![]() |
|
|
Vol. 280, Issue 3, 1406-1414, 1997
Division of Medical Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Agency,
Vancouver, British Columbia V5Z 4E6 and Terry Fox Laboratory,
British Columbia Cancer Research Center, Vancouver, British Columbia
V5Z 1L3, Canada
Murine fibrosarcoma tumors arising from subcutaneous inoculation of
FSa-N cells exhibit 4-fold higher tumor-associated macrophage (TAM)
levels than those from the FSa-R line. These solid tumors were used to
assess the role of TAMs in the accumulation of liposomal anticancer
drugs. Two liposomal formulations of doxorubicin were investigated: a
conventional formulation composed of
distearoylphosphatidylcholine (DSPC) and cholesterol and a
sterically stabilized liposomal formulation composed of
DSPC/cholesterol/poly (ethylene glycol)-modified
distearoylphosphatidyethanolamine (PEG-PE). Circulating concentrations
of PEG-PE containing liposomes 24 h after i.v. administration were
3-fold greater than those observed after administration of conventional
liposomes. No differences were observed in drug retention or tumor
(FSa-R or FSa-N) drug and liposomal lipid delivery when comparisons
were made between different liposomal formulations. However, tumor
doxorubicin concentrations were increased as much as 4-fold for
liposomal formulations relative to free drug. Further, there was a 1.5- to 2-fold increase in doxorubicin delivery to TAM-enriched FSa-N tumors
compared with FSa-R tumors. Fluorescence microscopy studies revealed a
poor correlation between CD11b (Mac-1) positive cells (TAMs) and the appearance of doxorubicin fluorescence. These results suggest that
uptake of liposomal drugs by TAMs does not account for the enhanced
accumulation of liposomal drugs in solid tumors. Rather, the increased
tumor drug delivery may be related to alternative TAM-mediated
processes that increase tumor vascular permeability. Therapeutic
studies demonstrated that increased tumor drug uptake observed for the
liposomal doxorubicin formulations led to marginal improvements in
antitumor activity, and it is suggested that much of the drug delivered
in liposomal form is not biologically available.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
R. J. Lee Liposomal delivery as a mechanism to enhance synergism between anticancer drugs. Mol. Cancer Ther., July 1, 2006; 5(7): 1639 - 1640. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. M. Laginha, S. Verwoert, G. J.R. Charrois, and T. M. Allen Determination of Doxorubicin Levels in Whole Tumor and Tumor Nuclei in Murine Breast Cancer Tumors Clin. Cancer Res., October 1, 2005; 11(19): 6944 - 6949. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. Minotti, P. Menna, E. Salvatorelli, G. Cairo, and L. Gianni Anthracyclines: Molecular Advances and Pharmacologic Developments in Antitumor Activity and Cardiotoxicity Pharmacol. Rev., June 1, 2004; 56(2): 185 - 229. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. J. R. Charrois and T. M. Allen Multiple Injections of Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin: Pharmacokinetics and Therapeutic Activity J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., September 1, 2003; 306(3): 1058 - 1067. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. PERVAIZ Reactive oxygen-dependent production of novel photochemotherapeutic agents FASEB J, March 1, 2001; 15(3): 612 - 617. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. C. Drummond, O. Meyer, K. Hong, D. B. Kirpotin, and D. Papahadjopoulos Optimizing Liposomes for Delivery of Chemotherapeutic Agents to Solid Tumors Pharmacol. Rev., December 1, 1999; 51(4): 691 - 744. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||