Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more

BMC Cancer

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Influence of dosing times on cisplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy in rats

  • Yoshihiro Seto1,
  • Fumiyasu Okazaki1,
  • Keiji Horikawa2,
  • Jing Zhang2,
  • Hitoshi Sasaki3 and
  • Hideto To1Email author
BMC Cancer201616:756

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-016-2777-0

Received: 9 September 2015

Accepted: 13 September 2016

Published: 27 September 2016

Abstract

Background

Although cis-diamminedichloro-platinum (CDDP) exhibits strong therapeutic effects in cancer chemotherapy, its adverse effects such as peripheral neuropathy, nephropathy, and vomiting are dose-limiting factors. Previous studies reported that chronotherapy decreased CDDP-induced nephropathy and vomiting. In the present study, we investigated the influence of dosing times on CDDP-induced peripheral neuropathy in rats.

Methods

CDDP (4 mg/kg) was administered intravenously at 5:00 or 17:00 every 7 days for 4 weeks to male Sprague–Dawley rats, and saline was given to the control group. To assess the dosing time dependency of peripheral neuropathy, von-Frey test and hot-plate test were performed.

Results

In order to estimate hypoalgesia, the hot-plate test was performed in rats administered CDDP weekly for 4 weeks. On day 28, the withdrawal latency to thermal stimulation was significantly prolonged in the 17:00-treated group than in the control and 5:00-treated groups. When the von-Frey test was performed to assess mechanical allodynia, the withdrawal threshold was significantly lower in the 5:00 and 17:00-treated groups than in the control group on day 6 after the first CDDP dose. The 5:00-treated group maintained allodynia throughout the experiment with the repeated administration of CDDP, whereas the 17:00-treated group deteriorated from allodynia to hypoalgesia.

Conclusions

It was revealed that the severe of CDDP-induced peripheral neuropathy was inhibited in the 5:00-treated group, whereas CDDP-treated groups exhibited mechanical allodynia. These results suggested that the selection of an optimal dosing time ameliorated CDDP-induced peripheral neuropathy.

Keywords

CisplatinPeripheral neuropathyChronotherapy

Background

Cisplatin, cis-diamminedichloro-platinum (CDDP), is the first agent of platinum-based anticancer drugs, and acts by crosslinking DNA and inhibiting DNA replication [1, 2]. It is extensively used in the treatment of non-small cell lung, head and neck, ovarian, and breast cancers [36], and exhibits strong therapeutic effects in cancer chemotherapy. Although CDDP is the main drug used in chemotherapy, it has dose-limiting adverse effects such as peripheral neuropathy, nephropathy, and vomiting, which limit the continuation of chemotherapy [79]. As a countermeasure to CDDP-induced adverse effects, fluid therapy and diuretic drugs have been used for nephropathy [10, 11]. Serotonin 3 receptor antagonists and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists have also been administered to prevent vomiting [1216]. However, no effective treatment currently exists for peripheral neuropathy [1720].

CDDP-induced peripheral neuropathy frequently occurs in patients receiving CDDP at a total dose of more than 300 mg/m2 [21]. Patients with CDDP-induced peripheral neuropathy have difficulty moving their arms, feet, and fingers as well as difficulty walking, numbness, dysesthesia, sensory abnormalities, and autonomic neuropathy [2123]. The chronic symptoms of CDDP-induced neuropathy, which may continue for months after the cessation of treatment, may be due to the accumulation of platinum compounds in the dorsal root ganglia (DRG) [24, 25]. The quality of life (QOL) of patients with these symptoms is reduced and these adverse effects also limit the continuation of chemotherapy. Therefore, the prevention or suppressing of CDDP-induced peripheral neuropathy is desired.

The success of chronotherapy in ameliorating adverse effects and achieving improved therapeutic effects has been attributed to a deeper understanding of pathological characteristics and pharmacological characterization as well as the selection of an optimal dosing time for drug administration [26, 27]. Previous studies reported that chronotherapy was beneficial for the adverse effects of CDDP. Nephropathy was ameliorated when CDDP was administered in the active phase of these animals [2831]. Moreover, vomiting induced by CDDP improved in patients with urogenital cancer when CDDP was administered at 17:00 [32]. Thus, chronotherapy may ameliorate CDDP-induced peripheral neuropathy.

In the present study, we investigated the influence of dosing times on CDDP-induced peripheral neuropathy in rats, and the pharmacokinetics of CDDP in serum and the DRGs in order to elucidate the mechanisms responsible for dosing time-dependent differences.

Methods

Animals

Male Sprague–Dawley (SD) rats (6 weeks old) were purchased from Japan SLC, Ltd. (Japan). Rats were housed two to three per cage under standardized light–dark cycle conditions (lights on and off at 7:00 and 19:00, respectively) at a room temperature of 23–25 °C and humidity of 50– 60 % with free access to food and water. All rats were kept under these conditions for 1 week until used in experiments, and the body weights were 220–260 g at point of starting experiments. Experiments were performed after formal approval by the Committee for Animal Experiments at the University of Toyama.

