-
Clinical Cancer Research : An Official... Feb 2010We evaluated the pharmacokinetics of amifostine and WR1065 in pediatric patients with newly diagnosed medulloblastoma to assess the influence of patient covariates,...
PURPOSE
We evaluated the pharmacokinetics of amifostine and WR1065 in pediatric patients with newly diagnosed medulloblastoma to assess the influence of patient covariates, including demographics, clinical characteristics, and genetic polymorphisms, on amifostine and WR1065 pharmacokinetic parameters.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
We assessed the pharmacokinetics of amifostine and WR1065 in 33 children who received amifostine (1-minute infusion, 600 mg/m(2)) just before the start of and 3 hours into a 6-hour cisplatin infusion. Serial blood samples were collected after doses 1 (0 hour) and 2 (3 hours) of course 1. Amifostine and WR1065 were quantitated by high performance liquid chromatography with electrochemical detection. A pharmacokinetic model was simultaneously fit to amifostine and WR1065 plasma or whole blood concentration-versus-time data. The influence of demographic, biochemical, and pharmacogenetic covariates on amifostine and WR1065 disposition was evaluated.
RESULTS
Body surface area was the primary size-based covariate for amifostine pharmacokinetics explaining 53% and 56% of interindividual variability in plasma and whole-blood amifostine clearance, respectively. The population-predicted values for amifostine clearance, volume, and apparent WR1065 clearance from the plasma data were 107 L/h/m(2), 5.53 L/m(2), and 30.6 L/h/m(2). The population-predicted values for amifostine clearance, volume, and apparent WR1065 clearance from whole blood data were 136 L/h/m(2), 7.23 L/m(2), and 12.5 L/h/m(2).
CONCLUSIONS
These results support using body surface area for calculating doses of amifostine in children. Similar to data in adults, amifostine and WR1065 are rapidly cleared from plasma and whole blood in children.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Amifostine; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Cerebellar Neoplasms; Child; Combined Modality Therapy; Female; Humans; Male; Medulloblastoma; Mercaptoethylamines; Prodrugs
PubMed: 20103669
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-1997 -
Journal of Dental Research Oct 2018Radiotherapy for head and neck cancers commonly causes damage to salivary gland tissue, resulting in xerostomia (dry mouth) and numerous adverse medical and...
Radiotherapy for head and neck cancers commonly causes damage to salivary gland tissue, resulting in xerostomia (dry mouth) and numerous adverse medical and quality-of-life issues. Amifostine is the only Food and Drug Administration-approved radioprotective drug used clinically to prevent xerostomia. However, systemic administration of amifostine is limited by severe side effects, including rapid decrease in blood pressure (hypotension), nausea, and a narrow therapeutic window. In this study, we demonstrate that retroductal delivery of amifostine and its active metabolite, WR-1065, to murine submandibular glands prior to a single radiation dose of 15 Gy maintained gland function and significantly increased acinar cell survival. Furthermore, in vivo stimulated saliva secretion was maintained in retrograde-treated groups at levels significantly higher than irradiated-only and systemically treated groups. In contrast to intravenous injections, retroductal delivery of WR-1065 or amifostine significantly attenuated hypotension. We conclude that localized delivery to salivary glands markedly improves radioprotection at the cellular level, as well as mitigates the adverse side effects associated with systemic administration. These results support the further development of a localized delivery system that would be compatible with the fractionated dose regimen used clinically.
Topics: Acinar Cells; Amifostine; Animals; Female; Fluorescent Antibody Technique; Injections; Mercaptoethylamines; Mice; Mice, Inbred C57BL; Radiation Injuries, Experimental; Radiation-Protective Agents; Salivary Glands; Submandibular Gland
PubMed: 29634396
DOI: 10.1177/0022034518767408 -
Cancers Feb 2020Ionizing radiation is a critical aspect of current cancer therapy. While classically mature bone was thought to be relatively radio-resistant, more recent data have... (Review)
Review
Ionizing radiation is a critical aspect of current cancer therapy. While classically mature bone was thought to be relatively radio-resistant, more recent data have shown this to not be the case. Radiation therapy (RT)-induced bone loss leading to fracture is a source of substantial morbidity. The mechanisms of RT likely involve multiple pathways, including changes in angiogenesis and bone vasculature, osteoblast damage/suppression, and increased osteoclast activity. The majority of bone loss appears to occur rapidly after exposure to ionizing RT, with significant changes in cortical thickness being detectable on computed tomography (CT) within three to four months. Additionally, there is a dose-response relationship. Cortical thinning is especially notable in areas of bone that receive >40 gray (Gy). Methods to mitigate toxicity due to RT-induced bone loss is an area of active investigation. There is an accruing clinical trial investigating the use of risderonate, a bisphosphonate, to prevent rib bone loss in patients undergoing lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Additionally, several other promising therapeutic/preventative approaches are being explored in preclinical studies, including parathyroid hormone (PTH), amifostine, and mechanical loading of irradiated bones.
