Kinetic limitations of cooperativity based drug delivery systems

We study theoretically a novel drug delivery system that utilizes the overexpression of certain proteins in cancerous cells for cell specific chemotherapy. The system consists of dendrimers conjugated with "keys" (ex: folic acid) which "key-lock" bind to particular cell membrane proteins (ex: folate receptor). The increased concentration of "locks" on the surface leads to a longer residence time for the dendrimer and greater incorporation into the cell. Cooperative binding of the nanocomplexes leads to an enhancement of cell specificity. However, both our theory and detailed analysis of in-vitro experiments indicate that the degree of cooperativity is kinetically limited. We demonstrate that cooperativity and hence the specificity to particular cell type can be increased by making the strength of individual bonds weaker, and suggest a particular implementation of this idea. The implications of the work for optimizing the design of drug delivery vehicles are discussed.Comment: 4 pages, 4 figures, v3: minor revision

The Next Generation of Platinum Drugs: Targeted Pt(II) Agents, Nanoparticle Delivery, and Pt(IV) Prodrugs

The platinum drugs, cisplatin, carboplatin, and oxaliplatin, prevail in the treatment of cancer, but new platinum agents have been very slow to enter the clinic. Recently, however, there has been a surge of activity, based on a great deal of mechanistic information, aimed at developing nonclassical platinum complexes that operate via mechanisms of action distinct from those of the approved drugs. The use of nanodelivery devices has also grown, and many different strategies have been explored to incorporate platinum warheads into nanomedicine constructs. In this Review, we discuss these efforts to create the next generation of platinum anticancer drugs. The introduction provides the reader with a brief overview of the use, development, and mechanism of action of the approved platinum drugs to provide the context in which more recent research has flourished. We then describe approaches that explore nonclassical platinum(II) complexes with trans geometry or with a monofunctional coordination mode, polynuclear platinum(II) compounds, platinum(IV) prodrugs, dual-threat agents, and photoactivatable platinum(IV) complexes. Nanoparticles designed to deliver platinum(IV) complexes will also be discussed, including carbon nanotubes, carbon nanoparticles, gold nanoparticles, quantum dots, upconversion nanoparticles, and polymeric micelles. Additional nanoformulations, including supramolecular self-assembled structures, proteins, peptides, metal–organic frameworks, and coordination polymers, will then be described. Finally, the significant clinical progress made by nanoparticle formulations of platinum(II) agents will be reviewed. We anticipate that such a synthesis of disparate research efforts will not only help to generate new drug development ideas and strategies, but also will reflect our optimism that the next generation of approved platinum cancer drugs is about to arrive.National Cancer Institute (U.S.) (CA034992

Irinotecan plus raltitrexed vs raltitrexed alone in patients with gemcitabine-pretreated advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma

There is no established second-line treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer after gemcitabine failure. In view of the urgent need for such therapy, and since preclinical and phase I clinical data suggest an encouraging, potentially synergistic activity between raltitrexed and irinotecan, the present randomised phase II study was initiated. A total of 38 patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, who progressed while receiving or within 6 months after discontinuation of palliative first-line chemotherapy with gemcitabine, were enrolled in this study. They were randomised to 3-weekly courses of raltitrexed 3 mg m−2 on day 1 (arm A) or irinotecan 200 mg m−2 on day 1 plus raltitrexed 3 mg m−2 on day 2 (arm B). The primary study end point was objective response, secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), as well as clinical benefit response in symptomatic patients (n=28). In the combination arm, the IRC-confirmed objective response rate was 16% (three out of 19 patients had a partial remission; 95% CI, 3–40%), which was clearly superior to that in the comparator/control arm with raltitrexed alone, in which no response was obtained. Therefore, the trial was already stopped at the first stage of accrual. Also, the secondary study end points, median PFS (2.5 vs 4.0 months), OS (4.3 vs 6.5 months), and clinical benefit response (8 vs 29%) were superior in the combination arm. The objective and subjective benefits of raltitrexed+irinotecan were not negated by severe, clinically relevant treatment-related toxicities: gastrointestinal symptoms (42 vs 68%), partial alopecia (0 vs 42%), and cholinergic syndrome (0 vs 21%) were more commonly noted in arm B; however, grade 3 adverse events occurred in only three patients in both treatment groups. Our data indicate that combined raltitrexed+irinotecan seems to be an effective salvage regimen in patients with gemcitabine-pretreated pancreatic cancer. The superior response activity, PFS and OS (when compared to raltitrexed), as well as its tolerability and ease of administration suggest that future trials with this combination are warranted