Additivity of radiosensitization by the combination of SR 2508 (etanidazole) and Ro 03-8799 (pimonidazole) in a murine tumor system

Low concentrations of nitroimidazoles: effective radiosensitizers at low doses

PURPOSE

There have been various reports that nitroimidazole radiosensitizers are less effective modifiers of radiation response in the clinically relevant x-ray dose regions (0-4 Gy) than they are at doses used in classical in vitro experiments. Our studies at low concentrations of etanidazole led us to question this generalization, and our purpose was to further investigate low concentrations at low doses, using the microscopic location of cells to facilitate these experiments. The observations are compared with data on these drugs in the literature using other methods and systems.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Survival of V79 cells after irradiation in hypoxia +/- drug at various concentrations was assessed using the Cell Analyser (DMIPS) for low doses, in comparison with the standard clonogenic assay (higher doses). Enhancement ratios (ERs) were calculated at 80% and 2% survival, respectively.

RESULTS

Etanidazole (SR-2508) consistently gave higher ERs at low doses (measured at 80% survival) than at high doses (survival 2%), when cells were exposed to drug concentrations below approximately 2 mM (e.g., at 1 mM, ER80% = 2.2, ER2% = 1.8 in CHO cells after 1 h preincubation at 37 degrees C). Preincubation of cells for 1 h or 15 min at 37 degrees C with etanidazole prior to irradiation increased the ERs at high and low doses but did not change the "cross-over" behavior (ER80% > ER2% at low concentrations, ER2% > ER80% above 2 mM, regardless of pretreatment at 37 degrees C or cell line, CHO and V79 cells), whereas the 5-nitroimidazole nimorazole consistently gave the same ERs whether determined at high or low radiation doses (e.g., at 1 mM, 1 h preincubation at 37 degrees C ER80% = ER2% = 1.3). This crossover behavior also occurred after irradiation/preincubation at 0 degrees C. The 2-nitroimidazole predecessor, misonidazole, shows the same cross-over behavior.

CONCLUSION

Two nitroimidazoles at low concentrations appear to be as effective sensitizers (or better) at low doses (80% S); at high doses (2% S).

Relationship between the melanin content of a human melanoma cell line and its radiosensitivity and uptake of pimonidazole

The intra-cellular uptake of the weakly basic radiosensitiser pimonidazole (PIMO) was determined as a function of the pigmentation of Na11+ human melanotic melanoma cells in vitro. Two experimental conditions were considered: exponentially growing cells (Exp.) and plateau-phase cells (PI.). The melanin content of Na11+ cells ranged from 500 micrograms/g cell weight in exponentially growing cells to 6000 micrograms/g in heavily pigmented plateau-phase cells. Cells were exposed to PIMO (medium dose, 0.2 mmol/dm3; 58.2 micrograms/ml). The intra-cellular concentration ranged from 163 micrograms/g in Exp. to 900 micrograms/g in pigmented Pl.; the latter being equivalent to an intra- to extracellular concentration ratio (Ci/Ce) of 17. However, this increase in the cellular uptake of PIMO was not accompanied by an increase in radiosensitising efficiency. In comparison, the Ci/Ce for etanidazole (ETA), a radiosensitiser that is uncharged at physiological pH, remained approximately constant at 1 for all values of melanin contents. Treatment of Na11+ tumours in vivo with [3H]-PIMO resulted in a tumour:blood ratio of about 3 at 30-60 min after administration. However, at 24 h a grain count of label derived from [3H]-PIMO showed that picnotic areas of tumours contained levels that were some 40 times greater than the background value. This high level of label was coincident with areas of highest apparent melanin content. In conclusion, PIMO accumulates in very heavily pigmented melanoma cells present in necrotic zones with picnosis. As these cells are probably non-clonogenic, PIMO is not suitable for use in melanoma radiotherapy.

Relationship between intracellular concentration and radiosensitizing effect of pimonidazole and etanidazole on two human melanoma cell lines

A study on the uptake and radiosensitizing properties of pimonidazole (PIMO) and etanidazole (ETA) was made in vitro with two melanoma cell lines: Na11+ and Na11-. The amelanotic Na11- was derived from the pigmented Na11+ cell line and was characterized by the complete absence of pigmentation in vitro. Plateau-phase cells were heavily pigmented for the Na11+ line whereas exponential cells showed a lower melanin content. Radiosensitivity was studied using an in vitro colony assay; intracellular drug concentration was determined by HPLC. For both cell lines the uptake of PIMO was always higher than the uptake of ETA, and slightly higher in hypoxia than in air. The uptake of PIMO was exceptionally high in plateau-phase cells of the pigmented Na11+ cell line. The radiosensitizing effect of ETA did not differ greatly as a function of the cell kinetics in both cell lines, whereas the radiosensitizing effect of PIMO was cell line-dependent. Sensitization of exponential cells by PIMO was similar in both cell lines but significantly less in plateau-phase cells, with the heavily pigmented Na11+ cell line being least affected, despite a three-fold increase in PIMO uptake observed in plateau cells relative to exponentially growing Na11+ cells. The uptake of PIMO may be related to the high melanin content of plateau-phase Na11+ cells and therefore this in vitro model may be useful for predicting the effects of agents such as PIMO towards melanotic melanomas in vivo.

