No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Functional and morphological effects of fotemustine on the auditory system of the rat
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 September 2007
Abstract
Objective:
This study aimed to elucidate the potential inner-ear effects of fotemustine, a chemotherapeutic agent which crosses the blood–brain barrier and is used in the treatment of primary and metastatic brain tumours and metastatic melanoma.
Methods:
This study utilised distortion product otoacoustic emissions and transmission electron microscopy in order to conduct electrophysiological and morphological assessments, using a rat experimental model. Twelve ears of six male rats were examined two months following intraperitoneal slow infusion of fotemustine (100 mg/m2 or 7.4 mg/kg). Pre- and post-treatment measurements were compared. Finally, electron microscopy was performed on three rat temporal bones.
Results:
After infusion of fotemustine, distortion product otoacoustic emissions revealed a significant reduction in signal-to-noise ratios only at 3600 Hz (from 11.95 ± 7.52 to −0.26 ± 9.45 dB) and at 3961 Hz (from 18.09 ± 7.49 to 6.74 ± 12.11 dB) (referenced to 2f1 − f2). Transmission electron microscopy of the temporal bone revealed ultrastructural changes in the outer hair cells, stria vascularis and cochlear ganglion at the cochlear basal turn. The ganglion cell perikarya were unaffected.
Conclusions:
Fotemustine was administered via intraperitoneal slow infusion in a rat experimental model. Twelve ears of six survivors, from 10 rats, were evaluated at the second month. Fotemustine was determined to have a potential for ototoxicity at 3600 and 3961 Hz. Three randomly chosen rats underwent electron microscopy for morphological analysis. Morphological effects in the cochlear basal turn were observed. Oedematous intracytoplasmic spaces and perivascular areas of the stria vascularis, as well as distorted chromatin content, were detected, thereby suggesting potential ototoxic effects for this agent. Further experimental and clinical studies are required in order to determine whether the effect seen in this pilot study is reversible, and to analyse effects in humans.
- Type
- Main Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2007
References
1 Fischel, JL, Barbe, V, Berlion, M, Formento, P, Berrile, J, Bizzari, JP et al. Tamoxifen enhances the cytotoxic effects of the nitrosourea fotemustine. Results on human melanoma cell lines. Eur J Cancer 1993;29A:2269–73Google Scholar
2 Lokiec, F, Beerblock, K, Deloffre, P, Lucas, C, Bizzari, JP. Study of the clinical pharmacokinetics of fotemustine in various tumor indications. Bull Cancer 1989;76:1063–9Google ScholarPubMed
3 Hatzopoulos, S, Di Stefano, M, Campbell, KC, Falgione, D, Ricci, D, Rosignoli, M et al. Cisplatin ototoxicity in the Sprague Dawley rat evaluated by distortion product otoacoustic emissions. Audiology 2001;40:253–64Google Scholar
4 Sockalingam, R, Freeman, S, Cherny, TL, Sohmer, H. Effect of high-dose cisplatin on auditory brainstem responses and otoacoustic emissions in laboratory animals. Am J Otol 2000;21:521–7Google Scholar
5 Hatzopoulos, S, Petruccelli, J, Laurell, G, Avan, P, Finesso, M, Martini, A. Ototoxic effects of cisplatin in a Sprague-Dawley rat animal model as revealed by ABR and transiently evoked otoacoustic emission measurements. Hear Res 2002;170:70–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 McMahon, SB, Priestley, JV. Peripheral neuropathies and neurotrophic factors: animal models and clinical perspectives. Curr Opin Neurobiol 1995;5:616–24Google Scholar
7 Guaitani, A, Corada, M, Lucas, C, Lemoine, A, Garattini, S, Bartosek, I. Pharmacokinetics of fotemustine and BCNU in plasma, liver and tumor tissue of rats bearing two lines of Walker 256 carcinoma. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1991;28:293–7Google Scholar
