Solid tumors account for the majority of all malignancies and are
responsible for a large proportion of deaths in the industrialized world. In the
United States in the year 2001, 1,268,000 new cases of invasive cancer will be
diagnosed and 553,400 Americans are expected to die from their cancers. While
currently about half of all patients are cured, the other 50% will die of their
disease. Current treatments are based on one of three modalities: surgery,
radiation, or chemotherapy. Surgical treatments often fail because either the
tumor recurs in the tumor bed, since an insufficient margin of normal tissue was
removed in order to preserve function and cosmesis, or distant metastases
develop. Radiation treatments fail because distant metastatic disease develops
or the dose required to sterilize the tumor is limited by the surrounding normal
tissues, and the tumor recurs locally. Chemotherapy tends to have less of a
curative effect on gross disease but may be able to decrease the risk of distant
relapse when administered in an adjuvant setting.
More traditional treatments like cisplatin (Platinol) and
doxorubicin are now being joined by a new generation of drugs active against a
broad range of solid tumors. These new agentsincluding paclitaxel (Taxol),
docetaxel (Taxotere), gemcitabine (Gemzar), vinorelbine (Navelbine), irinotecan
(CPT-11, Camptosar), and othersare associated with promising response rates
of 20% to 50% in the setting of metastatic disease. It is hoped that these
agents may improve outcomes
in patients with earlier-stage disease
Modern clinical trials are focusing more on integrating multiple
treatment modalities to maximize outcomes. Steele and Peckham outlined several
mechanisms for the possible interaction of radiation and chemotherapies: spatial
cooperation, enhancement of tumor response, radioprotection, and nonoverlapping
toxicities (or toxicity independence). Spatial cooperation describes a
situation in which disease located in a specific anatomic site is missed by one
agent but treated by another. Enhancement occurs when the administration of one
agent increases the effect of another agent, or when the effect of the
combination is greater than would be expected with either agent alone.
Radioprotection refers to administration of a chemotherapeutic agent that allows
for safe delivery of increased radiation.
Ample literature exists on the ability of different drugs to
enhance radiation effect when the two modalities are delivered concurrently.
This article will provide an overview of concurrent administration of irinotecan
and radiation to patients with solid tumors, with a focus on irinotecan’s
mechanism of action, its radiosensitizing effects, and current clinical trials
evaluating concurrent irinotecan and radiation.
Background and Mechanism of Activity
Irinotecan is a member of a relatively new group of anticancer
agents, the camptothecins, whose activity is believed to be achieved by
targeting DNA topoisomerase I.[4-7] The human DNA topoisomerase I is a monomeric
100-kDa protein that relaxes supercoiled DNA by introducing a single-strand
break in DNA, followed by the passing of the intact strand through the break
prior to re-ligation.[4-9] This activity is key in many aspects of DNA
metabolism, including transcription, replication, and regulation of DNA
supercoiling, which is important in maintaining genomic stability. It is
believed that the camptothecins function by stabilizing a topoisomerase I-DNA
intermediate, called the cleavable complex, such that the 5¢
phosphoryl end of
the DNA single-strand break is bound covalently to a topoisomerase I tyrosine
residue. It is believed that collision of this drug-trapped complex with the
DNA replication machinery will lead to G2 phase cell-cycle arrest and cell
Camptothecin, the parent compound, was initially isolated from
the tree Camptotheca acuminata and found to have a broad spectrum of activity in
a variety of solid tumors. However, early clinical trials with the ring-open
form of the drug showed excessive toxicity and the trials were terminated.
More recently, interest has been rekindled in these drugs with the advent of
derivatives that have significant antitumor activity and much less toxicity.
Irinotecan, one of these derivatives, is actually a prodrug that is metabolized
SN-38. SN-38 is approximately 1,000 times more potent than irinotecan in
inhibiting topoisomerase I. All of the camptothecins have a terminal lactone
ring that can be hydrolyzed to a less active carboxylate species. Under acidic
conditions, however, like those expected in the tumor microenvironment, the
active lactone species is favored.
