The magnitude of gonadotoxicity of chemotherapy drugs on ovarian follicles and granulosa cells varies depending upon the category of the drugs and the type of granulosa cells.

STUDY QUESTION Do different chemotherapy drugs exert the same magnitude of cytotoxicity on dormant primordial follicles and the growing follicle fraction in the ovary in vivo and on mitotic non-luteinized and non-mitotic luteinized granulosa cells in vitro? SUMMARY ANSWER Cyclophosphamide (alkylating agent) and cisplatin (alkylating like) impacted both primordial and pre-antral/antral follicles and both mitotic and non-mitotic granulosa cells, whereas the anti-metabolite cancer drug gemcitabine was detrimental only to pre-antral/antral follicles and mitotic non-luteinized granulosa cells. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY It is already known that anti-metabolite cancer drugs are less detrimental to the ovary than alkylating and alkylating like agents, such as cyclophosphamide and cisplatin. This assumption is largely based on the results of clinical reports showing lower rates of amenorrhea in women receiving anti-metabolite agent-based regimens compared with those treated with the protocols containing an alkylating drug or a platinum compound. But a quantitative comparison of gonadotoxicity with a histomorphometric proof of evidence has not been available for many chemotherapy drugs. Therefore, we combined in this study in vivo and in vitro models of human and rat origin that allows a comparative analysis of the impact of different chemotherapy agents on the ovary and granulosa cells using real-time quantitative cell indices, histomorphometry, steroidogenesis assays, and DNA damage and cell death/viability markers. We also aimed to investigate if there is a difference between mitotic and non-mitotic granulosa cells in terms of their sensitivity to the cytotoxic actions of chemotherapy drugs with different mechanisms of action. This issue has not been addressed previously. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This translational research study involved in vivo analyses of ovaries in rats and in vitro analyses of granulosa cells of human and rat origin. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS For the in vivo assays, 54 4- to 6-week old Sprague-Dawley young female rats were randomly allocated into four groups of 13 to receive a single IP injection of: saline (control), gemcitabine (200 mg/kg), cisplatin (50 mg/kg) or cyclophosphamide (200 mg/kg). The animals were euthanized 72 h later. Follicle counts and serum AMH levels were compared between the groups. In vitro cytotoxicity studies were performed using mitotic non-luteinized rat (SIGC) and human (COV434, HGrC1) granulosa cells, and non-mitotic luteinized human (HLGC) granulosa cells. The cells were plated at a density of 5000 cells/well using DMEM-F12 culture media supplemented with 10% FBS. Chemotherapy agents were used at their therapeutic blood concentrations. The growth of mitotic granulosa cells was monitored real-time using xCelligence system. Live/dead cell and apoptosis assays were also carried out using intravital Yo-Pro-1 staining and cleaved caspase-3 expression, respectively. Estradiol (E2), progesterone (P) and anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) levels were assayed with ELISA. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Cyclophosphamide and cisplatin caused massive atresia of both primordials and growing follicles in the rat ovary whereas gemcitabine impacted pre-antral/antral follicles only. Cyclophosphamide and cisplatin induced apoptosis of both mitotic non-luteinized and non-mitotic luteinized granulosa cells in vitro. By contrast, cytotoxicity of gemcitabine was confined to mitotic non-luteinized granulosa cells. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION This study tested only three chemotherapeutic agents. The experimental methodology described here could be applied to other drugs for detailed analysis of their ovarian cytotoxicity. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS These findings indicate that in vivo and in vitro cytotoxic actions of chemotherapy drugs on the ovarian follicles and granulosa cells vary depending upon the their mechanism of action and the nature of the granulosa cells.

[1]  D. Meirow,et al.  Prevention of chemotherapy-induced ovarian damage: possible roles for hormonal and non-hormonal attenuating agents. , 2014, Human reproduction update.

[2]  S. Morgan,et al.  Cisplatin and Doxorubicin Induce Distinct Mechanisms of Ovarian Follicle Loss; Imatinib Provides Selective Protection Only against Cisplatin , 2013, PloS one.

[3]  S. Kahraman,et al.  Session 32: Stem cells and translational research , 2013 .

[4]  H. Kanety,et al.  Cyclophosphamide Triggers Follicle Activation and “Burnout”; AS101 Prevents Follicle Loss and Preserves Fertility , 2013, Science Translational Medicine.

[5]  S. Morgan,et al.  How do chemotherapeutic agents damage the ovary? , 2012, Human reproduction update.

[6]  T. Kiyono,et al.  Establishment of a human nonluteinized granulosa cell line that transitions from the gonadotropin-independent to the gonadotropin-dependent status. , 2012, Endocrinology.

[7]  E. Buyuk,et al.  Preantral Follicle Growth is Regulated by c-Jun-N-Terminal Kinase (JNK) Pathway , 2011, Reproductive Sciences.

[8]  Bulent Urman,et al.  Understanding follicle growth in vivo. , 2010, Human reproduction.

[9]  B. Urman,et al.  Options of Fertility Preservation in Female Cancer Patients , 2010, Obstetrical & gynecological survey.

[10]  A. Gougeon.  Human ovarian follicular development: from activation of resting follicles to preovulatory maturation. , 2010, Annales d'endocrinologie.

[11]  Christopher Bird,et al.  Real-time, label-free monitoring of cellular invasion and migration with the xCELLigence system , 2009 .

[12]  M Beth McCarville,et al.  Combination of gemcitabine and docetaxel in the treatment of children and young adults with refractory bone sarcoma , 2008, Cancer.

[13]  K. Oktay,et al.  Preservation of Menstrual Function in Adolescent and Young Females , 2008, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[14]  G. Capellá,et al.  Antiangiogenic effect of gemcitabine following metronomic administration in a pancreas cancer model , 2008, Molecular Cancer Therapeutics.

[15]  T. Lawrence,et al.  Radiosensitization by gemcitabine fixed-dose-rate infusion versus bolus injection in a pancreatic cancer model. , 2008, Translational oncology.

[16]  K. Oktay,et al.  A novel ovarian xenografting model to characterize the impact of chemotherapy agents on human primordial follicle reserve. , 2007, Cancer research.

[17]  E. Mini,et al.  Cellular pharmacology of gemcitabine. , 2006, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[18]  W. Holzgreve,et al.  Characterization of an immortalized human granulosa cell line (COV434). , 2000, Molecular human reproduction.

[19]  J. Mackey,et al.  Gemcitabine transport in xenopus oocytes expressing recombinant plasma membrane mammalian nucleoside transporters. , 1999, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[20]  P. Apostoli,et al.  Inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy quantitation of platinum-DNA adducts in peripheral blood leukocytes of patients receiving cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy. , 1996, Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

[21]  D. Mattison,et al.  Phosphoramide mustard is responsible for the ovarian toxicity of cyclophosphamide. , 1991, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[22]  G. Stoica,et al.  Rat ovarian granulosa cell culture: a model system for the study of cell-cell communication during multistep transformation. , 1991, Cancer research.

[23]  A. Jemal,et al.  Cancer statistics, 2014 , 2014, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[24]  A. Sacconi,et al.  Pharmacokinetics of Gemcitabine at Fixed-Dose Rate Infusion in Patients with Normal and Impaired Hepatic Function , 2009, Clinical pharmacokinetics.

[25]  B. Teicher,et al.  Antitumor efficacy and pharmacokinetic analysis of 4-hydroperoxycyclophosphamide in comparison with cyclophosphamide±hepatic enzyme effectors , 1996, Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology.