4.4 Article

Initial Testing (Stage 1) of Lapatinib by the Pediatric Preclinical Testing Program

期刊

PEDIATRIC BLOOD & CANCER
卷 53, 期 4, 页码 594-598

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/pbc.21989

关键词

developmental therapeutics; lapatinib; preclinical testing

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [NOI-CM-42216, CA21765, CA 108786]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Lapatinib is a small molecule reversible tyrosine kinase inhibitor of EGFR and ErbB2 that shows in vitro and in vivo activity against a range of EGFR and ErbB2-dependent adult cancer cell lines and that has clinical efficacy against ErbB2-overexpressing breast cancer. Methods. Lapatinib was tested against the cell lines of the PPTP in vitro panel at concentrations ranging from 1.0 nM to 10.0 mu M. Lapatinib was tested against the xenografts of the PPTP in vivo panels using a twice-daily oral administration schedule for 6 weeks (5 days on, 2 days off) at a dose of 160 mg/kg (320 mg/kg/ day). Lapatinib pharmacokinetic parameters were determined in scid(-/-) mice. Results. The median IC(50) value for lapatinib against the entire PPTP cell line panel was 6.84 mu M (range, 2.08 to >10.0 mu M). Lapatinib was well tolerated in vivo, with toxicity in only 1.5% of the treated animals. Lapatinib induced significant differences in EFS distribution compared to controls in 1 of 41 xenografts tested. No objective responses were observed in any of the solid tumor panels or in the ALL panel. Lapatinib systemic exposure was consistent with previously observed values. Conclusions. Lapatinib has little activity against the xenografts of the PPTP's in vivo panel, and its in vitro activity occurs at concentrations above those associated with specific EGFR/ErbB2 inhibition. These results likely reflect lack of ErbB2 overexpression in the models studied and suggest that adult and pediatric cancers may fundamentally differ in the applicability of EGFR family members as therapeutic targets. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2009;53: 594-598. (C) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据