Influence of time interval between surgery and radiotherapy on tumor regrowth.

UNLABELLED: In order to evaluate the influence of time intervals between tumor cell injection and radiotherapy on tumor control and regrowth after surgery, we performed two kinds of experiments on C3D2F1 mice bearing a mammary carcinoma inoculated in the foot or leg. 1st experiment: tumor in foot. END POINT: Tumor Control Probability (TCP). Single dose radiation treatments (RT) were administered at different period times from injection time of tumor cells (day 1). 1st group: unirradiated control, 2nd group: RT on day 2 (TCP50 29 +/- 2.1 Gy), 3rd group: RT on day 7 (TCP 52.5 +/- 2.9 Gy), 4th group: RT on day 12 (TCP50 61.9 + 2.4 Gy). 2nd experiment: tumor in leg. END POINT: percentage of tumor regrowth. Mice were randomly assigned to three groups: 1st control group (tumor growth in all mice), 2nd surgical excision of macroscopically evident tumor on day 7-9 from injection (tumor regrowth in 85% of mice), 3rd as the previous group plus 30 Gy radiation treatment within 24 hours from excision (tumor regrowth in 33% of cases). The radiation dose was selected on the basis of TCP50 observed in the 1st experiment for mice with sub-clinical disease. These data indicate that the radiation dose able to control 50% of tumors increases with the time interval between tumor cells injection and RT. A short time interval between surgery and RT should increase the probability of local control, supporting the rationale of intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) as adjuvant therapy after surgical resection, when subclinical residual cells are suspected.

Combined use of gemcitabine and radiation in mice.

The aim of this study was to explore, in a murine tumor, if the effectiveness of radiation, in doses and schedules commonly used in clinical practice is potentiated by the combined use of the recently developed drug gemcitabine. Gemcitabine (30-360 mg/kg b.w.) was administered i.p. in female C3D2F1 mice bearing a mammary adenocarcinoma alone or combined with X-rays. Firstly, gemcitabine (single administration) was administered alone or at 20 min, 4 h, and 24 h before X-ray treatments. The significant effect observed only at 24 h time interval, depended on the X-ray dose and not on the gemcitabine dose. Secondly, 4 gemcitabine administrations every 3 days were used in fractionated combined schedules (overall treatment time of 10 days). We studied the relationship among different doses of gemcitabine, alone or combined with 10 daily X-ray treatments (2 Gy/fraction). We observed an interactive effect of gemcitabine up to its threshold dose of 60 mg/kg/fraction. Furthermore, 10 X-ray daily treatments and 4 X-ray treatments every 3 days (total doses 20-40 Gy) were performed with gemcitabine 60 mg/kg/fraction to study the effect of different doses and schedules of X-rays. Tumor growth delays increase with higher X-ray doses, and this occurs more with 4 X-ray treatments than with 10 X-ray treatments. Our results re-affirm the uselessness of high gemcitabine doses, and indicate the effectiveness of combined gemcitabine-radiation fractionated protocols.

Schedule dependent toxicity and efficacy of combined gemcitabine/paclitaxel treatment in mouse adenocarcinoma.

Increased interest in combining drugs with different targets has emerged over recent years. Our study aims at evaluating the effectiveness of combined gemcitabine/paclitaxel treatment taking into consideration doses, schedules, and toxicity. A spontaneous mammary carcinoma was transplanted into the right-hind foot of C3D2F1 mice. Paclitaxel (in doses from 20 to 80 mg/kg b.w.) and gemcitabine (in doses from 30 to 480 mg/kg b.w.) were administered i.p. in single or fractionated treatments. Toxicity and tumor growth delay (TGD) were the endpoints. TGDs for different gemcitabine doses in single administration (120, 240, and 360 mg/kg) overlapped (TGD approximately = 2.5 days). Toxicity was very high in daily administration. Results with gemcitabine alone showed the efficacy of treatments every 3 days. TGDs in fractionated treatments of 60 and 120 mg/kg x 4 were of approximately equals 16 days. Also in this case, tumor growth curves overlapped pointing out the uselessness of the high drug doses. For combined treatments, we used only fractionated protocols, administering gemcitabine every 3 days. Paclitaxel was administered alone in one or two fractions and with different sequences in respect to gemcitabine administration. With 120 mg/kg of gemcitabine all the protocols showed an increased unacceptable toxicity. The best result was obtained administering paclitaxel 40 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 and gemcitabine 60 mg/kg on days 3, 6, 9, and 12 (TGD = 38.2 days). The light toxicity and the high efficacy obtained with this protocol indicate the possible use of gemcitabine/paclitaxel treatment in clinical practice.

Hyperthermia and paclitaxel--epirubicin chemotherapy: enhanced cytotoxic effect in a murine mammary adenocarcinoma.

Multimodality therapy is considered of great interest in the treatment of locally advanced solid tumours. In previous experiments, paclitaxel (TX) and epirubicin (EP) were combined with different schedules, obtaining a superadditive effect on the growth of a murine mammary carcinoma. In the present study, the authors have analysed the possible use of hyperthermia (HT) to increase the efficacy of TX and EP combinations. Tumours were transplanted into the right hind foot of female hybrid (C3D2F1) mice. Both TX and EP were administered i.p in two different doses. Hyperthermia was applied using a water bath at 43.2 degrees C for 1 h. Results were analysed in terms of Tumour Growth Delay (TGD). The maximum tolerated doses in combined protocols were TX 45 mg/kg and EP 9 mg/kg, with an interval time of 24h between the two administrations. TGDs of some of the schedules performed are reported: EP + HT = 11 days, TX + HT = 16 days, TX + EP (with an interval time of 24 h) = 14 days, and TX + EP + HT = 22 days. In the experimental model, HT significantly increases the effects of both TX and EP. TX + EP + HT treatment is the most effective (significantly different from TX + EP), but not in a significant way when compared to TX + HT treatment. These results suggest the possible use of a TX + HT protocol for local tumour response, whereas EP could be added in order to achieve a better systemic control.