Preparation of CDDP

CDDP, supplied by Nippon Kayaku Co., Ltd. (Tokyo, Japan), was dissolved in saline. Its final concentration was 2 mg/mL (4 mg/kg) in each dosing group. CDDP was intravenously (i.v.) administered at 2 mL/kg to rats.

Experiment I: Influence of CDDP administration on peripheral neuropathy

CDDP was administered i.v. at 17:00 every 7 days for 4 weeks to rats (n = 4 in Hot plate test, n = 8 in von-Frey test). Saline was given to the control group (n = 4 in Hot plate test, n = 8 in von-Frey test).

The withdrawal threshold was measured on days −1, 6, 13, 20, and 27 using the von-Frey test during the administration of CDDP. Withdrawal latency by heat stimulation was determined on days −1, 6, and 27 using the hot-plate test during the administration of CDDP.

Experiment II: Influence of CDDP dosing times on adverse effects

CDDP was administered i.v. at 5:00 or 17:00 every 7 days for 4 weeks (n = 10). Saline was given to the control group (n = 6–12). Body weights were recorded on days 0, 7, 14, 21, and 28 after the first administration of CDDP. Change rates in body weights were calculated as percent body weight change in each rat from the initial value (day 0).

Blood samples were obtained from the tail vein 5, 12, 19, and 26 days after the administration of CDDP in order to measure blood urea nitrogen (BUN) concentrations. All blood samples were immediately centrifuged at 3000 × g for 10 min at 15 °C, and serum was then frozen at −80 °C until assays were performed. BUN concentrations were measured using a manufactured kit (Wako Pure Chemical Industries, Ltd., Japan).

Experiment III: Influence of CDDP dosing times on recovery from mechanical allodynia after the single administration of CDDP

CDDP was administered i.v. at 5:00 or 17:00 (n = 8), and saline was given to the control group (n = 8). The von-Frey test was performed on days −7, −5, −3, −1, 1, 2, 3, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 20 before and after the initial administration of CDDP to measure the paw withdrawal threshold. The hot-plate test was performed on day 24 after the administration of CDDP to measure withdrawal latency by heat stimulation.

Experiment IV: Influence of CDDP dosing times on peripheral neuropathy during its repeated administration

CDDP was administered i.v. at 5:00 or 17:00 every 7 days for 4 weeks (n = 4–10). Saline was given to the control group (n = 4–12). The von-Frey test was performed on days −7, −5, −3, −1, 3, 6, 10, 13, 17, 20, 24, and 27 before and after the initial administration of CDDP to measure the paw withdrawal threshold. The hot-plate test was performed on days 6 and 28 after the administration of CDDP to measure withdrawal latency by heat stimulation.

Experiment V: Chronopharmacokinetics of CDDP

CDDP was administered i.v. at 5:00 or 17:00 every 7 days for 4 weeks (n = 6). Blood samples were obtained from the tail vein at 5, 15, 30, 60, 120, 240, 360, 480, and 720 min after the first and fourth administration of CDDP. All blood samples were centrifuged immediately at 3000 × g for 10 min at 15 °C. Lumber 4 (L4), L5, and L6 DRG samples were isolated from each anesthetized rats at 24 h after the first and fourth administration of CDDP. Serum and DRG samples were frozen at −80 °C until analyzed.

In order to determine serum CDDP concentrations, 10 μL of rat serum was mixed with 990 μL of 60 % HNO3, with Indium ICP-MS standard (Wako Pure chemical Industries, Ltd.) as an internal standard. Each DRG was mixed with 2000 μL of 60 % HNO3, with Indium ICP-MS standard as an internal standard, to determine total CDDP concentrations in DRG. This solution was incubated at 100 °C for 30 min, and then diluted 100 times with ultrapure water.

Total platinum concentrations were assayed using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry on an ELEMENT2™ ICP-MS (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.). The operating parameters of the ICP-MS instrument were as follows: RF power 1280 W, cool gas flow 15.58 L/min, auxiliary gas flow 0.80 L/min, sample gas flow 0.98 L/min, dead time 25 ns, take-up time 1 min, and four replicates per sample.

von-Frey test

We used the method of previous report [33]. Mechanical allodynia was assessed using a Touch-test sensory evaluater (Muromachi Kikai Co., Ltd., Japan) at 12:30–13:30 on each measuring day. Each rat was placed in a plastic cage with a wire mesh floor and allowed to acclimate for 10 min before measuring hind paw mechanical thresholds. Filaments, with bending forces that ranged from 1 to 180 g, were applied to the middle of the plantar surface of the right hind paw and held for 5 sec. The withdrawal threshold of the right hind paw was determined by increasing the stimulus strength from the 1 g filament until paw withdrawal occurred.