Radiosensitization by the combination of etanidazole (SR-2508) and pimonidazole (Ro 03-8799) in human tumor xenografts

The two current second generation radiosensitizers SR-2508 (etanidazole) and Ro 03-8799 (pimonidazole) have different dose-limiting toxicities in humans. SR-2508 produces peripheral neuropathy, whereas Ro 03-8799 causes acute CNS toxicity. Overall toxicity can be minimized while increasing maximal radiosensitization by combining the two sensitizers. The additivity of their radiosensitizing properties was tested using clinically relevant SR-2508 and Ro 03-8799 concentrations in two human tumor xenografts: a rectal adenocarcinoma (HRT18) and a pigmented melanoma (Na11+). Drug concentrations were determined by a High Performance Liquid Chromatography method. Tumor response was assayed by clonogenic cell survival. The maximal radiosensitizing effect was determined using a single dose of radiation and high doses of drugs. For HRT18, the maximal radiosensitization was achieved when SR-2508 and Ro 03-8799 were given 45 and 30 min, respectively, before irradiation. For Na11+, the maximal radiosensitizing effect was lower than for HRT18 and not significant, but a trend was observed at about 30 min before irradiation for both drugs. Using clinically relevant doses, mean Sensitizing Enhancement Ratio (SER) values for HRT18 were: 1.3 (Ro 03-8799: 0.1 mg/gram body weight (gbw) or SR-2508: 0.2 mg/gbw), and 1.5 (Ro 03-8799: 0.1 mg/gbw + SR-2508: 0.2 mg/gbw). Mean SER values for Ro 03-8799 0.2 mg/gbw, SR-2508 0.4 mg/gbw, and Ro 03-8799 0.2 mg/gbw + SR-2508 0.4 mg/gbw were 1.5, 1.5, and 1.8, respectively. No significant radiosensitizing effect was observed on Na11+ with either drug administered singly or in combination and at the same concentrations. Our results suggest that the effectiveness of the two sensitizers administered alone or in combination may be tumor-dependent and that melanomas may not be good candidates.

A comparison of radiosensitization by etanidazole and pimonidazole in mouse tumors

Radiosensitization by pimonidazole (Ro 03-8799) was tested in three murine tumors, EMT6/SF using the excision assay, SCC-VII/SF using the excision and growth delay assays, and MDAH-MCa-4 using TCD50 assays with both single doses and 6 fractions of radiation with a 24-hr interfraction interval. Results were compared with those using etanidazole (SR-2508), both at equitoxic doses and at doses giving tumor concentrations similar to those achievable in the clinic. In excision assays with EMT6/SF and SCC-VII/SF tumors, pimonidazole and etanidazole gave similar radiosensitization at similar concentrations in the tumors. Pimonidazole, however, did not demonstrate radiosensitization in SCC-VII/SF tumors in the growth delay assay, despite tumor concentrations that gave maximum sensitization in the excision assay. Furthermore, pimonidazole gave less than expected sensitization in single dose and 6-fraction TCD50 assays with MDAH-MCa-4 tumors, and less sensitization than comparable levels of etanidazole in this tumor line. When the concentration of pimonidazole in the tumors was approximately 0.36 mumoles/g the dose modification factor (DMF = dose without sensitizer/dose with sensitizer to give an isoeffect) was 1.56 (1.40-1.74, 95% c.l.) in single dose TCD50 assays. Etanidazole, however, gave a DMF of 1.92 (1.59-2.32) with a tumor concentration of approximately 0.32 mumoles/g and 1.69 (1.46-1.96) with a tumor concentration of approximately 0.21 mumoles/g. Thus, etanidazole gave more consistent sensitization for different tumors and different endpoints than did pimonidazole. The results appear to confirm the disappointing performance of pimonidazole in the clinic.

