Computerized quantitation of synergism and antagonism of taxol, topotecan, and cisplatin against human teratocarcinoma cell growth: a rational approach to clinical protocol design.

BACKGROUND Cisplatin-based induction chemotherapy may achieve a complete response (i.e., no sign of tumor following treatment) in 70%-80% of patients with germ cell tumors. However, only a minority of patients in whom the firstline regimens fail are cured with the salvage regimens. PURPOSE The aim of these studies was to identify new agents or new regimens for the treatment of germ cell tumors by carrying out quantitative assessment in vitro of two promising new antitumor agents (paclitaxel [Taxol] and topotecan) and three more established agents (cisplatin, vincristine, and etoposide). These agents were used singly or in two- and three-drug combinations and were selected because they represent five distinct categories of antineoplastic mechanisms. METHODS The combination index-isobologram method, which is based on the median-effect principle developed by Chou and Talalay, was used for computerized data analysis. This method was selected because it takes into account both the potencies of each drug and combinations of these drugs and the shapes of their dose-effect curves. RESULTS Synergism against the growth of teratocarcinoma cells resistant to cisplatin (833K/64CP10 cells) was greater than against the growth of parent 833K cells. The degrees of synergism were in the following order: cisplatin + topotecan > or = paclitaxel + cisplatin + topotecan > paclitaxel + topotecan > or = paclitaxel + etoposide > paclitaxel + cisplatin + etoposide > paclitaxel + cisplatin. All other combinations showed nearly additive effects or moderate antagonism. The degrees of antagonism were as follows: cisplatin + etoposide > or = paclitaxel + vincristine > paclitaxel + cisplatin + vincristine > cisplastin + vincristine. The combination of paclitaxel and cisplatin was synergistic against 833K/64CP10 cells and moderately antagonistic against 833K cells. Since the combination of paclitaxel, cisplatin, and topotecan and the two-component combinations of these drugs (cisplatin + topotecan and paclitaxel + topotecan) showed synergism stronger than that of other combinations, these three drugs were selected for illustrating detailed data analysis, using a computer software program developed in this institute. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Our findings suggest that, as a result of synergy, the doses of these agents needed to achieve an antitumor effect may be reduced by twofold to eightfold when these agents are given in combination. The present quantitative data analyses for synergism or antagonism provide a basis for a rational design of clinical protocols for combination chemotherapy in patients with advanced germ cell tumors.

[1]  P. Schiff,et al.  Promotion of microtubule assembly in vitro by taxol , 1979, Nature.

[2]  L. Grochow,et al.  Phase I and pharmacologic study of topotecan: a novel topoisomerase I inhibitor. , 1992, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[3]  G. Hortobagyi,et al.  Phase II trial of taxol, an active drug in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. , 1991, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[4]  R. Donehower,et al.  Taxol: twenty years later, the story unfolds. , 1991, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[5]  R. Motzer,et al.  High-dose chemotherapy for resistant germ cell tumors: recent advances and future directions. , 1992, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[6]  N. Geller,et al.  A randomized trial of etoposide + cisplatin versus vinblastine + bleomycin + cisplatin + cyclophosphamide + dactinomycin in patients with good-prognosis germ cell tumors. , 1988, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[7]  K. Kohn,et al.  DNA cross-linking as an indicator of sensitivity and resistance of mouse L1210 leukemia to cis-diamminedichloroplatinum(II) and L-phenylalanine mustard. , 1981, Cancer research.

[8]  A. Eastman Reevaluation of interaction of cis-dichloro(ethylenediamine)platinum(II) with DNA. , 1986, Biochemistry.

[9]  L. Einhorn,et al.  Treatment of disseminated germ-cell tumors with cisplatin, bleomycin, and either vinblastine or etoposide. , 1987, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  E K Rowinsky,et al.  Sequences of taxol and cisplatin: a phase I and pharmacologic study. , 1991, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[11]  R. Wittes,et al.  Etoposide (VP-16-213). Current status of an active anticancer drug. , 1985, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  E. Estey,et al.  The interaction between nuclear topoisomerase II activity from human leukemia cells, exogenous DNA, and 4'-(9-acridinylamino)methanesulfon-m-anisidide (m-AMSA) or 4-(4,6-O-ethylidene-beta-D-glucopyranoside) (VP-16) indicates the sensitivity of the cells to the drugs. , 1987, Biochemical and biophysical research communications.

[13]  T. Chou,et al.  Generalized equations for the analysis of inhibitions of Michaelis-Menten and higher-order kinetic systems with two or more mutually exclusive and nonexclusive inhibitors. , 2005, European journal of biochemistry.

[14]  R. Donehower,et al.  Taxol: a novel investigational antimicrotubule agent. , 1990, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[15]  T. Chou,et al.  Quantitative analysis of dose-effect relationships: the combined effects of multiple drugs or enzyme inhibitors. , 1984, Advances in enzyme regulation.

[16]  S. Horwitz,et al.  Mechanism of action of taxol. , 1992, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

[17]  D. V. Von Hoff,et al.  Activity of topotecan, a new topoisomerase I inhibitor, against human tumor colony-forming units in vitro. , 1992, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[18]  D. V. Von Hoff,et al.  Clinical trials with the topoisomerase I inhibitors. , 1992, Seminars in oncology.

[19]  E K Rowinsky,et al.  The current status of camptothecin analogues as antitumor agents. , 1993, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[20]  L. Liu,et al.  Nonintercalative antitumor drugs interfere with the breakage-reunion reaction of mammalian DNA topoisomerase II. , 1984, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[21]  T. Chou,et al.  Derivation and properties of Michaelis-Menten type and Hill type equations for reference ligands. , 1976, Journal of theoretical biology.

[22]  Goldie Jh,et al.  Interaction of etoposide and cisplatin in an in vitro tumor model. , 1987 .

[23]  E. Dmitrovsky,et al.  The role of ifosfamide plus cisplatin‐based chemotherapy as salvage therapy for patients with refractory germ cell tumors , 1990, Cancer.

[24]  L. Liu,et al.  DNA topoisomerases as anticancer drug targets. , 1990, Advances in pharmacology.

[25]  N. Vogelzang,et al.  VP-16-213 (etoposide): the mandrake root from Issyk-Kul. , 1982, The American journal of medicine.

[26]  N. Geller,et al.  Salvage chemotherapy for patients with germ cell tumors. The memorial sloan‐kettering cancer center experience (1979–1989) , 1991, Cancer.

[27]  N. Geller,et al.  VAB-6: an effective chemotherapy regimen for patients with germ-cell tumors. , 1986, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[28]  T. Chou,et al.  A simple generalized equation for the analysis of multiple inhibitions of Michaelis-Menten kinetic systems. , 1977, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[29]  J. Manfredi,et al.  Taxol: an antimitotic agent with a new mechanism of action. , 1984, Pharmacology & therapeutics.