Comparison Between VP 16 and VM 26 in Lewis Lung Carcinoma of the Mouse
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
The antitumoral activity and pharmacokinetics of VP 16 and VM 26 were comparatively investigated in Lewis lung carcinoma (3LL)-bearing mice. When the two drugs were given at equitoxic doses, in single or repeated treatment, the superior antitumoral activity of VM 26 was clear. Compared to VP 16, VM 26 had a different pattern of distribution, with a larger volume of distribution, a longer elimination half-life time and a lower clearance. The tissue to plasma AUC ratios indicated that VM 26 concentrated more in tumor and heart while VP 16 gave highest concentrations in liver and intestine. Flow cytometry studies showed that VM 26 was more potent than VP 16 in causing cell cycle perturbation of 3LL cells growing in primary culture. VM 26 displayed cytotoxic activity at a concentration in the medium one-tenth that of VP 16. The uptake of VM 26 by 3LL cells was 15 times that of VP 16.
Etoposide, an anticancer drug involved in therapy-related secondary leukemia: Enzymes at play.
Zhang W, Gou P, Dupret J, Chomienne C, Rodrigues-Lima F Transl Oncol. 2021; 14(10):101169.
PMID: 34243013 PMC: 8273223. DOI: 10.1016/j.tranon.2021.101169.
Mitozolomide activity on human cancer cells in vitro.
Erba E, Pepe S, Ubezio P, Lorico A, Morasca L, Mangioni C Br J Cancer. 1986; 54(6):925-32.
PMID: 3801288 PMC: 2001596. DOI: 10.1038/bjc.1986.263.
Pharmacokinetics of anticancer drugs in children.
Crom W, Rodman J, Teresi M, Kavanagh R, Christensen M, Relling M Clin Pharmacokinet. 1987; 12(3):168-213.
PMID: 3555940 DOI: 10.2165/00003088-198712030-00002.
The clinical pharmacology of etoposide and teniposide.
Clark P, Slevin M Clin Pharmacokinet. 1987; 12(4):223-52.
PMID: 3297462 DOI: 10.2165/00003088-198712040-00001.
Figoli F, Zanette M, Tirelli U, Sorio R, Lestuzzi C, Urso R Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1987; 20(3):239-42.
PMID: 2824081 DOI: 10.1007/BF00570493.