Hot-plate test

Thermal hyperalgesia and hypoalgesia were assessed using a hot plate analgesia meter (Muromachi Kikai Co., Ltd., Japan) at 12:30–13:30 on each measuring day. Each rat was placed in a plastic cage with a wire mesh floor and allowed to acclimate for 10 min before measuring hind paw thermal thresholds. A hot plate was pre-heated and maintained at a temperature of 50 ± 0.5 °C. The time for the first sign of nociception, paw licking, flinching, or a jumping response to avoid the heat was recorded. A cut-off period of 60 sec was maintained to avoid damage to the hind paws [34].

Statistical analysis

All values were shown as a mean with standard error of the mean (S.E.M.). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for multiple comparisons, and Scheffe’s test was used for comparisons between two groups. The Student’s t-test was used for comparisons between two groups. P values of less than 0.05 were considered significant.

Results

Influence the repeated administration of CDDP on peripheral neuropathy

On day 6, the paw withdrawal threshold in the von-Frey test and the withdrawal latency in the hot-plate test were significantly lower in the CDDP-treated group than in the control group (P < 0.01, respectively, Table 1). On other days, no significant differences were observed in the paw withdrawal thresholds between the control and CDDP-treated groups. Withdrawal latency was significantly longer in the CDDP-treated group than in the control group on day 27 (P < 0.05).
Table 1

Time courses of paw withdrawal thresholds and withdrawal latency during the weekly administration of CDDP to rats

Behavioral test

Groups

Time before/after the first administration (days)

−1

6

13

20

27

von-Frey test

Control

51.5 ± 5.6 g

51.5 ± 5.6 g

47.3 ± 6.2 g

45.9 ± 7.0 g

51.5 ± 5.6 g

CDDP

55.8 ± 4.3 g

15.9 ± 2.4 g**

40.3 ± 7.6 g

56.5 ± 8.3 g

70.8 ± 9.5 g

Hot-plate test

Control

15.9 ± 1.5 sec

14.5 ± 0.4 sec

-

-

14.4 ± 1.4 sec

CDDP

14.4 ± 1.8 sec

9.7 ± 0.9 sec**

-

-

37.1 ± 7.3 sec*

Each data represent the mean with S.E.M. in the von-Frey test (n = 8) and in the hot-plate test (n = 4), *: P < 0.05, and **: P < 0.01 using the Student’s t-test

Influence of CDDP dosing times on body weights and BUN

Body weights were significantly lower in the CDDP-treated groups than in the control group throughout this study (P < 0.01, respectively, Fig. 1a). Decreases in change rates in body weights were significantly better in the 5:00-treated group than in the 17:00-treated group at all points measured (P < 0.05 or P < 0.01, respectively).
Fig. 1

Influence of CDDP dosing times on adverse effects (a Change rate in body weight, b BUN) in rats. CDDP was administered every 7 days at 5:00 or 17:00. Saline was administered to the control group. Each value represents the mean with S.E.M. (a control group (n = 12); each CDDP-treated group (n = 10). b each control group (n = 6); each CDDP-treated group (n = 10)). a **: P < 0.01 versus the control group; #: P < 0.05 and ##: P < 0.01 versus the 5:00-treated group using Scheffe’s test. b *: P < 0.05 and **: P < 0.01 versus the control group at 5:00; #: P < 0.05 and ##: P < 0.01 versus the control group at 17:00 using Scheffe’s test

When CDDP was administered every 7 days, BUN levels in the CDDP-treated groups over time were higher than the control levels (Fig. 1b). Increases in BUN concentrations were significantly lower in the 5:00-treated group than in the 17:00-treated group on days 5, 19, and 26 (P < 0.05 or P < 0.01, respectively).

Influence of CDDP dosing times on recovery from mechanical allodynia after single administration

On days 6, 10, and 13 after the single administration of CDDP, paw withdrawal thresholds in the CDDP-treated groups were significantly lower than those in the control group (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively, Fig. 2a). The 17:00-treated group continued to maintain mechanical allodynia for 20 days, and paw withdrawal thresholds were significantly lower than those in the control group (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively). On the other hand, the paw withdrawal threshold in the 5:00-treated group increased with the passage of time from 10 days after the administration of CDDP. Although paw withdrawal thresholds were significantly higher in the 5:00-treated group than in the 17:00-treated group on days 17, and 20 (P < 0.05, respectively), no significant differences were observed between the control and 5:00-treated groups on days 17 and 20.
Fig. 2

Influence of CDDP dosing times on recovery from mechanical allodynia in rats after a single dose (a von-Frey test, b Hot plate test on day 24). CDDP was administered to rats at 5:00 or 17:00. Saline was administered to the control group. Each value represents the mean with S.E.M. (n = 8). *: P < 0.05, **: P < 0.01 versus the control group; #: P < 0.05 versus the 5:00-treated group using Scheffe’s test

On day 24, no significant differences were noted in the withdrawal latency by heat stimulation among any groups (Fig. 2b).

