TY - JOUR

T1 - Antitumor activity of the two epipodophyllotoxin derivatives VP-16 and VM-26 in preclinical systems: a comparison of in vitro and in vivo drug evaluation

AU - Jensen, P B

AU - Roed, H

AU - Skovsgaard, T

AU - Friche, E

AU - Vindeløv, L

AU - Hansen, H H

AU - Spang-Thomsen, M

N1 - Keywords: Animals; Drug Evaluation; Drug Resistance; Etoposide; Male; Mice; Mice, Inbred DBA; Neoplasms, Experimental; Teniposide; Tumor Stem Cell Assay

PY - 1990

Y1 - 1990

N2 - The epipodophyllotoxines VP-16 and VM-26 are chemically closely related. VM-26 has been found to be considerably more potent than VP-16 in vitro in a number of investigations. Although the drugs have been known for greater than 20 years, they have not been compared at clearly defined equitoxic doses on an optimal schedule in vivo and it has not been clarified as to whether a therapeutic difference exists between them. A prolonged schedule is optimal for both drugs; accordingly we determined the toxicity in mice using a 5-day schedule. The dose killing 10% of the mice (LD10) was 9.4 mg/kg daily (95% confidence limits, 7.4-11.8) for VP-16 and 3.4 (2.5-4.5) mg/kg daily for VM-26. In vitro, we found VM-26 to be 6-10 times more potent than VP-16 in a clonogenic assay on murine tumors P388 and L1210 leukemia and Ehrlich ascites. This pattern was also demonstrated in a multidrug-resistant subline of Ehrlich selected for resistance to daunorubicin (Ehrlich/DNR+), as it was 30 times less sensitive than Ehrlich cells to both VP-16 and VM-26. Using 90%, 45%, and 22% of the LD10 on the same murine tumors in vivo, we found that the effect of the two drugs was equal as evaluated by both the increase in life span and the number of cures. The drugs were also compared in nude mice inoculated with human small-cell lung cancer lines OC-TOL and CPH-SCCL-123; however, they were more toxic to the nude mice and only a limited therapeutic effect was observed. In conclusion, the complete cross-resistance between the two drugs suggests that they have an identical antineoplastic spectrum. VM-26 was more potent than VP-16 in vitro; however, this was not correlated to a therapeutic advantage for VM-26 over VP-16 in vivo.

AB - The epipodophyllotoxines VP-16 and VM-26 are chemically closely related. VM-26 has been found to be considerably more potent than VP-16 in vitro in a number of investigations. Although the drugs have been known for greater than 20 years, they have not been compared at clearly defined equitoxic doses on an optimal schedule in vivo and it has not been clarified as to whether a therapeutic difference exists between them. A prolonged schedule is optimal for both drugs; accordingly we determined the toxicity in mice using a 5-day schedule. The dose killing 10% of the mice (LD10) was 9.4 mg/kg daily (95% confidence limits, 7.4-11.8) for VP-16 and 3.4 (2.5-4.5) mg/kg daily for VM-26. In vitro, we found VM-26 to be 6-10 times more potent than VP-16 in a clonogenic assay on murine tumors P388 and L1210 leukemia and Ehrlich ascites. This pattern was also demonstrated in a multidrug-resistant subline of Ehrlich selected for resistance to daunorubicin (Ehrlich/DNR+), as it was 30 times less sensitive than Ehrlich cells to both VP-16 and VM-26. Using 90%, 45%, and 22% of the LD10 on the same murine tumors in vivo, we found that the effect of the two drugs was equal as evaluated by both the increase in life span and the number of cures. The drugs were also compared in nude mice inoculated with human small-cell lung cancer lines OC-TOL and CPH-SCCL-123; however, they were more toxic to the nude mice and only a limited therapeutic effect was observed. In conclusion, the complete cross-resistance between the two drugs suggests that they have an identical antineoplastic spectrum. VM-26 was more potent than VP-16 in vitro; however, this was not correlated to a therapeutic advantage for VM-26 over VP-16 in vivo.

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 2265455

VL - 27

SP - 194

EP - 198

JO - Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, Supplement

JF - Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, Supplement

SN - 0943-9404

IS - 3

ER -