Deurloo M J, Kop W, van Tellingen O, Bartelink H, Begg A C
Department of Experimental Therapy, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1991;27(5):347-53. doi: 10.1007/BF00688856.
The pharmacokinetics of cisplatin in mice with s.c. RIF 1 tumours was studied after intratumoural (i.t.) administration of drug in solution and in different slow-release devices. The data were compared with those obtained after i.p. administration of cisplatin. The slow-release devices under test were manufactured from either starch (ST) or polymeric hydrogels with different water uptakes (named T1, T2 and T3). In vitro release from these devices was approximately 100% in 2 h for starch rods, 100% in 24 h for T3 hydrogels, 45% in 4 days for T2 hydrogels and less than 10% in 4 days for T1 hydrogels. In vivo release rates agreed well with the in vitro data for T1 and T2 rods and were slightly slower in vivo for the T3 rods. The ST rods released the drug 6 times slower in vivo than in vitro. Plasma concentrations after i.t. administration were lower than those measured after i.p. administration. Systemic exposure to both total and free platinum was reduced to 70% for i.t. as compared with i.p. administration. Tumour concentrations were 4 times higher after i.t. than after i.p. administration. Tumour and peak plasma levels of platinum increased with increasing release rates. With the faster-releasing formulations (ST and T3), tumour platinum concentrations were 100 times higher than after i.p. administration. With the slower releasing formulations (T1 and T2), total tumour platinum concentrations were 2 and 9 times higher, respectively, than after i.t. administration of cisplatin in solution. Platinum distribution within the tumour was homogeneous after i.p. administration. After i.t. administration of cisplatin in solution, platinum concentrations in the centre of the tumour were approximately 4 times higher than in peripheral tumour tissue. Implantation of cisplatin in T2 and T3 hydrogel rods resulted in large concentrations of platinum in the centre of the tumour (the site of implant), which decreased steeply towards the tumour periphery. In summary, i.t. administration of cisplatin solution produced better results than did systemic (i.p.) administration in terms of tumour versus plasma drug-concentration ratios. Administration of drug in slow-release rods proved even more advantageous, although this was offset by inhomogeneous drug distributions within the tumour.
研究了在皮下接种RIF 1肿瘤的小鼠中,肿瘤内(i.t.)注射顺铂溶液及不同缓释装置后顺铂的药代动力学。将这些数据与腹腔注射(i.p.)顺铂后获得的数据进行比较。所测试的缓释装置由淀粉(ST)或具有不同吸水率的聚合物水凝胶制成(分别命名为T1、T2和T3)。这些装置的体外释放情况为:淀粉棒在2小时内释放约100%,T3水凝胶在24小时内释放100%,T2水凝胶在4天内释放45%,T1水凝胶在4天内释放少于10%。T1和T2棒的体内释放速率与体外数据吻合良好,T3棒的体内释放速率稍慢。ST棒在体内的药物释放速度比体外慢6倍。肿瘤内注射后的血浆浓度低于腹腔注射后的测量值。与腹腔注射相比,肿瘤内注射时总铂和游离铂的全身暴露量降低至70%。肿瘤内注射后的肿瘤浓度比腹腔注射高四倍。铂的肿瘤浓度和血浆峰值水平随释放速率的增加而升高。对于释放较快的制剂(ST和T3),肿瘤铂浓度比腹腔注射高100倍。对于释放较慢的制剂(T1和T2),肿瘤总铂浓度分别比肿瘤内注射顺铂溶液后高2倍和9倍。腹腔注射后铂在肿瘤内的分布是均匀的。肿瘤内注射顺铂溶液后,肿瘤中心的铂浓度比周边肿瘤组织高约四倍。将顺铂植入T2和T3水凝胶棒后,肿瘤中心(植入部位)有大量铂聚集,向肿瘤周边急剧下降。总之,就肿瘤与血浆药物浓度比而言,肿瘤内注射顺铂溶液比全身(腹腔)注射产生更好的效果。在缓释棒中给药被证明更具优势,尽管这被肿瘤内药物分布不均匀所抵消。