Influence of CDDP dosing times on paw withdrawal thresholds during repeated administration

Paw withdrawal thresholds in the 5:00-treated group markedly decreased from normal levels after the first administration of CDDP, and were maintained at low levels throughout the experiment (Fig. 3). Paw withdrawal thresholds were significantly lower in the 5:00-treated group than in the control group throughout this study (P < 0.01, respectively). On the other hand, the 17:00-treated group showed temporary decreases in paw withdrawal thresholds, which were significantly lower than those in the control and 5:00-treated groups on day 6 (P < 0.01). Paw withdrawal thresholds in the 17:00-treated group increased after the second administration of CDDP (day 7), and were similar to those in the control group by day 17. On day 27, paw withdrawal thresholds were significantly higher in the 17:00-treated group than in the control group (P < 0.01). Paw withdrawal threshold were significantly lower in the 5:00-treated group than in the 17:00-treated group from day 10 to 27 (P < 0.01, respectively).
Fig. 3

Influence of CDDP dosing times on withdrawal thresholds during its administration to rats. CDDP was administered every 7 days at 5:00 or 17:00. Saline was administered to the control group. Each value represents the mean with S.E.M. (n = 8). **: P < 0.01 versus the control group; ##: P < 0.01 versus the 5:00-treated group using Scheffe’s test

Influence of CDDP dosing times on hypoalgesia during repeated administration

No significant differences were observed in the withdrawal latency by heat stimulation among any groups on day 6 after the first administration of CDDP (Fig. 4a). On day 28, the withdrawal latency was significantly higher in the 17:00-treated group than in the control and 5:00-treated groups after the fourth administration of CDDP (P < 0.01, respectively, Fig. 4b). On the other hand, no significant differences were observed in the withdrawal latency between the control and 5:00-treated groups.
Fig. 4

Influence of CDDP dosing times on hypoalgesia during its repeated administration to rats. CDDP was administered every 7 days at 5:00 or 17:00. Saline was administered to the control group. Each value represents the mean with S.E.M. a (n = 4); b (n = 8). P < 0.01 using Scheffe’s test

Influence of CDDP dosing times on pharmacokinetics in serum and dorsal root ganglia (DRG)

No significant differences in CDDP concentrations were observed in serum between the 5:00 and 17:00-treated groups after the first administration of CDDP (Table 2). Serum concentrations were significantly lower in the 5:00-treated group than in the 17:00-treated group 60, 120, 240, 360, and 720 min after the fourth administration of CDDP (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively).
Table 2

Influence of dosing time on serum CDDP concentrations after the first or fourth administration of CDDP to rats

Groups

CDDP concentration (μg/mL)

5 min

15 min

30 min

60 min

120 min

240 min

360 min

480 min

720 min

The first administration

 5:00

4.62 ± 0.49

3.58 ± 0.17

1.90 ± 0.13

0.87 ± 0.07

0.72 ± 0.03

0.65 ± 0.05

0.63 ± 0.02

0.60 ± 0.01

0.52 ± 0.02

 17:00

4.84 ± 0.44

3.68 ± 0.26

1.93 ± 0.15

0.86 ± 0.05

0.71 ± 0.06

0.66 ± 0.04

0.61 ± 0.03

0.57 ± 0.03

0.52 ± 0.05

The fourth administration

 5:00

6.75 ± 0.59

5.34 ± 0.27

3.79 ± 0.20

2.71 ± 0.20

1.74 ± 0.10

1.52 ± 0.13

1.34 ± 0.11

1.12 ± 0.09

1.12 ± 0.04

 17:00

7.38 ± 0.24

5.13 ± 0.21

3.81 ± 0.10

2.14 ± 0.09*

1.32 ± 0.05**

1.16 ± 0.06*

1.03 ± 0.07*

0.97 ± 0.06

0.89 ± 0.04**

Each value represents the mean with S.E.M. (n = 6), *: P < 0.05, and **: P < 0.01 using the Student’s t-test

No significant differences were observed in CDDP concentrations in DRG between the 5:00 and 17:00-treated groups after its first and fourth administration (Fig. 5).
Fig. 5

Influence of CDDP dosing times on its concentration in the dorsal root ganglia (DRG) after its first (a) or fourth (b) administration. CDDP was administered every 7 days at 5:00 or 17:00. Each value represents the mean with S.E.M. (n = 6)

Discussion

CDDP-induced peripheral neuropathy is a dose-limiting factor [7]. Although previous studies have attempted to prevent and decrease peripheral neuropathy, effective treatments have not yet been developed [1720]. CDDP-induced peripheral neuropathy exhibits contrary pain reactions, such as allodynia and hypoalgesia [2123]. In the early stage, neuropathy appears as allodynia, which is pain induced by a nonnoxious stimulus, and gradually progresses to hypoalgesia, namely, a decrease or the disappearance of sensations by nonnoxious and noxious stimuli, when CDDP is continuously administered [23, 35]. However, it was not reported that an animal model of the CDDP-induced peripheral neuropathy matched clinical situation. Then, at the first, we studied to make the model. When CDDP (4 mg/kg) was given i.v. once weekly, rats showed mechanical allodynia on day 6 after the first administration and prolonged the withdrawal latency by heat stimuli on 6 days (day 27) after the last dose (Table 1). The acute response concerned with the result in mice treated CDDP (2.3 mg/kg) in the past report [36]. This observation that the peripheral neuropathy caused by CDDP gradually progressed to hypoalgesia during the continuous administration, mirrors previous work in rats by Han FY et al. [37]. It was thought that this change in symptom of peripheral neuropathy may reflect the clinical situation.

