4.8 Article

In vitro and in vivo evaluation of etoposide - silk wafers for neuroblastoma treatment

期刊

JOURNAL OF CONTROLLED RELEASE
卷 285, 期 -, 页码 162-171

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2018.07.002

关键词

Silk; Etoposide; Neuroblastoma; Chemotheraphy; Drug delivery; Implants; Sustained release

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01NS094218]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High-risk neuroblastoma requires surgical resection and multi-drug chemotherapy. This study aimed to develop an extended release, implantable and degradable delivery system for etoposide, commonly used for neuroblastoma treatment. Different concentrations of silk, a biodegradable, non-toxic, non-immunogenic material were employed to prepare etoposide-loaded wafer formulations. Secondary structure of silk in the formulations was characterized using Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy and optimized based on the crystalline structure. Accelerated in vitro degradation studies under different conditions such as acidic, alkaline, oxidizing mediums and high temperature, were performed. The integrity of the silk wafer structure was maintained unless exposed to 0.1 N NaOH for 24 h. In vitro release of etoposide was performed in PBS (phosphate buffered saline) at 37 degrees C. Silk coated 6% wafers released the drug up to 45 days, while uncoated wafers released the drug for 30 days. Cytotoxicity study was performed on KELLY cells to evaluate the etoposide cytotoxicity (LC50) and the long-term efficacy of the etoposide wafer formulations. The results showed that etoposide killed 50% of the cells at 1 mu g/mL concentration and the wafer formulations demonstrated significant cytotoxicity up to 22 days when compared to untreated cells. Using an orthotopic neuroblastoma mouse model, intra-tumoral implantation of the coated 6%, uncoated 6%, or uncoated 3% silk wafers were all effective at decreasing tumor growth. Histological examination revealed tumor cell necrosis adjacent to the drug-loaded silk wafer.

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

4.8
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