A Combined Pharmacokinetic–Pharmacodynamic (PK–PD) Model for Tumor Growth in the Rat with UFT Administration

https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.21536Get rights and content

Abstract

A combined pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic model was developed to simulate the response of a rat tumor to UFT, a combination of uracil with Tegafur (FT). Tegafur is oral the prodrug of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), an anti-cancer drug for colon cancer. A physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model was developed and fitted to experimental data from literature. Three pharmacodynamic (PD) models were developed to describe the tumor cell growth treated with 5-FU, and a dual transit compartment model gave the best fit. This result may be due to dual mechanisms of action of 5-FU, and the dual transit compartment model is able to simulate these better than the other models. The PBPK and PD models were combined, and various dosing strategies were tested. The optimal ratio of uracil to Tegafur to maximize tumor reduction and minimize systemic toxicity was found to be consistent with previous reports. The model correctly predicted the toxic effect of low dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) level, consistent with clinical tests. Pharmacokinetic modulating chemotherapy (PMC), which combines continuous infusion of 5-FU and periodic administration of UFT was shown to be more effective than the same dose given by continuous infusion only. This model can guide the development of dosing strategies and patient specific 5-FU therapies.

Introduction

Drug development is an expensive, time-consuming process. According to Adams et al., drug development cost ranges from $500 million to $2000 million per new drug, depending on the therapy and the developing firm.1 Even after the development and approval of drug to the market, the optimal dosing schedule and regimen remain uncertain. For example, the chemotherapeutic drug 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) was developed several decades ago and has been widely used, but the optimal method of using this drug is still under debate.2., 3. Finding an optimal dosing strategy is a difficult, expensive task that involves a large number of patients and a long period of time, especially for oncology drugs. In addition, the inherent metabolic and physiologic variations in patients result in patients responding differently to the same dosing regimen.4 Pharmacogenetics, which studies the effect of genetic variations on responses of patients to drugs and attempts to tailor the dosing strategy for each individual patient, attempts to address this issue.5., 6. Considering this individual genetic variation further complicates the problem of dose optimization because it is virtually impossible to perform such a large number of tests on each individual.

A mathematical approach such as a pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic (PK–PD) model is a feasible alternative as it can link the administration regimen to patient response in terms of tumor growth.7 A physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model can be used to obtain the concentration profiles of a drug in different organs after drug administration, and a pharmacodynamic (PD) model can be used to model the pharmacological effect of the drug, for instance, the response of tumor to oncology drugs. Such an integrative mathematical model can help researchers to predict possible outcomes of various drug candidates, and the benefits of the integrative PBPK–PD model are well recognized.8., 9., 10., 11., 12., 13. The integrative mathematical models can be used to test the effect of individual variation in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors, such as clearance rate and tumor response.

In this article, a PBPK model is developed to describe the concentration profiles of a chemotherapeutic drug administered in a rat, and a PD model is developed to describe the tumor growth kinetics in the presence of the drug. The PBPK model and the PD model are then combined together to predict the growth of tumor in a rat. The combined PK–PD model is used to find the optimal combination ratio of the drugs, and to test the effect of variation in the metabolizing enzyme level. Also a new dosing strategy to maximize the drug efficacy is tested. Such a model should be an effective guide towards rapid evaluation of treatment strategies and can be a useful tool for patient specific chemotherapy if levels of key enzymes in an individual are known.

Section snippets

Experimental Background for Model Development

Colorectal cancer ranks second as a cause of cancer related deaths.14 Since the discovery by Heidelberger et al.,15 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) has been the most widely accepted chemotherapeutic agent for colorectal cancer. 5-FU was developed based on the study conducted by Rutman et al.16 that rat hepatomas used the pyrimidine uracil more rapidly than other normal tissues, implying that uracil metabolism can be a target for chemotherapeutic agents.17 5-FU can be classified as an antimetabolite drug

Model Structure

The scheme of the PBPK model is presented in Figure 2. The model consists of seven compartments, which are the blood, gut, liver, tumor, fat, well perfused organs, and poorly perfused organs. The overall model consists of three parallel submodels for Tegafur, 5-FU and uracil, where the models for Tegafur and 5-FU are connected by the transformation of Tegafur to 5-FU. All seven compartments are assumed to be homogeneously well-mixed and equilibrated with exiting blood. The only exception is the

Construction of PK–PD Model

The results of simulation after parameter fitting for the PBPK model are shown in Figure 4, Figure 5. The experimental results shown in the figures for comparison were taken from Kawaguchi et al.41 In general, the PBPK model made a reasonably good fit to the experimental data in all organs. The model was able to make accurate predictions for Tegafur concentration profiles in all organs. It should be noted that the result shown in Figure 5b was not used for curve fitting. We used this

