Pharmacodynamics and biodistribution of [195mPt]cisplatin(CISSPECT®) in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Background: Cisplatin- based chemoradiotherapy is a crucial pillar in the treatment of HNSCC. The use of cisplatin comes with high toxicity rates as 35% of patients cannot sustain the planned dose while response is unpredictable. Unfortunately, there are no clinically applicable biomarkers to predict response. Based on the association of response with the number of DNA adducts and the involved molecular pathway to resolve cisplatin-induced DNA crosslinks in HNSCC, [195mPt]cisplatin (CISSPECT®) might have potential to monitor drug uptake and retention before treatment, and predict cisplatin response. The aim of this study is to investigate this concept by analyzing uptake, retention and biodistribution of [195mPt]cisplatin between known cisplatin-sensitive (VU-SCC-1131) and -resistant (VU-SCC-OE) HNSCC cell lines in vitro and xenografted in mice in vivo.

Results: By a variety of experiments in vitro, including cell cycle analyses, and in vivo, the sensitivity of cell line VU-SCC-1131 and resistance of cell line VU-SCC-OE for cisplatin was demonstrated. VU-SCC-OE was able to accumulate more [195mPt]cisplatin in the DNA, and showed an increased capability to repair [195mPt]cisplatin crosslinks compared to VU-SCC-1131. Notably, DNA binding of cisplatin increased even when cisplatin was removed from the medium, likely from intracellular sources. In vivo, [195mPt]cisplatin showed a rapid biodistribution to the large organs such as the liver, with no differences between intravenous and intraperitoneal administration. Most circulating [195mPt]cisplatin was cleared by renal filtration, and accumulation in kidney and liver remained high. Uptake in xenografts was rapid (blood:tumor ratio; 1:1) and highest after 1 h, while decreasing after 6 h in line with the concentration in the blood. Remarkably, there was no significant difference in uptake or retention between xenografts of the cisplatin-sensitive and -resistant cell line.

Conclusion: VU-SCC-1131 with a known FA deficiency and VU-SCC-OE displayed a significant difference in sensitivity to and recovery from cisplatin treatment, due to S-phase problems in VU-SCC-1131 at low doses, in line with the genetic defect. Using Pt-195m radioactivity analysis, we demonstrated the limited capability of cisplatin crosslink repair in VU-SCC-1131. Unexpectedly, we were not able to translate these findings to a mouse model for sensitivity prediction based on the biodistribution in the tumor, most likely as other factors such as influx counterbalanced repair. These data do not support response prediction by [195mPt]cisplatin, and applications to predict the toxic side-effects of cisplatin and to tailor dosing schemes seem more feasible.