Tumors That Acquire Resistance to Low-Dose Metronomic Cyclophosphamide Retain Sensitivity to Maximum Tolerated Dose Cyclophosphamide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low-dose metronomic (LDM) chemotherapy is emerging as an alternative or supplemental dosing strategy to conventional maximum tolerated dose (MTD) chemotherapy. It is characterized primarily, but not exclusively, by antiangiogenic mechanisms of action and the absence of high-grade adverse effects commonly seen with MTD chemotherapy. However, similar to other anticancer therapies, inherent resistance to LDM chemotherapy is common. Moreover, even tumors that initially respond to metronomic regimens eventually develop resistance through mechanisms that are as yet unknown. Thus, we have developed in vivo models of PC-3 human prostate cancer cells resistant to extended LDM cyclophosphamide therapy. Such PC-3 variants show stable resistance to LDM cyclophosphamide in vivo yet retain in vitro sensitivity to 4-hydroperoxy-cyclophosphamide (precursor of the active cyclophosphamide metabolite 4-hydroxy-cyclophosphamide) and other chemotherapeutic agents, namely, docetaxel and doxorubicin. Moreover, LDM cyclophosphamide-resistant PC-3 variants remain sensitive to MTD cyclophosphamide therapy in vivo. Conversely, PC-3 variants made resistant in vivo to MTD cyclophosphamide show varying levels of resistance to metronomic cyclophosphamide when grown in mice. These results and additional studies of variants of the breast cancer cell line MDA-MB-231 suggest that resistance to LDM cyclophosphamide is a distinct phenomenon from resistance to MTD cyclophosphamide and that LDM cyclophosphamide administration does not select for MTD chemotherapy resistance. As such, our findings have various implications for the clinical use of metronomic chemotherapy.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".