-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Clofarabine Has a Superior Therapeutic Window as compared to Gemcitabine in Preclinical Bladder Cancer Models
M. Gutmann, IE. Ertl, P. Herek, P. Vician, C. Pirker, C. Nössing, R. Brettner, U. Lemberger, R. Grausenburger, K. Batlogg, O. Baumfried, I. Prantl, N. Singh, E. Laukhtina, A. Oszwald, G. Wasinger, E. Compérat, W. Berger, SF. Shariat, B. Englinger
Jazyk angličtina Země Nizozemsko
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, srovnávací studie
- MeSH
- deoxycytidin * analogy a deriváty farmakologie terapeutické užití MeSH
- gemcitabin * MeSH
- klofarabin * terapeutické užití farmakologie MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- myši MeSH
- nádorové buněčné linie MeSH
- nádory močového měchýře * farmakoterapie patologie MeSH
- protinádorové antimetabolity terapeutické užití farmakologie MeSH
- xenogenní modely - testy protinádorové aktivity MeSH
- zvířata MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- myši MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- zvířata MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
Current standard-of-care systemic therapy options for locally advanced and metastatic bladder cancer (BC), which are predominantly based on cisplatin-gemcitabine combinations, are limited by significant treatment failure rates and frailty-based patient ineligibility. We previously addressed the urgent clinical need for better-tolerated BC therapeutic strategies using a drug screening approach, which identified outstanding antineoplastic activity of clofarabine in preclinical models of BC. To further assess clofarabine as a potential BC therapy component, we conducted head-to-head comparisons of responses to clofarabine versus gemcitabine in preclinical in vitro and in vivo models of BC, complemented by in silico analyses. In vitro data suggest a distinct correlation between the two antimetabolites, with higher cytotoxicity of gemcitabine, especially against several nonmalignant cell types, including keratinocytes and endothelial cells. Accordingly, tolerance of clofarabine (oral or intraperitoneal application) was distinctly better than for gemcitabine (intraperitoneal) in patient-derived xenograft models of BC. Clofarabine also exhibited distinctly superior anticancer efficacy, even at dosing regimens optimized for gemcitabine. Neither complete remission nor cure, both of which were observed with clofarabine, were achieved with any tolerable gemcitabine regimen. Taken together, our findings demonstrate that clofarabine has a better therapeutic window than gemcitabine, further emphasizing its potential as a candidate for drug repurposing in BC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We compared the anticancer activity of clofarabine, a drug used for treatment of leukemia but not bladder cancer, and gemcitabine, a drug currently used for chemotherapy against bladder cancer. Using cell cultures and mouse models, we found that clofarabine was better tolerated and more efficacious than gemcitabine, and even cured implanted tumors in mouse models. Our results suggest that clofarabine, alone or in combination schemes, might be superior to gemcitabine for the treatment of bladder cancer.
Department of Pathology Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria
Department of Pathology Tenon Hospital Sorbonne University Paris France
Department of Urology 2nd Faculty of Medicine Charles University Prague Czech Republic
Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria
Department of Urology University of Texas Southwestern Dallas TX USA
Department of Urology Weill Cornell Medical College New York NY USA
Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology Vienna Austria
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc25003337
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20250206104254.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 250121s2024 ne f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1016/j.euo.2024.05.001 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)38755094
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a ne
- 100 1_
- $a Gutmann, Michael $u Center for Cancer Research and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- 245 10
- $a Clofarabine Has a Superior Therapeutic Window as compared to Gemcitabine in Preclinical Bladder Cancer Models / $c M. Gutmann, IE. Ertl, P. Herek, P. Vician, C. Pirker, C. Nössing, R. Brettner, U. Lemberger, R. Grausenburger, K. Batlogg, O. Baumfried, I. Prantl, N. Singh, E. Laukhtina, A. Oszwald, G. Wasinger, E. Compérat, W. Berger, SF. Shariat, B. Englinger
- 520 9_