Construction of PBPK Model and PD Model

The PBPK model was fitted to the concentration profiles of three compounds in four different organs for two different dosing conditions. In total, 24 concentration profiles were used for fitting the PBPK model. Simulation results of the developed PBPK model showed a good fit to the experimental data from literature,41 with exception of 5-FU concentration in the tumor and uracil concentration in the liver. In both cases the observed pharmacokinetics showed a slower clearance than predicted,

Conclusion

We developed a combined PK–PD model that describes the response of tumor in a rat to the administration of UFT. A PBPK model and a PD model were developed separately and fitted to experimental data in literature, and a combined PK–PD model was used to describe tumor progression in a rat. It was shown that this mathematical model can be used to test various dosing strategies and simulate the effects of variations in the enzyme levels. Furthermore, the model was used to optimize the dosage based

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the New York State Science and Technology Foundation through the Cornell Nanobiotechnology Center, an anonymous gift to Cornell Biomedical Engineering, and a grant from Army Corp of Engineers (CERL) W9132T-07. JHS gratefully acknowledges support from Samsung Lee Kun Hee Scholarship Foundation, and also thanks Dr. Jeffrey Varner for helpful discussions on the method of optimization.

.

References (67)

  • M.H. Li et al.

    Effect of 5-fluorouracil on G1 phase cell cycle regulation in oral cancer cell lines

    Oral Oncol

    (2004)
  • O. Luttringer et al.

    Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling of disposition of epiroprim in humans

    J Pharm Sci

    (2003)
  • R.J. Williams et al.

    Rat to human extrapolation of HCFC-123 kinetics deduced from halothane kinetics: A corollary approach to physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling

    Fundam Appl Toxicol

    (1996)
  • C.P. Adams et al.

    Estimating the cost of new drug development: Is it really 802 million dollars?

    Health Aff (Millwood)

    (2006)
  • W. Kelder et al.

    Effects of 5-fluorouracil adjuvant treatment of colon cancer

    Expert Rev Anticancer Ther

    (2006)
  • S. Goyle et al.

    Chemotherapy for colorectal cancer

    Dig Surg

    (2005)
  • J.F. Deeken et al.

    Toward individualized treatment: Prediction of anticancer drug disposition and toxicity with pharmacogenetics

    Anticancer Drugs

    (2006)
  • M.V. Relling et al.

    Pharmacogenetics and cancer therapy

    Nat Rev Cancer

    (2001)
  • M. Simeoni et al.

    Predictive pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic modeling oftumor growth kinetics in xenograft models after administration of anticancer agents

    Cancer Res

    (2004)
  • A.V. Boddy

    Recent developments in the clinical pharmacology of classical cytotoxic chemotherapy

    Br J Clin Pharmacol

    (2006)
  • L.D. Lewis

    Cancer pharmacotherapy: 21st century ‘magic bullets’ and changing paradigms

    Br J Clin Pharmacol

    (2006)
  • L. Aarons

    Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling: A sound mechanistic basis is needed

    Br J Clin Pharmacol

    (2005)
  • K.S. Blesch et al.

    Clinical pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic and physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling in new drug development: the capecitabine experience

    Invest New Drugs

    (2003)
  • L.M. Pasetto et al.

    Stable disease in advanced colorectal cancer: Therapeutic implications

    Anticancer Res

    (2006)
  • C. Heidelberger et al.

    Fluorinated pyrimidines, a new class of tumour-inhibitory compounds

    Nature

    (1957)
  • S. Gill et al.

    Review article: Colorectal cancer chemotherapy

    Aliment Pharmacol Ther

    (2003)
  • R. Yoshikawa et al.

    Dual antitumor effects of 5-fluorouracil on the cell cycle in colorectal carcinoma cells: A novel target mechanism concept for pharmacokinetic modulating chemotherapy

    Cancer Res

    (2001)
  • S. Spiegelman et al.

    Improving the anti-tumor activity of 5-fluorouracil by increasing its incorporation into RNA via metabolic modulation

    Proc Natl Acad Sci USA

    (1980)
  • Z. Lu et al.

    Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells and liver: Population characteristics, newly identified deficient patients, and clinical implication in 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy

    Cancer Res

    (1993)
  • G.D. Heggie et al.

    Clinical pharmacokinetics of 5-fluorouracil and its metabolites in plasma, urine, and bile

    Cancer Res

    (1987)
  • W. Ichikawa et al.

    Combination of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase and thymidylate synthase gene expressions in primary tumors as predictive parameters for the efficacy of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer

    Clin Cancer Res

    (2003)
  • M. Kornmann et al.

    Thymidylate synthase and dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase mRNA expression levels: Predictors for survival in colorectal cancer patients receiving adjuvant 5-fluorouracil

    Clin Cancer Res

    (2003)
  • X. Wei et al.

    Molecular basis of the human dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency and 5-fluorouracil toxicity

    J Clin Invest

    (1996)
  • Cited by (0)

    Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article.

    View full text