Recently, a paclitaxel nanosuspension formulation was evaluated i

Recently, a paclitaxel nanosuspension formulation was evaluated in a manuscript describing a pharmacokinetic study in rats and a tissue distribution study in mice [41]. Similar alterations in paclitaxel plasma clearance was selleck kinase inhibitor observed following intravenous administration to rats but were of a lesser

magnitude. In the rat study, plasma clearance was approximately 4-fold higher with nanosuspension delivery versus the 30-fold difference that we observed in our study. In the same manuscript, an evaluation Stattic cost of formulation-dependent changes in tissue distribution in mice was also performed. Higher tissue accumulation was reported for the liver and spleen in mice. However, it is difficult to compare results directly with our current study since plasma was not collected, and therefore, tissue to plasma ratios were not reported. Finally, non-tumor-bearing animals were used in the reported PI3K inhibitor study, so there were no comparisons of tumor disposition and anti-tumor

activity. To date, to our knowledge, there have been little to no comparisons of pre-clinical anti-tumor efficacy using nanosuspension formulation to deliver anti-cancer agents to subcutaneous tumor models. In particular, investigations on the use of nanosuspension formulation for paclitaxel delivery have been limited to the pharmacokinetic/tissue distribution study that was discussed above [41]. Our current study in tumor-bearing xenograft mice clearly shows that intravenous delivery of a 20 mg/kg paclitaxel dose using nanosuspension resulted in old reduced efficacy compared to the standard Cremophor EL:ethanol formulation (Figure 6). Since the plasma and tumor disposition were altered with nanosuspension delivery, anti-tumor efficacy normalized with respect to plasma and tumor exposures was calculated. The calculated measure of normalized efficacy (i.e., TGI/AUC0-8 ratio) provides an assessment of efficacy relative

to relevant in vivo concentrations such that the two formulations can be properly compared. The TGI/AUC0-8 ratios normalized relative to plasma exposure were much higher (approximately 16-fold) for nanosuspension delivery compared to the standard formulation (Figure 7). However, the TGI/AUC0-8 ratios normalized relative to tumor exposure were comparable. This observation suggested that the large difference in the TGI/AUC0-8 ratios normalized relative to plasma exposure was a result of a higher degree of accumulation in the tumor occurring with nanosuspension delivery. Once in the tumor, paclitaxel’s anti-tumor effect was similar and not dependent on the formulation. Despite having a larger tumor to plasma ratio (Table 2), nanosuspension delivery resulted in less anti-tumor efficacy (Figure 6). This occurred because the absolute amount of paclitaxel getting into the tumor was much less due to much lower plasma exposures following nanosuspension delivery (Table 1).

Comments are closed.