisomerase I poison. In part, the rationale for this combination was the nonoverlapping toxicities of the two agents. Dose limiting toxicity of temozolomide is cumulative myelosuppression, notably neutropenia, whereas in the schedule used here, that of CPT-11 is diarrhea with only moderate myelosuppression in children (20) .

Previously, we and others have shown that the antitumor activity of several camptothecin drugs is highly schedule dependent (Ref. 22 ; reviewed in Ref. 7 ). We were interested, therefore, in initially determining whether there was a similar schedule dependency for the antitumor activity of temozolomide. Tumor-bearing mice were administered temozolomide daily for 5 days for 1, 2, or 3 consecutive weeks (i.e., days 1–5 or days 1–5 + 8–12 repeated for three cycles at 21-day intervals or days 1–5 + 8–12 + 15–19 repeated at 28-day intervals). In each schedule, the total cumulative dose/cycle was constant. Temozolomide demonstrated only moderate schedule-dependent antitumor activity, but in all experiments the most intensive schedule (daily for 5 days every 21 days) was either more effective or equally effective with other schedules of drug administration. Thus, for combination studies with CPT-11, temozolomide was given for 5 consecutive days at the start of each cycle of CPT-11 treatment.

Dose levels of CPT-11 were used that in mice give systemic exposures to SN-38 consistent with achievable exposures in children receiving CPT-11 using the same schedule (20) . The highest dose of temozolomide (66 mg/kg) used also gives clinically relevant drug exposures (6) . For most studies, the combinations had significantly greater activity than either agent administered as monotherapy at the same dose level. Exceptions were where either or both agents were effective at inducing maintained CRs. Examples were Rh30 and NB-1643, where at the dose levels administered, monotherapy resulted in CRs maintained at week 12. For NB-SD, NB-1771, SJ-GBM2, and Rh18 xenografts, combinations evaluated were significantly more effective than monotherapy. Against tumors such as Rh18 that express relatively high levels of MGMT, temozolomide induced few regressions and caused relatively little growth inhibition. However the combination resulted in more CRs than either drug given as monotherapy. The glioblastoma, SJ-GBM2, is also relatively refractory to temozolomide. Although this tumor is deficient in MGMT, it has barely detectable levels of the MMR protein MLH1. At the highest tolerated dose of temozolomide (42 mg/kg), there were tumor regressions, but at the end of treatment (week 8) tumors were similar in mass to the pretreatment values. Furthermore, there were no maintained CRs. In contrast, temozolomide combined with CPT-11 was less toxic and resulted in maintained CRs for all animals in groups receiving 66 or 42 mg/kg temozolomide combined with an ineffective dose level of CPT-11 (1.25 mg/kg). Similar results were obtained against NB-SD neuroblastoma xenografts that are resistant to temozolomide. Furthermore, all NB-1771 neuroblastoma xenografts in mice treated with the combination had CR, although some tumors had regrown by week 12. Thus, for several tumors the combination of CPT-11 with temozolomide induced superior tumor responses than either agent alone against tumors that were either MGMT proficient or MMR deficient and irrespective of wild-type or mutant p53. These results suggest that the interaction between CPT-11 and temozolomide may be, in part, independent of O6-methylation of guanine, the primary mechanism considered to lead to cytotoxicity of temozolomide. In addition to methylation of O6-guanine, temozolomide methylates N7-guanine or N3 -adenine. These are the predominant sites of modification by temozolomide. Potentially, recruitment of topoisomerase I to DNA may be facilitated through such modifications, although this remains to be tested. Of interest also was the observation that toxicity-related death was consistently lower in groups of mice treated with temozolomide combined with higher dose levels of CPT-11.