- $a Current standard-of-care systemic therapy options for locally advanced and metastatic bladder cancer (BC), which are predominantly based on cisplatin-gemcitabine combinations, are limited by significant treatment failure rates and frailty-based patient ineligibility. We previously addressed the urgent clinical need for better-tolerated BC therapeutic strategies using a drug screening approach, which identified outstanding antineoplastic activity of clofarabine in preclinical models of BC. To further assess clofarabine as a potential BC therapy component, we conducted head-to-head comparisons of responses to clofarabine versus gemcitabine in preclinical in vitro and in vivo models of BC, complemented by in silico analyses. In vitro data suggest a distinct correlation between the two antimetabolites, with higher cytotoxicity of gemcitabine, especially against several nonmalignant cell types, including keratinocytes and endothelial cells. Accordingly, tolerance of clofarabine (oral or intraperitoneal application) was distinctly better than for gemcitabine (intraperitoneal) in patient-derived xenograft models of BC. Clofarabine also exhibited distinctly superior anticancer efficacy, even at dosing regimens optimized for gemcitabine. Neither complete remission nor cure, both of which were observed with clofarabine, were achieved with any tolerable gemcitabine regimen. Taken together, our findings demonstrate that clofarabine has a better therapeutic window than gemcitabine, further emphasizing its potential as a candidate for drug repurposing in BC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We compared the anticancer activity of clofarabine, a drug used for treatment of leukemia but not bladder cancer, and gemcitabine, a drug currently used for chemotherapy against bladder cancer. Using cell cultures and mouse models, we found that clofarabine was better tolerated and more efficacious than gemcitabine, and even cured implanted tumors in mouse models. Our results suggest that clofarabine, alone or in combination schemes, might be superior to gemcitabine for the treatment of bladder cancer.
- 650 12
- $a gemcitabin $7 D000093542
- 650 12
- $a deoxycytidin $x analogy a deriváty $x farmakologie $x terapeutické užití $7 D003841
- 650 12
- $a klofarabin $x terapeutické užití $x farmakologie $7 D000077866
- 650 12
- $a nádory močového měchýře $x farmakoterapie $x patologie $7 D001749
- 650 _2
- $a zvířata $7 D000818
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a myši $7 D051379
- 650 _2
- $a nádorové buněčné linie $7 D045744
- 650 _2
- $a xenogenní modely - testy protinádorové aktivity $7 D023041
- 650 _2
- $a protinádorové antimetabolity $x terapeutické užití $x farmakologie $7 D000964
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
- 700 1_
- $a Ertl, Iris E $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- 700 1_
- $a Herek, Paula $u Center for Cancer Research and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- 700 1_
- $a Vician, Petra $u Center for Cancer Research and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- 700 1_
- $a Pirker, Christine $u Center for Cancer Research and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- 700 1_
- $a Nössing, Christoph $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- 700 1_
- $a Brettner, Robert $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- 700 1_
- $a Lemberger, Ursula $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- 700 1_
- $a Grausenburger, Reinhard $u Center for Cancer Research and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- 700 1_
- $a Batlogg, Kai $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- 700 1_
- $a Baumfried, Oliver $u Center for Cancer Research and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- 700 1_
- $a Prantl, Isabella $u Center for Cancer Research and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- 700 1_
- $a Singh, Neha $u Center for Cancer Research and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- 700 1_
- $a Laukhtina, Ekaterina $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- 700 1_
- $a Oszwald, André $u Department of Pathology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- 700 1_
- $a Wasinger, Gabriel $u Department of Pathology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- 700 1_
- $a Compérat, Eva $u Department of Pathology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Pathology, Tenon Hospital, Sorbonne University, Paris, France
- 700 1_
- $a Berger, Walter $u Center for Cancer Research and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: walter.berger@meduniwien.ac.at
- 700 1_
- $a Shariat, Shahrokh F $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA; Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University Hospital, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan; Research Center for Evidence Medicine, Urology Department, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran; Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria
- 700 1_
- $a Englinger, Bernhard $u Center for Cancer Research and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- 773 0_
- $w MED00205913 $t European urology oncology $x 2588-9311 $g Roč. 7, č. 6 (2024), s. 1166-1170
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38755094 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20250121 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20250206104250 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 2263231 $s 1239344
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC-MEDLINE
- BMC __
- $a 2024 $b 7 $c 6 $d 1166-1170 $e 20240516 $i 2588-9311 $m European urology oncology $n Eur Urol Oncol $x MED00205913
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20250121