Peripheral neuropathy induced by oxaliplatin was previously shown to be ameliorated by chronotherapy in patients with measurable metastases from colorectal cancer [38]. Moreover, the chronopharmacology of CDDP had shown many evidences in animal and human [29, 31, 32]. In animal studies, the toxicities such as nephrotoxicity and toxic death were the highest at rest phase in a day. Therefore, we selected the two dosing times (5:00 and 17:00) by referring these reports. In the present study, the group treated with CDDP at rest phase (17:00) showed severe toxicities compared with that at active phase (5:00). The dosing time-dependent differences in adverse effects were consistent with previous findings [2831]. In the present study, the 17:00-treated group showed 73.9 mg/dL of BUN level on day 19 and 55.8 g of withdrawal threshold on day 20 when CDDP was weekly given. On the other hands, withdrawal threshold in the 5:00-treated group, in which BUN level showed 82.4 mg/dL on day 26, was 5.3 g on day 27. There is no correlation between degree of the nephrotoxicity and the neuropathy. Therefore, we considered that the dosing-time dependency of severity of neuropathy did not necessarily coincide with the CDDP-related toxicities.

The CDDP-treated groups showed significantly lower withdrawal thresholds than the control group immediately after administration of CDDP. However, mechanical allodynia was temporary in the 5:00-treated group after a single administration and the 17:00-treated group when CDDP was given once weekly. The both dosing groups showed exactly the opposite response against mechanical allodynia by the difference in the number of doses. The reason is thought two possible. The neuropathy was improved by repair factor. Or the rats stopped responding to stimuli by progressing hypoalgesia. After a single administration of CDDP, there were no significant differences to heat stimulation among the all groups on day 24. On the other hand, the withdrawal latency was approximately 2-fold longer in the 17:00-treated group than in the control and 5:00-treated groups on day 28 after the repeated administration. Because the increase in withdrawal latency shows the onset of hypoalgesia, increase in withdrawal thresholds after the single dose may indicate recovery from mechanical allodynia in the 5:00-treated group. In the present study, peripheral neuropathy in the 17:00-treated group progressed from allodynia to hypoalgesia, similar to clinical situations [23]. The 5:00-treated group maintained allodynia while CDDP was repeatedly administered. Animal studies previously demonstrated that CDDP induced mechanical allodynia after its administration, and recovery from mechanical allodynia was observed after discontinuation of the treatment [39, 40]. These results suggested that the development of severe CDDP-induced peripheral neuropathy was delayed or inhibited in the 5:00-treated group. Therefore, the selection of an optimal dosing-time may lead to an effective approach for peripheral neuropathy induced by CDDP.

A previous study reported that sensory nerve conduction velocity (SNCV) was decreased by CDDP-induced peripheral neuropathy [4143]. In order to clarify dosing time-dependent differences in the phenotypes of pain responses, the SNCV of the coccygeal nerve was measured 7 days (day 28) after the fourth administration of CDDP. SNCV was markedly lower in the 17:00-treated group than in the control and 5:00-treated groups (Additional file 1). However, no nerve activity against the electric stimulus was observed in some rats treated with CDDP at 17:00, and thus, SNCV could not be sufficiently calculated. Although it remains unclear whether this result was due to a decline in the conduction velocity because of severe peripheral neuropathy or a technical error, SNCV was markedly decreased in the 17:00-treated group, which showed an increase in the withdrawal latency by the heat stimulation. These responses were observed when the peripheral nerve was injured. We then performed a pathological assessment of the peripheral nerve in the 17:00-treated group 6 days (day 27) after the fourth administration of CDDP in a preliminary study. No marked difference was noted between the control and 17:00-treated groups (Additional file 2). Gilardini A et al. reported that the absence of structural injuries with CDDP-induced peripheral neuropathy [44]. These findings suggested that peripheral neuropathy was more severe in the 17:00-treated group than in the 5:00-treated group; however, pathological assessments could not clarify dosing time-dependent differences in CDDP-induced peripheral neuropathy. Therefore, there was no effective scale to assess histological changes in peripheral nerves such as the sciatic nerve. We intend to investigate genes and proteins related to pain.