The results of our pharmacokinetic analyses showed no difference in temozolomide or irinotecan disposition when the two agents are coadministered. We have previously studied the disposition of single-agent temozolomide and MTIC in the xenograft model after a single oral dose of 66 mg/kg (6) . The temozolomide and MTIC AUC0->{infty} were 40 µg/ml·hr and 1.9 µg/ml·hr, respectively, values very similar to those observed in this study when temozolomide was coadministered with irinotecan. These results are not surprising, especially because temozolomide is metabolized through nonenzymatic, pH-dependent hydrolysis (31) . Likewise, the AUC0->{infty} for irinotecan and SN-38 was similar to those values reported by us previously after single-agent irinotecan (26 , 32) . Thus, the enhanced antitumor activity of the combination is unlikely attributable to a drug interaction between the two agents.

In summary, combination of temozolomide and CPT-11 administered on optimal schedules is effective in inducing CR in a series of xenografts derived from childhood solid malignancies. Taken together with results from pediatric brain tumor xenografts in the companion paper by Patel et al. (21) , clinical evaluation of this combination may be of interest.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2A %Continued

 

   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank Lorina Dudkin for technical assistance that contributed to part of this study.


   FOOTNOTES
 
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1 Supported in part by USPHS Awards CA23099, CA71628, CA14799, and CA21765 (Cancer Center Support Grant) from the National Cancer Institute and by American, Lebanese, Syrian Associated Charities. Back

2 To whom requests for reprints should be addressed, at Molecular Pharmacology, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, 332 North Lauderdale Street, Memphis, TN 38105-2794. Phone: (901) 495-3440; Fax: (901) 521-1668; E-mail: peter.houghton{at}stjude.org Back

3 The abbreviations used are: MGMT, O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase; MMR, mismatch repair; CPT-11, irinotecan [7-ethyl-10-(4-[1-piperidino)-1-piperidino]-carbonyloxy-camptothecin]; SN-38, 7-ethyl-10-hydroxy-camptothecin; CR, complete response; MTIC, 5-(3-methyltriazen-1-yl)imidazole-4-carboxamide; AUC, area under the concentration-time curve. Back

Received 5/23/00; revised 7/14/00; accepted 7/14/00.


