4.6 Article

Comparative pharmacokinetics of 14C-sucrose in RG-2 rat gliomas after intravenous and convection-enhanced delivery

Journal

NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Volume 6, Issue 2, Pages 104-112

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1215/S1152851703000449

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [R01-NS12745] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We compared tissue and plasma pharmacokinetics of C-14-sucrose in subcutaneous RG-2 rat gliomas after administration by 3 routes, intravenous bolus (IV-B; 50 muCi over 30 s), continuous IV infusion (IV-C, 50 muCi at a constant rate), and convection-enhanced delivery (CED, 5 muCi infused at a rate of 0.5 mul/min), and for 3 experimental durations, 0.5, 2, and 4 h. Plasma, tumor, and other tissue samples were obtained to measure tissue radioactivity. Plasma radioactivity in the CED group increased exponentially and lagged only slightly behind the IV-C group. After 90 min, plasma values were similar in all. Mean tumor radioactivity was 100 to 500 times higher in the CED group at each time point than in the IV-B and IV-C groups. Tumor radioactivity was homogeneous in the IV groups at 0.5 h and inhomogeneous at 1 and 2 h. In CED, radioactivity distribution was inhomogeneous at all 3 time points; highest concentrations were in tissue around tumor and in necrosis, while viable tumor contained the lowest and sometimes negligible amounts of isotope. Systemic tissue radioactivity values were similar in all groups. Efflux of C-14-sucrose from tumors was evaluated in intracerebral tumors (at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 h) and subcutaneous tumors (at 0 to 0.5 h). Less than 5% of C-14 activity remained in intracerebral tumors at each time point. The efflux half-time from the subcutaneous tumors was 7.3 +/- 0.7 min. These results indicate rapid efflux of drug from brain tumor and marked heterogeneity of drug distribution within tumor after CED administration, both of which may be potentially limiting factors in drug delivery by this method.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available