Unresectable, intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is often treated palliatively in humans by doxorubicin (DOX). The drug is administered either as a drug-emulsified-in-Lipiodol (DLIP) or as drug loaded into drug eluting beads (DEB), and both formulations are administered intrahepatically. However, several aspects of their in vivo performance in the liver are still not well-understood. In this study, DLIP and DEB were investigated regarding the local and systemic pharmacokinetics (PK) of DOX and its primary metabolite doxorubicinol (DOXol). An advanced PK-multisampling site acute in vivo pig model was used for simultaneous sampling in the portal, hepatic, and femoral veins and the bile duct. The study had a randomized, parallel design with four treatment groups (TI-TIV). TI (n = 4) was used as control and received an intravenous (i.v.) infusion of DOX as a solution. TII and TIII were given a local injection in the hepatic artery with DLIP (n = 4) or DEB (n = 4), respectively. TIV (n = 2) received local injections of DLIP in the hepatic artery and bile duct simultaneously. All samples were analyzed for concentrations of DOX and DOXol with UPLC-MS/MS. Compared to DLIP, the systemic exposure for DOX with DEB was reduced (p < 0.05), in agreement with a slower in vivo release. The approximated intracellular bioavailability of DOX during 6 h appeared to be lower for DEB than DLIP. Following i.v. infusion (55 min), DOX had a liver extraction of 41 (28-53)%, and the fraction of the dose eliminated in bile of DOX and DOXol was 20 (15-22)% and 4.2 (3.2-5.2)%, respectively. The AUCbile/AUCVP for DOX and DOXol was 640 (580-660) and 5000 (3900-5400), respectively. In conclusion, DLIP might initially deliver a higher hepatocellular concentration of DOX than DEB as a consequence of its higher in vivo release rate. Thus, DLIP delivery results in higher intracellular peak concentrations that might correlate with better anticancer effects, but also higher systemic drug exposure and safety issues.

Doxorubicin (DOX) delivered in a lipiodol-based emulsion (LIPDOX) or in drug-eluting beads (DEBDOX) is used as palliative treatment in patients with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the in vivo delivery performance of DOX from LIPDOX or DEBDOX in HCC patients using the local and systemic pharmacokinetics of DOX and its main metabolite doxorubicinol (DOXol). Urinary excretion of DOX and DOXol and their short-term safety and antitumor effects were also evaluated. In this open, prospective, nonrandomized multicenter study, LIPDOX (n = 13) or DEBDOX (n = 12) were injected into the feeding arteries of the tumor. Local (vena cava/hepatic vein orifice) and systemic (peripheral vein) plasma concentrations of DOX and DOXol were determined in samples obtained up to 6 h and 7 days after treatment. Tumor response was assessed using computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. The C and AUC for DOX were 5.6-fold and 2.4-fold higher in LIPDOX vs DEBDOX recipients, respectively (p < 0.001). After 6 h, the respective mean proportions of the dose remaining in the liver or drug-delivery system (DDS) were 49% for LIPDOX and 88% for DEBDOX. LIPDOX releases DOX faster than DEBDOX in HCC patients and provides more extensive local and systemic exposure (AUC) to DOX and DOXol initially (0-7 days). DEBDOX formulation has a release and distribution of DOX that is more restricted and rate controlled than LIPDOX.

Doxorubicin (DOX) emulsified in Lipiodol (LIP) is used as local palliative treatment for unresectable intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma. The objective of this study was to examine the poorly understood effects of the main excipient in the drug delivery system, LIP, alone or together with cyclosporin A (CsA), on the in vivo liver disposition of DOX and its active metabolite doxorubicinol (DOXol). The advanced, multi-sampling-site, acute pig model was used; samples were collected from three blood vessels (v. portae, v. hepatica and v. femoralis), bile and urine. The four treatment groups (TI-TIV) all received two intravenous 5 min infusions of DOX into an ear vein: at 0 and 200 min. Before the second dose, the pigs received a portal vein infusion of saline (TI), LIP (TII), CsA (TIII) or LIP and CsA (TIV). Concentrations of DOX and DOXol were analyzed using UPLC-MS/MS. The developed multicompartment model described the distribution of DOX and DOXol in plasma, bile and urine. LIP did not affect the pharmacokinetics of DOX or DOXol. CsA (TIII and TIV) had no effect on the plasma pharmacokinetics of DOX, but a 2-fold increase in exposure to DOXol and a significant decrease in hepatobiliary clearance of DOX and DOXol were observed. Model simulations supported that CsA inhibits 99% of canalicular biliary secretion of both DOX and DOXol, but does not affect the metabolism of DOX to DOXol. In conclusion, LIP did not directly interact with transporters, enzymes and/or biological membranes important for the hepatobiliary disposition of DOX.

The biopharmaceutical properties of doxorubicin delivered via two drug-delivery systems (DDSs) for the palliative treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma were reviewed with relation to the associated liver and tumor (patho)physiology. These two DDSs, doxorubicin emulsified with Lipiodol ® and doxorubicin loaded into DC Bead ® are different regarding tumor delivery, release rate, local bioavailability, if and how they can be given repeatedly, biodegradability, length of embolization and safety profile. There have been few direct head-to-head comparisons of these DDSs, and in-depth investigations into their in vitro and in vivo performance is warranted.The global incidence of liver cancer is increasing and this type of cancer has a poor prognosis and is ranked as the third most common lethal cancer form [1,2]. The recommended treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a primary liver cancer, is dependent on the stage of the disease [3]. For unresectable, intermediate stage HCC, transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is recommended. TACE involves the delivery of the cytostatic agent(s) in a drug-delivery system (DDS) to the tumor via the hepatic artery (HA) [3]. In contrast to normal liver tissue, which has a dual blood supply from the HA and the portal vein [4], HCC is typically mainly vascularized by the HA. Local drug administration by the TACE DDS is expected to increase the specificity of the tumor response while reducing the frequency of side effects and morbidity compared with systemic dosed treatments [4]. Embolization, caused by the DDS, obstructs the blood flow in the tumor, induces hypoxia, and results in increased drug concentrations and prolonged residence times in the tumortarget area [4]. Patients with untreated HCC that has not invaded the portal vein or spread extrahepatically have an expected median survival of approximately 16 months. With current palliative TACE strategies, the expected median survival is prolonged by approximately 4 months [3].To date, several DDSs delivering various chemotherapeutic drug(s) and pharmaceutical excipients have been developed and clinically evaluated for TACE therapy [5]. A review of these options of TACE DDSs is warranted in that it would form the basis for optimizing tumor-targeted therapy for HCC treatment, and subsequent development of novel, tumor-targeted DDSs and dosing strategies. Two common DDSs used for TACE therapy for intermediate stage HCC involve cytostatic agents emulsified in Lipiodol ® (LIP) or loaded into drugeluting beads. LIP is an iodized poppy seed oil derivative visible on x-ray, and after administration, the contrast is preferentially retained in tumor tissue [6,7]. The combination of the cytostatic agent emulsified in LIP can be administered with or without additional embolizing materials, generating complete or partial embolization of the targeted tumor-feeding vessel(s) [3,8]. DC Bead ® (DCB) is one of several commercially available drug-eluting embolizing bead systems [9]. Positively charged chemotherapeutic drugs can be ...

IntroductionPaclitaxel micellar is a novel formulation of paclitaxel in which retinoic acid derivates solubilize paclitaxel. The aim of the present study was to compare the unbound and total plasma pharmacokinetics of the new formulation with those of nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel and to further assess its safety.MethodsIn this open, randomized, cross-over study, 28 female patients with breast cancer were given paclitaxel micellar and nab-paclitaxel as a 1-h intravenous infusion at a dose of 260 mg/m2. Plasma samples were collected during 10 h, which were projected to cover at least 80% of the area to infinite time, AUCinf. Unbound paclitaxel was measured in ultrafiltrate of plasma. Total paclitaxel in plasma was measured after protein precipitation with acetonitrile. Both assays used ultra-performance liquid chromatography (UPLC) followed by MS/MS for drug quantification. The unbound fraction, fu, was calculated as the ratio between the unbound and the total concentration.ResultsNo difference in fu of paclitaxel between the two formulations was observed. Statistical comparison of AUC0–10h and Cmax of unbound paclitaxel demonstrated that the two formulations met the criteria for bioequivalence. Regarding total paclitaxel levels, Cmax but not AUC0–10h met the criteria. This study supports a safe administration of paclitaxel micellar.ConclusionThe two formulations, paclitaxel micellar and nab-paclitaxel, behaved similarly following infusion. Probably, both formulations dissociate immediately in the blood, whereupon released paclitaxel rapidly distributes into tissue. Judged from the bioequivalence demonstrated for unbound paclitaxel, the two formulations are considered clinically equivalent.Trial RegistrationEudraCT no.: 2010-019838-27.FundingOasmia Pharmaceutical AB.