8 Muller, M. Frequency representation in the rat cochlea. Hear Res 1991;51:247–54CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9 Lotze, MT, Dallal, RM, Kirkwood, JM, Flickinger, JC. Cutaneous melanoma. In: De Vita, VT, Hellman, S, Rosenberg, SA, eds. Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology, 6th edn. Philadelpia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2001;2051–2Google Scholar
10 Akmansu, H, Eryilmaz, A, Korkmaz, H, Sennaroglu, G, Akmansu, M, Gocer, C et al. Ultrastructural and electrophysiologic changes of rat cochlea after irradiation. Laryngoscope 2004;114:1276–80CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11 Henley, CM 3rd, Owings, MH, Stagner, BB, Martin, GK, Lonsbury-Martin, BL. Postnatal development of 2f1-f2 otoacoustic emissions in pigmented rat. Hear Res 1990;43:141–8Google Scholar
12 Lautermann, J, Crann, SA, McLaren, J, Schacht, J. Glutathione-dependent antioxidant systems in the mammalian inner ear: effects of aging, ototoxic drugs and noise. Hear Res 1997;114:75–82Google Scholar
13 Ravi, R, Somani, SM, Rybak, LP. Mechanism of cisplatin ototoxicity: antioxidant system. Pharmacol Toxicol 1995;76:386–94CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14 Crofton, KM, Janssen, R, Prazma, J, Pulver, S, Barone, S Jr. The ototoxicity of 3,3′-iminodipropionitrile: functional and morphological evidence of cochlear damage. Hear Res 1994; 80:129–40CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15 Kim, CS, Shin, SO. Ultrastructural changes in the cochlea of the guinea pig after fast neutron irradiation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1994;110:419–27Google ScholarPubMed
16 Masurovsky, EB, Bunge, MB, Bunge, RP. Cytological studies of organotypic cultures of rat dorsal root ganglia following X-irradiation in vitro. I. Changes in neurons and satellite cells. J Cell Biol 1967;32:467–96Google Scholar
17 Winther, FO. X-ray irradiation of the inner ear of the guinea pig. An electron microscopic study of the degenerating outer hair cells of the organ of Corti. Acta Otolaryngol 1970;69:61–76Google Scholar
18 Campbell, KC, Rybak, LP, Meech, RP, Hughes, L. D-methionine provides excellent protection from cisplatin ototoxicity in the rat. Hear Res 1996;102:90–8Google Scholar
19 Chen, GD, McWilliams, ML, Fechter, LD. Intermittent noise-induced hearing loss and the influence of carbon monoxide. Hear Res 1999;138:181–91Google Scholar
20 Gabaizadeh, R, Staecker, H, Liu, W, Kopke, R, Malgrange, B, Lefebvre, PP et al. Protection of both auditory hair cells and auditory neurons from cisplatin induced damage. Acta Otolaryngol 1997;117:232–8Google Scholar
21 Hamers, FP, Klis, SF, Gispen, WH, Smoorenburg, GF. Application of a neuroprotective ACTH(4-9) analog to affect cisplatin ototoxicity: an electrocochleographic study in guinea pigs. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 1994;251:23–9Google Scholar
22 Heijmen, PS, Klis, SF, De Groot, JC, Smoorenburg, GF. Cisplatin ototoxicity and the possibly protective effect of alpha-melanocyte stimulating hormone. Hear Res 1999;128:27–39CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23 Martini, A, Rubini, R, Ferretti, RG, Govoni, E, Schiavinato, A, Magnavita, V et al. Comparative ototoxic potential of hyaluronic acid and methylcellulose. Acta Otolaryngol 1992;112:278–83Google Scholar
24 Neuwelt, EA, Brummett, RE, Remsen, LG, Kroll, RA, Pagel, MA, McCormick, CI et al. In vitro and animal studies of sodium thiosulfate as a potential chemoprotectant against carboplatin-induced ototoxicity. Cancer Res 1996;56:706–9Google ScholarPubMed
25 Ohtani, I, Ohtsuki, K, Aikawa, T, Anzai, T, Ouchi, J, Saito, T. Reduction of cisplatin ototoxicity by fosfomycin in animal model. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 1985;47:229–35Google Scholar
26 Schweitzer, VG, Rarey, KE, Dolan, DF, Abrams, G, Litterst, CJ, Sheridan, C. Ototoxicity of cisplatin vs. platinum analogs CBDCA (JM-8) and CHIP (JM-9). Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1986;94:458–70Google Scholar