4.7 Article

Dosing and scheduling influence the antitumor efficacy of a phosphinic peptide inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinases

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 113, Issue 5, Pages 775-781

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.20459

Keywords

phosphinic peptides; matrix metalloproteinase

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The in vivo disposition and antitumor efficacy of a newly developed phosphinic matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor (RXP03) were examined. RXP03 potently inhibits MMP-11, MMP-8 and MMP-13, but not MMP-1 and MMP-7. Twenty-four hours after i.p. injection into mice, most of the RXP03 was recovered intact in plasma, feces (biliary excretion) and tumor tissue. Pharmacokinetic parameters indicated that, after an i.p. dose of 100 mug/day, the plasma concentration of RXP03 over 24 hr remained higher than the Ki values determined for MMP-11, MMP-8 and MMP-13. Efficacy of RXP03 on the growth of primary tumors induced by s.c. injection of C-26 colon carcinoma cells in mice was observed to depend both on RXP03 doses and treatment schedules. Tumor volumes in mice treated for 18 days with 50, 100 and 150 mug/day of RXP03 were decreased compared with control tumor volumes, 100 mug/day being the most effective dose. Treatment at higher dose (600 mug/day) did not significantly reduce the tumor size as compared to control. Short treatments with RXP03 100 mug/day, 3 to 7 days after C-26 inoculation, were more effective on tumor growth than continuous treatment over 18 days. Strikingly, RXP03 treatment started 6 days after the C-26 injection and continued until day 18 led to stimulation of tumor growth, as compared to control. These paradoxical effects, depending on the RXP03 treatment schedule, underline the need to define carefully the spatiotemporal function of each MMP at various stages of tumor growth to achieve optimal therapeutic effects by MMP inhibitor treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available