The accumulation of CDDP in the DRGs, which contain the cell bodies of primary afferent sensory neurons and play a role in pain mechanisms, is known to induce CDDP-induced peripheral neuropathy [25]. A previous study reported that the enhanced accumulation of CDDP in the DRG positively correlated with the severity of peripheral neuropathy in mice [45]. In the present study, no significant differences were noted in the DRGs levels of CDDP between the 5:00 and 17:00-treated groups. In clinical study, there are few reports of chronopharmacokinetics of CDDP. When CDDP was given at 6:00 or 18:00, the clearance (CL) significantly was higher at 18:00 than at 6:00 [46]. In this study, serum CDDP concentrations were markedly lower in the 17:00-treated group than the 5:00-treated group 60–720 min after the injection. It was consistent with human and animal that disappearance of CDDP from blood was faster in the active phase than the rest phase. However, the toxicities were inhibited in the 5:00-treated group showed higher the serum level. Therefore, we thought that CDDP pharmacokinetics might not contribute to the dosing time-dependent neuropathy. CDDP shows pharmacological effects by crosslinking DNA. It was reported that platinum level in DNA in kidney showed clear dosing time-dependent difference, and the daily variation contributed to degree of nephrotoxicity [47]. In this study, platinum concentration in DNA in DRG was not measured because DRG was small tissue. We are studying measurement method of the platinum level in DNA in nerve tissue including DRG to clarify relevance between the dosing time-dependency of neuropathy and the platinum level in DNA.

Although it is an important to estimate dosing time-dependency of antitumor effect, we have not studied the antitumor effects because LLC-WRC-256 cells, which were breast carcinosarcoma in rat, cannot be transplanted to SD rats. In the preliminary study, the 17:00-treated group (late rest phase) was markedly lower in tumor growth than the control group when CDDP (5 mg/kg) was i.v. given in ICR nu/nu mice bearing A549 cells, which is human lung cancer (Additional file 3). Oxaliplatin, which is the third generation platinum anticancer drug, showed high tumor inhibition rate at early active phase compared with late rest phase [48]. Optimal dosing-time of antitumor effects differs by drugs, cancer cell, and engraftment site. Unlike the side effects that target factors are limited, it is difficult to select a uniform dosage timing for target factor is the variety against cancer. Therefore, we think that long-term CDDP therapy can be carried out by decreasing adverse effects using chronotherapy and anti-tumor effect would be directly or indirectly enhanced as a result.

Conclusions

In conclusion, pain is an important sign to avoid a variety of risk in life, and hypoalgesia induced by the drug must be avoided. The present study revealed that CDDP-induced peripheral neuropathy which proceeded from allodynia to hypoalgesia was inhibited by the administration of CDDP at a specific time. The adverse effects of CDDP, body weights, BUN levels, and peripheral neuropathy may be improved by identical dosing times. Thus, chronotherapy may contribute to ameliorating adverse effects in patients receiving chemotherapy with CDDP.

Abbreviations

ANOVA: 

Analysis of variance

AUC: 

Area under the curves

BUN: 

Blood urea nitrogen

CDDP: 

cis-diamminedichloro-platinum

DRG: 

Dorsal root ganglia

i.v.: 

Intravenously

QOL: 

Quality of life

S.E.M.: 

Standard error of the mean

SNCV: 

Sensory nerve conduction velocity

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We thank Mr. Kotaro Shimamura (a student of Nagasaki University Hospital of Medicine and Dentistry, Nagasaki, Japan) and Ms. Miyuki Takase (a student of Toyama University, Toyama, Japan) for their technical help with this study.

Funding

All work in this study was funded by Nakatomi Foundation and JSPS KAKENHI Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) Number 16 K08395 (JP).

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable. All supporting data for the conclusions are presented in the manuscript.

Authors’ contributions

To submit this study, all the authors have read and approved the paper. HT organized this study. YS performed this study. FO, KH and JZ measured the CDDP concentration. HS supported to estimate cisplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Experiments were performed after formal approval by the Committee for Animal Experiments at the University of Toyama.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Medical Pharmaceutics, Graduate School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences for Research, University of Toyama
(2)
Graduate School of Science and Engineering, University of Toyama
(3)
Hospital Pharmacy, Nagasaki University Hospital

