Kizilbash, Sani H

AbstractCentral nervous system (CNS) involvement with diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a relatively uncommon manifestation; with most cases of CNS involvement occuring during relapse after primary therapy. CNS dissemination typically occurs early in the disease course and is most likely present subclinically at the time of diagnosis in many patients who later relapse in the CNS. CNS relapse in these patients is associated with poor outcomes. Based on a CNS relapse rate of 5% in DLBCL and weighing the benefits against the toxicities, universal application of CNS prophylaxis is not justified. The introduction of rituximab has significantly reduced the incidence of CNS relapse in DLBCL. Different studies have employed other agents for CNS prophylaxis, such as intrathecal chemotherapy and high‐dose systemic agents with sufficient CNS penetration. If CNS prophylaxis is to be given, it should be preferably administered during primary chemotherapy. However, there is no strong evidence that supports any single approach for CNS prophylaxis. In this review, we outline different strategies of administering CNS prophylaxis in DLBCL patients reported in literature and discuss their advantages and drawbacks.

Abstract PARP inhibition can enhance the efficacy of temozolomide and prolong survival in orthotopic glioblastoma (GBM) xenografts. The aim of this study was to evaluate the combination of the PARP inhibitor rucaparib with temozolomide and to correlate pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies with efficacy in patient-derived GBM xenograft models. The combination of rucaparib with temozolomide was highly effective in vitro in short-term explant cultures derived from GBM12, and, similarly, the combination of rucaparib and temozolomide (dosed for 5 days every 28 days for 3 cycles) significantly prolonged the time to tumor regrowth by 40% in heterotopic xenografts. In contrast, the addition of rucaparib had no impact on the efficacy of temozolomide in GBM12 or GBM39 orthotopic models. Using Madin-Darby canine kidney (MDCK) II cells stably expressing murine BCRP1 or human MDR1, cell accumulation studies demonstrated that rucaparib is transported by both transporters. Consistent with the influence of these efflux pumps on central nervous system drug distribution, Mdr1a/b−/−Bcrp1−/− knockout mice had a significantly higher brain to plasma ratio for rucaparib (1.61 ± 0.25) than wild-type mice (0.11 ± 0.08). A pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation after a single dose confirmed limited accumulation of rucaparib in the brain is associated with substantial residual PARP enzymatic activity. Similarly, matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization mass spectrometric imaging demonstrated significantly enhanced accumulation of drug in flank tumor compared with normal brain or orthotopic tumors. Collectively, these results suggest that limited drug delivery into brain tumors may significantly limit the efficacy of rucaparib combined with temozolomide in GBM. Mol Cancer Ther; 14(12); 2735–43. ©2015 AACR.

Abstract Purpose: Effective sensitizing strategies potentially can extend the benefit of temozolomide (TMZ) therapy in patients with glioblastoma (GBM). We previously demonstrated that robust TMZ-sensitizing effects of the [poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase] (PARP) inhibitor veliparib (ABT-888) are restricted to TMZ-sensitive GBM xenografts. The focus of this study is to provide an understanding for the differential sensitization in paired TMZ-sensitive and -resistant GBM models. Experimental Design: The impact of veliparib on TMZ-induced cytotoxicity and DNA damage was evaluated in vitro and in vivo in models of acquired TMZ resistance (GBM12TMZ-mgmtHigh, GBM12TMZ-mgmtLow, and U251TMZ), inherent TMZ resistance (T98G), and TMZ-sensitive (U251 and GBM12). In vivo drug efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics were analyzed using clinically relevant dosing regimens. Results: Veliparib enhanced TMZ cytotoxicity and DNA-damage signaling in all GBM models in vitro with more pronounced effects in TMZ-resistant lines at 3 to 10 μmol/L veliparib. In vivo, combined TMZ/veliparib, compared with TMZ alone, significantly delayed tumor growth and enhanced DNA-damage signaling and γH2AX levels in the sensitive GBM12 xenograft line but not in the resistant GBM12TMZ lines. The pharmacokinetic profile of veliparib was similar for GBM12 and GBM12TMZ tumors with Cmax (∼1.5 μmol/L) in tissue significantly lower than concentrations associated with optimal in vitro sensitizing effects for resistant tumors. In contrast, robust suppression of PARP-1 expression by shRNA significantly increased TMZ sensitivity of U251TMZ in vitro and in vivo. Conclusions: In vitro cytotoxicity assays do not adequately model the therapeutic index of PARP inhibitors, as concentrations of veliparib and TMZ required to sensitize TMZ-resistant cancer cells in vivo cannot be achieved using a tolerable dosing regimen. Clin Cancer Res; 20(14); 3730–41. ©2014 AACR.