Cisplatin (CDDP) is a potent anticancer drug. Neurotoxicity is one of the most important dose-limiting toxicity of CDDP. We investigated the role of amifostine in the protection against CDDP-induced neurotoxicity especially on the motor nerves. All experiments were conducted on female Wistar albino rats. Animals were randomly assigned to two groups, each including six rats. Group A received CDDP plus amifostine and Group B received CDDP only. Electroneurography (ENG) was carried out in the beginning and at the end of 7 wk; then, the rats were sacrificed and the sciatic nerve was removed for histopathological examination.
The mean initial latency was 2.4667 msn for group A and 2.44833 msn for group B. After 7 wk of treatment, the latency was 2.9167 for group A and 2.6333 for group B. The difference in latencies was not statistically significant. The amplitude was 11.7853 mV and 13.533 mV for groups A and B, respectively. After 7 wk of treatment, the amplitude was 9.400 mV and 9.000 mV, respectively. The decrease of amplitude in compound muscle action potential (CMAP) was 20% in the amifostine group and the decrease was 33% in the untreated group. The mean area of the CMAP in group A was 9.400 mVsn initially and 9.666 mVsn at the end of the treatment; there was a 0.3% increase despite CDDP treatment. In group B, the mean area of the CMAP was 13.816 mVsn initially and 11.857 mVsn at the end of the treatment; this corresponded to a statistically significant 14% decrease as a result of CDDP treatment. The ENG and histopathological studies showed that at the given dose and schedule CDDP-induced motor neuropathy and amifostine reduced this neuropathy both by protection of the amplitude and area of the CMAP in ENG studies and by sparing a larger number of nerve fibers.
Neurotoxicity cisplatin amifostine
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Anand, A.J. and Bashey, B. (1993). New insights into cisplatin nephrotoxicity. Ann. Pharmacother.27:1519–1525.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Orhan, B., et al. (1998). Does cisplatin stimulate erythropoietin secretion from the peritubuler cells of the kidney? Clin. Nephrol.50:202–203.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Aggarwal, S.K. (1993). A histochemical approach to the mechanism of action of cisplatin and its analogs. J. Histochem. Cytochem.41:1053–1073.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Hamers, F.P., et al. (1993). Reduced glutathione protects against cisplatin-induced neurotoxicity in rats. Cancer Res.53:544–549.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Tredici, G., et al. (1994). Low-dose glutathione administration in the prevention of cisplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy in rats. Neurotoxicology15:701–704.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Cavaletti, G., Minoia, C., Schieppati, M. and Tredici, G. (1994). Protective effect of glutathione on cisplatin neurotoxicity in rats. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys.29:771–776.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Cece, R., et al. (1995). An ultrastructural study of neuronal changes in dorsal root ganglia (DGR) of rats after chronic cisplatin administrations. Histol. Histopathol.10:837–845.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Tredici, G., et al. (1999). Effect of recombinant nerve growth factor on cisplatin neurotoxicity in rats. Exp. Neurol.159:551–558.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKoning, P., Neijt, J.P., Jennekens, F.G. and Gispen, W.H. (1987). Evaluation of cis-diamminedichloroplatinum II (cisplatin) neurotoxicity in rats. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.89:81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Q., et al. (2000). Effect of maturation on nerve excitability in an experimental model of threshold electrotonus. Muscle Nerve23:498–506.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caveletti, G., et al. (1992). Morphometric study of the sensory neuron and peripheral nerve changes induced by chronic cisplatin (DDP) administration in rats. Acta Neuropathol. (Berl.)84:364–371.Google Scholar
Yalcin, S., et al. (1996). Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Hematology1:155–162.Google Scholar
Yalcin, S. and Orhan, B. (1998). Recombinant human erythropoietin in the treatment of chronic anemia of cancer. Acta Haematol.100:1152.Google Scholar
Yalcin, S., Güllü, I., Demiroglu, H. and Tekuzman, G. (1997). Acute leukemia during tamoxifen therapy. Med. Oncol.14:61–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yalcin, S., et al. (1999). Serotonin receptor antagonists in prophylaxis of acute and delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic single-day chemotherapy: a randomized study. Am. J. Clin. Oncol.22:94–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, C.M. and Goa, K.L. (1995). Amifostine: a review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic potential as a radioprotector and cytotoxic chemoprotector. Drugs50:1001–1031.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Santini, V. and Giles, F.J. (1999). The potential of amifostine: from cytoprotectant to therapeutic agent. Haematologica84:1035–1042.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Foster-Nora, J.A. and Siden, R. (1997). Amifostine for protection from antineoplastic drug toxicity. Am. J. Health-Syst Pharm.54:787–800.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Tannehill, S.P. and Mehta, M.P. (1996). Amifostine and radiation therapy: past, present, and future. Semin. Oncol.23(Suppl. 8):69–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar