Population pharmacokinetic model of irinotecan and its four main metabolites in patients treated with FOLFIRI or FOLFIRINOX regimen

The E2F4 transcriptional repressor is a key mechanistic regulator of colon cancer resistance to irinotecan (CPT-11)

Background

Colorectal carcinomas (CRCs) are seldom eradicated by cytotoxic chemotherapy. Cancer cells with stem-like functional properties, often referred to as "cancer stem cells" (CSCs), display preferential resistance to several anti-tumor agents used in cancer chemotherapy, but the molecular mechanisms underpinning their selective survival remain only partially understood.

Methods

In this study, we used Transcription Factor Target Genes (TFTG) enrichment analysis to identify transcriptional regulators (activators or repressors) that undergo preferential activation by chemotherapy in CRC cells with a "bottom-of-the-crypt" phenotype (EPCAM+/CD44+/CD166+; CSC-enriched) as compared to CRC cells with a "top-of-the-crypt" phenotype (EPCAM+/CD44neg/CD166neg; CSC-depleted). The two cell populations were purified in parallel by fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) from a patient-derived xenograft (PDX) line representative of a moderately differentiated human CRC, following in vivo chemotherapy with irinotecan (CPT-11). The transcriptional regulators identified as differentially activated were tested for differential expression in normal vs. cancer tissues, and in cell populations enriched in stem/progenitor cell-types as compared to differentiated lineages (goblet cells, enterocytes) in the mouse colon epithelium. Finally, the top candidate was tested for mechanistic contribution to drug-resistance by selective down-regulation using short-hairpin RNAs (shRNAs).

Results

Our analysis identified E2F4 and TFDP1, two core components of the DREAM transcriptional repression complex, as transcriptional modulators preferentially activated by irinotecan in EPCAM+/CD44+/CD166+ as compared to EPCAM+/CD44neg/CD166neg cancer cells. The expression levels of both genes (E2F4, TFDP1) were found up-regulated in CRCs as compared to human normal colon tissues, and in a sub-population of mouse colon epithelial cells enriched in stem/progenitor elements (Epcam+/Cd44+/Cd66alow/Kitneg) as compared to other sub-populations enriched in either goblet cells (Epcam+/Cd44+/Cd66alow/Kit+) or enterocytes (Epcam+/Cd44neg/Cd66ahigh). Most importantly, E2F4 down-regulation using shRNAs dramatically enhanced the sensitivity of human CRCs to in vivo treatment with irinotecan, across three independent PDX models.

Conclusions

Our data identified E2F4 and the DREAM repressor complex as critical regulators of human CRC resistance to irinotecan, and as candidate targets for the development of chemo-sensitizing agents.

Development and Application of Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic Model to Predict Systemic and Organ Exposure of Colorectal Cancer Drugs

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Colorectal cancer (CRC) holds the third and second position among cancers affecting men and women, respectively. Frequently, the first-line treatment for metastatic CRC consists of the intravenous administration of 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin in combination with oxaliplatin or irinotecan. Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models (PBPK) aim to mechanistically incorporate body physiology and drug physicochemical attributes, enabling the description of both systemic and organ drug exposure based on the treatment specificities. This bottom-up approach represents an opportunity to personalize treatment and minimize the therapeutic risk/benefit ratio through the understanding of drug distribution within colorectal tissue. This project has the goal of characterizing the systemic and tissue exposure of four anti-cancer drugs in humans using a PBPK platform fed with data from the literature.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to collect clinical data on systemic concentration versus time profiles. Physicochemical features were obtained from the literature, as well as parameters associated with distribution, metabolism, and excretion. The PBPK models were built using PK-Sim®.

RESULTS

The data from 51 clinical studies were extracted and combined in one single dataset. The PBPK models successfully described the exposure vs. time profiles with respect to both, with both the typical tendency and dispersion shown by the data. The percentage of observations falling within the two-fold error bounds ranged between 94 and 100%. The colon/plasma AUCinf ratios were similar for 5-FU, oxaliplatin, and leucovorin, but it was significantly higher for irinotecan.

CONCLUSIONS

The PBPK models support tailored treatment approaches by linking in vitro studies to organ exposure. These models serve as the initial step towards incorporating a dedicated tumor compartment, which will further account for the variability in tumor microenvironment characteristics to improve therapeutic strategies.

Drug-Drug Interactions and Disease Status Are Associated with Irinotecan-induced Hepatotoxicity: A Cross-Sectional Study in Shanghai

Irinotecan-induced hepatotoxicity can cause severe clinical complications in patients; however, the underlying mechanism and factors affecting hepatotoxicity have rarely been investigated. In this cross-sectional study, we screened all clinical, demographic, medication and genetic variables among 126 patients receiving irinotecan and explored potential associations with the incidence and time to onset of irinotecan-induced hepatotoxicity. Approximately 38.9% of the patients suffered from hepatotoxicity after irinotecan administration. The presence of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) increases the incidence of hepatotoxicity approximately 2.9-fold and doubles the hazard of time to hepatotoxicity. Patients with liver metastasis had a more than 4-fold higher risk of hepatotoxicity and a 3.5-fold increased hazard of time to hepatotoxicity compared to those without liver metastasis. Patients who took CYP3A inducers had a 4.4-fold increased incidence of hepatotoxicity, and furthermore, concomitant use of platinum-based antineoplastics revealed 4.2 times the hazard of time to hepatotoxicity compared to those receiving antimetabolites. The cumulative dose of irinotecan (5-9 cycles) increased hepatotoxicity by 8.5 times. However, the genotypes and phenotypes of UGT1A1*28/*6 failed to be predictive factors of hepatotoxicity. The findings of this study suggest that irinotecan-induced hepatotoxicity is not directly associated with genetic variables but is mostly related to concomitant use of CYP3A inducers and platinum, as well as the presence of liver metastasis and CVD. Thus, close monitoring of liver function is recommended, especially in patients with liver impairment or using CYP3A inducers and platinum antineoplastic drugs, which may be the best way to prevent hepatotoxicity. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.