   REFERENCES
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Bleehen N. M., Newlands E. S., Lee S. M., Thatcher N., Selby P., Calvert A. H., Rustin G. J., Brampton M., Stevens M. F. Cancer research campaign Phase II trial of temozolomide in metastatic melanoma. J. Clin. Oncol., 13: 910-913, 1995.[Abstract]
  2. Bower M., Newlands E. S., Bleehen N. M., Bada M., Begent R. J., Calvert A. H., Colquhoun I., Lewis P., Brampton M. H. Multicentre CRC Phase II trial of temozolomide in recurrent or progressive high-grade glioma. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol., 40: 484-488, 1997.[CrossRef][Medline]
  3. Tisdale M. J. Antitumor imidazotetrazine. XV. Role of guanine O6 alkylation in the mechanism of cytotoxicity of imidazotetrazines. Biochem. Pharmacol., 36: 457-462, 1987.[CrossRef][Medline]
  4. Wedge S. R., Porteus J. K., May B. L., Newlands E. S. Potentiation of temozolomide and BCNU cytotoxicity by O6- benzylguanine: a comparative study in vitro. Br. J. Cancer, 73: 482-490, 1996.[Medline]
  5. Graziani G., Faraoni I., Grohmann U., Bianchi R., Binaglia L., Margison G. P., Watson A. J., Orlando L., Bonmassar E., D’Atri S. O6-alkylguanine-DNA alkyltransferase attenuates triazene-induced cytotoxicity and tumor cell immunogenicity in murine L1210 leukemia. Cancer Res., 55: 6231-6236, 1995.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Middlemas D. S., Stewart C. F., Kirstein M. N., Poquette C., Friedman H. S., Houghton P. J., Brent T. P. Biochemical correlates of temozolomide sensitivity in pediatric solid tumor xenografts. Clin. Cancer Res., 6: 998-1007, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Thompson J., Stewart C. F., Houghton P. J. Animal models for studying the action of topoisomerase-I targeted drugs. Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 1400: 301-319, 1998.[Medline]
  8. Sandler, A, and van Oosterom, A. T. Irinotecan in cancers of the lung and cervix. Anticancer Drugs, 1 (Suppl.): 13s–17s, 1999.
  9. Armand J. P., Cunningham D., van Cutsem E., Misset J. L., Kohne C. H. Clinical advances with topoisomerase I inhibitors in gastrointestinal malignancies. Anticancer Drugs, 1(Suppl.): 5s-12s, 1999.
  10. Boscia R. E., Korbut T., Holden S. A., Ara G., Teicher B. Interaction of topoisomerase I inhibitors with radiation in cis-diamminedichloroplatinum(II)-sensitive and -resistant cells in vitro and in the FSAIIC fibrosarcoma in vivo. Int. J. Cancer, 53: 118-123, 1993.[Medline]
  11. Kirichenko A. V., Rich T. A., Newman R. A., Travis E. L. Potentiation of murine Mca-4 carcinoma radioresponse by 9-amino-20S-camptothecin. Cancer Res., 57: 1929-1933, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Miki T., Kotake T. Advantages in combination chemotherapy using the camptothecin analogue CPT-11 and cisplatinum analogues for human testicular cancer xenografts. Hinyokika Kiyo, 39: 1221-1225, 1993.[Medline]
  13. Coggins C. A., Elion G. B., Houghton P. J., Hare C. B., Keir S., Colvin O. M., Bigner D. D., Friedman H. S. Enhancement of irinotecan (CPT-11) activity against central nervous system tumor xenografts by alkylating agents. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol., 41: 485-490, 1998.[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Castellino R. C., Elion G. B., Keir S. T., Houghton P. J., Johnson S. P., Bigner D. D., Friedman H. S. Schedule-dependent activity of irinotecan plus BCNU against malignant glioma xenografts. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol., 45: 345-349, 2000.[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Pourquier P., Pilon A. A., Kohlhagen G., Mazumder A., Sharma A., Pommier Y. Trapping of mammalian topoisomerase I and recombinations induced by damaged DNA containing nicks or gaps. Importance of DNA end phosphorylation and camptothecin effects. J. Biol. Chem., 272: 26441-26447, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Pourquier P., Ueng L. M., Kohlhagen G., Mazumder A., Gupta M., Kohn K. W., Pommier Y. Effects of uracil incorporation, DNA mismatches, and abasic sites on cleavage and religation activities of mammalian topoisomerase I. J. Biol. Chem., 272: 7792-7796, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Pourquier P., Loktionova N. A., Pegg A. E., Pommier Y. O6-Alkylation of guanine induces topoisomerase I-DNA covalent complexes in vitro and in MNNG-treated cells. Proc. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res., 41: 426 2000.
