Elsa Lilienberg

Treatment of intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma: a review of intrahepatic doxorubicin drug-delivery systems

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.

Investigation of Hepatobiliary Disposition of Doxorubicin Following Intrahepatic Delivery of Different Dosage Forms

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.

A Model-Based Approach To Assessing the Importance of Intracellular Binding Sites in Doxorubicin Disposition

Doxorubicin is an anticancer agent, which binds reversibly to topoisomerase I and II, intercalates to DNA base pairs, and generates free radicals. Doxorubicin has a high tissue:plasma partition coefficient and high intracellular binding to the nucleus and other subcellular compartments. The metabolite doxorubicinol has an extensive tissue distribution. This porcine study investigated whether the traditional implementation of tissue binding, described by the tissue:plasma partition coefficient (Kp,t), could be used to appropriately analyze and/or simulate tissue doxorubicin and doxorubicinol concentrations in healthy pigs, when applying a physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model approach, or whether intracellular binding is required in the semi-PBPK model. Two semi-PBPK models were developed and evaluated using doxorubicin and doxorubicinol concentrations in healthy pig blood, bile, and urine and kidney and liver tissues. In the generic semi-PBPK model, tissue binding was described using the conventional Kp,t approach. In the binding-specific semi-PBPK model, tissue binding was described using intracellular binding sites. The best semi-PBPK model was validated against a second data set of healthy pig blood and bile concentrations. Both models could be used for analysis and simulations of biliary and urinary excretion of doxorubicin and doxorubicinol and plasma doxorubicinol concentrations in pigs, but the binding-specific model was better at describing plasma doxorubicin concentrations. Porcine tissue concentrations were 400- to 1250-fold better captured by the binding-specific model. This model adequately predicted plasma doxorubicin concentration-time and biliary doxorubicin excretion profiles against the validation data set. The semi-PBPK models applied were similarly effective for analysis of plasma concentrations and biliary and urinary excretion of doxorubicin and doxorubicinol in healthy pigs. Inclusion of intracellular binding in the doxorubicin semi-PBPK models was important to accurately describe tissue concentrations during in vivo conditions.

The effects of lipiodol and cyclosporin A on the hepatobiliary disposition of doxorubicin in pigs.

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.