PubMed: 32059447
DOI: 10.3390/cancers12020427 -
Research Square Sep 2023During head and neck cancer treatment, off-target ionizing radiation damage to the salivary glands commonly causes a permanent loss of secretory function. Due to the...
During head and neck cancer treatment, off-target ionizing radiation damage to the salivary glands commonly causes a permanent loss of secretory function. Due to the resulting decrease in saliva production, patients have trouble eating, speaking and are predisposed to oral infections and tooth decay. While the radioprotective antioxidant drug Amifostine is FDA approved to prevent radiation-induced hyposalivation, it has intolerable side effects that limit its use, motivating the discovery of alternative therapeutics. To address this issue, we previously developed a salivary gland mimetic (SGm) tissue chip platform. Here, we leverage this SGm tissue chip for high-content drug discovery. First, we developed in-chip assays to quantify glutathione and cellular senescence (β-galactosidase), which are biomarkers of radiation damage, and we validated radioprotection using WR-1065, the active form of Amifostine. Other reported radioprotective drugs including Edaravone, Tempol, N-acetylcysteine (NAC), Rapamycin, Ex-Rad, and Palifermin were also tested to validate the ability of the assays to detect cell damage and radioprotection. All of the drugs except NAC and Ex-Rad exhibited robust radioprotection. Next, a Selleck Chemicals library of 438 FDA-approved drugs was screened for radioprotection. We discovered 25 hits, with most of the drugs identified exhibiting mechanisms of action other than antioxidant activity. Hits were down-selected using EC50 values and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data from the PubChem database. This led us to test Phenylbutazone (anti-inflammatory), Enoxacin (antibiotic), and Doripenem (antibiotic) for in vivo radioprotection in mice using retroductal injections. Results confirm that Phenylbutazone and Enoxacin exhibited radioprotection equivalent to Amifostine. This body of work demonstrates the development and validation of assays using a SGm tissue chip platform for high-content drug screening and the successful in vitro discovery and in vivo validation of novel radioprotective drugs with non-antioxidant primary indications pointing to possible, yet unknown novel mechanisms of radioprotection.
PubMed: 37790388
DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3246405/v1 -
Brazilian Journal of Medical and... 2020Sensory neuropathy is a dose-limiting side effect of oxaliplatin-based cancer treatment. This study investigated the antinociceptive effect of amifostine and its...
Sensory neuropathy is a dose-limiting side effect of oxaliplatin-based cancer treatment. This study investigated the antinociceptive effect of amifostine and its potential neuroprotective mechanisms on the oxaliplatin-related peripheral sensory neuropathy in mice. Oxaliplatin (1 mg/kg) was injected intravenously in Swiss albino male mice twice a week (total of nine injections), while amifostine (1, 5, 25, 50, and 100 mg/kg) was administered subcutaneously 30 min before oxaliplatin. Mechanical and thermal nociceptive tests were performed once a week for 49 days. Additionally, c-Fos, nitrotyrosine, and activating transcription factor 3 (ATF3) immunoexpressions were assessed in the dorsal root ganglia. In all doses, amifostine prevented the development of mechanical hyperalgesia and thermal allodynia induced by oxaliplatin (P<0.05). Amifostine at the dose of 25 mg/kg provided the best protection (P<0.05). Moreover, amifostine protected against neuronal hyperactivation, nitrosative stress, and neuronal damage in the dorsal root ganglia, detected by the reduced expression of c-Fos, nitrotyrosine, and ATF3 (P<0.05 vs the oxaliplatin-treated group). In conclusion, amifostine reduced the nociception induced by oxaliplatin in mice, suggesting the possible use of amifostine for the management of oxaliplatin-induced peripheral sensory neuropathy.