References

  1. Gonzalez VM, Fuertes MA, Alonso C, Perez JM. Is cisplatin-induced cell death always produced by apoptosis? Mol Pharmacol. 2001;59(4):657–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Laurent G, Erickson LC, Sharkey NA, Kohn KW. DNA cross-linking and cytotoxicity induced by cis-diamminedichloroplatinum(II) in human normal and tumor cell lines. Cancer Res. 1981;41(9 Pt 1):3347–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ezzat AA, Ibrahim EM, Ajarim DS, Rahal MM, Raja MA, Tulbah AM, et al. Phase II study of neoadjuvant paclitaxel and cisplatin for operable and locally advanced breast cancer: analysis of 126 patients. Br J Cancer. 2004;90(5):968–74.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Thyss A, Schneider M, Santini J, Caldani C, Vallicioni J, Chauvel P, et al. Induction chemotherapy with cis-platinum and 5-fluorouracil for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Br J Cancer. 1986;54(5):755–60.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. van der Burg ME, de Wit R, van Putten WL, Logmans A, Kruit WH, Stoter G, et al. Weekly cisplatin and daily oral etoposide is highly effective in platinum pretreated ovarian cancer. Br J Cancer. 2002;86(1):19–25.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Woods RL, Williams CJ, Levi J, Page J, Bell D, Byrne M, et al. A randomised trial of cisplatin and vindesine versus supportive care only in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer. 1990;61(4):608–11.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. LoMonaco M, Milone M, Batocchi AP, Padua L, Restuccia D, Tonali P. Cisplatin neuropathy: clinical course and neurophysiological findings. J Neurol. 1992;239(4):199–204.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Stuart-Harris R, Buckman R, Starke I, Wiltshaw E. Chlorpromazine, placebo and droperidol in the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with cisplatin therapy. Postgrad Med J. 1983;59(694):500–3.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Yao X, Panichpisal K, Kurtzman N, Nugent K. Cisplatin nephrotoxicity: a review. Am J Med Sci. 2007;334(2):115–24.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Hayes DM, Cvitkovic E, Golbey RB, Scheiner E, Helson L, Krakoff IH. High dose cis-platinum diammine dichloride: amelioration of renal toxicity by mannitol diuresis. Cancer. 1977;39(4):1372–81.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Santoso JT, Lucci 3rd JA, Coleman RL, Schafer I, Hannigan EV. Saline, mannitol, and furosemide hydration in acute cisplatin nephrotoxicity: a randomized trial. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2003;52(1):13–8. doi:10.1007/s00280-003-0620-1.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Kang YK, Park YH, Ryoo BY, Bang YJ, Cho KS, Shin DB, et al. Ramosetron for the prevention of cisplatin-induced acute emesis: a prospective randomized comparison with granisetron. J Int Med Res. 2002;30(3):220–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Martoni A, Angelelli B, Guaraldi M, Strocchi E, Pannuti F. An open randomised cross-over study on granisetron versus ondansetron in the prevention of acute emesis induced by moderate dose cisplatin-containing regimens. Eur J Cancer. 1996;32A(1):82–5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Seynaeve C, Schuller J, Buser K, Porteder H, Van Belle S, Sevelda P, et al. Comparison of the anti-emetic efficacy of different doses of ondansetron, given as either a continuous infusion or a single intravenous dose, in acute cisplatin-induced emesis. A multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel group study. Ondansetron Study Group. Br J Cancer. 1992;66(1):192–7.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Ishimaru K, Takano A, Katsura M, Yamaguchi N, Kaneko K, Takahashi H. Efficacy of aprepitant for nausea in patients with head and neck cancer receiving daily cisplatin therapy. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(22):9627–30.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Roila F, Ruggeri B, Ballatori E, Fatigoni S, Caserta C, Licitra L, et al. Aprepitant versus metoclopramide, both combined with dexamethasone, for the prevention of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis: a randomized, double-blind study. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(6):1248–53.Google Scholar
  17. Kottschade LA, Sloan JA, Mazurczak MA, Johnson DB, Murphy BP, Rowland KM, et al. The use of vitamin E for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: results of a randomized phase III clinical trial. Support Care Cancer. 2011;19(11):1769–77.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Hammack JE, Michalak JC, Loprinzi CL, Sloan JA, Novotny PJ, Soori GS, et al. Phase III evaluation of nortriptyline for alleviation of symptoms of cis-platinum-induced peripheral neuropathy. Pain. 2002;98(1–2):195–203.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Rao RD, Flynn PJ, Sloan JA, Wong GY, Novotny P, Johnson DB, et al. Efficacy of lamotrigine in the management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, N01C3. Cancer. 2008;112(12):2802–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Rao RD, Michalak JC, Sloan JA, Loprinzi CL, Soori GS, Nikcevich DA, et al. Efficacy of gabapentin in the management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial (N00C3). Cancer. 2007;110(9):2110–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Cavaletti G, Marzorati L, Bogliun G, Colombo N, Marzola M, Pittelli MR, et al. Cisplatin-induced peripheral neurotoxicity is dependent on total-dose intensity and single-dose intensity. Cancer. 1992;69(1):203–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Boogerd W, ten Bokkel Huinink WW, Dalesio O, Hoppenbrouwers WJ, van der Sande JJ. Cisplatin induced neuropathy: central, peripheral and autonomic nerve involvement. J Neurooncol. 1990;9(3):255–63.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. McWhinney SR, Goldberg RM, McLeod HL. Platinum neurotoxicity pharmacogenetics. Mol Cancer Ther. 2009;8(1):10–6.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Grunberg SM, Sonka S, Stevenson LL, Muggia FM. Progressive paresthesias after cessation of therapy with very high-dose cisplatin. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1989;25(1):62–4.