The plasma half-life of SN-38 by intravenous infusion is 5.9 to
13.8 hours, and this may have implications in terms of both direct
cytotoxicity and radiosensitization. SN-38 is eliminated primarily through hepatic
glucuronidation and it is thought that a decreased ability to glucuronidate the
drug correlates with increased gastrointestinal side effects. One of the
major side effects of irinotecan is late-onset diarrhea, which is possibly
related to the high S-phase fraction of the intestinal mucosa as well as action
of intestinal flora glucuronidase in cleaving the camptothecin-glucuronidase
conjugate, leading to the drug’s release into the intestinal lumen. Other
common toxicities include neutropenia, nausea, vomiting, anorexia, fatigue,
asthenia, and elevation of hepatic transaminase levels.
Several other camptothecin derivatives have been shown to have
significant cytotoxic effects and are at varying stages of development. These
include topotecan (Hycamtin),[16,17] 9-aminocamptothecin (9 A-C), and
9-nitrocamptothecin (RFS-2000). Of these, topotecan has undergone the most
extensive clinical testing; it is indicated for treatment of patients with
platinum-resistant ovarian cancer and small-cell lung cancer after failure of
Response rates with irinotecan have ranged from 18% to 32% in
metastatic colorectal cancer,[20,21] 15% to 32% in non-small-cell lung
cancer,[22,23] and 10% to 47% in small-cell lung cancer.[24,25] It is also
active in other malignancies, including cervical, gastric, ovarian, and central
nervous system tumors. While its activity in advanced disease is promising,
convincing evidence now indicates that the camptothecinsincluding irinotecanhave
significant radiosensitizing properties.[10,17] This discovery may potentially
lead to improved local control of solid tumors when irinotecan is used
concurrently with radiation. In the setting of localized and potentially curable
disease, it is hoped that this enhanced activity will translate into improved
Several hypotheses exist regarding the mechanism of interaction
between radiation and irinotecan, each with varying amounts of supportive
evidence. One hypothesis suggests that inhibition of topoisomerase I by
camptothecin or its derivatives leads to inhibition of repair of
radiation-induced DNA strand breaks.[18,26,27] A second hypothesis suggests that
camptothecin or its analogs causes redistribution of cells into the more radiosensitive G2 phase of the cell cycle.
Another hypothesis is that topoisomerase I-DNA adducts are
trapped by irinotecan at the sites of radiation- induced single strand breaks,
leading to their conversion into double-strand breaks.[29-31] In essence, the
drug-stabilized cleavable complex, with a concealed single-strand DNA break, may
potentially act as a point of sublethal DNA damage. Interaction with cellular
processes like transcription and DNA repair may act to turn this
"potentially sublethal damage" into "sublethal damage." It
is possible that the addition of radiation may in turn change this
"sublethal damage" into "lethal damage." It is also
suggested that high levels of topoisomerase I are associated with high levels of
cleavable complex formation. These high enzyme levels have been documented
in several tumor specimens, suggesting that irinotecan use may be beneficial
in improving the therapeutic ratio vis-à-vis normal tissue effects.
Johnson and McNerney initially reported in 1985 that
topoisomerase I activity increased by about 300-fold after irradiation of human
peripheral blood lymphocytes or cultured lymphoblastoid cells. Other
investigators have not found any increase in activity. This variance could
be related to the cell population or to the genomic location of the
topoisomerase pool under examination. The predominance of the particular
mechanism involved in radiosensitization may depend on which camptothecin
derivative is used; now, there is insufficient evidence to identify the
underlying mechanism with certainty.
1. Greenlee RT, Hill-Harmon MB, Taylor M, et al: Cancer
statistics 2001. CA Cancer J Clin 50:7-33, 2001.
2. Stevens CW, Lee JS, Cox J, et al: Novel approaches to locally
advanced unresectable non-small cell lung cancer. Radiother Oncol 55(1):11-18,
3. Steele GG, Peckham MJ: Exploitable mechanisms in combined
radiotherapy-chemotherapy: The concept of additivity. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
Phys 5:85-91, 1979.
4. Hsiang Y-H, Hertzberg R, Hecht S et al: Camptothecin induces
protein-linked DNA breaks via mammalian DNA topoisomerase I. J Biol Chem
5. Hsiang Y-H, Liu LF: Identification of mammalian DNA
topoisomerase I as an intracellular target of the anticancer drug camptothecin.
Cancer Res 48:1722-1726, 1988.
6. Andoh T, Ishii K, Suzuki Y, et al: Characterization of a
mammalian mutant with a camptothecin resistant DNA topoisomerase I. Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA 84:5565-5569, 1987.