Topics: Amifostine; Animals; Antineoplastic Agents; Hyperalgesia; Male; Mice; Oxaliplatin; Peripheral Nervous System Diseases
PubMed: 32965323
DOI: 10.1590/1414-431X202010263 -
International Wound Journal Jun 2008Ulcers in radiated skin continue to be a challenge for health care practitioners. Healing impairment in the setting of radiation-damaged tissue will most of the time... (Review)
Review
Ulcers in radiated skin continue to be a challenge for health care practitioners. Healing impairment in the setting of radiation-damaged tissue will most of the time lead to chronic wounds that reduce the patient's quality of life. In this review, we present an update of the pathophysiology of tissue damage caused by radiation that leads to chronic ulceration. We also explore the evidence available on the different prevention and treatment modalities that have been reported in the literature. The evidence for most preventive measures is inconclusive; however, sucralfate and amifostine seem to be the adequate recommendations for prophylaxis. As for treatment of ulcerated patients, the strongest level of evidence found was for the use of pentoxifylline, but proper trials are still scarce to be considered standard adjuvant therapy. Hyperbaric oxygen, cytokines and other growth factors and surgical interventions have shown some benefit in case reports and case series only. Other therapies show promise based on their mechanism of action but need to be tested in human studies and clinical trials.
Topics: Humans; Radiation Injuries; Radiotherapy; Skin Ulcer; Wound Healing
PubMed: 18494630
DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2008.00436.x -
Cancer Mar 2007Considerable progress in research and clinical application has been made since the original guidelines for managing mucositis in cancer patients were published in 2004,...
Considerable progress in research and clinical application has been made since the original guidelines for managing mucositis in cancer patients were published in 2004, and the first active drug for the prevention and treatment of this condition has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory agencies in Europe and Australia. These changes necessitate an updated review of the literature and guidelines. Panel members reviewed the biomedical literature on mucositis published in English between January 2002 and May 2005 and reached a consensus based on the criteria of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Changes in the guidelines included recommendations for the use of palifermin for oral mucositis associated with stem cell transplantation, amifostine for radiation proctitis, and cryotherapy for mucositis associated with high-dose melphalan. Recommendations against specific practices were introduced: Systemic glutamine was not recommended for the prevention of gastrointestinal mucositis, and sucralfate and antimicrobial lozenges were not recommended for radiation-induced oral mucositis. Furthermore, new guidelines suggested that granulocyte-macrophage-colony stimulating factor mouthwashes not be used for oral mucositis prevention in the transplantation population. Advances in mucositis treatment and research have been complemented by an increased rate of publication on mucosal injury in cancer. However, additional and sustained efforts will be required to gain a fuller understanding of the pathobiology, impact on overall patient status, optimal therapeutic strategies, and improved educational programs for health professionals, patients, and caregivers. These efforts are likely to have significant clinical and economic impact on the treatment of cancer patients. Cancer 2007;109:820-31. (c) 2007 American Cancer Society.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Humans; Mucositis; Neoplasms; Radiotherapy; Risk Factors
PubMed: 17236223
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.22484 -
International Journal of Molecular... Dec 2015Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) has been in clinical use for 15 years to treat metastatic neuroendocrine tumors. PRRT is limited by reabsorption and... (Review)
Review
Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) has been in clinical use for 15 years to treat metastatic neuroendocrine tumors. PRRT is limited by reabsorption and retention of the administered radiolabeled somatostatin analogues in the proximal tubule. Consequently, it is essential to develop and employ methods to protect the kidneys during PRRT. Today, infusion of positively charged amino acids is the standard method of kidney protection. Other methods, such as administration of amifostine, are still under evaluation and show promising results. α₁-microglobulin (A1M) is a reductase and radical scavenging protein ubiquitously present in plasma and extravascular tissue. Human A1M has antioxidation properties and has been shown to prevent radiation-induced in vitro cell damage and protect non-irradiated surrounding cells. It has recently been shown in mice that exogenously infused A1M and the somatostatin analogue octreotide are co-localized in proximal tubules of the kidney after intravenous infusion. In this review we describe the current situation of kidney protection during PRRT, discuss the necessity and implications of more precise dosimetry and present A1M as a new, potential candidate for renal protection during PRRT and related targeted radionuclide therapies.
Topics: Alpha-Globulins; Humans; Kidney; Oxidation-Reduction; Oxidative Stress; Protective Agents; Radiometry; Radionuclide Imaging; Receptors, Peptide
PubMed: 26694383
DOI: 10.3390/ijms161226234 -
Hippokratia Jan 2012Ablative radioiodine-131 ((131)I) therapy is used in the standart treatment procedure of thyroid carcinoma and procedures using (131)I represent the majority of Nuclear...
