MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1989347200 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am10-4318

Abstract 4318: Biomarker evaluation during an image-guided intracranial murine glioma study of radiation and sunitinib

2010· article· en· W1989347200 on OpenAlexaff
Caroline Chung, Warren D. Foltz, Petra Wildgoose, Kelly Burrell, Patricia Lindsay, Jesper Folsted Kallehauge, Kevin Camphausen, Andrea Kassner, David A. Jaffray, Cynthia Ménard, Gelareh Zadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchSickKids FoundationToronto Western HospitalHospital for Sick ChildrenPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSunitinibMedicineImaging biomarkerGliomaEffective diffusion coefficientAngiogenesisTyrosine-kinase inhibitorDiffusion MRINuclear medicinePathologyMagnetic resonance imagingCancerCancer researchInternal medicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Tumour angiogenesis, a hallmark of glioblastoma multiforme, serves as a potential therapeutic target. Sunitinib (SU) is a multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor with antiantiogenic activity that may enhance radiation (RT) effects. In preclinical studies using intracranial (IC) mouse tumour models, a major challenge is the ability to evaluate IC tumour size, growth and vascular changes over time. This study aims to use an image-guided experimental design to evaluate the effects of RT and/or SU in an IC murine glioma model using serial micro-MRI and urine biomarkers with corresponding pathology, tumour growth delay (TGD) and survival (OS)outcomes. Methods: U87 glioma cells were inoculated by IC injection in the right frontal lobe of 58 NOD SCID mice. Imaging was performed on a 7-Tesla Bruker BioSpec on day 7 post-injection (treatment D0), D3, 7, 10, 14, 17 and 21. Mice with visible tumours on D0 T2-weighted (T2-w) imaging were stratified by tumour size to treatments: (1) control (CTRL) - placebo (2) RT - RT + placebo (3) SU - oral gavage SU (4) RT + SU. RT 8 Gy was delivered in 1 fraction to the right hemi-brain on D1 under image-guidance. SU 0.8 mg or placebo was administered by oral gavage. Serial imaging/analysis included: (1) T2-w imaging (2) Quantitative T1 (3) DCE-MRI - initial area under the DCE curve at 60 seconds (iAUC60) (4) diffusion weighted imaging - apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) (5) contrast-enhanced T1-w imaging (T1-gad). Expression of angiogenesis markers were measured in serial urine samples. Pathological evaluation included tumour size, cell density, vessel density/permeability and apoptosis. Results: Fifty-two mice with tumours were assigned to treatment arms such that mean tumour volume for each arm was 0.58 - 0.61mm3 (p>0.05) on D0. No mice expired with serial contrast-enhanced imaging. OS was significantly better with RT (p=0.008) and SU+RT (p=0<0.001) than CTRL, and SU+RT better than SU (p=0.018) and RT (p=0.05). Exponential tumour growth occurred in CTRLs but TGD was noted in all treatment arms until D14. Changes in iAUC60 showed trends/differences between treatment arms only at early timepoints: (1) RT - rise by D3 (2) SU - stable during SU (3) SU+RT - decrease of 30.1+6.8% by D3, maintained during SU. Baseline tumour ADC values were 8±5% above CL brain across all animals. Rise in ADC was greatest with RT and SU+RT (43±10%, 28±7%) than CTRL and SU (16±4%, 19±19%) at D10. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the potential utility of image-guidance to augment murine intracranial tumour studies of RT and AA therapy. Survival was improved with combined SU+RT. Promising early biomarkers of response identified to date include DCE at D3, and ADC at D10, warranting further investigation in a larger cohort. Further study of these markers may improve temporal characterization of vessel normalization and enable studies to optimize scheduling of antiangiogenic therapies with radiation. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 101st Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2010 Apr 17-21; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2010;70(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 4318.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.346 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→