7. Nitiss J, Wang JC: DNA topoisomerase-targeting antitumor
drugs can be studied in yeast. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 85:7501-7505, 1988.
8. Chen AY, Yu C, Gatto B, et al: DNA minor groove-binding
ligands: A different class of mammalian DNA topoisomerase I inhibitors. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA 90:8131-8135, 1993.
9. Chen AY, Yu C, Bodley A, et al: A new mammalian DNA
topoisomerase I poison Hoechst 33342: Cytotoxicity and drug resistance in human
cell cultures. Cancer Res 53:1332-1337, 1993.
10. Chen AY, Choy H, Rothenberg ML: DNA topoisomerase
I-targeting drugs as radiation sensitizers. Oncology (Huntington) 13(10 suppl
11. Chen AY, Leroy FL: DNA topoisomerases: Essential enzymes and
lethal targets. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 34:191-218, 1994.
12. Muggia FM, Creaven PJ, Hansen HH, et al: Phase I clinical
trial of weekly and daily treatment with camptothecin (NSC-100880): Correlation
with preclinical studies. Cancer Chemother Rep 56:515-521, 1972.
13. Takimoto CH, Wright J, Arbuck SG: Clinical applications of
the camptothecins. Biochem Biophys Acta 1;1400(1-3):107-119, 1998.
14. Kawato Y, Aonuma M, Hirota Y, et al: Intracellular roles of
SN-38, a metabolite of the camptothecin derivative CPT-11, in the antitumor
effect of CPT-11. Cancer Res 51:4187-4191, 1991.
15. Araki E, Ishikawa M, Iigo M, et al: Relationship between
development of diarrhea and the concentration of SN-38, an active metabolite of
CPT-11, in the intestine and the blood plasma of athymic mice following
intraperitoneal administration of CPT-11. Jpn J Cancer Res 84(6):697-702, 1993.
16. De Vita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA: Cancer. Principles and
Practice of Oncology, 5th ed, pp 921 and 1528. Philadelphia, Lippincott-Raven,
17. Rich TA, Kirichenko AV: Camptothecin radiation
sensitization: Mechanisms, schedules, and timing. Oncology (Huntington) 12(8
suppl 6):114-120, 1998.
18. Lamond JP, Wang M, Kinsella TJ, et al: Radiation lethality
enhancement with 9-aminocamptothecin: Comparison to other topoisomerase I
inhibitors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 36(2):369-376, 1996.
19. Amorino GP, Hercules SK, Mohr PJ, et al: Preclinical
evaluation of the orally active camptothecin analog, RFS-2000
(9-nitro-20(S)-camptothecin) as a radiation enhancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
Phys 47(2):503-509, 2000.
20. Rothenberg ML, Eckardt JR, Kuhn JG, et al: Phase II trial of
irinotecan in patients with progressive or rapidly recurrent colorectal cancer.
J Clin Oncol 14(4):1128-1135, 1996.
21. Rougier P, Bugat R, Douillard JY, et al: Phase II study of
irinotecan in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer in chemotherapy-naive
patients and patients pretreated with fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. J Clin
Oncol 15(1):251-260, 1997.
22. Fukuoka M, Niitani H, Suzuki A, et al: A phase II study of
CPT-11, a new derivative of camptothecin for previously untreated non-small-cell
lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 10(1):16-20, 1992.
23. Baker L, Khan R, Lynch T, et al: Phase II study of
irinotecan in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol
24. Le Chevalier T, Ibrahim N, Chomy P, et al: A phase II study
of irinotecan in patients with small cell lung cancer progressing after initial
response to first-line chemotherapy. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 16:450a, 1997.
25. Masuda N, Fukuoka M, Kusunoki Y, et al: CPT-11: A new
derivative of camptothecin for the treatment of refractory or relapsed
small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 10(8):1225-1229, 1992.
26. Ng CE, Bussey AM, Raaphorst GP, et al: Inhibition of
potentially lethal and sublethal damage repair by camptothecin and etoposide in
human melanoma cell lines. Int J Radiat Biol 66(1):49-57, 1994.
27. Omura M, Torigoe S, Kubota N: SN-38, a metabolite of the
camptothecin derivative CPT-11, potentiates the cytotoxic effect of radiation in
human colon adenocarcinoma cells grown as spheroids. Rad Oncol 43:197-201, 1997.