  18. Benedetti P., Benchokroun Y., Houghton P. J., Bjornsti M-A. Analysis of camptothecin resistance in yeast: relevance to cancer therapy. Drug Resist. Updates, 1: 176-183, 1998.
  19. Middleton M. R., Grob J. J., Aaronson N., Fierlbeck G., Tilgen W., Seiter S., Gore M., Aamdal S., Cebon J., Coates A., Dreno B., Henz M., Schadendorf D., Kapp A., Weiss J., Fraass U., Statkevich P., Muller M., Thatcher N. Randomized Phase III study of temozolomide versus dacarbazine in the treatment of patients with advanced metastatic malignant melanoma. J. Clin. Oncol., 18: 158-166, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Furman W. L., Stewart C. F., Poquette C. A., Pratt C. B., Santana V. M., Zamboni W. C., Bowman L. C., Ma M. K., Hoffer F. A., Meyer W. H., Pappo A. S., Walter A. W., Houghton P. J. Direct translation of a protracted irinotecan schedule from xenograft model to Phase I trial in children. J. Clin. Oncol., 17: 1815-1824, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Patel, V. J., Elion, G. B., Houghton, P. J., Keir, S., Pegg, A. E., Bigner, D. D., and Friedman, H. S. Schedule dependent activity of temozolomide plus CPT-11 against a human central nervous system-derived xenograft. Clin. Cancer Res., 6: 2000.
  22. Houghton P. J., Cheshire P. J., Hallman J. D., Lutz L., Friedman H. S., Danks M. K., Houghton J. A. Efficacy of topoisomerase I inhibitors, topotecan and irinotecan, administered at low dose levels in protracted schedules to mice bearing xenografts of human tumors. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol., 36: 393-403, 1995.[Medline]
  23. Houghton P. J., Cheshire P. J., Hallman J. C., Bissery M. C., Mathieu-Boue A., Houghton J. A. Therapeutic efficacy of the topoisomerase I inhibitor 7-ethyl-10(4-[1-piperidino]-1-piperidino)- carbonyloxy-camptothecin against human tumor xenografts: lack of cross-resistance in vivo in tumors with acquired resistance to the topoisomerase I inhibitor 9-dimethylaminomethyl-10-hydroxycamptothecin. Cancer Res., 53: 2823-2829, 1993.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Thompson J., Zamboni W. C., Cheshire P. J., Lutz L., Luo X., Li Y., Houghton J. A., Stewart C. F., Houghton P. J. Efficacy of systemic administration of irinotecan against neuroblastoma xenografts. Clin. Cancer Res., 3: 423-431, 1997.[Abstract]
  25. Thompson J., George E. O., Poquette C. A., Cheshire P. J., Richmond L. B., de Graaf S. S., Ma M., Stewart C. F., Houghton P. J. Synergy of topotecan in combination with vincristine for treatment of pediatric solid tumor xenografts. Clin. Cancer Res., 5: 3617-3631, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Zamboni W. C., Stewart C. F., Cheshire P. J., Richmond L. B., Hanna S. K., Luo X., Poquette C., McGovren J. P., Houghton J. A., Houghton P. J. Studies of the efficacy and pharmacology of irinotecan against human colon tumor xenograft models. Clin. Cancer Res., 4: 743-753, 1998.[Abstract]
  27. D’Argenio D. Z., Schumitzky A. ADAPT II User’s GuideEd Biomedical Simulations Resource 1, University of Southern California. Los Angeles 1990.
  28. Baker S. D., Wirth M., Statkevich P., Reidenberg P., Alton K., Sartorius S. E., Dugan M., Cutler D., Batra V., Grochow L. B., Donehower R. C., Rowinsky E. K. Absorption, metabolism, and excretion of 14C-temozolomide following oral administration to patients with advanced cancer. Clin. Cancer Res., 5: 309-317, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Ma M. K., Zamboni W. C., Radomski K. M., Furman W. L., Santana V. M., Houghton P. J., Hanna S. K., Smith A. K., Stewart C. F. Pharmacokinetics of irinotecan and its metabolites SN-38 and APC in children with recurrent solid tumors after protracted low-dose irinotecan. Clin. Cancer Res., 6: 813-819, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Waud W. R., Rubinstein L. V., Kalyandrug S., Plowman J., Alley M. C. In vivo combination chemotherapy evaluations of topotecan with cisplatin and temozolomide. Proc. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res., 37: 292 1996.
  31. Newlands E. S., Stevens M. F., Wedge S. R., Wheelhouse R. T., Brock C. Temozolomide: a review of its discovery, chemical properties, pre-clinical development and clinical trials. Cancer Treat. Rev., 23: 35-61, 1997.[CrossRef][Medline]