The combination of multiple doses of etanidazole and pimonidazole in 48 patients: a toxicity and pharmacokinetic study

The two radiosensitizers etanidazole and pimonidazole, currently in clinical phase 3 trials, have different toxicities. The former produces a peripheral neuropathy after cumulative doses and the latter presents an accurate but transient central nervous system syndrome after each dose. A strategy for improving on the maximum radiosensitization achievable using either drug alone, has been investigated in the study reported in this paper. Escalating doses of the two drugs were given together to determine toxicity up to a maximum of 15 doses of 2.0 g/m2 etanidazole and 0.75 g/m2 pimonidazole/dose. 25 neuropathies were seen in the total of 48 patients (48%). This included 6 grade 2 neuropathies (12.5%) or 15% of those receiving 9 or more infusions. There were no significant correlations between the incidence of neuropathy and various dose and AUC parameters for the 31 patients receiving 10 or more infusions. However, in the selected group of 26 patients planned to receive multiple doses of etanidazole at 2 g/m2/dose with pimonidazole at 0.75 g/m2, significant correlations were seen with the cumulative dose, with single and cumulative AUCs for pimonidazole and also for the cumulative dose and the cumulative AUC for etanidazole, but not its single AUC. In the light of these observations and the recent reports of higher peripheral neuropathy rates than previously reported in studies in the USA, it is concluded that it is not possible at this time to determine whether there is toxicity interaction between the two drugs. There remains the possibility that, on the basis of the combined drug dosage achieved, an increased therapeutic efficacy can be reached with either drug alone.

Abnormal clinical pharmacokinetics of the developmental radiosensitizers pimonidazole (Ro 03-8799) and etanidazole (SR 2508)

The hypoxic cell radiosensitizers Ro 03-8799 (pimonidazole) and SR 2508 (etanidazole) are under evaluation as single agents (Phase III) and in combination (Phase I). Ro 03-8799 produces an acute, transient central nervous system syndrome, whereas SR 2508 causes cumulative, peripheral neurotoxicity; both effects are dose-limiting. Pharmacokinetic studies have shown the importance of area under the plasma drug concentration versus time curve (AUC) in predicting the risk of peripheral neuropathy. Most patients have very similar pharmacokinetic parameters. This study reports 2/25 patients receiving 0.75 g/m2 Ro 03-8799 plus 2.0 g/m2 SR 2508 who showed significant discrepancies in drug handling. One patient exhibited a markedly elevated AUC and prolonged t1/2 beta for SR 2508 and this was associated with an unusually rapid onset of peripheral neuropathy. A second patient showed normal handling of SR 2508 but prolonged values for both t1/2 alpha and t1/2 beta for Ro 03-8799 and unusually low levels of its N-oxide metabolite. In addition a low peak Ro 03-8799 concentration combined with a very high volume of distribution was found in this patient, leading to a normal AUC value and toxicity profile. Both patients exhibited a relatively low creatinine clearance. The mechanisms which may underlie these findings are discussed, and the importance of pharmacokinetic monitoring in the use of these agents is emphasized.

Radiation and chemotherapy sensitizers and protectors

Radiosensitizers and radioprotectors are part of the chemical modifier approach to cancer therapy whereby the state of the tumor cells and/or normal tissues are modified such that a therapeutic gain is achieved using conventional radiation or chemotherapy. Radiosensitization can be achieved by the use of oxygen-mimetic compounds, agents that alter DNA sensitivity to irradiation, maneuvers that alter DNA repair processes, and manipulation of tissue oxygenation. Standard chemotherapeutic agents such as cisplatin can be utilized in a manner that optimizes the radiosensitization properties. Protection and sensitization can occur by altering the thiol status of the cell. The chemical modifiers field is both developing novel approaches to cancer treatment and increasing the understanding of basic cancer biology.

Micropharmacokinetics of chemical modifiers

Classical pharmacokinetic analysis of plasma, urine and tissue specimens continues to be of major value to the rational development of chemical modifiers of cancer treatment. However, in addition, increasingly sophisticated analytical techniques are becoming available which allow the pathways of microdistribution and micrometabolism of drugs to be traced down to the cellular and molecular level. New developments described here include flow cytometry, magnetic resonance spectroscopy, and molecular enzymology. These are predicted to have a major impact on the optimization of chemical modification.

A multiple dose study of the combined radiosensitizers Ro 03-8799 (pimonidazole) and SR 2508 (etanidazole)

The hypoxic cell radiosensitizers Ro 03-8799 and SR 2508 have different clinical toxicities. The former produces an acute but transient central nervous system syndrome, whereas the latter produces cumulative peripheral neuropathy. Following single dose studies, an escalating multiple dose schedule using both drugs in combination showed no unexpected adverse reactions at lower doses. This study identifies the clinical tolerance and pharmacokinetics when doses in the region of the maximal tolerated dose are given to 26 patients receiving infusions of 0.75 g/m2 Ro 03-8799 and 2 g/m2 SR 2508 three times per week. At 15 doses, 3/4 patients experienced WHO grade 2 peripheral neuropathy, whereas at 12 doses 1/9 developed grade 2 and 6/9 developed grade 1 neuropathies. This represents a lower dose of SR 2508 than can be given alone suggesting that some interaction between the two drugs does exist in terms of chronic peripheral neurotoxicity. Pharmacokinetic studies show no adverse interactions between the two drugs and minimal inter-patient variation. From bivariate analysis, cumulative AUC for Ro 03-8799 has the most significant correlation with the development of peripheral neuropathy. Tumor drug concentrations normalized to the administered dose show mean values of 34 micrograms/g Ro 03-8799 and 76 micrograms/g SR 2508 30 minutes after infusion. These could be expected to produce a single dose sensitizer enhancement ratio of 1.5. The combination of the two sensitizers at the maximum tolerable dose may be expected to give an increased therapeutic efficacy over either drug alone.

