4.5 Article

New therapeutic approaches for brainstem tumors: a comparison of delivery routes using nanoliposomal irinotecan in an animal model

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 136, 期 3, 页码 475-484

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-017-2681-8

关键词

Brainstem glioma; Irinotecan (CPT-11); Convection-enhanced delivery (CED); Intranasal delivery (IND); Xenograft model

资金

  1. Pediatric Brain Tumor Foundation Institute Award
  2. NIH [RO1NS093079]
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [R01NS093079] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite the advances in imaging, surgery and radiotherapy, the majority of patients with brainstem gliomas die within 2 years after initial diagnosis. Factors that contribute to the dismal prognosis of these patients include the infiltrative nature and anatomic location in an eloquent area of the brain, which prevents total surgical resection and the presence of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), which reduces the distribution of systemically administered agents. The development of new therapeutic approaches which can circumvent the BBB is a potential path to improve outcomes for these children. Convection-enhanced delivery (CED) and intranasal delivery (IND) are strategies that permit direct drug delivery into the central nervous system and are an alternative to intravenous injection (IV). We treated rats bearing human brainstem tumor xenografts with nanoliposomal irinotecan (CPT-11) using CED, IND, and IV. A single treatment of CED irinotecan had a similar effect on overall survival as multiple treatments by IV route. IND CPT-11 showed significantly increased survival of animals with brainstem tumors, and demonstrated the promise of this non-invasive approach of drug delivery bypassing the BBB when combined with nanoliposomal chemotherapy. Our results indicated that using CED and IND of nanoliposomal therapy increase likelihood of practical therapeutic approach for the treatment of brainstem gliomas.

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

4.5
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