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. McDonald ES, Randon KR, Knight A, Windebank AJ. Cisplatin preferentially binds to DNA in dorsal root ganglion neurons in vitro and in vivo: a potential mechanism for neurotoxicity. Neurobiol Dis. 2005;18(2):305–13.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Tabuchi M, To H, Sakaguchi H, Goto N, Takeuchi A, Higuchi S, et al. Therapeutic index by combination of adriamycin and docetaxel depends on dosing time in mice. Cancer Res. 2005;65(18):8448–54.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. To H, Yoshimatsu H, Tomonari M, Ida H, Tsurumoto T, Tsuji Y, et al. Methotrexate chronotherapy is effective against rheumatoid arthritis. Chronobiol Int. 2011;28(3):267–74.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Kobayashi M, To H, Yuzawa M, Hakamata Y, Higuchi S, Tokue A, et al. Effects of dosing time and schedule on cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity in rats. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2000;52(10):1233–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Levi FA, Hrushesky WJ, Blomquist CH, Lakatua DJ, Haus E, Halberg F, et al. Reduction of cis-diamminedichloroplatinum nephrotoxicity in rats by optimal circadian drug timing. Cancer Res. 1982;42(3):950–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Levi FA, Hrushesky WJ, Halberg F, Langevin TR, Haus E, Kennedy BJ. Lethal nephrotoxicity and hematologic toxicity of cis-diamminedichloroplatinum ameliorated by optimal circadian timing and hydration. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol. 1982;18(5):471–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. To H, Kikuchi A, Tsuruoka S, Sugimoto K, Fujimura A, Higuchi S, et al. Time-dependent nephrotoxicity associated with daily administration of cisplatin in mice. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2000;52(12):1499–504.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Kobayashi M, To H, Tokue A, Fujimura A, Kobayashi E. Cisplatin-induced vomiting depends on circadian timing. Chronobiol Int. 2001;18(5):851–63.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Authier N, Fialip J, Eschalier A, Coudoré F. Assessment of allodynia and hyperalgesia after cisplatin administration to rats. Neurosci Lett. 2000;291(2):73–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Matsushita K, Tozaki-Saitoh H, Kojima C, Masuda T, Tsuda M, Inoue K, et al. Chemokine (C-C motif) receptor 5 is an important pathological regulator in the development and maintenance of neuropathic pain. Anesthesiology. 2014;120:1491–503.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Aloe L, Manni L, Properzi F, De Santis S, Fiore M. Evidence that nerve growth factor promotes the recovery of peripheral neuropathy induced in mice by cisplatin: behavioral, structural and biochemical analysis. Auton Neurosci. 2000;86(1–2):84–93.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Ta LE, Bieber AJ, Carlton SM, Loprinzi CL, Low PA, Windebank AJ. Transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 is essential for cisplatin-induced heat hyperalgesia in mice. Mol Pain. 2010;6:15.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Han FY, Wyse BD, Smith MT. Optimization and pharmacological characterization of a refined cisplatin-induced rat model of peripheral neuropathic pain. Behav Pharmacol. 2014;25(8):732–40.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Levi F, Zidani R, Misset JL. Randomised multicentre trial of chronotherapy with oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and folinic acid in metastatic colorectal cancer. International Organization for Cancer Chronotherapy. Lancet. 1997;350(9079):681–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Cata JP, Weng HR, Dougherty PM. Behavioral and electrophysiological studies in rats with cisplatin-induced chemoneuropathy. Brain Res. 2008;1230:91–8.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Park HJ, Stokes JA, Corr M, Yaksh TL. Toll-like receptor signaling regulates cisplatin-induced mechanical allodynia in mice. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2014;73(1):25–34.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Carozzi VA, Canta A, Oggioni N, Sala B, Chiorazzi A, Meregalli C, et al. Neurophysiological and neuropathological characterization of new murine models of chemotherapy-induced chronic peripheral neuropathies. Exp Neurol. 2010;226(2):301–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Hamers FP, Brakkee JH, Cavalletti E, Tedeschi M, Marmonti L, Pezzoni G, et al. Reduced glutathione protects against cisplatin-induced neurotoxicity in rats. Cancer Res. 1993;53(3):544–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Bianchi R, Brines M, Lauria G, Savino C, Gilardini A, Nicolini G, et al. Protective effect of erythropoietin and its carbamylated derivative in experimental Cisplatin peripheral neurotoxicity. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12(8):2607–12.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Gilardini A, Avila RL, Oggioni N, Rodriguez-Menendez V, Bossi M, Canta A, et al. Myelin structure is unaltered in chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Neurotoxicology. 2012;33(1):1–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Dzagnidze A, Katsarava Z, Makhalova J, Liedert B, Yoon MS, Kaube H, et al. Repair capacity for platinum-DNA adducts determines the severity of cisplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy. J Neurosci. 2007;27(35):9451–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Li J, Chen R, Ji M, Zou SL, Zhu LN. Cisplatin-based chronotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients: a randomized controlled study and its pharmacokinetics analysis. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2015;76(3):651–5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Oda M, Koyanagi S, Tsurudome Y, Kanemitsu T, Matsunaga N, Ohdo S. Renal circadian clock regulates the dosing-time dependency of cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity in mice. Mol Pharmacol. 2014;85:715–22.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Yang K, Zhao N, Zhao D, Chen D, Li Y. The drug efficacy and adverse reactions in a mouse model of oral squamous cell carcinoma treated with oxaliplatin at different time points during a day. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2013;20:511–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016

Advertisement