  32. Stewart C. F., Zamboni W. C., Crom W. R., Houghton P. J. Disposition of irinotecan and SN-38 following oral and intravenous irinotecan dosing in mice. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol., 40: 259-265, 1997.[CrossRef][Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
B. Hegedus, D. Banerjee, T.-H. Yeh, S. Rothermich, A. Perry, J. B. Rubin, J. R. Garbow, and D. H. Gutmann
Preclinical Cancer Therapy in a Mouse Model of Neurofibromatosis-1 Optic Glioma
Cancer Res., March 1, 2008; 68(5): 1520 - 1528.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
M. E. Loghin, M. D. Prados, P. Wen, L. Junck, F. Lieberman, H. Fine, K. L. Fink, M. Metha, J. Kuhn, K. Lamborn, et al.
Phase I Study of Temozolomide and Irinotecan for Recurrent Malignant Gliomas in Patients Receiving Enzyme-Inducing Antiepileptic Drugs: A North American Brain Tumor Consortium Study
Clin. Cancer Res., December 1, 2007; 13(23): 7133 - 7138.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
L. M. Wagner, R. E. McLendon, K. J. Yoon, B. D. Weiss, C. A. Billups, and M. K. Danks
Targeting Methylguanine-DNA Methyltransferase in the Treatment of Neuroblastoma
Clin. Cancer Res., September 15, 2007; 13(18): 5418 - 5425.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JCOHome page
B. H. Kushner, K. Kramer, S. Modak, and N.-K. V. Cheung
Irinotecan Plus Temozolomide for Relapsed or Refractory Neuroblastoma
J. Clin. Oncol., November 20, 2006; 24(33): 5271 - 5276.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 FASEB J.Home page
L. Tentori, C. Leonetti, M. Scarsella, A. Muzi, E. Mazzon, M. Vergati, O. Forini, R. Lapidus, W. Xu, A. S. Dorio, et al.
Inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase prevents irinotecan-induced intestinal damage and enhances irinotecan/temozolomide efficacy against colon carcinoma
FASEB J, August 1, 2006; 20(10): 1709 - 1711.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
E. Tyminski, S. LeRoy, K. Terada, D. M. Finkelstein, J. L. Hyatt, M. K. Danks, P. M. Potter, Y. Saeki, and E. A. Chiocca
Brain Tumor Oncolysis with Replication-Conditional Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 Expressing the Prodrug-Activating Genes, CYP2B1 and Secreted Human Intestinal Carboxylesterase, in Combination with Cyclophosphamide and Irinotecan
Cancer Res., August 1, 2005; 65(15): 6850 - 6857.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
L. M. Wagner, K. R. Crews, L. C. Iacono, P. J. Houghton, C. E. Fuller, M. B. McCarville, R. E. Goldsby, K. Albritton, C. F. Stewart, and V. M. Santana
Phase I Trial of Temozolomide and Protracted Irinotecan in Pediatric Patients with Refractory Solid Tumors
Clin. Cancer Res., February 1, 2004; 10(3): 840 - 848.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 The OncologistHome page
E. T. Wong and A. Berkenblit
The Role of Topotecan in the Treatment of Brain Metastases
Oncologist, February 1, 2004; 9(1): 68 - 79.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
L. Tentori, C. Leonetti, M. Scarsella, G. d'Amati, M. Vergati, I. Portarena, W. Xu, V. Kalish, G. Zupi, J. Zhang, et al.
Systemic Administration of GPI 15427, a Novel Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase-1 Inhibitor, Increases the Antitumor Activity of Temozolomide against Intracranial Melanoma, Glioma, Lymphoma
Clin. Cancer Res., November 1, 2003; 9(14): 5370 - 5379.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Molecular Cancer TherapeuticsHome page
S. J. Miknyoczki, S. Jones-Bolin, S. Pritchard, K. Hunter, H. Zhao, W. Wan, M. Ator, R. Bihovsky, R. Hudkins, S. Chatterjee, et al.
Chemopotentiation of Temozolomide, Irinotecan, and Cisplatin Activity by CEP-6800, a Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitor
Mol. Cancer Ther., April 1, 2003; 2(4): 371 - 382.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Neuro OncolHome page
C. D. Turner, S. Gururangan, J. Eastwood, K. Bottom, M. Watral, R. Beason, R. E. McLendon, A. H. Friedman, S. Tourt-Uhlig, L. L. Miller, et al.
Phase II study of irinotecan (CPT-11) in children with high-risk malignant brain tumors: The Duke experience
Neuro-oncol, April 1, 2002; 4(2): 102 - 108.
[Abstract] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Houghton, P. J.
Right arrow Articles by Brent, T. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Houghton, P. J.
Right arrow Articles by Brent, T. P.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online