Gemcitabine (2′,2′-difluoro 2′-deoxycytidine, dFdC) is the most important cytidine analogue developed since cytosine arabinoside (Ara-C). The evidence of its potent antitumor activity in a wide spectrum of in vitro and in vivo tumor models has been successfully confirmed in the clinical setting. Despite structural and pharmacological similarities to Ara-C, gemcitabine displays distinctive features of cellular pharmacology, metabolism and mechanism of action. Following influx through the cell membrane via nucleoside transporters, gemcitabine undergoes complex intracellular conversion to the nucleotides gemcitabine diphosphate (dFdCDP) and triphosphate (dFdCTP) responsible for its cytotoxic actions. The cytotoxic activity of gemcitabine may be the result of several actions on DNA synthesis. dFdCTP competes with deoxycytidine triphosphate (dCTP) as an inhibitor of DNA polymerase. dFdCDP is a potent inhibitor of ribonucleoside reductase, resulting in depletion of deoxyribonucleotide pools necessary for DNA synthesis and, thereby potentiating the effects of dFdCTP. dFdCTP is incorporated into DNA and after the incorporation of one more nucleotide leads to DNA strand termination. This extra nucleotide may be important in hiding the dFdCTP from DNA repair enzymes, as incorporation of dFdCTP into DNA appears to be resistant to the normal mechanisms of DNA repair. Gemcitabine can be effectively inactivated mainly by the action of deoxycytidine deaminase to 2,2′-difluorodeoxyuridine. Also, 5′-nucleotidase opposes the action of nucleoside kinases by catalysing the conversion of nucleotides back to nucleosides. Additional sites of action and self-potentiating effects have been described. Evidence that up- or down-regulation of the multiple membrane transporters, target enzymes, enzymes involved in the metabolism of gemcitabine and alterations in the apoptotic pathways may confer sensitivity/resistance to this drug, has been provided in experimental models and more recently also in the clinical setting. Synergism between gemcitabine and several other antineoplastic agents has been demonstrated in experimental models based on specific pharmacodynamic interactions. Knowledge of gemcitabine cellular pharmacology and its molecular mechanisms of resistance and drug interaction may thus be pivotal to a more rational clinical use of this drug in combination regimens and in tailored therapy.

Multidrug resistance (MDR) is a major obstacle to the effective treatment of cancer. One of the underlying mechanisms of MDR is cellular overproduction of P-glycoprotein (P-gp) which acts as an efflux pump for various anticancer drugs. P-gp is encoded by the MDR1 gene and its overexpression in cancer cells has become a therapeutic target for circumventing multidrug resistance. A potential strategy is to co-administer efflux pump inhibitors, although such reversal agents might actually increase the side effects of chemotherapy by blocking physiological anticancer drug efflux from normal cells. Although many efforts to overcome MDR have been made using first and second generation reversal agents comprising drugs already in current clinical use for other indications (e.g. verapamil, cyclosporine A, quinidine) or analogues of the first-generation drugs (e.g. dexverapamil, valspodar, cinchonine), few significant advances have been made. Clinical trials with third generation modulators (e.g. biricodar, zosuquidar, and laniquidar) specifically developed for MDR reversal are ongoing. The results however are not encouraging and it may be that the perfect reverser does not exist. Other approaches to multidrug resistance reversal have also been considered: encapsulation of anthracyclines in liposomes or other carriers which deliver these drugs selectively to tumor tissues, the use of P-gp targeted antibodies such as UIC2 or the use of antisense strategies targeting the MDR1 messenger RNA. More recently, the development of transcriptional regulators appears promising. Also anticancer drugs that belong structurally to classes of drugs extruded from cells by Pgp but that are not substrates of this drug transporter may act as potent inhibitors of MDR tumors (e.g. epothilones, second generation taxanes). Taking advantage of MDR has also been studied. Bone marrow suppression, one of the major side effects of cancer chemotherapy, can compromise the potential of curative and palliative chemotherapy. It is conceivable that drug resistance gene transfer into bone marrow stem cells may be able to reduce or abolish chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression and facilitate the use of high dose chemotherapy. Clinical trials of retroviral vectors containing drug resistance genes have established that the approach is safe and are now being designed to address the therapeutically relevant issues.

Purpose: We aimed to identify the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) of irinotecan in patients with cancer with UGT1A1*1/*1 and *1/*28 genotypes. We hypothesize that the patients without the *28/*28 genotype tolerate higher doses of irinotecan. Patients and Methods: Patients undergoing first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) eligible for treatment with irinotecan plus infusional fluorouracil/leucovorin (FOLFIRI) were screened for the UGT1A1*28/*28 genotype and excluded from the study. Fifty-nine white patients with either the *1/*1 or the *1/*28 genotype were eligible for dose escalation of irinotecan. The starting dose of biweekly irinotecan was 215 mg/m² for both genotype groups, whereas the dose of infusional fluorouracil was fixed. Pharmacokinetic data of irinotecan and metabolites were also obtained. Results: The dose of irinotecan was escalated to 370 mg/m² in patients with the *1/*28 genotype and to 420 mg/m² in those with the *1/*1 genotype. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed in two of four of *1/*28 patients at 370 mg/m² and in two of three of *1/*1 patients at 420 mg/m². No DLTs were observed in 10 *1/*28 patients at 310 mg/m² and in 10 *1/*1 patients at 370 mg/m²; hence these dose levels were the MTD for each genotype group. The most common grade 3 to 4 toxicities were neutropenia and diarrhea. The pharmacokinetics of irinotecan and SN-38 exhibit linear kinetics. Conclusion: The recommended dose of 180 mg/m² for irinotecan in FOLFIRI is considerably lower than the dose that can be tolerated when patients with the UGT1A1*28/*28 genotype are excluded. Prospective genotype-driven studies should test the efficacy of higher irinotecan doses in the FOLFIRI schedule.