28. Tamura K, Takada M, Kawase I, et al: Enhancement of tumor
radio-response by irinotecan in human lung tumor xenografts. Jpn J Cancer Res
29. Boothman DA, Wang M, Schea RA, et al: Posttreatment exposure
to camptothecin enhances the lethal effects of x-rays on radioresistant human
malignant melanoma cells. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 24(5):939-948, 1992.
30. Boothman DA, Fukunaga N, Wang M, et al: Down-regulation of
topoisomerase I in mammalian cells following ionizing radiation. Cancer Res
31. Boothman DA: Enhanced malignant transformation is
accompanied by increased survival recovery after ionizing radiation in Chinese
hamster embryo fibroblasts. Radiat Res 138(1 suppl):S121-S125, 1994.
32. Pommier Y: Eukaryotic DNA topoisomerase I: Genome gatekeeper
and its intruders, camptothecins. Semin Oncol 23(1 suppl 3):3-10, 1996.
33. Potmesil M: Camptothecins: From bench research to hospital
wards. Cancer Res 54(6):1431-1439, 1994
34. Smith PJ: DNA topoisomerases and radiation responses. Int J
Radiat Biol 58(4):553-559, 1990.
35. Chen AY, Okunieff P, Pommier Y, et al: Mammalian DNA
topoisomerase I mediates the enhancement of radiation cytotoxicity by
camptothecin derivatives. Cancer Res 57(8):1529-1536, 1997.
36. Lamond JP, Wang M, Kinsella TJ, et al: Radiation lethality
enhancement with 9-aminocamptothecin: Comparison to other topoisomerase I
inhibitors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 36(2):369-376, 1996.
37. Jansen van Rensburg CE: SN-38 potentiates the cytotoxic
effect of radiation in a human oesaphageal cancer cell line, under hypoxic
conditions (abstract 2628). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 19:666a, 2000.
38. Clamon G, Herndon J, Cooper R, et al: Radiosensitization
with carboplatin for patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung
cancer: A phase III trial of the Cancer and Leukemia Group B and the Eastern
Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 17(1):4-11, 1999.
39. Furuse K, Fukuoka M, Kawahara M, et al: Phase III study of
concurrent versus sequential thoracic radiotherapy in combination with
mitomycin, vindesine, and cisplatin in unresectable stage III non-small-cell
lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 17(9):2692-2699, 1999.
40. Curran WJ Jr, Scott C, Langer C, et al: Phase III comparison
of sequential vs concurrent chemoradiation for patients with unresected stage
III non-small cell lung cancer: Initial report of Radiation Therapy Oncology
Group 9410 (abstract 1891). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 19:484a, 2000.
41. Takeda K, Negoro S, Kudoh S, et al: Phase I/II study of
weekly irinotecan and concurrent radiation therapy for locally advanced
non-small cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 79(9-10):1462-1467, 1999.
42. Saka H, Shimokata K, Yoshida S, et al: Irinotecan and
concurrent radiotherapy in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A phase
II study of Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG9504) (abstract 1607). Proc Am
Soc Clin Oncol 16:447a, 1997.
43. Kudoh S, Takada M, Masuda N, et al: Enhanced antitumor
efficacy of a combination of CPT-11, a new derivative of camptothecin, and
cisplatin against human lung tumor xenografts. Jpn J Cancer Res 84(2):203-207,
44. Yokoyama A, Kurita Y, Saijo N, et al: Dose-finding study of
irinotecan and cisplatin plus concurrent radiotherapy for unresectable stage III
non-small-cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 78(2):257-262, 1998.
45. Fox Chase Cancer Center. Protonet.fccc.edu. Phase I Trial of
Radical Thoracic Radiation, Weekly CPT-11 (Irinotecan) and Cisplatin in Locally
Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma (97-6475-125 CPT 11). Ongoing trial.
46. Fukuda M, Fukuda Mi, Soda H, et al: Phase I study of
irinotecan and cisplatin with concurrent thoracic radiotherapy in locally
advanced non-small cell lung cancer (abstract 1796). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol
47. Yamamoto N, Fukuoka M, Negoro S, et al: A phase II study of
induction chemotherapy with CPT-11 and cisplatin followed by thoracic radiation
combined with weekly CPT-11 in patients with unresectable stage III non-small
cell lung cancer (abstract 1953). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 19:499a, 2000.
