It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers in the United States and treatment options are limited for patients who develop liver metastases. Several chemotherapeutic regimens have been used for transvascular liver-directed therapy in the treatment of colorectal liver metastases without clear evidence of superiority of one therapy over another. We describe the development of a novel nanoemulsion through combining irinotecan (IRI), a first line systemic agent used for the treatment of colon cancer, with lipiodol, an oily contrast medium derived from poppy seed oil, and evaluated its pharmacokinetic and biodistribution profile as a function of portal venous chemoembolization (PVCE) versus transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) delivery. The Tessari technique was used to create a stable emulsion (20 mg IRI mixed with 2 mL lipiodol) with resultant particle size ranging from 28.9 nm to 56.4 nm. Pharmacokinetic profile established through venous sampling in Buffalo rats demonstrate that the area under the curve (AUC0−∞) of IRI was significantly less after PVCE with IRI-lipiodol as compared to IRI alone (131 vs. 316 µg*min/mL, p-value = .023), suggesting significantly higher amounts of IRI retention in the liver with the IRI-lipiodol nanoemulsion via first-pass extraction. Subseqent biodistribution studies in tumor-bearing WAG/Rjj rats revealed more IRI present in the tumor following TACE versus PVCE (29.19 ± 12.33 µg/g versus 3.42 ± 1.62; p-value = .0033) or IV (29.19 ± 12.33 µg/g versus 1.05 ± 0.47; p-value = .0035). The IRI-lipiodol nanoemulsion demonstrated an acceptable hepatotoxicity profile in all routes of administration. In conclusion, the IRI-lipiodol nanoemulsion via TACE showed promise and warrants further investigation as an option for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Department of Interventional Radiology, Division of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UT Health Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, TX, USA
2 Department of Interventional Radiology, Division of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
3 Department of Interventional Radiology, Division of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA; Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, USA
4 Department of Interventional Radiology, Division of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
5 College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Texas Southern University, Houston, TX, USA
6 The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada