No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The development of agents that target tumour vasculature is ultimately dependent on the availability of appropriate preclinical screening assays. Several quantitative angiogenesis assays exist, each with its own unique characteristics and disadvantages. In this review we discuss some of the commonly used assays, their methodological pitfalls and current use. The corneal micropocket and the CAM assay are well established. However, the matrix-implant assays have the potential advantage of replicating the hypoxic tumour microenvironment, thus making them suitable for the study of tumour angiogenesis. The ideal quantitative angiogenesis assay does not exist and the use of two complimentary quantitative assays, such as a matrix implant assay and a microcirculatory preparation like the CAM or corneal micropocket assay, provides the best compromise. Newer models like the hollow-fibre assay are being developed and older ones refined. Assay systems should reflect distinct disease processes. Thus it is appropriate to develop assays that study exclusively pro- or anti-angiogenic compounds or anti-vascular agents. Criticisms of currently available screening systems are that the predictive value of current screening systems remains to be established as anti-angiogenic agents are still in clinical development. Anti-angiogenic agents are likely to be most effective as chronic therapy for remission maintenance in the metastatic setting or as adjuvant therapy in patients at high risk of relapse, an important clinical aspect not addressed in animal models of tumour angiogenesis. Histological analysis still provides the most detailed information on in vivo angiogenesis. However, angiogenesis is a dynamic process and assays that permit continuous monitoring of the angiogenic response and provide information on the physiological characteristics of new vessels will be distinctly advantageous over older systems. The development of non-invasive techniques for quantitation of angiogenesis will greatly facilitate this process.

Purpose: Combretastatin A4 phosphate (CA4P) and its structural analog, combretastatin A1 phosphate (CA1P), are soluble prodrugs capable of interacting with tubulin and causing rapid vascular shutdown within tumors. CA4P has completed Phase I clinical trials, but recent preclinical studies have shown that CA1P displays a greater antitumor effect than the combretastatin A4 (CA4) analog at equal doses. The aim of this study, therefore, is to compare pharmacokinetics and metabolism of the two compounds to determine whether pharmacokinetics plays a role in their differential activity.Experimental Design: NMRI mice bearing MAC29 tumors received injection with either CA4P or CA1P at a therapeutic dose of 150 mg⅐kg ؊1 , and profiles of both compounds and their metabolites analyzed by a sensitive and specific liquid chromatography/mass spectroscopy method.Results: The metabolic profile of both compounds is complex, with up to 14 metabolites being detected for combretastatin A1 (CA1) in the plasma. Many of these metabolites have been identified by liquid chromatography/mass spectroscopy. Initial studies, however, focused on the active components CA4 and CA1, where plasma and tumor areas under the curve were 18.4 and 60.1 g⅐h⅐ml ؊1 for CA4, and 10.4 and 13.1 g⅐h⅐ml ؊1 for CA1, respectively. In vitro metabolic comparisons of the two compounds strongly suggest that CA1 is metabolized to a more reactive species than the CA4.Conclusions: Although in vitro studies suggest that variable rates of tumor-specific prodrug dephosphorylation may explain these differences in pharmacokinetics profiles, the improved antitumor activity and altered pharmacokinetic profile of CA1 may be due to the formation of a more reactive metabolite.