Koukourakis Michael I
Department of Radiotherapy-Oncology, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, Greece.
Semin Oncol. 2003 Dec;30(6 Suppl 18):18-30. doi: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2003.11.014.
A large body of experimental evidence suggests that amifostine (Ethyol, WR-2721; MedImmune, Inc, Gaithersburg, MD) is a selective cytoprotector of normal tissues. Nevertheless, several experimental studies, most of which were conducted in the early 1980s, suggest that amifostine may protect tumor tissues, although to a much lower degree than its protective effect on normal tissues. Based on a critical literature review, we conclude that any experimental evidence suggesting tumor protection is weak. The effects of anesthesia and hypotension on normal and tumor tissue oxygenation status of animals, the consequences of such events on amifostine activity, and the impact of this complex situation on host immunity and radiotherapy efficacy in the experimental setting do not reliably simulate the clinical setting. Analyses of radiobiologic and histologic results of the Canine Sarcoma Study show that, if any conclusion is to be made, amifostine protected normal tissues and preserved (or even enhanced) the antitumor activity of radiotherapy. The Ormaplatin Study clearly showed a 10-fold decreased concentration of platinum in tumor compared with normal tissues, and does not therefore support evidence of lack of amifostine selectivity. Finally, not one clinical study suggests tumor protection with amifostine. On the contrary, the majority of clinical data strongly suggest that patients who receive amifostine with radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy do better than controls. Rather than organizing large-scale, randomized clinical trials to exclude tumor protection by amifostine, it seems more useful to design trials that would measure amifostine benefits in terms of improved quality of life, tumor control, and survival rates in patients being treated with standard or novel chemotherapy/radiotherapy regimens.
大量实验证据表明,氨磷汀(Ethyol,WR - 2721;MedImmune公司,马里兰州盖瑟斯堡)是正常组织的选择性细胞保护剂。然而,一些实验研究(其中大部分是在20世纪80年代早期进行的)表明,氨磷汀可能会保护肿瘤组织,尽管其保护作用远低于对正常组织的保护作用。基于对相关文献的批判性综述,我们得出结论,任何表明氨磷汀具有肿瘤保护作用的实验证据都很薄弱。麻醉和低血压对动物正常组织和肿瘤组织氧合状态的影响、这些情况对氨磷汀活性的影响,以及这种复杂情况对实验环境中宿主免疫和放疗疗效的影响,并不能可靠地模拟临床情况。犬肉瘤研究的放射生物学和组织学结果分析表明,如果要得出任何结论的话,氨磷汀保护了正常组织,并保留(甚至增强)了放疗的抗肿瘤活性。奥马铂研究清楚地表明,与正常组织相比,肿瘤中铂的浓度降低了10倍,因此不支持氨磷汀缺乏选择性的证据。最后,没有一项临床研究表明氨磷汀具有肿瘤保护作用。相反,大多数临床数据强烈表明,接受氨磷汀联合放疗和/或化疗的患者比对照组表现更好。与其组织大规模随机临床试验来排除氨磷汀的肿瘤保护作用,似乎更有用的是设计试验,以衡量氨磷汀在采用标准或新型化疗/放疗方案治疗的患者中,在改善生活质量、肿瘤控制和生存率方面的益处。