48. Yamada M, Kudoh S, Negoro S, et al: A phase I study of
irinotecan and carboplatin with concurrent thoracic radiotherapy for
unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (abstract 2035). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol
49. Chakravarthy A, Choy H, De Vore RD, et al: Phase I trial of
outpatient weekly irinotecan and carboplatin with concurrent radiation therapy
for stage III unresectable non-small cell lung cancer: A Vanderbilt Cancer
Center Affiliate Network Trial (abstract 2040). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 19:520a,
50. Nakanishi Y, Takayama K, Takano K, et al: Second-line
chemotherapy with weekly cisplatin and irinotecan in patients with refractory
lung cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 22(4):399-402, 1999.
51. Kudoh S, Fujiwara Y, Takada Y, et al: Phase II study of
irinotecan combined with cisplatin in patients with previously untreated
small-cell lung cancer. West Japan Lung Cancer Group. J Clin Oncol
52. Noda K , Nishiwaki Y, Kawahara M, et al: Randomized phase
III study of irinotecan and cisplatin versus etoposide and cisplatin in
extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group study
(JCOG9511) (abstract 1887). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 19:483a, 2000.
53. Kinoshita A, Fukuda M, Kuba M, et al: Phase I study of
irinotecan and cisplatin with concurrent thoracic radiotherapy in limited-stage
small cell lung cancer (abstract 1999). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 19:511a, 2000.
54. Koukourakis MI, Bizakis JG, Skoulakis CE, et al: Combined
irinotecan, docetaxel and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy in locally
advanced head and neck cancer: A phase I dose escalation study. Anticancer Res
55. Humerickhouse RA, Haraf D, Stenson K, et al: Phase I study
of irinotecan, 5-FU, and hydroxyurea with radiation in recurrent or advanced
head and neck cancer (abstract 1650). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 19:418a, 2000.
56. Bourhis J, De Crevoisier R, Abdulkarim B, et al: A
randomized study of very accelerated radiotherapy with and without amifostine in
head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
57. Schonekas KG, Wagner W, Prott FJ, et al: AmifostineA
radioprotector in locally advanced head and neck tumors. Strahlenther Onkol
175(suppl 4):27-29, 1999.
58. Douillard JY, Cunningham D, Roth AD, et al: Irinotecan
combined with fluorouracil compared with fluorouracil alone as first-line
treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: A multicentre randomised trial.
Lancet 355(9209):1041-1047, 2000.
59. Blumenschein GR, Ajani JA, Fairweather J, et al: Phase I
study of CPT-11 plus radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced upper GI
carcinomas (abstract 1274). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 19:322a, 2000.
60. Cancer Trials. NCI. Phase I study of irinotecan and
cisplatin with concurrent radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced
carcinoma of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction. Ongoing. CancerNet.gov
61. Keys HM, Bundy BN, Stehman FB, et al: Cisplatin, radiation,
and adjuvant hysterectomy compared with radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy for
bulky stage IB cervical carcinoma. N Engl J Med 340:1154-1161, 1999.
62. Rose PG, Bundy BN, Watkins EB, et al: Concurrent
cisplatin-based radiotherapy and chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical
cancer. N Engl J Med 340:1144-1153, 1999.
63. Morris M, Eifel PJ, Lu J, et al: Pelvic radiation with
concurrent chemotherapy compared with pelvic and para-aortic radiation for
high-risk cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 340:1137-1143, 1999.
64. Peters WA III, Liu PY, Barrett RJ II, et al: Concurrent
chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy
alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high-risk early-stage cancer
of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 18(8):1606-1613, 2000.
65. Lhomme C, Fumoleau P, Fargeot P, et al: Results of a
European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Early Clinical
Studies Group phase II trial of first-line irinotecan in patients with advanced
or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol
66. Look KY, Blessing JA, Levenback C, et al: A phase II trial
of CPT-11 in recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: A Gynecologic
Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 70(3):334-338, 1998.
67. Sugiyama T, Yakushiji M, Noda K, et al: Phase II study of
irinotecan and cisplatin as first-line chemotherapy in advanced or recurrent
cervical cancer. Oncology 58(1):31-37, 2000.