Clofarabine Has a Superior Therapeutic Window as compared to Gemcitabine in Preclinical Bladder Cancer Models
Language English Country Netherlands Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article, Comparative Study
PubMed
38755094
DOI
10.1016/j.euo.2024.05.001
PII: S2588-9311(24)00115-9
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- Bladder cancer, Clofarabine, Drug repurposing, Gemcitabine, Nucleoside antimetabolites, Patient-derived xenograft models, Urothelial carcinoma,
- MeSH
- Deoxycytidine * analogs & derivatives pharmacology therapeutic use MeSH
- Gemcitabine * MeSH
- Clofarabine * therapeutic use pharmacology MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Mice MeSH
- Cell Line, Tumor MeSH
- Urinary Bladder Neoplasms * drug therapy pathology MeSH
- Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic therapeutic use pharmacology MeSH
- Xenograft Model Antitumor Assays MeSH
- Animals MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Mice MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Animals MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Deoxycytidine * MeSH
- Gemcitabine * MeSH
- Clofarabine * MeSH
- Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic 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 Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria
References provided by Crossref.org