MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135108162 · doi:10.1158/1535-7163.mct-14-0475

Tissue Penetration and Activity of Camptothecins in Solid Tumor Xenografts

2014· article· en· W2135108162 on OpenAlexafffund
Alastair H. Kyle, Jennifer H.E. Baker, Maria-Jose Gandolfo, Stefan A. Reinsberg, Andrew I. Minchinton

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Cancer Therapeutics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer therapeutics and mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer ControlBC Cancer Agency
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsIrinotecanCamptothecinTopotecanTopoisomeraseActive metabolitePharmacologyCancer researchPharmacokineticsDistribution (mathematics)ChemistryMetaboliteCancerMedicineColorectal cancerChemotherapyInternal medicineBiochemistryEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability of a panel of camptothecin derivatives to access the tumor compartment was evaluated to determine the mechanisms by which the architecture of solid tumors may act to limit their activity. Microregional localization and activity of members of the camptothecin class of topoisomerase I targeting agents, including topotecan, irinotecan, and irinophore C, a lipid-based nanoparticulate formulation of irinotecan, were evaluated over time in HCT116 and HT29 colorectal tumor xenografts. Using native drug fluorescence, their distributions in tissue cryosections were related to the underlying tumor vasculature, tumor cell proliferation, and apoptosis. Topotecan exhibited a relatively uniform tumor distribution; in tissue 100 μm away from vessels, it reached 94% ± 5% of levels seen around blood vessels, whereas irinotecan and irinophore C were found to reach only 41% ± 10% and 5% ± 2%, respectively. Surprisingly, all three agents were able to initially inhibit proliferation uniformly throughout the tumors, and it was their rate of washout (topotecan > irinotecan > irinophore C) that correlated with activity. To explain this discrepancy, we looked at SN38, the active metabolite of irinotecan, and found it to penetrate tissue similarly to topotecan. Hence, the poor access to the tumor compartment of irinotecan and irinophore C could be offset by their systemic conversion to SN38. It was concluded that all three agents were effective at reaching tumor cells, and that despite the poor access to the extravascular compartment of irinophore C, its extended plasma exposure and systemic conversion to the diffusible metabolite SN38 enabled it to effectively target solid tumors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.689

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Cancer TherapeuticsSame topicCancer therapeutics and mechanismsFrench-language works237,207