Evaluation of nitroimidazole hypoxic cell radiosensitizers in a human tumor cell line high in intracellular glutathione

Five nitroimidazole hypoxic cell radiosensitizers were evaluated in a human lung adenocarcinoma cell line (A549) whose GSH level was 8-fold higher than Chinese hamster V79 cells. One millimolar concentrations of Misonidazole (MISO), SR-2508, RSU-1164, RSU-1172, and Ro-03-8799 sensitized hypoxic A549 cells to radiation, with Ro-03-8799 giving the highest sensitizer enhancement ration (SER) (2.3). However, MISO, SR-2508 and Ro-03-8799 were less effective in this cell line than in V79 cells, presumably due to higher GSH content of the A549 cells. Increased hypoxic radiosensitization was seen with 0.1 mM Ro-03-8799 after GSH depletion by BSO as compared to 0.1 mM Ro-03-8799 alone (SER-1.8 vs 1.3). The combination of GSH depletion and 0.1 mM Ro-03-8799 was considerably more toxic than 0.1 mM or 1.0 mM Ro-03-8799 alone. This sensitivity was much greater than has been observed for SR-2508. These data show that Ro-03-8799 was the most efficient hypoxic cell radiosensitizer in a human tumor cell line considerably higher in GSH than the rodent cell lines often used in hypoxic radiosensitization studies. Thus, Ro-03-8799 may be a more effective hypoxic cell sensitizer in human tumors that are high in GSH.

Accelerated elimination of pimonidazole following microsomal enzyme induction in mice: a possible approach to reduced neurotoxicity of the pimonidazole-etanidazole combination

The pimonidazole-etanidazole combination shows promise for improved radiosensitization, although pimonidazole may increase the dose-limiting peripheral neurotoxicity of etanidazole in man. Induction of liver microsomal drug metabolizing enzymes by phenobarbitone resulted in reduced exposure to pimonidazole in plasma, brain, and tumor in mice. Peak tumor concentrations were lowered, but to a lesser extent. Phenobarbitone induction caused no change in the urinary ratio of pimonidazole to its N-oxide metabolite, and in fact, markedly reduced the circulating metabolite concentrations in plasma. There was no effect of phenobarbitone on plasma or tissue pharmacokinetics of etanidazole, which is eliminated by renal clearance. The results suggest that hepatic microsomal enzyme induction may be a possible approach to reducing the toxicity of the pimonidazole-etanidazole combination, and may also provide valuable information on the enzymology of pimonidazole metabolism.

The multi-dose clinical tolerance and pharmacokinetics of the combined radiosensitizers, Ro 03-8799 (pimonidazole) and SR 2508 (etanidazole)

The hypoxic cell radiosensitizers Ro 03-8799 (pimonidazole) and SR 2508 (etanidazole) have differing physico-chemical properties and clinical toxicities. The former is basic, lipophilic and produces an acute but transient central nervous system syndrome; the latter is neutral, hydrophilic and causes cumulative peripheral neuropathy. We therefore investigated the possibility of combining these agents to achieve additive radiosensitization with no enhancement of toxicity, as demonstrated in a rodent tumor model. Following a single dose study which showed a lack of interaction with respect to both toxicity and pharmacokinetics, twenty-one patients have now completed simultaneous drug administration on an escalating, multiple dose schedule. There has been no adverse acute interaction up to 0.75 g/m2 Ro 03-8799 with 2 g/m2 SR 2508 for 15 doses. At this dose-level, however, all patients experienced peripheral neuropathy. There was no adverse pharmacokinetic interaction, or perturbation of plasma pharmacokinetics between initial and final infusions. Tumor concentrations were determined in 48 biopsy samples 0-60 min after administration. Mean values normalized to a dose of 0.75 g/m2 Ro 03-8799 plus 2 g/m2 SR 2508 were 33 micrograms/g Ro 03-8799 and 74 micrograms/g SR 2508. These would be expected to produce a single-dose sensitizer enhancement ratio of around 1.5. The combination is predicted to be around 6.8 times more active than misonidazole, and superior to any single agent tested to date. The current schedules are reaching the limits of clinical tolerance, and an attempt is now being made to define the optimal regimen for use in a randomized clinical trial of the combination.