BACKGROUND
Ablative radioiodine-131 ((131)I) therapy is used in the standart treatment procedure of thyroid carcinoma and procedures using (131)I represent the majority of Nuclear Medicine therapeutic procedures. The principal route of (131)I excretion after the administration of (131)I is the urine. Amifostine is an organic thiophosphate ester prodrug and the kidney concentrations of the active metabolite WR-1065 are about 100 times higher than tumour concentrations. To our knowledge, there is no published data in literature presenting acute effect of radioiodine on renal tissue during high dose I-131 radioiodine treatment (RIT). Additionally, it is not known whether amifostine takes role in this process.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In this study, 50 healthy female Wistar albino rats, weighing 200-250 g and averaging 16 weeks old were utilised. The rats were randomly divided into ten groups. 1- Sham group (n=5), 2- Amifostine group (n=5): rats pretreated with 1 cc amifostine (200 mg/kg) by intraperitoneal injection, 3- Radioactive iodine first day group (RI-1) (n=5): rats treated with 1 cc oral 185 MBq radioactive iodine-131 and sacrification performed after 1(st) day, 4- Amifostine + Radioactive iodine first day group (A+RI-1) (n=5): rats pretreated with amifostine (200 mg/kg) by intraperitoneal injection and rats treated with 5mCi radioactive iodine-131 and sacrification performed after 1(st) day. 5- Radioactive iodine third day group (RI-3) (n=5), 6- Amifostine + Radioactive iodine third day group (A+RI-3) (n=5), 7- Radioactive iodine fifth day group (RI-5) (n=5), 8- Amifostine + Radioactive iodine fifth day group (A+RI-5) (n=5), 9- Radioactive iodine seventh day group (RI-7) (n=5) and 10- Amifostine + Radioactive iodine seventh day group (A+RI-7) (n=5). The renal cast formation and tubular damage are evaluated by a pathologist in a blinded manner.
RESULTS
Ablative radioiodine-131 therapy induced renal tubular damage was significantly higher in the radioactive iodine fifth day group (RI-5) when compared with the Sham group (p=0.01) and Amifostine group (p=0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
A marked ablative radioiodine-131 induced renal toxicity was seen at fifth day of the therapy after a single RIT application and the main histopathological change was tubular damage. Amifostine have protective effects against ablative radioiodine-131 therapy and this effect is significant at fifth day of the therapy.
PubMed: 23930056
DOI: No ID Found -
Integrative Cancer Therapies Sep 2007Despite recent comprehensive review articles concluding that supplemental antioxidants do not undermine the effectiveness of cytotoxic therapies, the use of antioxidants... (Review)
Review
Despite recent comprehensive review articles concluding that supplemental antioxidants do not undermine the effectiveness of cytotoxic therapies, the use of antioxidants during cancer treatment remains controversial. Many oncologists take the position that antioxidants by their nature undermine the free radical mechanism of chemotherapy and radiotherapy and should therefore generally be avoided during treatment. For their part, many integrative practitioners believe that antioxidants taken during cancer treatment not only alleviate some of the adverse effects of that treatment but also enhance the efficacy of cancer therapy. Until recently, research attention has focused primarily on the interaction of antioxidants with chemotherapy; relatively little attention has been paid to the interaction of antioxidants with radiotherapy. This article reviews the clinical literature that has addressed whether antioxidants do in fact interfere with radiation therapy. Studies have variously investigated the use of alpha-tocopherol for the amelioration of radiation-induced mucositis; pentoxifylline and vitamin E to correct the adverse effects of radiotherapy; melatonin alongside radiotherapy in the treatment of brain cancer; retinol palmitate as a treatment for radiation-induced proctopathy; a combination of antioxidants (and other naturopathic treatments) and external beam radiation therapy as definitive treatment for prostate cancer; and the use of synthetic antioxidants, amifostine, dexrazoxane, and mesna as radioprotectants. With few exceptions, most of the studies draw positive conclusions about the interaction of antioxidants and radiotherapy. Although further studies are needed, the preponderance of evidence supports a provisional conclusion that dietary antioxidants do not conflict with the use of radiotherapy in the treatment of a wide variety of cancers and may significantly mitigate the adverse effects of that treatment.
Topics: Antioxidants; Combined Modality Therapy; Complementary Therapies; Humans; Neoplasms; Radiotherapy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 17761641
DOI: 10.1177/1534735407305655