Efficacy of cisplatin and Lipoplatin™ in combined treatment with radiation of a colorectal tumor in nude mouse.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Optimal conditions for efficient concomitant chemoradiation treatment of colorectal cancer with cisplatin still need to be better defined. In addition, intolerance of healthy tissue to cisplatin prevents the full exploitation of its radiosensitizing potential. A liposomal formulation of cisplatin, Lipoplatin™, was proposed to overcome its toxicity. Using an animal model of colorectal cancer, we determined the platinum window, defined by studying the pharmacokinetics and time-dependent intracellular distribution of cisplatin and Lipoplatin™. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In nude mice bearing HCT116 human colorectal carcinoma treated with cisplatin or Lipoplatin™, the platinum accumulation in blood, serum, different normal tissues, tumor and different tumor cell compartments was measured by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Radiation treatment (15 Gy) was given 4, 24, and 48 h after drug administration and was correlated to the amount of platinum-DNA adducts in the cancer cells. The resulting tumor growth delay is reported and correlated to apoptosis analysis. RESULTS: The greatest effects and highest apoptosis were observed when radiation was given at 4 h or 48 h after drug injection. These times correspond to the times of maximal platinum binding to tumor DNA. An enhancement factor (ratio of group treated by combined treatment compared to chemotherapy alone) of 13.00 was obtained with Lipoplatin™, and 4.09 for cisplatin when tumor irradiation was performed 48 h after drug administration. CONCLUSION: The most efficient combination treatment of radiation with cisplatin or Lipoplatin™ was observed when binding of platinum to DNA was highest. These results improve our understanding over the mechanisms of platinum-induced radiosensitization and should have significant impact on the design of more efficient treatment protocols.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".