MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091911272 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am10-3661

Abstract 3661: Vascular changes and potentiating secondary drug delivery in colorectal cancer with Irinophore C

2010· article· en· W2091911272 on OpenAlexaff
Robert W. Neijzen, May Q. Wong, Malathi Anantha, Dawn Waterhouse, Marcel B. Bally, Sylvia S. W. Ng, Donald T. Yapp

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsOccupational Cancer Research Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerIrinotecanFluorouracilToxicityPharmacologyPerfusionCancerPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in the world. The predominant chemotherapeutic treatment in CRC is a combination of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and irinotecan (CPT-11). However, the combination is limited by toxicity and resistance. We now report on the effects of 5-FU in combination with a liposomal formulation of CPT-11, Irinophore C, that is more efficacious and less toxic than free CPT-11. Materials and Methods: 5-FU was used singly and in combination with Irinophore C in a subcutaneous model of colorectal cancer, HT-29, to assess therapeutic efficacy and toxic effects. 5-FU and Irinophore C (40mg/kg) were injected intravenously on a Q7Dx3 schedule, and tumor growth delay was measured. In a subsequent study, a single bolus injection of 14C-spiked 5-FU was delivered at different timepoints during Irinophore C (tritium-labeled) or saline treatment (Q7Dx3), and the accumulation of 5-FU in tumor tissue measured with scintigraphy. Tumors were also harvested and snap-frozen at early (days 1 - 7) and late (days 14 and 21) time points following Irinophore C treatment. Cryosections were subsequently examined for perfusion using the fluorescent dye Hoechst 33342, stained for apoptosis (TUNEL), CD31, CD105, Collagen IV and with H&E to examine changes in vascular function and tissue morphology. Results: Irinophore C significantly reduced tumour growth (p<0.001) with little or no toxicity compared to saline controls, 5-FU alone and free CPT-11 plus 5-FU. In some cases, tumour growth was completely abolished. When used in combination with 5-FU, there was a slight increase in growth delay. Treatment of the tumours with Irinophore C increased the accumulation of the active lactone form of the drug in the tumour, and also significantly increased the tissue accumulation of a single bolus injection of 5-FU after two (∼50% increase, p<0.001) and three weeks (∼66% increase, p<0.001). Following treatment with Irinophore C, the density of tumor tissue was decreased, and the vascular coverage was increased, leading to increased total perfusion. In addition, apoptotic activity was increased following 1 to 2 weeks of treatment with Irinophore C, compared to controls. Conclusions: Irinophore C is more efficacious, and less toxic, than free CPT-11. This novel formulation of CPT-11 appears to have a bimodal mechanism of action wherein both endothelial and cancer cells are targeted, and which may improve the delivery of a second drug. We further believe that the dose of Irinophore C used in the combination studies is with 5-FU is overly efficacious and masks the effects of 5-FU. Clinically, Irinophore C with its low toxicity and high efficacy could have advantages over the use of free CPT-11. 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 3661.

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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.381
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 ResearchSame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207